That's what you think "just" means in all these different religions you're evaluating, is it? Or is it just possible that your non calculations aren't even about the real religions those smart guys are variously backing?

Why is one religion more likely to be 'true' over the others and if you choose one of the others are you not simply back in the same boat? Don't you just end up in a situation where you can't choose any of them?

Is 'just' a way to hoist the religious on their own petard?

Is there anything that can't be modeled using maths?

An illogical universe?

If you mean you can use math as a language, for instance a=1, b=2, etc. then translate all language into numbers then you're right. But numbers isn't math. You could do the same thing using any symbol to stand for letters or words, or invent a new language. If by math you mean algebra, calculus, etc. then model these:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Hamlet.
HMS Pinafore.
Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Hitler.
This forum.
Why something exists rather than nothing.

Why? Very young children don't doubt the existence of Father Christmas, that doesn't mean that he's real or that they would have come to a belief in him independently without knowing anything about the subject.

If you were trying to convince a young child that Father Christmas didn't in fact exist, how would you do it? Don't you think that suggesting to them that they only believe because they were told to might cause the kind of doubt or questioning from which might come a change of heart?

Or would you take them to the North pole and say 'well, where is he then?'

Not entirely true. Mark 9:
I've also said many times that I can't judge someone else's salvation in spite of your infinite attempts to get me to say this or that person is or isn't lost.

What you don't understand no matter how often I say it is that salvation isn't a question of picking the right religion or making probability calculations. Even if you knew with 100% certainty that Christianity is true and you "picked" it by giving your intellectual assent to its truth, that would not amount to saving faith. So all of your probability calculations are just irrelevant. Even if you figure out what to pick by all the math equipment at your disposal and do actually pick Christianity, you will not have exercised saving faith. Your claim that God would be unjust to condemn you is no different than anyone else's claim about God's injustice. So the math is irrelevant and what counts is the truth about God, man, sin, condemnation and justification.

I don't recall using that in any debate about issues. If I did use it as an argument then I was wrong. I might use it as an explanation for why someone won't accept the truth. I've said that the second quote you give is not proper as an argument but is relevant as an explanation.

Jesus talked about this:

But isn't the answer to pray and meditate and trust where that takes you. If God wants you to follow a path He will guide you to it. If He does not guide you then He has to know you are guessing. I mean after all, without some guidance from Him all you have is a bunch of people all shouting instructions at you without any idea who is right or wrong, well-meaning or with bad intent.

The only downside is if He punishes you for asking for help. But seriously, you turn to God for help in what is obviously a tough call and He punishes you? That is malevalence and I think it is obvious that if God is malevalent we are screwed, whether we pray or not.

Yeah, I think that's a more accurate rendition of "try harder to believe". I don't see what else he could do. Remember the hypothetical though - this guy believes god is going to punish anyone with doubt.

I was a little unfair there. I meant that i think he was correct that you impute a different mindset to atheists than what we actually hold. You're not as flippant as those "quotes".

I don't think it's necessary to go over it really, but isn't rebellion implicit in the charge that the atheist isn't believing despite being given sufficient evidence?

Because generalisations are always wrong. Also, the other guy knows more about his motivations than I do.
Of course it doesn't. I'd even make the claim that things we don't actively doubt are more likely to be false than those we do.
Easily. Probably the Socratic method would be most beneficial.
Maybe. But I don't like dumbing things down for kids in order to teach them. They're smarter than we generally give them credit for and if you talk over their heads you don't really do damage, they just think you're dull.
That wouldn't even work, so no.

Well, that model is a little hard to sustain. Without absolute proof, doubt is inescapable.

DS's friend might be best advised to find another religion more probable then.

The Bible position is that all mankind is in rebellion - that all are disobedient to God. That can take many forms and doesn't have to include an awareness that one is opposing God, but there is nevertheless a sense of sin in all who have reached "the age of accountability". When I was an atheist I wasn't aware of being in rebellion against a specific god, I was just angry and hate-filled, skeptical and sarcastic. Rebellion as I use it is a state not necessarily an attitude. Like all citizens of a country are at war with the enemy even though they may not have a conscious animosity or feeling of hate toward that enemy.

Right.... I see you how you wouldn't want to dumb down or seem dull. Socratic is the way to go. What questions would you ask?

Since most adults aren't that smart either, maybe I'm not a million miles away with my approach.

I just said I was happy to be seen as dull, not that I wouldn't want to. I also said kids are smart, not dumb.

This isn't a long way from atheists are rebelling against god, is it?

I think DS's point was that rebelling then was worse than rebelling now.

Omglololol

No No No. I totally get that. I am talking about the CONVERSE. I am saying that some religions seem to claim that even if I met all the OTHER criteria, I am screwed if my intellectual "calculations" forced me to think that the stories of a particular religion that separated it from each of the various other religions was less than 50% to be true. Why is this so hard to understand? Your post above is arguing that your religion does not make belief a sufficient condition. Fine. I'm saying that strong belief should not be a necessary condition either. It would be unfair if God wasn't satisfied if you thought that religion was the most likely to be right AND you met the other criteria as well.

Meanwhile why does everybody keep bringing math into it? There is no math. Other than the fact that if you think that something is probably true another way of saying it is that you are more than 50% sure it is true. But if there is more than two alternatives the one most likely to be true may still be less than 50% to be true. Claiming that I am using math and that the truth of religious stories or precepts can't be subjected to math is just an attempt to muddy the waters. I am just using some simple math nomenclature because when there are more than two choices it is misleading to use the words "probably" or "probably not."

And there are plenty of atheists on this forum who fit this bill. Most in fact. Anyone who relies on the argument "no god would allow ....." But we are not talking about that. We are talking about rejecting a specific religion, even if you like its precepts, for a purely logical/ scientific reason. Or perhaps accepting that religion it spite of doubt because the alternatives are even in more doubt. I'm sure you yourself reject Mormonism at least partially for this type of reason. And there are scienrtifically minded people who reject the general idea of a personal god in an analogous way. Those atheists are in a much different category than the ten year old you.

If you want to get technical I would say that one of the main criteria of being just is to not require some to think or do self contradictory things. A second one would be to take into account someones situation when evaluating their shortcomings. For instance having to walk upside down all your life has got to have an effect.

I dont want you to get technical, I want you to understand that what you say you're doing isnt what you're actually doing.

In evaluating all these differing religions and concluding that Religion 6 is the most likely (even though very improbable) - when you get to the bit where Religion 6 says "God is Just" it is irrelevant what you think just means (they dont mean "kind of like David Sklansky", for example).