(March 5, 2011 at 5:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry VOID that wasn't the reasoning I provided but the data used for the reasoning.
This still makes no sense, are you trying to say that the bible is more likely to exist given the existence of a deity than the existence of men? And if so how are you determining the probabilities?
Quote: You have to make sense of the questions raised and draw your conclusions. Like I said, I spent a lot of time scrutinising those questions thoroughly.
If that is the case you should have something more substantial to present than "I've had a think about it"
Quote: This was around 25 years ago initially. And I'm constantly testing and re-evaluating. About 15 years ago I became an atheist. 5 years ago I became Christian again. I'm interested in the subject and address questions as they arise. I'm not the type of person who bothers to remember the fine detail to relate to people. I use it for myself and move on. I've been here a couple of years now, and in that time presented a lot of data. Still that's no where need enough information I personally would require to honestly tackle the problem in hand.
How the hell can you possibly think you are justified in believing that God is more likely given the evidence available when you admit you struggle to even tackle the problem? You've clearly got nothing of substance, and if it is something that you cannot determine then you are not justified in believing it.
To say you think you are justified in believing in god in Bayesian terms (that god is more likely given the evidence) requires that you have a prior probability for the existence of a Christian God, a prior probability of the alternative gods and a prior probability of no god as well as a list of facts that you believe are more likely to be true given the existence of a Christian god than the other gods or no gods.
Do you have any of that?
.
