Fundamental Question in the Philosophy of Religion

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

Still other ideas, like the two-second-old-world idea, we have absolutely no information about and can't even set any kind of reasonable probability for them. I guess we could choose to be agnostic about all such ideas (the sort of "extreme skepticism" you criticized earlier in the thread) -- but I prefer to reject the two-second-old-world idea on faith. Same with the brain-in-a-vat idea. There are other ideas that I accept on faith, like that inductive reasoning will continue to work tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]
I now understand why people believe in God. With that, I go to sleep.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Still other ideas, like the two-second-old-world idea, we have absolutely no information about and can't even set any kind of reasonable probability for them. I guess we could choose to be agnostic about all such ideas (the sort of "extreme skepticism" you criticized earlier in the thread) -- but I prefer to reject the two-second-old-world idea on faith. Same with the brain-in-a-vat idea. There are other ideas that I accept on faith, like that inductive reasoning will continue to work tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]
I now understand why people believe in God. With that, I go to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using inductive reasoning is not irrational so long as one is able to alter their hypotheses when they are confronted by damning evidence. By contrast, believing in brain-in-a-vat, two-second universe, or God in the face of no evidence at all is irrational.

[David Sklansky]

"By contrast, believing in brain-in-a-vat, two-second universe, or God in the face of no evidence at all is irrational."

There is evidence for God. It is not the human eyeball, not Not Ready's "just look around you", nor the beauty of the mountains (that last is accounted for perfectly by Mandelbrot's fractals). The evidence is quantum weirdness (double slit experimnt etc.), the big bang, and human consciousness. None of this evidence is strong and may become weaker still in the future, but it is evidence. Likewise the experience of thousands of Jewish people in the desert supposedly being spoken to at once by God. Almost certainly a lie or a trick, but again it is evidence.

Of course the evidence against God is much stonger. But when Atheists say there is no evidence at all for God they make themselves look foolish.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the evidence against God is much stonger. But when Atheists say there is no evidence at all for God they make themselves look foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by evidence? A naturalistic stance is not foolish and denies the very possibility of evidence for or against a deity.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
"By contrast, believing in brain-in-a-vat, two-second universe, or God in the face of no evidence at all is irrational."

There is evidence for God. It is not the human eyeball, not Not Ready's "just look around you", nor the beauty of the mountains (that last is accounted for perfectly by Mandelbrot's fractals). The evidence is quantum weirdness (double slit experimnt etc.), the big bang, and human consciousness. None of this evidence is strong and may become weaker still in the future, but it is evidence. Likewise the experience of thousands of Jewish people in the desert supposedly being spoken to at once by God. Almost certainly a lie or a trick, but again it is evidence.

Of course the evidence against God is much stonger. But when Atheists say there is no evidence at all for God they make themselves look foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you think that as-of-yet unexplainable phenomena are exvidence in favor of God, or human consciousness. It seems highly unorthodox of you to say that they are David, if it were anyone else who made this post I would have coldy and resoundly rejected it, but given that you've probably made me thousands of dollars, I'll hear you out first.

To go from "there are things that seemingly have no explanation" to "there is a God that causes these things" is a quantum (no pun intended) leap, and I can't think of a way to logically reconcile it.

Additionally, I don't know why you think there is evidence against God either. Any sentence that purports to make a proposition about metaphysical entities is not an actual proposition. This type of sentence is akin to fairy-tales.

[Bodhi]

A lot depends on what counts as a metaphysical entity. Care to fill me in?

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot depends on what counts as a metaphysical entity. Care to fill me in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that does not belong to the phenomenal world.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There is evidence for God. ... quantum weirdness, the big bang, and human consciousness ... the experience of thousands of Jewish people in the desert supposedly being spoken to at once by God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly stuff in the same package objectively determined evidence, such as scientifically observed phaenomena, with the testimony of a person speaking on behalf of many persons on a matter of faith?

Do you perhaps think that we have separate and equally valid testimonies by enough individual persons to whom God spoke to, out of those "thousands of Jews"? We don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Almost certainly a lie or a trick, but again it is evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So if, out of a newly opened and honest deck of cards held in my hands, I mexican-overturn 52 Queens of Hearts, which is trivially accomplished, you will deduce that this is almost certainly a trick but that it is evidence that the deck contains 52 Queens of Hearts.

You are faltering.

[Bodhi]

Subatomic particles, then? Or howabout the hole a moth left in your favorite suit?

I'm fairly skeptical about the possibility of a general theory of genuine propositions vs. pseudo-propositions.

[drudman]

Addressing the problem that subatomic particles and similar phenomena seemingly present is difficult to do concisely. Basically, there are phenomena that we call subatomic particles. We just call them that. If you make propositions about those phenomena, that is a real proposition. If you infer the existence of something further that cannot be observed phenomenally and call that thing "subatomic particles" (which is commonly done) and make a proposition about that, you are no longer making a genuine proposition.