On Belief in God X

[genkaus]

The poker analogy can only take us so far; in reality our "hand" cannot be shown. I can't translate my experience of how bored I was watching the first Lord of the Rings movie in such a way that your experience of it will be synonymous with mine. In fact, it won't even *be* an experience, but simply my description of my experience which I am telling you... that's my point exactly - there's no way of transferring this quale from me to you. The closest we can ever get is my description of this quale which I am telling you about.

If we agree on that much, then it follows that we have to use other means to determine what the person's hand really is.

Why would you start with the assumption that the hand cannot be shown? In the poker analogy, the royal flush, if there is one, is the cause of the experience and it produces the same experience in everyone at the table. Why would you start by assuming that god can only be experienced by select few. If it exists, then everyone should be able to experience it.

But firstly, let's consider two different situations which I think effectively reflect the subject matter of religious belief:

1) The person claims to have a royal flush, but their concept of a royal flush is flawed. They are in fact holding anything *but* a royal flush. But since they don't know any better, their claim, as far as they're concerned, reflects their hand.
2) They do in fact have a royal flush and they know exactly what a royal flush consists of.

Since the others sitting around the table won't *ever* know what it's like to be staring at that hand, they need to try a different strategy for deducing the truth about that hand.

The point I'm hoping to make in this thread is that maybe we need to think of these other strategies, because the current strategy of sitting back and waiting to be given the impossible simply isn't working. The theist understandably gets irritated at the impossible task while the atheist jumps to the conclusion that since nothing was produced, the theist is wrong.

In the first case, we don't need to share the experience - a description of it would sufficient to disenchant the deluded fool.

You might want to revise the second case because you seem to be assuming that god exists and that the person is actually experiencing him.

Anyway, without assuming that he does or doesn't have the royal flush - there are many other ways of determining it. We check to see is all the kings are accounted for in the deck of cards and with other players. We consider previous claims of having the royal flush which turned out to be a lie. And yet, all the theist does is keep repeating that he has a royal flush - without attempting to show the cards. The answer to your question is, there isn't going to be a solution until the theist finds a way to show his hand. Only that can settle the matter once and for all.

Then I can just picture the theist looking down at his hand and rightfully saying to himself "but what I have seen is this!". Both parties can walk away at this point, but the issue at hand wasn't ever touched upon.

Yes, but the important thing is - the atheist gets the pot.