Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[SteveII]

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Have you ever engaged Drich or GC? They seem to possess the certainty that you claim is not possible. The proposed question merely addresses whether we're addressing someone like you or someone like them.

There are people who are absurdly certain in both camps, so the question could be turned around; but let's face it, you're just less likely to be talking to a gnostic atheist than an agnostic one.

I think a Christian can have certainty based on personal experience. I think it is very plausible that certain experiences can result in a properly basic belief about the existence of God. However, that is internal to a person. I don't think that you can prove with certainty that God exists to another person.

---

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Inherent in your question is the idea that some sort of proof is available. What exactly do you mean by proof? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold so they can claim--"see, no proof".

You are correct in saying that I want to have a true belief.  That is the crux of it.  Regardless of whether it is possible to know for certain, I still want my belief to be correct.  Not everyone does.  Which is why it is so hard to get Christians to say, "If god does not exist, I don't want to believe in him." It is my way of determing if you all really want to know.  If you don't, then you can't discuss the evidence honestly.  

Some people don't want to know if they have cancer AIDS.  Some people don't want to know if a loved one suffered in death, or if their spouse cheated on them.  

This isn't the only question that people sometimes don't want the answer to.  Just recently we offered a 23 and Me kit to Mr. A's dad.  He declined the offer because his nephew had taken the test and came back only 1/4  English.  Mr. A Senior's parents were both English so he expected his nephew to be around 1/2 English.  This leads Mr. A Senior to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that his mother had an affair.  He would rather not have proof one way or the other.  So he will not take the test and has asked Mr. A not to tell him his results.  He would prefer, as his says, not to know if his mother had had an affair.  It would disturb his memory of her.  I'm not going to discuss it with him.

Like theists who will not say that they want to believe there is no god, if there isn't one, they prefer believing one thing, without examining the other possibility.  And that's fine, as long as the don't want to discuss the possibilities with me.

But you are forgetting a major point. The Christian you are talking to already believes there to be a certain amount of evidence for their belief. You are not asking them to consider a new body of evidence they have yet to form an opinion on and seek a truth value. They have already committed to Christianity for some list of reasons. So when you want them to consider that God may not exist, you are asking them to reject things they already hold to be true. In other words, the question you are asking them is identical to "if what I already have reasons to believe is true turns out to be wrong, I don't want to believe it." That is not as straightforward as you make it out to be. 

I also think the subject does not lend itself to your little test. It would be fine for say politics or scientific theories where the stakes are lower. Also, you are not just talking about a position on a single question: does God exists? You have taken the person's entire worldview and ask them to reject it on the basis of a debate with you. That is not going to happen. So if they agree to your terms, I would suspect they don't understand your point or are not serious.

[Pat Mustard]

Every time God intervenes he is patching a hole in his supposedly perfect plan. I like being a little bitch to God. He loves it too.

I dunno, I just... how can people seriously think the most powerful being that could ever exist is following them around doing magic tricks and locating car keys?

I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large. They seem to be… too simple to conn- too local, too provincial! The Earth! He came to the Earth! One of the aspects of God came to the Earth mind, you. Look at what’s out there! It isn’t in proportion.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...W3Q5sS4.99

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jenny A. raises the issue of intellectual honesty. Her question tacitly assumes that there are absolute truths, since if there were no absolute truths then one could be neither honest nor dishonest. I’ll leave it at that.

It does assume that there is or isn't god.  I'd be interested to know if you think there is a third possibility?  Doubt about which answer is correct is certainly possible. The question is do you want to make your choice the answer that is most likely to be true  even if that turns out to that there is no god.  

If not, and you are a relative of mine likely to be distressed by the conversation, and believe me, conversations between close relatives about a God some of them believe in and some of them don't can be distressing, then I don't want to have the conversation with you.

I continue to be amused at the number of Christians who are not my relatives, who both want to play, but are unwilling to say that little sentence.

I try to live by what I believe to be good and true. I acknowledge that I could be wrong and even open to the possibility that I am. It is the same openness that prompted me question my prior atheism and follow reason and experience to what I now believe more likely to be true

[Jenny A]

You are correct in saying that I want to have a true belief.  That is the crux of it.  Regardless of whether it is possible to know for certain, I still want my belief to be correct.  Not everyone does.  Which is why it is so hard to get Christians to say, "If god does not exist, I don't want to believe in him." It is my way of determing if you all really want to know.  If you don't, then you can't discuss the evidence honestly.  

Some people don't want to know if they have cancer AIDS.  Some people don't want to know if a loved one suffered in death, or if their spouse cheated on them.  

This isn't the only question that people sometimes don't want the answer to.  Just recently we offered a 23 and Me kit to Mr. A's dad.  He declined the offer because his nephew had taken the test and came back only 1/4  English.  Mr. A Senior's parents were both English so he expected his nephew to be around 1/2 English.  This leads Mr. A Senior to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that his mother had an affair.  He would rather not have proof one way or the other.  So he will not take the test and has asked Mr. A not to tell him his results.  He would prefer, as his says, not to know if his mother had had an affair.  It would disturb his memory of her.  I'm not going to discuss it with him.

Like theists who will not say that they want to believe there is no god, if there isn't one, they prefer believing one thing, without examining the other possibility.  And that's fine, as long as the don't want to discuss the possibilities with me.

But you are forgetting a major point. The Christian you are talking to already believes there to be a certain amount of evidence for their belief. You are not asking them to consider a new body of evidence they have yet to form an opinion on and seek a truth value. They have already committed to Christianity for some list of reasons. So when you want them to consider that God may not exist, you are asking them to reject things they already hold to be true. In other words, the question you are asking them is identical to "if what I already have reasons to believe is true turns out to be wrong, I don't want to believe it." That is not as straightforward as you make it out to be. 

I also think the subject does not lend itself to your little test. It would be fine for say politics or scientific theories where the stakes are lower. Also, you are not just talking about a position on a single question: does God exists? You have taken the person's entire worldview and ask them to reject it on the basis of a debate with you. That is not going to happen. So if they agree to your terms, I would suspect they don't understand your point or are not serious.

No, the fact that the Christian has his entire worldview wrapped up in the question of God's existence is precisely why I don't want to discuss the question with them. They are not really prepared to look at it objectively because being Christian is part of their self definition.. The question is designed to make that clear. AND END THE CONVERSATION BEFORE IT BEGINS. -Sorry to shout but if you read my OP you will see that the purpose is to avoid trying to deconvert my relatives without simply giving up.

Personally, the more important a question is, the more I want to get the underlying facts right. Whether to embark on a whole world view changing belief is a very important question. Whether the underlying facts are correct is of the up most importance. Therefore I really do want to look at the evidence objectively. You may not, but I do.

---

It does assume that there is or isn't god.  I'd be interested to know if you think there is a third possibility?  Doubt about which answer is correct is certainly possible. The question is do you want to make your choice the answer that is most likely to be true  even if that turns out to that there is no god.  

If not, and you are a relative of mine likely to be distressed by the conversation, and believe me, conversations between close relatives about a God some of them believe in and some of them don't can be distressing, then I don't want to have the conversation with you.

I continue to be amused at the number of Christians who are not my relatives, who both want to play, but are unwilling to say that little sentence.

I try to live by what I believe to be good and true. I acknowledge that I could be wrong and even open to the possibility that I am. It is the same openness that prompted me question my prior atheism and follow reason and experience to what I now believe more likely to be true

That may be why you are here.    it is not why Myrtal wants to talk to me about god.

[Whateverist]

If the supernatural were real it would be trivially easy to detect.

How does that work? What about the supernatural makes it detectable at all, let alone easily?

For that matter, what does 'supernatural' even mean?

---

Jenny A. raises the issue of intellectual honesty. Her question tacitly assumes that there are absolute truths, since if there were no absolute truths then one could be neither honest nor dishonest. I’ll leave it at that.

What function are you assigning to "absolute" here.  "Truth" is correspondence between representation and what has been represented.  How is the "absolute" kind different than that?

---

You are correct in saying that I want to have a true belief.  That is the crux of it.  Regardless of whether it is possible to know for certain, I still want my belief to be correct.  Not everyone does.  Which is why it is so hard to get Christians to say, "If god does not exist, I don't want to believe in him." It is my way of determing if you all really want to know.  If you don't, then you can't discuss the evidence honestly.

I agree with this of course but for me, I'd be content if believers who admit they aren't willing to consider the possibility that 'god' does not exist, would at least admit frankly that they do not know what this 'god' is or how it gives rise to the warm fuzzies they find so convincing. It is the disconnect between the sorts of feelings which seem to evoke their belief, and the elaboration of the source of those feelings. How do you get from personal perception to the bible? What a mess.

[Neo-Scholastic]

An absolute truth is non-contingent. It must be true in all possible worlds.

[GrandizerII]

My bold... Yeah, I can see that. In any discussion both sides have to be willing to consider the other side. So if that's all Jenny was trying to say, then I would agree with her. There has to be open mind in discussion.

One more time:
Are you are willing to consider the possibility there is no god?
Yes or no.

If that's the question, then any Christian can say they are willing to consider the possibility of God's non-existence. It's so easy to say. But as we all know, it's the actions that count, not the words.

[Succubus]

If the supernatural were real it would be trivially easy to detect.

How does that work?  What about the supernatural makes it detectable at all, let alone easily?

A definition of the supernatural, I think it's up to the proponents of the supernatural to define. I've never given it a moments thought because it's such a contradiction in terms and I think this is what you're getting at. If it's real then it's natural thus the prefix 'super' is superfluous.

Snipped from a post I made last week in the homework thread:

---

If the supernatural were to exist then the force by which it operates will be all pervasive, it would permeate the entire universe and we would detect it using one or more of these: 

1. Gravitational Force.
   
2. Weak Nuclear Force.
   
3. Electromagnetic Force.
   
4. Strong Nuclear Force.
   
   

These are the forces of nature. If another force were to exist then it must interact with one or more of the above and would be trivially easy to detect.

[Silver]

For that matter, what does 'supernatural' even mean?

Sam, Dean, and Castiel, duh.

[Whateverist]

An absolute truth is non-contingent.  It must be true in all possible worlds.

Are you aware of any non-contingent empirical truths that aren't purely definitional?

---

If the supernatural were to exist then the force by which it operates will be all pervasive, it would permeate the entire universe and we would detect it using one or more of these: 

1. Gravitational Force.
   
2. Weak Nuclear Force.
   
3. Electromagnetic Force.
   
4. Strong Nuclear Force.

So you assume as I do that the supernatural must be natural. Works for me. God only knows what they mean by that term, things that don't actually exist at all I would assume.