Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Complexity]

This post is related to the question of 'hate the beliefs, accept the believer'.

I am a determinist who is intrigued by the idea of memes.

As a determinist, I do not think that there is free will.

Why do I, then, mock and attack religious belief? Thought, personal history, and looking at the consequences of religious belief have led me to conclude that the world would be far better off without religion, religious beliefs, or other forms of superstition.

I think that religious belief memes are quite effective at interferring with memes related to reason, rational thought, and a scientific worldview. As a result, I don't think that reason is always an effective way of dealing with religious people. Sometimes a virtual slap in the face may have a chance at being effective, and it certainly is more efficient - I no longer have enough patience to discuss/argue with the hordes of believers that present themselves for adoration.

Believers are infested with believing and defensive anti-reason memes; I am infested with reason memes and defensive anti-believing memes. I far prefer my mind, but then I would, wouldn't I?

Simply because there is no blame does not mean that the minds of believers can not be changed, or that trying to do so is not a worthy effort. Religious belief continues to do a great deal of harm, and I think it should be fought vigorously.

 

[Resume]

An entity exhibiting reason and which is a precursor to the known* universe.

Can you provide an example of how this entity manifests itself? Outside of your own thoughts, I mean.

 

[Dani]

Can you provide an example of how this entity manifests itself? Outside of your own thoughts, I mean.

He said he doesn't know what it is, but this would fit his definition:

 

[slingblade]

Well, I give this a lot of thought, as people are important to me. Concepts are tools, but people feel and think and reason.

Concepts can't be hurt by my disdain or my laughter; people can.

I try, as far as reason allows, to separate the two, and to make certain other allowances. For instance: it seems Fatty Catty is talking about a form of Deistic belief. This sort of god concept largely lacks ritual, rules, methods of oppression or discrimination...it's just the belief that "something is out there, and maybe it's involved with our lives, maybe it's not...but I think some kind of god exists."

A belief like that, similar to that, isn't the sort of thing I'm talking about when I disdain religion. I'm talking more about the beliefs that cause harm to people, that inspire people to cause harm to themselves or each other.

Some "harms" might seem mild at first, but a bit of thought shows they go quite deep, and affect us in multiple areas. Inculcating a belief in the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god fosters a belief in magical, wishful thinking. In some sects, the application of critical thought is actively discouraged. In others, it's at least implied you shouldn't think too hard about your belief, lest doubt lead you away.

Well, seems to me that if we don't ever learn to think critically, or if we do while giving certain concepts a pass, we can live pretty crappy lives. Ask me how I know.

My position is that "religious belief" covers an immense topic. I find I cannot logically reject each and every single concept that might be associated with it, if only because certain concepts cause no harm. I try to approach the topic with a "neither breaks anyone's leg nor picks anyone's pocket" attitude. I don't think you necessarily have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in a sense.

And I want people like Fatty Catty to have an opportunity to reasonably search for whatever answers they seek, without me making them feel like cretinous fools for doing so. That's hardly fair of me; no one manipulated my own exploration of the matter, after all.

That's my few cent's worth, anyway.

 

[punshhh]

This post is related to the question of 'hate the beliefs, accept the believer'.

I am a determinist who is intrigued by the idea of memes.

As a determinist, I do not think that there is free will.

Why do I, then, mock and attack religious belief? Thought, personal history, and looking at the consequences of religious belief have led me to conclude that the world would be far better off without religion, religious beliefs, or other forms of superstition.

I think that religious belief memes are quite effective at interferring with memes related to reason, rational thought, and a scientific worldview. As a result, I don't think that reason is always an effective way of dealing with religious people. Sometimes a virtual slap in the face may have a chance at being effective, and it certainly is more efficient - I no longer have enough patience to discuss/argue with the hordes of believers that present themselves for adoration.

Believers are infested with believing and defensive anti-reason memes; I am infested with reason memes and defensive anti-believing memes. I far prefer my mind, but then I would, wouldn't I?

Simply because there is no blame does not mean that the minds of believers can not be changed, or that trying to do so is not a worthy effort. Religious belief continues to do a great deal of harm, and I think it should be fought vigorously.

Well a determinist, its a pleasure to meet you.

My position is similar to determinism, with a twist.

 

[FattyCatty]

Complexity also impugned her intelligence and integrity for a trivial reason.

Nonsense.

I have a great detector for BS, lies, and deception (self- and otherwise).

I think I was right on the mark with regards to the OP writer.

I am utterly unconcerned with your outrage and complaints.

Deal with it.

I disagree that you were on the mark. You never considered the possibility that the use of g-d is a cultural practice as opposed to a religious one. I am dealing with it just fine, thanks.

I can only say that it seemed arrogant to me, perhaps because of the tone of the whole post.

Fair enough. I disagree but, ok.

It is one thing to say "this is what I believe" or "I don't believe this"; it is another thing to say that "your belief is unacceptable to me"

It's not the same thing, of course. But lots of things are unacceptable to me. Or you.

Someone else's religious belief is never unacceptable to me, unless it causes harm to others. Their belief is none of my business.

if you believe that you lack intelligence and integrity" when you are talking about opinions.

Of course. I didn't say it wasn't his opinion. I just disagree that opinions are all equal. Or that beliefs are all equal, for that matter.

I disagree with you on this. I think we'll have to leave it there.

If you say it just because or because someone told you (with no evidence), then it is an opinion with no greater validity than my opinion (also formed just because or because someone told me it was so).

But that's the thing. It's an opinion/belief because it's not based on evidence, but since it's actually true (or at least, more likely to be true), then it's actually more valid than one that is not. That the person who believes knows that his belief is true or not has no bearing on this.

Once you introduce evidence for the belief, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes a statement or informed judgment. To me, opinions are beliefs without evidence or reason - here are the examples I gave before: blue is nicer than orange or I like Clapton better than Hendrix.

When people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that was based on the evidence they had. It was knowledge of how things worked. As more evidence came in and showed that the previous evidence was wrong, the knowledge of how the sun and the earth were related changed. Isn't this a constant process in science, as new evidence changes previous knowledge of how something works?

Right. The geocentric theory was false. The heliocentric one was better. They were not equal even before the evidence was in, and they were certainly not equal after, even when people continued to cling to either, for any number of reasons.

But they were equal in the sense that each represented the knowledge of the time. They weren't opinions, they were based on evidence. That the evidence later proved false doesn't change that it was accepted as valid at the time, nor does it change that there were beliefs based on that evidence; i.e., knowledge.

No, that is an opinion. I don't consider that to be an "informed judgement" because there are no facts or evidence to inform your belief that there is no god. I also agree that there is no evidence to inform my belief that there is a God, which makes that my opinion/belief.

:

It's the lack of facts and evidence for god that informs my judgment that there is no god.

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

There is also the fact that there are as many definitions of god as there are believers that lead me to the conclusion that they are deluding themselves.

I don't think it logically follows that because there are different theories, none of them can be right and the believers in any of those theories are delusional. After all, there are different scientific theories on different things. Are you saying all those scientists are delusional and none of those theories can be right because there are a bunch of them?

 

[Belz...]

Someone else's religious belief is never unacceptable to me, unless it causes harm to others. Their belief is none of my business.

Yes, but that's not what I said.

I disagree with you on this. I think we'll have to leave it there.

Your choice.

Once you introduce evidence for the belief, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes a statement or informed judgment.

Again, you're using a definition of opinion which suits your puposes. Experts have opinions, too. Laypeople have opinions. Ignoramuses have opinions. About the same thing.

To me, opinions are beliefs without evidence or reason

Which would mean the word has no use. There are other words which convey this.

here are the examples I gave before: blue is nicer than orange or I like Clapton better than Hendrix.

But that's a matter of taste. It is not a descriptive statement but a qualitative one. They are also not beliefs.

But they were equal in the sense that each represented the knowledge of the time.

Irrelevant. One turned out to be true. They were not equal. You're just playing semantics, now.

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

Wrong and wrong.

1) My argument is "there is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore we can provisionally conclude there is no god until further evidence is presented."

2) There is evidence against god. That is much more damning.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

No, that's all I need, actually. But do I have more.

 

[punshhh]

It definitely Hendrix over Clapton.

 

[FattyCatty]

I don't know if there is a god(s) or not. I am absolutely sure of one thing however, and that is they are utterly USELESS if they do exist.
<snip>
I suggest that you start with reading the Bible. It should not take you long. Start on page one....Beresheet (In the beginning).... and proceed from there.
<snip>
I also suggest you watch this AMAZING video series (20 of them )
<snip>
I also think these books are WONDERFUL:
<snip>

Thank you for the suggestions and the arguments to look at; also, thank you for the suggestions of videos and books. I will probably start with the bible and then with John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga; when I am a little more clear about what I believe, I will be able to look at the counter-arguments you have referenced.

Leumas#1122

I was wondering whether to write something like this to FattyCatty: May I suggest that you remember to ask yourself constantly why you want to believe.
However, I'd like instead to say 'hear, hear' to your post.
And that list of books sounds very interesting - I've already sent an e-mail to Talking nooks asking if they have any of them! I think it's probably a forlorn hope, though.

Well, I'll include your question in my thinking about and trying to understand what I believe; I have other questions to go along with it, so that's no problem. Also, if there is a book on the list that you really want to read but can't find in an audio format, we could try to figure out a way for me to read it to you over the computer or something. I have lots of time.

How so?

Complexity said:

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me

You said that this statement assumes that "what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others", but in the statement he didn't say anything about whether his opinion should be important to others. You can't infer from that statement any more than what you can infer from any other statement (which is that, as a general rule, anyone posting on internet assumes that it matters to others; Without that assumption, there is no dialog).

Well, after reading your post and re-thinking what you have said, and what TheGoldcountry and Belz... have said, I have to retract that part of my post. I still think Complexity's post was arrogant, but I will have to change my mind and admit that saying "...neither of which is acceptable to me" is merely a statement of his opinion. I think it is because I don't feel other people's religious beliefs are any concern of mine that I considered that phrase arrogant in the first place. Complexity obviously feels differently on that subject.

I also like you, FattyCatty. I honestly mean it.

Thank you.

In your response to Slingblade, you said:

I can understand that. I guess I would hope for a distinction between "that's a silly thing you're doing by believing" and "you're a silly person for believing." You seem to be making that distinction.

I think many people in this forum make that distinction, but not everyone, of course. If you ask me, I'll tell you that belief in god/s is irrational. I even started a thread about how that statement is perceived, and in fact that particular thread was partly inspired by your posts from another debate.

I am curious as to which threads these were. Do you have links or titles?

However, I believe everyone does irrational things, and that having an irrational belief doesn't imply being an irrational person (in fact, I don't know exactly what an "irrational person" is; maybe a person with more irrational beliefs than the average?). In fact, I'm concerned that "irrational" is necessarily perceived as a derogative epithet. It shouldn't be, in my opinion.

Part of the problem I have with the use of "irrational" is that I have had depression since the early 1970s. I associate the word with slurs related to my mental problems, hospitalizations, and ECT. The definitions in Merriam-Webster that apply are:

: not rational: as

a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence

b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>

So I usually take it as a form of a, which addresses the person and is derogatory, as opposed to b, which addresses the idea and is not as derogatory.

I think it's important to distinguish what's rational from what's irrational, which is closely linked (and interchangeable most of the time) to what's scientific and what's unscientific. Being aware of this difference raises new questions that can lead to an epistemological improvement (an improvement in our methods of gathering knowledge) so that's an honest, not arrogant at all, concern. You may not share my definition of "rational". Fine, just try to remember what I mean when I say it. I always try to clarify what I mean as much as possible, even in English .

I don't know what a substitute for rational/irrational would be; maybe valid/invalid, logical/illogical, sound/unsound - I think any of these don't carry the derogatory connotation for most people. But I will try to remember how you mean the words.

If we can't agree on what is valid/invalid (my preference over rational/irrational), we will have a hard time improving our methods of gathering knowledge, or at least have difficulty in agreeing when changes are improvements or whether knowledge has actually been gathered.

Also, facts are cold and hard. They just are. Sometimes, people state them in a seemingly cold and hard way too. They can be wrong, too. However, the way we say things (warmer, like Slingblade, or colder, like Complexity) isn't related at all with whether the things we say are right or not. From your response to Slingblade, I gather you're conflating your emotional response with your rational response to the different inputs you receive generally in this forum. I understand that behavior, and I think that, although to different extents, everyone is naturally prone to that. I have had this behavior, and tend to have it whenever I'm convinced I'm right or someone is being obnoxious to me or people I like.

You are right about facts and probably right about my reactions. I'll have to be careful and watch for that.

It's difficult not to be emotionally involved with what you believe, but being emotionally involved, if it prevents us from using a consistent method of dealing with facts (reason) leads to confirmation bias and rational inconsistence (and therefore, to irrational thoughts). Some years ago, I encountered online a person who participated in skeptic, atheist and religious forums, who usually expressed his ideas in a particularly cold way. I was first turned off by his seemingly arrogant tone (as others, who were more concerned about how other people perceived them, as could be seen by their more emotional posts) but soon I realized that he was only interested in discussing facts and didn't care at all about how other members' emotions would deal with the facts he discussed. He cared about internet etiquette, because he rightly thought that that's the proper way of having fruitful debates. I engaged in debates with that person, partly because I wanted to show that wise guy that he could be wrong, and partly because I also cared about facts. Facts won most of the time, and I often had to capitulate. I was happy, though. I learned a lot thanks to that person, and I personally thanked him later on for not being particularly nice to me and caring about the facts.

I think I give more weight to a person's manner in dealing with others. That is a form of fact, as well. But I am interested in learning from others, whether I like how they say things or not. They just have to be more convincing for me to listen when I don't like how they say things. That is a bias I am having a hard time overcoming, despite all the practice I've been getting since joining the forum. I may be a tinch better now than last year, but it's a slow slog.

Thanks for posting this. It's a useful reminder.

You're welcome, although I don't know what the reminder is.

 

[tsig]

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

When you devise a microscope that shows us god you might have an argument.

 

[punshhh]

He said he doesn't know what it is, but this would fit his definition:

Yes, this is a caricature of the concept

 

[tsig]

l. You're just playing semantics, now.



.

It's what all god bothers do. They call it the higher theology that atheists can't answer.

 

[Piggy]

An entity exhibiting reason and which is a precursor to the known* universe.


*By known universe I am referring specifically to the universe as we find it and not existence(what exists).

We've been through this, most notably with the "grad student god" thought experiment.

Just having some conscious being in the hyperverse somehow involved in the creation of this one is not an equivalent scenario to "God exists".

 

[Piggy]

You're welcome, although I don't know what the reminder is.

A reminder to remember the situation of other folks we're in conversation with.

After obsessing over these issues for a number of years, its easy to forget that not everyone has done that, and to become impatient.

 

[Piggy]

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

You would have a point if God were something we would not expect to have any normal experience of at all.

But God has never been that. Just ask the folks who have faith in Him.

It's more like this:

I've looked everwhere in this room and haven't detected any live elephants.
A live elephant is too big to be hidden anywhere in this room.
Therefore, there are no live elephants in this room.

 

[FattyCatty]

Someone else's religious belief is never unacceptable to me, unless it causes harm to others. Their belief is none of my business.

Yes, but that's not what I said.

No, it's back in the set of nested quotes. I said it.

I disagree with you on this. I think we'll have to leave it there.

Your choice.

Yes, since we aren't going to change each other's mind.

Once you introduce evidence for the belief, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes a statement or informed judgment.

Again, you're using a definition of opinion which suits your puposes. Experts have opinions, too. Laypeople have opinions. Ignoramuses have opinions. About the same thing.

I think the definitions of opinion in my previous post show that my use is legit. And all those opinions in your examples have the same weight. If the expert is pronouncing as an expert on the subject at hand, it's not an opinion, it's a statement of positive knowledge. If it's an opinion on a subject outside his field, the expert's opinion has the same worth as the ignoramus's and the lay-person's opinions.

To me, opinions are beliefs without evidence or reason

Which would mean the word has no use. There are other words which convey this.

I disagree. See the definitions of opinion in my previous post. Also, what "other words that convey this" did you mean?

here are the examples I gave before: blue is nicer than orange or I like Clapton better than Hendrix.

But that's a matter of taste. It is not a descriptive statement but a qualitative one. They are also not beliefs.

I disagree. Those are opinions, unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs.

But they were equal in the sense that each represented the knowledge of the time.

Irrelevant. One turned out to be true. They were not equal. You're just playing semantics, now.

One theory replaced the other because new evidence indicated that it was more valid or probable. That doesn't mean that the old theory was just opinion. It was knowledge based on the methods of gathering evidence available at the time and on the evidence so gathered. So, no, I'm not "just playing semantics." And in the future when you quote me, please indicate that you have cut part of what I said. The rest of that answer was:

They weren't opinions, they were based on evidence. That the evidence later proved false doesn't change that it was accepted as valid at the time, nor does it change that there were beliefs based on that evidence; i.e., knowledge.

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

Wrong and wrong.

This is not wrong. I was replying to this post from tsig:

No, that is an opinion. I don't consider that to be an "informed judgement" because there are no facts or evidence to inform your belief that there is no god. I also agree that there is no evidence to inform my belief that there is a God, which makes that my opinion/belief.

:

It's the lack of facts and evidence for god that informs my judgment that there is no god.

What I failed to do in my response to this post was to mention that tsig's argument was a fallacy - argument from ignorance (I couldn't remember which fallacy it was).

1) My argument is "there is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore we can provisionally conclude there is no god until further evidence is presented."

2) There is evidence against god. That is much more damning.

So I think your argument is:
Premise 1: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Premise 2: Therefore, provisionally, there is no god pending further evidence
Premise 3: There is evidence against the existence of god
Conclusion: There is no god.

Have I understood you correctly? If so, Premise 2 is invalid. You're saying that there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p. This is an argument from ignorance, and is a fallacy. A more correct premise would be:

Premise 2: Therefore, we don't know whether or not there is a god pending further evidence.

With the change in Premise 2, I think it becomes a logically valid argument. If you want me to accept the conclusion, however, I would need to see and accept the evidence you mention in Premise 3.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

No, that's all I need, actually. But do I have more.

Well, your argument would need more than lack of evidence or it would be an argument from ignorance. But you claim to have evidence that disproves the existence of god and validates your argument. I would be interested in seeing that evidence.

It definitely Hendrix over Clapton.

You poor, deluded soul. Would you like me to PM you some links that prove I am right?

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

When you devise a microscope that shows us god you might have an argument.

Two points: 1. I failed to mention, because I couldn't remember which fallacy it was, that your argument is not valid. It is an argument from ignorance. 2. You seem to be admitting that science is not able (at this point with our current abilities) to find evidence for god. Therefore, isn't god outside the realm of science?

A reminder to remember the situation of other folks we're in conversation with.

After obsessing over these issues for a number of years, its easy to forget that not everyone has done that, and to become impatient.

Thanks for the clarification. And for the consideration. As you note, because I am new to this, the arguments that are old hat to you are new discoveries to me that I need to think about and research.

So your argument is:
Premise: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Not too long ago, a similar argument would have been:
Premise: There is no evidence that bacteria cause disease.
Conclusion: Bacteria don't cause disease.

I think your argument needs something besides lack of evidence to show absence.

You would have a point if God were something we would not expect to have any normal experience of at all.

But God has never been that. Just ask the folks who have faith in Him.

It's more like this:

I've looked everwhere in this room and haven't detected any live elephants.
A live elephant is too big to be hidden anywhere in this room.
Therefore, there are no live elephants in this room.

I'm not sure I don't agree with you. The argument that tsig presented is an argument from ignorance and a fallacy. Whether we expect to have "any normal experience" of God doesn't change the invalidity of his argument.

Your argument seems to be:

Premise 1: There is no evidence of live elephants in this room.
Premise 2: A live elephant is too big to be hidden in this room.
Conclusion: There are no live elephants in this room.

This, I think, would be a valid argument based on Premise 2. Premise 1 is unnecessary; on it's own it would make the argument invalid as an argument from ignorance.

However, I don't see how your argument relates to tsig's argument about god. Premise 2 doesn't apply to arguments about god; and with just Premise 1, you have the fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Is there something here I am not seeing?

 

[punshhh]

I know you're talking about nothing because you're talking about nothing... you admit it right here.

Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. If its not there the implication is that there is nothing beyond human perception.

My point is that one cannot know if its there or not, or what it is or does. It could be or include anything.

If it's true that X it entirely beyond human perception, then obviously we can have no idea about it, which means we can't talk about it, or know what it is, or even guess what it is.

We can talk about and define it as a member of the set of things beyond human perception (X). Also we know what it is not, it is not things that we know about because it is by definition beyond what we know.

So if you're talking about something that you truly have no idea about at all, you're talking about nothing.

Nothing that we know.

But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to insist that we can talk about it, but also that we haven't the faintest idea what it might be.

We can speculate as to its nature by observing the physical universe which would, if it, X, were the precursor, be an expression of it.

And besides that, God is obviously not something which nobody has any idea about. People who believe in God believe in something.

The mythical God.

 

[punshhh]

We've been through this, most notably with the "grad student god" thought experiment.

Just having some conscious being in the hyperverse somehow involved in the creation of this one is not an equivalent scenario to "God exists".

Sounds like folk are trying to define X using what we know in this thought experiment. As in my previous post X is defined as something beyond what we know

So they are talking about something which by definition is not what I am talking about.

 

[Leumas]

Thank you for the suggestions and the arguments to look at; also, thank you for the suggestions of videos and books. I will probably start with the bible and then with John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga; when I am a little more clear about what I believe, I will be able to look at the counter-arguments you have referenced.

You see with titles like Warranted Christian Belief I can hardly take the guy seriously.

Have a look at this post of mine to see why I think that there is ABSOLUTELY NO warrant in any thinking brain for the Christian belief system......unless God is an UTTER MORON and a heinous vile monster that is.


Neither can I take Polkinghorne seriously with a title like Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science And Religion


You see if anyone wants to argue for a DEITY using some "science"....fine….despite the benightedness.

But if anyone wants to argue for Jesus or YHWH or Allah or Vishnu etc. using "science" then I can only LAUGH but with a CRINGE OF PAIN.

I have not read the above guys....but I have read numerous other legitimate scientists' attempts at “proving” God......most of them are quite TRITE and HACKNEYED rehashing of stuff from St. Augustine onwards but with the added twist of trying to CRAM new knowledge into the HOLE of God.

Most of the works had numerous logical fallacies and WISHFUL THINKING.

However.....if the guy was just arguing for a DEITY in general without trying to bring in the PUTRID Judeo-Islamo-Christian excrement into the picture then I found the book a stimulating exercise in logical failure.

But when a "scientist" starts trying to WARP and WRIGGLE "science" into proving Christianity (usually) or other specific religions then I invariably found the book to be an infuriating pile of excrement.

Most of the attempts usually boil down to one thing....

I want a big sky daddy to hug me when I die.​

Which is fine if only they did not also add to it

I cannot get beyond my ingrained inculcations of the religion I was born into and thus this Daddy is the stupidity envisioned by morons from thousands of years before me and the only reason I believe in him is because my ancestors were conquered and raped and tortured into believing in him.​

 

[Hokulele]

... I'm talking about something I don't know about...

Well, that much is obvious.