(January 6, 2015 at 11:59 am)*steve* Wrote: I don't have any issue with your approach. Seems reasonable to me. As there is much uncertainty in our understanding of reality, my gold standard is reasonableness.In your estimation, is the God you assert omnipotent? Omniscient? Cosmic Muffin, Hairy thunderer? It's hard to fight a vapor.
Reasonableness, like any other assessment can only be judged in light of currently available information.
Religious contentions of an omni-god raise this bar to an exceptionally high place which cannot be sustained. No amount of evidence short of omniscience could fully prove the character being demonstrated to be in fact omniscient. If God, where? If YHWH, why has he withdrawn from open contact with his people?
Quote:However, for many religious believers there is something strongly compelling. Religious experience. In that, what may have been thought to be ineffable, can become effable. It's a powerful force that is not easily dismissed.Power is not truth. Knowledge of truth, though possibly an illusion, has been shown to be more useful in guiding people to a controllable, predicable future. I assert without proof, that a fully chosen and known, actively determined future would be more likely to make me happy than one in which I arbitrarily chose or had chosen for me a path purporting to be true without evidence. I believe this because my alternative includes the option of self deception as well as other results only one of which need be more optimal.
Quote:is there a way to extrapolate that religious sensibility into a reasonable religious framework.The chief sales rep for Mexico at the company I worked for once told me a profound truth. He said, "The answer to any question is always,'It depends.'"
It depends.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
