God exists because it is written in the Bible. The Bible is true because it is the word of God

How does it mean that?

 

Because you avoid explaining? You seem to get irritated with me asking. Like you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

The Bible speaks about him, much like the Odyssey speaks about the Greek Gods

 

God exists because that's the most likely explanation (to some) for our existence. The Bible is one record of God's relationship with mortals.

Its true that some people do try to claim the Bible as proof of God, and that is a logical fallacy. Claiming any proof of the existence of God is no more logical than claiming any proof that God doesnt exist. Both are beliefs lacking in hard evidence and require faith for their to be any certainty.

 

As an atheist I do not claim to have proof that a God does not exist. I merely point out that the proof of his existence is severely lacking and thus I cannot believe he exists until I get better proof.

 

I guess the sound of air-raid sirens is like music to you

I doubt that.

 

Thats fair.

Do you demand the same proof for concepts of how life may exist without a god, such as abiogenesis?

 

It's circular logic.

 

For me, I knew that God is real and that he lives before I knew anything about the Bible. I knew this because I asked him in a prayer if I could believe what LDS Missionaries were telling me about their religion. I received no answer when I asked. But a few days later, when the Missionaries were telling me more about their religion, I was about to send them away and I silently thought another prayer asking God if my other prayer was in vain. It was then that he sent his spirit somehow, filling my heart, mind and soul with divine peace and light, which awakened me to a recognizance and remembrance of him, and his spirit showed me in a vision that the Missionaries were his servants. So I knew that God lived and the Missionaries were his servants, even though they were inexperienced teenagers. By this, I knew their religion was true. And the Bible too, because they hold it in equal regard to the Book of Mormon. Both books testify of Jesus Christ. Anyway, if you take away everything I've learned since, including the scriptures, the Church and so forth. What remains is my testimony from Gods spirit that he is real, he lives, is divine, and the Missionaries are his acceptable servants. Which of course means that their religion and Church belongs to God.

You can say I was fooled or deluded or something. But when I tell you that I recognized and remembered Gods spirit, I mean just that, that I actually recognized and remembered Gods spirit. This is because his spirit allowed me to remember him by the magnitude of his presence. It isn't a thing I could conjure or devise on my own. His spirit brings unspeakably divine peace, purity, light, and charity. Strangely, I previously had no religion, no belief in God, and grew up in a non religious home. So remembering God was a major revelation for me. It's like I remembered him from eternity or something. And fwiw, the reason I prayed to God if I could believe the Missionaries, isn't because I had religion. It's because I promised the Missionaries that I would pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon. But because I hadn't read the book, I asked God if I could believe the Missionaries. I wasn't even sure if God was real. But it seemed doable to query the unknown with sincerity. In fact I almost chickened out because I thought what if God is real and he answers me. Then I'd be on the hook for way more than a single question. Anyway, I figured what the heck> I can know the truth or remain in the dark. So I asked.

The "logical fallacy" you laid out, is your logical fallacy which you fashioned. It isn't the truth. God doesn't live in the Bible like a genie in a lamp. He lives in heaven. And not because I say so, but just because he does. None of this is what I believe. It is the truth. Still you may dismiss it without consequence. But I can't. As Paul said, "I am a prisoner of Jesus Christ", which is to love Him because he loved us first. It is parental in nature, in that you love your Parents because they loved you first for no apparent cause outside the largeness of their souls. It is much more so with God because he is divine and we are so not.

 

Many people don't understand what the circular argument fallacy is.

There is nothing wrong with a circular argument (IOW, an argument of faith) in and of itself. People have faith in all sorts of stuff, and there's nothing wrong with that. A circular argument only becomes a fallacy whenever someone attempts to PROVE it.

 

You mean 'evidence', not 'proof'. IOW, you aren't convinced that God exists.

 

I have insufficient evidence to prove to me that a god exists

 

that is how mythical stories work

 

People with delusions think the very same way. How can we differentiate your claims from that of someone with delusion?

 

Yes, and the evidence for abiogenesis is a lot more convincing than the evidence for a god.

 

Most have no problems with having faith in something.

Most have problems when one of faith tries to push or force that faith and beliefs onto others that don't want said faith.

 

There isn't a lot of evidence for abiogenesis. Its still basically just a concept of a possibility... but I guess 'convincing' is always relative.

Several problems exist with current abiogenesis models12:

• Primordial earth conditions were not inductive to abiogenesis.
• There is a lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize.
• Mono-chirality of molecules seen in life.
• Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells.
• In the case of the proposed RNA world, there are important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides.

8.1C: Unresolved Questions About the Origins of Life - Biology LibreTexts
Abiogenesis | Definition & Theory | Britannica

 

Correct.

 

I guess by reading it objectively.

 

A delusional person would say the exact same thing.

 

This is the problem with doin a cut & paste on a topic that you don't have at least some fundamental understanding of. You pick what you think bolsters your case and ignore anything else

From the very same website you linked to

There are many models that are being used to explain these problems and others; one that is quite intriguing is the idea that the early earth was actually bombarded by extraterrestrial organic molecules. It should be clear the term extraterrestrial in these abiogenesis models are not referring to little green men, but rather complex organic molecules, of which the abiogenesis occurred in the more favorable conditions for such reactions in space. For instance, the environment in space is strongly reducing (ie no oxygen), and it has been suggested that meteorites introduced the phosphorus species to earth, which explains the need of monophosphate. Homochirality may also have started in space, as the studies of the amino acids on a meteorite showed L-alanine to be more than twice as frequent as its D form, and L-glutamic acid was more than 3 times prevalent than its D counterpart. While the idea of extraterrestrial abiogenesis once seemed far-fetched, the presence of organic molecules on meteorites (and recently in stars themselves) adds credence to this exciting possibility.

 

A delusional person would also hear the plain truth as a conspiracy.

 

Likely no one becomes religious because of circular logic and a magic book. Rather it is the brainwashing of parents and churches that causes people to believe in the supernatural claims of religion without empirical evidence. In most cases the brain washing takes place in early childhood when the target is incapable of critical thinking.

 

Well I think there is an answer to that. If people claiming to talk to God could reveal knowledge of the universe unknown to man that could be proven by science, then I think we could be somewhat sure of their veracity. If they cannot do this, it seems obvious to me they are suffering from delusions. The big question is why would God "talk" to some people and yet remain undetectable via empirical evidence.

 

Argument from incredulity fallacy with the first statement. The second statement borders on a false dichotomy. Sometimes the answer to a question is simply I don't know.