Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 08-03-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
You haven't answered my question:
"What is the merit of believing something on insufficient evidence?"

There is no "merit", per se. The point is you do not believe based on insufficient evidence, you only believe based on sufficient evidence, and you choose which constitutes both.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
The problem most of us have is why should a putative god punish people for unbelief if it is unwilling to provide what it knows would be sufficient evidence for that person?

Don't really have the answer to that one.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
If the answer is something to do with preserving free will, then you have to explain why free will is a greater good than anything else.

Maybe the end goal is responsible use of free will?

Enigma · 08-03-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
That only applies if you ignore premise 1:

1. Every belief of yours is an exercise of free will, insomuch as you decide what is and what is not "sufficient evidence to believe".

But whatever you determine to be "sufficient evidence to believe", God must still, according to the premises given, provide an amount of evidence lower than the amount considered to be "sufficient evidence to believe".

Also, I just noticed another wrinkle as well:

Not only must God provide an amount of evidence lower than the amount considered to be "sufficient evidence to believe", He must also provide a equivalent or greater amount of evidence than the amount considered to be "sufficient evidence to believe".

Why?

Because if he didn't then it would violate your free will to believe in God since you necessarily cannot believe in God if "sufficient evidence to believe" is not provided.

Something is amiss with the premises methinks....

Stephen T-B · 08-04-2003, 06:16 AM

Lots of conversations going on here simultaneously so it�s all very confusing.
(By-the-way, DMB, I�m 60 - three children, youngest 28.)
Before looking at Normal�s response to a post of mine, I should just like to say I really look forward to seeing a reply to Enigma�s point.

But back, for the moment, to abstractions: Normal asked how I differentiate between the abstractions we make real and reality itself. Related to this is his remark that no two persons� definitions of a chair would necessarily be the same.
Abstractions which we make real, such as the days of the week or the gods we believe in, are anchored in the mind; if the mind changes, they change. Thus all the world may think today is Monday, except for a small community in the Yorkshire Dales which has no outside communications and where, in 1847 the eight people who lived there got so drunk one Saturday that they slept all the way through Sunday, and so when they woke up on Monday, they thought it was Sunday, and they�ve been a day wrong ever since. There is no outside agency, independent of human beings, which can put them right.
But consider a chair: someone from a community which is familiar with chairs will not only be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but also that it is used for sitting on. Show the same chair to someone who has never seen such a thing before, and he too will be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but now states that it can be used as a shield when hunting the wild Ghoolonga, with its very long tusks. Whatever use it is put to, however, a chair is a chair is a chair, and the descriptions of it are identical, regardless of who is providing them
Gods and days of the week do not have that same objective reality. They are abstractions. And while Normal says he recognises sufficient evidence to persuade him that his god exists, the fact is, that evidence points him to a god which is unique to him. Members of the same cult or congregation or church may share a general outline of the deities they worship, based on what they have read and been told, but for each individual, there are differences in the detail. And there is no way those differences can be ironed out because there is no external agency to do it. Appealing to the Scriptures doesn�t work because they are too ambiguous and inconsistent. If the �evidence� for something�s existence results in 200 people all having different ideas about it, and 30 people denying they see any evidence for it all, then I suggest we�re not talking about evidence at all. �Belief,� I think, is a more appropriate term.

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 08:41 AM

Ok, let me lay it out in different words.

1. Every belief of yours is an exercise of free will, insomuch as you decide what is and what is not "sufficient evidence to believe".
2. Your beliefs are based off of you having "sufficient evidence to believe".
3. Anything that does not give you "sufficient evidence to believe" you will necessarily not believe in.
4. Anything that does give you "sufficient evidence to believe" you will necessarily believe in.
5. God knows what would you decide to be "sufficient evidence to believe", and if god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would necessarily believe in god.
Therefore,
6. If god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would not have the choice to not believe in god because you would necessarily believe in god.

I think enigma has you pretty much dead in the water on this one. Good pickup, enigma.

I'll summarize: According to your argument, no one could come to the conclusion (through their free will) that there was sufficient evidence to believe, because god would have known the amount of evidence that they would find sufficient, and the evidence would had to have come from god, and thus god could not provide the sufficient evidence to them at the risk of violating their free will.

Normal · 08-04-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma
But whatever you determine to be "sufficient evidence to believe", God must still, according to the premises given, provide an amount of evidence lower than the amount considered to be "sufficient evidence to believe".

Why? It's up to your free will to decide what is and what is not sufficient evidence. That is the point you are missing, the first premise is based on free will, so the conclusions about the evidence are based on free will. God is not forced to do anything.

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma
Because if he didn't then it would violate your free will to believe in God since you necessarily cannot believe in God if "sufficient evidence to believe" is not provided.

Something is only amiss if you reject the first premise, and thus free will. If god is judging you on the basis of your free will, then it's up to you to decide what is sufficient evidence and what is not sufficient evidence, and thus, whether god has given it or not.

Normal · 08-04-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I think enigma has you pretty much dead in the water on this one. Good pickup, enigma.

I'll summarize: According to your argument, no one could come to the conclusion (through their free will) that there was sufficient evidence to believe, because god would have known the amount of evidence that they would find sufficient, and the evidence would had to have come from god, and thus god could not provide the sufficient evidence to them at the risk of violating their free will.

You're rejecting that free will decides what is and what is not sufficient evidence to believe.

Normal · 08-04-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Abstractions which we make real, such as the days of the week or the gods we believe in, are anchored in the mind; if the mind changes, they change.

But trees are also an abstraction we make real. The definition of "tree", as an abstraction, might change so much so that "trees" no longer exist. Then "trees" would not be a part of our reality any more.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
But consider a chair: someone from a community which is familiar with chairs will not only be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but also that it is used for sitting on. Show the same chair to someone who has never seen such a thing before, and he too will be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but now states that it can be used as a shield when hunting the wild Ghoolonga, with its very long tusks. Whatever use it is put to, however, a chair is a chair is a chair, and the descriptions of it are identical, regardless of who is providing them

Exactly, one person may say god does this, and another may say god does that, but god is god is god.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Members of the same cult or congregation or church may share a general outline of the deities they worship, based on what they have read and been told, but for each individual, there are differences in the detail.

But does a person hunting Ghoolonga not know what a chair is because of one detail that's changed?

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 12:21 PM

You're rejecting that free will decides what is and what is not sufficient evidence to believe.

And you're ignoring that, if God provided any evidence that could be construed as sufficient evidence by anyone to believe, then God would be violating that person's free will, according to your own argument.

6. If god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would not have the choice to not believe in god because you would necessarily believe in god.

Where would that sufficient evidence come from if not from God?

Normal · 08-04-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
And you're ignoring that, if God provided any evidence that could be construed as sufficient evidence by anyone to believe, then God would be violating that person's free will, according to your own argument.

But god does not force you to consider that evidence sufficient.

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
But god does not force you to consider that evidence sufficient.

Then your whole argument about god providing sufficient evidence forcing one to believe falls flat on its face. Your statement refutes your own argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2003, 06:16 AM	#173
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Lots of conversations going on here simultaneously so it�s all very confusing. (By-the-way, DMB, I�m 60 - three children, youngest 28.) Before looking at Normal�s response to a post of mine, I should just like to say I really look forward to seeing a reply to Enigma�s point. But back, for the moment, to abstractions: Normal asked how I differentiate between the abstractions we make real and reality itself. Related to this is his remark that no two persons� definitions of a chair would necessarily be the same. Abstractions which we make real, such as the days of the week or the gods we believe in, are anchored in the mind; if the mind changes, they change. Thus all the world may think today is Monday, except for a small community in the Yorkshire Dales which has no outside communications and where, in 1847 the eight people who lived there got so drunk one Saturday that they slept all the way through Sunday, and so when they woke up on Monday, they thought it was Sunday, and they�ve been a day wrong ever since. There is no outside agency, independent of human beings, which can put them right. But consider a chair: someone from a community which is familiar with chairs will not only be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but also that it is used for sitting on. Show the same chair to someone who has never seen such a thing before, and he too will be able to tell you its dimensions, the number of legs its got and the colours and shapes of its various parts, but now states that it can be used as a shield when hunting the wild Ghoolonga, with its very long tusks. Whatever use it is put to, however, a chair is a chair is a chair, and the descriptions of it are identical, regardless of who is providing them Gods and days of the week do not have that same objective reality. They are abstractions. And while Normal says he recognises sufficient evidence to persuade him that his god exists, the fact is, that evidence points him to a god which is unique to him. Members of the same cult or congregation or church may share a general outline of the deities they worship, based on what they have read and been told, but for each individual, there are differences in the detail. And there is no way those differences can be ironed out because there is no external agency to do it. Appealing to the Scriptures doesn�t work because they are too ambiguous and inconsistent. If the �evidence� for something�s existence results in 200 people all having different ideas about it, and 30 people denying they see any evidence for it all, then I suggest we�re not talking about evidence at all. �Belief,� I think, is a more appropriate term.

08-04-2003, 08:41 AM	#174
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ok, let me lay it out in different words. 1. Every belief of yours is an exercise of free will, insomuch as you decide what is and what is not "sufficient evidence to believe". 2. Your beliefs are based off of you having "sufficient evidence to believe". 3. Anything that does not give you "sufficient evidence to believe" you will necessarily not believe in. 4. Anything that does give you "sufficient evidence to believe" you will necessarily believe in. 5. God knows what would you decide to be "sufficient evidence to believe", and if god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would necessarily believe in god. Therefore, 6. If god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would not have the choice to not believe in god because you would necessarily believe in god. I think enigma has you pretty much dead in the water on this one. Good pickup, enigma. I'll summarize: According to your argument, no one could come to the conclusion (through their free will) that there was sufficient evidence to believe, because god would have known the amount of evidence that they would find sufficient, and the evidence would had to have come from god, and thus god could not provide the sufficient evidence to them at the risk of violating their free will.

08-04-2003, 12:21 PM	#178
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You're rejecting that free will decides what is and what is not sufficient evidence to believe. And you're ignoring that, if God provided any evidence that could be construed as sufficient evidence by anyone to believe, then God would be violating that person's free will, according to your own argument. 6. If god gave you "sufficient evidence to believe", you would not have the choice to not believe in god because you would necessarily believe in god. Where would that sufficient evidence come from if not from God?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.