Fwiw (if the OP's views matter in these things) I have no problem with discussions meandering far from the threads initial point, so don't avoid a derail on my count.

Best advice: do not, under any circumstances, come to RGT.

I'm not sure I get this. Were you implying I was actually asking for myself? If so you didn't read my post carefully. Because in it I point out that the big problem arises if you come to the conclusion that the non odds on favorite is a religion that requires you to make it odds on (I hope my horseplayer friends will forgive me for equating religion with horse racing). In my case I would make the most likely true religion among the present choices either Cathlocism or Judaism precisely BECAUSE they are willing to believe that their god might look favorably on someone who mistakingly believes something else.

It's a rare joke which improves upon analysis.

Bunny got it right. I was making a joke. The way you worded your post kind of set that up and I could not resist taking the shot. Sorry.

I did a brief google of "saving faith" and found most if not all conservative, evangelical Christians would agree with this link:

http://www.gospelway.com/topics/salv...ving_faith.php

He emphasizes three components of saving faith:

1. Belief
2. Trust
3. Obedience

I think 1 and 2 describe the faith itself and 3 is the evidence that one has genuine 1 and 2. Many of the links I read, even from well known theologians, tend to confuse 3 with 1 and 2. I do believe 3 is essential, but it is the outworking of faith, not the faith itself. Most theologians tend to describe what faith isn't, and then give examples of what it is. But I think 1 and 2 form the simple and accurate definition of saving faith.

I don't see how that's possible. If the other 19 are all contrary to #6 it is almost certain that they contradict each other on fundamental questions. So how could all 19 together be more likely that #6? How could you even have a set of consistent doctrines that represent all 19?

it's because he's not talking about them "all together" in the sense of syncretizing them, it's more like

Scenario	Likelihood
1	2%
2	4%
3	3%
4	1%
5	8%

Even if they are all mutually exclusive and scenario 5 is the most likely to be true, the combined probability of 1-4 is greater. That's his point.

I take it that you don't make a living at the track.

No, because I don't understand how, if 19 horses form a more likely overall probability to win than #6, you would then bet all 19 horses to win.

You would bet on "one of these nineteen options" (if you could find someone who would take the bet).

Paint two sides of a dice red and the other four different colors (blue, green, yellow and purple). It's twice as likely you'll roll a red as any other color, yet it's most likely you wont roll red.

I understand the probabilities here. What I don't understand is why DS has a problem. If he thinks you can get saved by probability, and he thinks he can calculate those probabilities, then he should just believe in the god he has calculated, trust in that god, and obey him. Simple.

To put DS's point another way, I think Christianity is more likely than zeus or the flying spaghetti monster, but I certainly would bet that "one of all other religions is true" over "christianity is true".

I don't think that's what bunny represented. #6 is most likely, say 10%, but versus the field the field is 90%. My point is you can't bet the field in religion. So #6 beats any other single number. So pick it and hope you calculated correctly and that probability means anything on this issue.

Well I feel kind of dirty siding with DS, but before I go shower - his point was that his "friend" thinks the most probable religion (the red analog) will send him to hell for having the temerity to think its still a long shot (only 1/3).

DS wonders what to do then. Try harder to believe, presumably (maybe he could try and trick himself with pascals wager. that would be ironic) or construct the "more probable" Friend-of-sklanskianity and believe in that instead.

OK, thanks for the translation. Since the notion of calculating probabilities in this area is absurd there really can't be an answer. What he should do is focus on what counts, which isn't math.

I'm with you. Yours is a much better answer than my attempts.

Oh cmon. This has nothing to do with "calculating" probabilities. When there are twenty alternatives and plenty of serious smart people are choosing any particular one of them, it is reasonable to assume that the alternative that you think has the best reasons to pick is still less likely to be true then the combined chances of the other nineteen. Normally that is not a problem. It only becomes a problem if the choice you make is involves an entity that will not appreciate it if you merely think it is most likely to be best.

The truth is that any god worh his salt would in fact accept a semi Pascal's wager where you basically felt that religion x is within reason, the most likely to be correct, and espouses values that are so wonderful that you assume it to be true (in spite of the fact that you intellectually realize that it is probably not, given the number of alternatives embraced by well meaning scholars). Sort of like a child who says to you "even though my mother was cheating on you a lot, I assume you are my father because it would be horrible if you are not. Those other guys suck".

If Not Ready would ever agree that such a stance would pass muster, I wouldn't give him such a hard time.

Yeah, well I guess that's not a "calculation" but that is something of a nitty way out. The important part of his advice was:

"What he should do is focus on what counts, which isn't math."
It's a problem if the choice you make might involve an entity that doesn't like this way of thinking. It doesn't have to be the one that's most popular to screw with your non-calculated^TM probabilities.
I'd like that god much better than a fire and brimstone one too.

What a shame yours and my preference doesn't impact on the reality of whether god exists or not, nor on his properties.

Its not just our preference that a specific religion's god be willing to accept it if we assume he exists and are happy that he does. It is how a just god must feel. For all we know God will send everybody to hell who doesn't like jazz. But no religion thinks that God is like that. But if they think he is not capricious they are supposed to realize that he would forgive someone who reluctantly thinks that he is an underdog to exist.

Not Ready gets confused when he talks about people who reject God. He is thinking of those in the bible who were quite sure he existed but rejected/disobeyed him anyway. I don't believe the bible ever talks about people who WISH that God or Jesus stories are true but doubt them for purely technical reasons. Yet in spite of their doubt they ASSUME the God /Jesus stories are true and behave accordingly. To thiik that this would not be good enough for a just god is just stupid.

I agree that would indicate an unjust god. (What would we know though, right?)

It would be nice if you'd spell out exactly what this universally understood meaning of the word "just" is. Just for clarity..

I suspect you're correct about notready. It's always frustrating that the most ardent theists most interested in debating atheists seem to have trouble understanding the principal atheist mindsets.

I find "you're rebelling against god" as wearying as "you're just believing what your parents told you to".

Someone who doesn't get mad when someone means well but gets it wrong anyway. Similar to the way I feel about you.

Great. So you're just now as well.

Give me strength...