The Anguish of Semi Believers.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all there is nothing wrong with mentally assigning a probability that something has already happened. You can technically define what it means to say "I think there is a 97% chance OJ killed Nicole". Or if you want to be less precise, you can say something like "I think there is probably life on other planets." Exactly how these statements should be interpreted is a technical mathematical question. But everybody instinctively knows what I mean.

It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category. By which I mean that whether they admit it or nor most people are not 100% certain one way or the other. Just like any other question. Almost all people deep down think that God is either highly unlikely, somewhat unlikely, possible but not probable, likely, or highly likely. Many will not mind admitting which camp they are in.

But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

In the above situation, the people who rate the chances that such a God exists anywhere from somewhat unlikely to somewhat likely, deserve a lot of empathy. Think about their situation. Non believers aren't worried and believers have their ducks in a row. But what about the others? Surely there are many of them, just like as there are many who aren't sure about lots of other issues. But in the other cases there is no torment associated with their uncertainty. Here someone who thinks the punishing God is somewhat likely has to believe he is somewhat likely to go to hell. Imagine being one of them.

Of course many of them, once they believe somewhat, will claim a full belief, Pascal Wager style, that they don't actually have. At the same time though, they fear that God, if there is one, will not be fooled. Pretty tough place to be psychologically. I wonder how many people are in that boat. Including posters on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem with the God who rewards or punishes based on true belief:

Can you force yourself to truly believe in anything? If you can't, then those who are given the ability to truly believe will be rewarded, and those who cannot will be punished. The point of this exercise escapes as God already knows who is a "true believer" and who isn't (at least, any conception of God who is all powerful/all knowing).

So, why would an all knowing God punish/reward people after they die for things that that God already knew would happen? Answer: the binary idea of a punishment or a reward coming when you die is as childish as a belief in Santa Claus. Our understanding of existence and God is limited, to say the least. To say that we know God's standards of judgement of human souls and we live our lives according to them is laughable. Anyone who claims to know God's decisions and motivations is a charlatan.

The God I believe in is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. When tragedies happen and they upset me, it serves to remind me of how flawed my conception of existence is.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If I end up ... in hell or in New Jersey after I die, well, . . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You won’t be able to tell know which one you are in anyway.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a 97% chance OJ killed Nicole".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is probably life on other planets

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. The difference is that the concept of God is not well defined, while the concept of OJ killing Nicole is. While one might quibble a little about exactly what life is, the second question if clear enough. However God is in a completely different category

When you talk about the probability of God existing, are you refereeing to

1) The God of a particular person at a particular time, yours in three years, the popes yesterday, another posters when he is replying to this post.
2) The documented concept of God as portrayed in a particular religion.
3) The probability of God existing derived by taking the integral of the probability of God existing over a range of concepts of God.

This could be over all current religions.
All official religions present past and future.
All religions that could be possible, including ones that for one reason or another never happened.
All concepts of God currently held by humans that believe in God.
All concepts of God held by living humans that believe in God, during their life.
All the concepts of God held by all humans living dead and yet to live that have do or will believe in God at some point.
All the concepts of God that a human could have, including ones that for one reason or another never happened.

Note that when you are considering all Gods, this could range from the kind old man that watches over you night and day, whatever created the universe with no further assumptions made, to a lump of rock.

“What is the probability that God exists” THIS QESTION IS MEANINGLESS.

When two people discus this question they will almost always have different understandings of what the question means.

Still there are plenty of people who think the question makes sense and will give answers to it. You argue that people who give answers between the extremes of 0% and 100% are more disturbed on account of their belief in their answer to the question than those that are sure of their answer.

This makes sense. If you are unsure of something you consider important, then it is natural to experience emotions that will encourage you to rectify your feeling of uncertainty.

[chezlaw]

Its not just that different people have different views about god but that no-one has any real idea what they mean by god (or by eternal, divine, heaven, hell etc).

When someone claims to believe in god its not obvious that they mean anything at all. Belief in a religon is different but doesn't require any real beliefs about god, rather religon encourages you not to even think about it and just accept some interpretation of the words in a book.

And those who aren't sure don't need empathy because its empirically clear that most are not troubled in any way.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of asking, “Does God exist …, Would God do this ...” why not ask

“What is the likelihood that our consciousness continuing after we are dead? If it does continue, to what extent does our actions while we are alive affect its predicament in this afterlife.

This gets to the core points independently of the confusing God concept.

In general its much less confusing to ask questions in such a way that the God word is missing.

[John Cole]

Just for the record, I know--not believe--that God doesn't exist in the same way--and for the same reasons (almost)--that I know neither Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

[hurlyburly]

Your post made me think of Bill the Butcher threatening Tweed after he kills Monk, so I looked for a direct quote, only to find it's from Revelations 3:15-16:

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth."

Couldn't put it in context, went into a dangerous laughing fit when I read 3:11:

"I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast..."

I didn't know I was quoting the bible...

[David Sklansky]

"Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality."

Sklanskians are allowed to believe in Jesus and The Holy Spirit. The part about God not being omnipotent refers only to the ability to see the future since everything else is silly, logically speaking if he can. (Because that would entail seeing his OWN future and you run into building boulders he cant lift paradoxes unless God himself doesn't have free will.)

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality."

Sklanskians are allowed to believe in Jesus and The Holy Spirit. The part about God not being omnipotent refers only to the ability to see the future since everything else is silly, logically speaking if he can. (Because that would entail seeing his OWN future and you run into building boulders he cant lift paradoxes unless God himself doesn't have free will.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand can someone catch me up?

[David Sklansky]

Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound? Are you snowden's cousins? Everybody else knows what I am talking about. Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence. Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.