I've always taken it to mean that it is a fact which in principle cannot be known with complete certainty. Being ultimately an empirical claim, it suffers from the same frailties of human inference as any other empirical fact. We might be able to prove such a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, but we could never prove it beyond all doubts.I've always been troubled by the bolded statement (which I've heard many times from others). What do you mean when you say that there is a very slight chance God exists? Are you just saying that the concept of God makes no sense to you, or are you assigning a semi-quantitative reasoning to that statement? I can't think of a way to say that the probability of God existing is anything other than indeterminate.
I think it is reasonable to provisionally stipulate the unverified truth of certain facts contained in a narrative where certain distinct facts have been independently verified, but only where those unverified alleged facts are otherwise trivial or commonplace. Where those unverified alleged facts are unusual or extraordinary, the value of the verified truth of proximal claims diminishes rapidly in an inverse relationship to the relative uniqueness of the unverified claim.
Agree, and if a man told me that he "walked on water" on his own accord independent of any outside help, the fact he can show me the lake, city/town, is immaterial -- I know that unaided humans cannot do such a thing.To illustrate, I don't think it is reasonable to believe me when I tell you I caught a 300lb bass in the creek down by the old oak tree, even if I can show you the old oak tree by the creek.
Yes, and that's why I ask myself if there is reason to believe that what's written about that is true. If you're into the Bible or Koran or any other holy book, you need to be able to answer that question for yourself.To suggest that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus walked on water because we can verify the existence of places like Jerusalem or Bethlehem (as an example, and not necessarily indicative of a particular claim by you) is more akin to the example of the 300lb bass than the ordinary frog.
I don't mean it as a red-herring. I just think that since God and religion has such a history, with people sacrificing their lives to protect their belief/religion/God, that it deserves much more of a serious hearing than some bullcrap fictional character that no one knows, cares about, or wouldn't dare die for.I think your pointing out this fact is indicative of a failure to properly consider the analogy on its own merits. It is irrelevant to the principle of the analogy, and instead seems to try to side-step it with a red herring.
By the most inclusive definition of atheist (per wikipedia), yes.
Nope. I'm saying that if you find truth in some parts of whatever, then you can reasonably expect truth to continue -- and this is with anything.
Jack Dawson, on the other hand, is simply a fictional character....arbitrarily created as such, never said to real, never expected to be.
I just think that since God and religion has such a history, with people sacrificing their lives to protect their belief/religion/God, that it deserves much more of a serious hearing than some bullcrap fictional character that no one knows, cares about, or wouldn't dare die for.
Hinduism has an equal or longer such tradition. Why is your belief right and Hinduism wrong?
What I mean to say is that the verified existence of the creek and old oak tree might be reasonably justify the provisional acceptance of 5 trivial claims about the temperature of the water or the height of the tree etc, but might only reasonably justify that for 3 claims about some unusual weather in that area, and it could possibly justify it for 1 claim about a frog caught in that location, but it certainly would justify 0 claims of 300lb bass caught in the creek.I'm....sorry, I will admit that I need this dumbed-down for me...
You're kinda putting the cart before the horse here, I think. Generally, the attempts to establish the reality of certain "miracles" or otherwise difficult-to-explain happenings are done for the purpose of justifying one's belief in a god, or demonstrating the existence of one.Agree, and if a man told me that he "walked on water" on his own accord independent of any outside help, the fact he can show me the lake, city/town, is immaterial -- I know that unaided humans cannot do such a thing.
But since I do personally accept that God exists and is a personal God, believing that he can cause someone to walk on water is just as easy to believe that you can catch a frog.
I really don't want to be ashamed to say this, but shucks, I don't think that a being who has the power to create the physical universe is limited when it comes to the human world, for example.
Usually, when people want to find reasons to believe a claim, they look for evidence of that claim in reality. They don't go looking for evidence for other claims. It is a very tenuous and unreliable method to justify one claim on the basis of the truth of another otherwise unrelated claim.Yes, and that's why I ask myself if there is reason to believe that what's written about that is true. If you're into the Bible or Koran or any other holy book, you need to be able to answer that question for yourself.
It really doesn't matter how seriously other people took the claims of the Bible. At the end of the day, it is irrelevant to the truth of those claims. It's simply argumentum ad populum.I don't mean it as a red-herring. I just think that since God and religion has such a history, with people sacrificing their lives to protect their belief/religion/God, that it deserves much more of a serious hearing than some bullcrap fictional character that no one knows, cares about, or wouldn't dare die for.
That's unfortunate for you, and I do not see it as treating the history with contempt, but rather it is being objective and rational about which criteria actually matter when evaluating propositions for truth.It's highly offensive to me, personally, when actual history is treated with such contempt.
I've always taken it to mean that it is a fact which in principle cannot be known with complete certainty. Being ultimately an empirical claim, it suffers from the same frailties of human inference as any other empirical fact. We might be able to prove such a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, but we could never prove it beyond all doubts.
I'm....sorry, I will admit that I need this dumbed-down for me...
I don't mean it as a red-herring. I just think that since God and religion has such a history, with people sacrificing their lives to protect their belief/religion/God, that it deserves much more of a serious hearing than some bullcrap fictional character that no one knows, cares about, or wouldn't dare die for.
It's highly offensive to me, personally, when actual history is treated with such contempt.
You're kinda putting the cart before the horse here, I think. Generally, the attempts to establish the reality of certain "miracles" or otherwise difficult-to-explain happenings are done for the purpose of justifying one's belief in a god, or demonstrating the existence of one.
To say, "well, it's easy to believe if you accept there's an all-powerful being that can do whatever it pleases" seems to have all the advantages of theft over honest toil.
Usually, when people want to find reasons to believe a claim, they look for evidence of that claim in reality. They don't go looking for evidence for other claims. It is a very tenuous and unreliable method to justify one claim on the basis of the truth of another otherwise unrelated claim.
It really doesn't matter how seriously other people took the claims of the Bible. At the end of the day, it is irrelevant to the truth of those claims. It's simply argumentum ad populum.
That's unfortunate for you, and I do not see it as treating the history with contempt, but rather it is being objective and rational about which criteria actually matter when evaluating propositions for truth.
I looked back over the exchange between you and SMOGZINN and I think I'm talking about a different element of the original statement. I agree that it is highly subjective to say that probability of there existing a god is very small, but I think one could make sound metaphysical arguments that the probability could never be established at zero. It could actually be zero, but we could never know it.That still implies, then, some test of God's existence that outputs a known probability (either quantitative or semi-quantitative). I have yet to see such a test.
that's not true at all!
I think what everyone fails to understand is that you are not a Christian in your own mind you are correct. I am not going to judge you or question you in a belittling manner.
On the same token I feel that I am right. Yet my upbringing as a Christian tells me to live the example. Talk is cheap.
You have your right to believe as you please....but with that choice to believe as you please comes consequences. Same thing goes for Christians. Consequences do not have to be bad. Consequences can be good!
False, as I am not obligated to speak to the credibility of other religions. All I have to do is show why I think I have the more credible one.
It seems to me that it is unreasonable to believe something which you cannot establish in reality.No, no...I am not trying to establish the reality of those "miracles", as I cannot unless I have a time machine. My only job is to establish whether or not they are reasonable to believe...that's it.
So what? You're just saying "it's reasonable to believe X if you believe (the much more extraordinary and unbelievable claim) Y". You're not increasing the believability of X by doing so. You're solving a mystery by substituting an enigma....but if such a being exists, it's true, though. If God exists in the way I believe he does, it's simply a FACT that it can "do whatever it pleases".
It still has nothing to do with the validity of the analogy.I think you're misreading me completely here. I never said anything is true because of how seriously they were taken, nor didn't I mention the Bible for the explicit reason to avoid bias. I'm saying that the history of religion has much more credibility than arbitrary, imaginary things.
Correspondence to reality.And what criteria actually matters?
whose reality....
It seems to me that it is unreasonable to believe something which you cannot establish in reality.
So what? You're just saying "it's reasonable to believe X if you believe (the much more extraordinary and unbelievable claim) Y". You're not increasing the believability of X by doing so. You're solving a mystery by substituting an enigma.
It still has nothing to do with the validity of the analogy.
Correspondence to reality.
Nope. I'm saying that if you find truth in some parts of whatever, then you can reasonably expect truth to continue -- and this is with anything.
Jack Dawson, on the other hand, is simply a fictional character....arbitrarily created as such, never said to real, never expected to be.
So couldnt the opposite be true as well? If you found falsehoods or liies in some parts of whatever, then i can reasonably expect lies to continue?
So why do the Christians on this board not believe in Islam?
According to Islam, Muhammed was the last Prophet of God. Islam acknowledges Christianity and Judaism, but supersedes them, much like Christianity supersedes Judaism. We know that Muhammed existed, since his existence is independently confirmed - much like Jesus. And there is the Quran, which guides the lives of millions of Muslims.
So why do you not believe in Islam? By the standards you use to decide to believe in Christianity, you should be believing in Islam. Why do you not?
Do you doubt that Muhammed existed?
Sure.
So you've acknowledged not all of the bible may be true and agreed with me that the opposite is also true that the lies could be expected to continue. So how do you rationalize that?
Where did I "acknowledge that not all of the Bible may be true"?
I've asked this question, but haven't received a good answer.