The only thing in this that is questionable in my mind is the bold statement. You are actually committed to the idea that there is no God by your decision to live your life without regard to the possibility.

Original Position's "Weak atheists attack!" thread is a worthwhile read for more on this.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...attack-816352/

I dont get this. Are you committed to the idea that there is no tooth fairy by your decision to live your life without regard to the possibility? If we deem the possibility of (christian) god close to zero, how much does that possibility enter into our decisions to live our life? I guess you are going to go all pascals wager and state that the stakes are high?

To clarify you think believing in a Creator God is reasonable but believing in any form of a personal God is totally unreasonable and unsupported?

If this is correct then this is my question:

Lets say Joe Deist is going along with life, Joe believes God created but doesn't think God is personal or intervenes.

Then one day Joe has an experience with God (lets just leave it open ended for now) which leads Joe to believe God is perhaps more personal and immanent than he thought before.

What makes Joe's new beliefs unreasonable?

Because Joe's experience cannot be explained by science and the experience is not repeatable or quantifiable does that mean it is not real?

EDIT:

Organized religions are human constructs, I don't think this is debatable (including all forms of Christianity).

The discussion is about whether or not the various theologies asserted actually have truth value.

For example, universities are clearly human constructs. The important question is whether or not what we learn at university has truth value in relation to the real world.

I did not say Christian God. I said God. If you have a problem with something I said, then be specific. Throwing terms around like Pascal's Wager is just a mechanism for you to stop thinking.

Concerning the tooth fairy, yes. I am pretty much committed to the idea that there is no tooth fairy. How is that a counter argument to anything I said?

fair enough, I didnt explain myself very well.

If the someone evaluates the possibility of god existing as close to 0, why should they decide to live their life with regard to the possibility of gods existence? that person could also still claim that they are not committed to the claim that there are no gods.

On your last point, I disagree. If you live your life without regard to the possibility of God existing, then you are committed to that claim. Your estimate of the probability of God existing is possibly the reason for your commitment, but it does not change what it is.

If you can demonstrate a reasoning that reduces the probability for God existing to near zero, then feel free.

Not at all, I allow for the possibility but I simply don't follow any of the what I consider to be completely contrived and false behaviours that organised religions would have us follow. I don't need them, I don't believe them and I think they're pure invention. I don't pay any attention to them any more than you do to Hindu or Scientology's religious requirements.

Remember that I said that my view is that if there is a 'god' (for lack of a better word) that created the universe, I don't think it pays any attention to us at all, I think the whole idea that it would is more typically egocentric, anthropomorphic human invention. So, I have nothing to worry about and no reason to 'do' anything.

Revealed religion is almost invariably based on accepting dubious testimony regarding socalled "supernatural" events and miracles. The thing that makes it unreasonable to accept it is fairness: Accepting it means accepting a standard of evidence that would open the barn door for a plethora of wildly contradictory and fantastic claims.

The inevitable protest is usually just some variation "but you don't know!", which is true in the same sense that I don't know that my grandfather couldn't fly. Iow, it is merely a redress of "know" and not really a comment on reasonableness.

There is no evidence for god. I have never seen, smelt, touched, tasted or heard god. All reasons given as to the existence of god are just rationalisations. Perhaps you can demonstrate reasons that raises the probability for god existing above close to zero?

I feel that evidence is accessible to you, but because of your state of mind you are possibly unlikely to perceive it. But from your point of view I will accept this as a valid argument.

Probably true, but not worth including. You could say all of this about a lot of things that you accept as real.

This is your opinion, not a fact or useful evidence. It is highly circular to use this as a justification for assigning a probability.

Sure. It is a binary problem. God either exists or does not exist. In the absence of any information to resolve the question, the probability starts at 50%.

That of course requires the definition of God to be unrestricted. As one assigns characteristics to God, that lowers the percentage with respect to that specific definition of God. But the starting point is 50%.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I obviously think I do have information to resolve the question( lack of evidence, uncredible reports, credibility of concept, and so on) , and so assign a probability close to 0.

If the definition of god is unrestricted( not sure what you mean here, that "god" doesnt have any ideas or concepts attached to it?) then its a meaningless and useless concept.

Im pretty sure that you dont think everything starts off with a 50% possibility of existing, but thats what you seem to be saying?

Your personal lack of evidence I would accept as a reason to lower the probability of God. How much is arguable but I would assert that "close to 0" is a vast overreach, especially given the large number of things for which you have no personal evidence but still accept as existing.

The existence of uncredible reports does not affect the probability of God's existence. It is evidence of a lack of veracity in your fellow humans. "Credibility of concept" is just another way to say you consider it unlikely or in other words that the probability is low. Using your judgment that the probability is low to support assigning a low probability is certainly circular.

The first point was certainly fair. When DS was asked directly and responded that he thought the probability of God existing was somewhat lower than no God existing I figured that he was using this as a lowering rationale and responded by saying that I could accept the point of view.

There is one counter piece of evidence although I suspect this might tilt you so think it through a little before you react. The existence of personal self-awareness or consciousness is a supporting element for the existence of God. We each have within us (I presume, as I only detect my own) a personal consciousness which is undetectable to anyone else and appears to grant us a power of free will. It is also not connected to any physical theory that can explain how the motion of charged particles in their mutual electromagnetic fields leads to such a phenomenon. It does not have to exist and it is exactly the kind of thing that might exist if there were a God. It has to be considered a probability raiser. How much is arguable, but at this point we are no where near zero.

It is largely unrestricted but I probably should have been more clear. I would start with the broad definition of a creator of our universe with a self-aware will. That distinguishes the concept from using the term "god" to include the laws of physics, etc.

No, I am not saying that at all. This argument could apply to different questions, but it easy to screw it up also.

Sure, and there's an a priori 50% probability that a giant purple panda will suddenly materialise in your underpants too and/or that there are tiny elephants living in the centre of the sun that are the cause of solar flares.

Since the 50/50 starting point is a position of 'maximum ignorance' I really don't think it adds anything to the argument that 'possibly' god exists, it applies equally to all the countless religious claims and absolutely anything else that's 'possible' and any attempt to refine the evidence and come up with a meaningful number is going to be entirely subjective and more than likely it will be special pleading. So, 50/50 is gratuitous and meaningless.

Btw, did you accept my reply on the subject of how I regard the possibility of god?

Awareness isnt personal. There isnt an owner of consciousness. Awareness also doesnt have anything to do with free will. Awareness does not make the decision, choose the choice.

I would agree though, that awareness is a strange thing. I am not even sure that it exists as a "thing".

Awareness tells you nothing about the existence or otherwise of god though. Awareness is.

How is it not personal? I and only I experience my own awareness. That would seem to me to be the definition of personal.

This is just a statement of an opinion. I would say that my self-awareness and my free will are one and the same thing. So how does this argument progress beyond "yes it is" and "no it isn't". It cannot because awareness is personal.

Of course you are sure. In fact, it is the only thing of which you can actually be sure. Everything else you perceive through that awareness.

It is a probability raiser in the God question. Just because you acknowledge the existence of a probability raising element in our existence does not mean you have completely failed in your point of view. It would indicate that you are confident in your point of view. Notice that I have no problem accepting the lack of externally demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. That is a rational mind thinking through a problem without being paralyzed by preconception. I find it amusing that the very group that proclaims themselves as the keepers of rational skeptical thought are unable to accept the concept that their point of view may not be totally and completely without counterpoints. Except for DS at least. He certainly seems to get it.

You really need to let go of your final position and think of this as an unsolved problem that you are trying to solve and not an argument that you are trying to win. I am not trying to make you a theist. I am just trying to get you to think. Where you end up once you start thinking is not my issue.

Missed this until I saw your other recent post.

If I rephrase this slightly it basically states "There cannot be a God who pays any attention to us." If you are able to accept that there may be a creator who created this universe and everyone in it, including you but that it is ok to completely ignore that, then that is your decision. I am not sure how carefully you have thought that through, but go with it.

This is wild miss on the 50% concept. If you consider this to be a well-thought out rational counter to my point, I am at a loss for words.

You need to think about this some more. This is so far off that I simply give up.

See above.

If you check, you will find that there is no you that experiences awareness. Awareness experiences ( and even that isnt correct, since awareness is not an object that experiences other objects, its not an experiencer, awareness and experience are inseperable). If you check you will find that there is no you that owns its awareness.

If you check, you will see that awareness has no input into decisions, and is not affected by the decisions. Awareness is simply the knowing of experience. There is awareness of the decision once its made, yes. And awareness of experiences that lead to a decision. But awareness is not the one making that decision( there is no one making the decision).



If you check, you will see that awareness isnt a "thing", and that things arent perceived through awareness, but rather that experience, and awareness of experience, are the same thing.


Its a probability raiser only if you accept that awareness is the kind of thing that might exist if a god exists. Awareness itself gives no clues as to whether this is true or not.

Very carefully. I totally reject all organised religion as being man made social constructs, something so trivially easy to recognise that it beggars belief that anyone is taken in by it IMO . A universal creator that is no more interested in one particular, primitive primate species over anything else in this vast universe is something that I cannot deny the possibility of.


Simply use the words that explain why I'm wrong and your 50/50 is rational where mine aren't.

I wasn't particularly arguing in favor of organized religion. That is different than the question of God and what we should do in acknowledgment of the possible existence of God. It is one possible answer, but there are others.


OK. Here are your examples:

Imagine that we could stipulate that a giant purple panda will suddenly materialize in the underpants of some person on earth. That must surely raise the probability of the event that you described occurring, ie. a giant purple panda materializing in my underpants. But how many people live on earth. The odds then are still one in 6 billion. Thus, the original odds in your example must be less than one in 6 billion a priori.

Imagine that we could stipulate that there are tiny terrestrial organisms living at the center of the sun. That must surely increase the probability of the situation you described. But how many terrestrial species are there? If there are a million (no idea of the actual number) then the odds are 1 in a million that they are tiny elephants. So the odds of your example are at least less than 1 in a million a priori.

By the way, were these examples thought through very carefully like the "very carefully" that you used in your God reasoning? If so, you mean something very different by "very carefully" than I do.

We are up to 7 billion, RLK!

Enjoying your posts, you should post more often.

Since I was speaking specifically about your underpants, I don't think you're correct, either a giant purple panda is going to materialise in your underpants, or it's not, I didn't say ' a person'. It's 50/50 a priori and as equally probable as your god existing or not. There either are elephants in the sun, or there aren't. It's irrelevant that elephants are merely one of millions of species that we know of because I didn't say 'a species' or even 'a sun', I meant ours specifically.

In any case, using your logic, your god (the one described by Christians) is one of several thousand claimed to exist so the odds of your god existing aren't 50/50 either, they're maybe 1/4500, or whatever, it doesn't matter because the point is made . My initial objection was that your 50/50 starting point immediately rules out the possibility of all those others gods existing, and that's part of what makes it meaningless.

If you're saying that the universe was created by some kind of omnipotent deity and not one as described by all the false organised religions, then again, how can you be sure that there aren't other options? It's still not 50/50.

I am not arguing for revealed religion (unless you include my example as part of revealed religion which I don't think it is).

The principle I am arguing for is that we cannot judge people for being unreasonable unless we know why they believe what they do. It is not sufficient to say someone is unreasonable based on what they believe (of course this is not absolutely true, but please be charitable in understanding where I am coming from).

I am careful to say someone elses' testimony is dubious. Is it justified for me to make judgements about other peoples' mystical experiences?

I don't believe in hinduism but I am not sure I can write off all the mystical experiences that hindu mystics may have.

I am not arguing that your experience should be a basis for my belief. However, your experience IS a basis for your own beliefs.

I am a person. If you say that a giant purple panda will materialize in my underpants, those are the underpants of a person. So you have an unknown probability that the panda will appear in my underpants. So what if we stipulate that the panda will materialize in the underpants of "a person" as a thought exercise. That eliminates all of the cases where no panda materializes anywhere or where any other object materializes in someone's underpants. Since I am "a person", the probability of the panda event occurring to me is raised by the stipulation. But it is still only 1 in 7 billion with the stipulation. So the original probability had to be less than 1 in 7 billion.

I have explained that as clearly as I possibly can. If you cannot follow this, I do not know what to say. It is not that difficult. Do not try to argue against it. Try to understand it. If you get to the point where you can see that it is correct, you will have learned something.

I cannot believe that you said this either. I specifically said God as a very broad concept to invoke the 50/50 probability. You are arguing against something that I very clearly did not suggest.

Also, just a couple of days ago we had this exchange:

I was clearly trying to make the point that I did not think that Christianity was necessarily accurate and that the concept of "Christian God" did not apply to me. But here you state that it is mine again. Did you forget? Are you even trying to create effective arguments?

As so often seems to happen in our discussions I wonder to whom I am talking and if you are really even paying attention. If this is "careful thought" there is a lot of room for improvement imo.

I do not believe that any religion has an accurate description of God. That does not make them false, only flawed. And it is still 50/50. And just so you know, you have not made a single effective argument against anything I have asserted. There may be such arguments, but you have not even remotely come close to finding one.