On Hell and Forgiveness

[Silver]

I thought I *did* answer.

She just wants to hear what she wants to hear. Her own brand of manipulation at its best.

[polymath257]

I thought I *did* answer. I said very clearly that I would go for truth over love and facts over fulfillment.

I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?

I don't know. Is God 'truth' as well as being 'love'? is there a difference (I think there is)?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

Now as to whether a probabilistic argument favors the existence of God, I personally do not see how one can assign those probabilities in a fair and objective way.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

[polymath257]

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

The strongest objections to gods have -always- been those objections which would hold even if there were gods.  It's a common mistake of the faithful to imagine that the mere existence of a god would cause everyone to drop to their knees and shout hosanna.  

I don't have to be confronted with a hypothetical god, I can find their analogs right here in life..my rejection of those people is an expression of the same position that would be applied to hypothetical gods.  I don't need to go to heaven to meet this sort of being, there are plenty here on earth.

[Silver]

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

Reasonable people can disagree, until something unreasonable is introduced as falsely reasonable. When it comes to matters of religious faith, it is only reasonable to comprehend that one preferring the fantasy disconnected from reality has issues relational to delusion.

[Amarok]

I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?

You can't accept or reject that which makes no sense .

[SteveII]

That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Hypothetically speaking, would God raising someone from the dead after, say, oh, I don't know, a public crucifixion qualify as a "piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction?" Asking for a friend.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have reasonable disagreements with my wife.  Nevertheless, not every christian is as reasonable in their beliefs -as- my wife.....so....?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.

And I do not believe either of those conditions have been meet with respect to mainstream Christian beliefs, or at least those that I understand to be such.