For fucks sake fr0d0.
I did not ask for proof of the existence of god, I asked why you feel justified in believing in him, as in believing that he exists, which apparently you don't actually care about.
I believe in a great many things for which I have no proof, such as my belief that other planets in the universe harbour life, but I do have justification for this belief, that being a statistical inference taking into account the prior probability of abiogenesis being true, the estimated number of planets in the universe, the estimated number of those that would have conditions suitable for life and the probability of abiogenesis happening given these conditions exist.
Anyone who cares about being consistent in how they arrive at their beliefs MUST have an epistemology, some theory for at what point in in examining a hypothesis we are justified in believing that it is true. Once we have this epistemology that fits our beliefs we have the opportunity of testing these epistemologies to see if they are sound, self consistent, in line with the best neurological data on belief formation and don't permit contradictory beliefs on the same standard of evidence.
Then again, you seem like you hardly give a shit whether or not your beliefs are true, so I hardly expect you to do the work necessary to find out.
I did not ask for proof of the existence of god, I asked why you feel justified in believing in him, as in believing that he exists, which apparently you don't actually care about.
I believe in a great many things for which I have no proof, such as my belief that other planets in the universe harbour life, but I do have justification for this belief, that being a statistical inference taking into account the prior probability of abiogenesis being true, the estimated number of planets in the universe, the estimated number of those that would have conditions suitable for life and the probability of abiogenesis happening given these conditions exist.
Anyone who cares about being consistent in how they arrive at their beliefs MUST have an epistemology, some theory for at what point in in examining a hypothesis we are justified in believing that it is true. Once we have this epistemology that fits our beliefs we have the opportunity of testing these epistemologies to see if they are sound, self consistent, in line with the best neurological data on belief formation and don't permit contradictory beliefs on the same standard of evidence.
Then again, you seem like you hardly give a shit whether or not your beliefs are true, so I hardly expect you to do the work necessary to find out.
.
