K

SOMMS:

I'm sorry. I thought you believed in the traditional Christian God - you know, the one who created everything, has power over everything, etc.

Are you really going to claim that your God doesn't have any properties that would preclude the existence of any other god that people have found personal evidence for? That means your God couldn't have sovereignty over everything - that would be a rejection of the Muslims' claim that Allah has sovereignty over everything. That also means that your God couldn't have created everyting - that would be a rejection of the Hindus' claim that Brahma created everything.

So, is your God REALLY compatible with the existence of all of these other gods (which by your reasoning are very likely to exist someone has personal evidence to suggest that they do)?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
I do.

This viewpoint is certainly supported Biblically and as I pointed out before...even God claims there are other gods K.

Deuteronomy 6:14
Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you;

I'm am open to the possiblity that there may (or may not) be other gods that people worship.






Explained above. But let me underscore what I am saying. I am saying I am open to the possiblity that other gods exists. I am saying I have no evidence of gods others may believe in. I am saying I have evidence for God.


Now, with that said...

Will you assess my belief relative to the evidence or are you simply not going to do this. If you are...cool. If not...that's fine. Please just say so and maybe give some reason why you won't. This way I won't keep asking you.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

That's not the traditional Christian God. The traditional Christian God is supposed to have created everything. You can't claim that your god was the Creator (or created anything really) without dismissing the personal evidence of others. The traditional Christian God alone has the authority to judge. Your god can not have any authority in this regard without rejecting the personal evidence of others. The traditional Christian God is the only path to Heaven. Your god can not be. Your god can not be omnipotent or omniscient - two traits associated with the traditional Christian God.

So, the god you worship can not be the traditional Christian God by the sheer fact that none of your god's attributes preclude any other gods (as defined by the people who have personal evidence for their existence) from existing.

What type of god do you worship? You can't claim to worship the traditional Christian God while giving up omnipotence, omniscience, Creator status, and all of the other things that make up the traditional Christian God.

It's got to be more than that. To be coherent, you would have to say that it is LIKELY that other gods exist as defined by their followers so long as those followers have personal evidence that those gods exist.

And it's not just some gods. This applies to any god evidenced by somebodies personal evidence. That means that if Scientologists have personal evidence for the existence of Xenu and the whole alien cocoon thing, then we can be pretty sure that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't just writing bad science fiction.

Right, but you are saying that you believe personal evidence is sufficient evidence to suggest that something is true. If people have personal evidence for astrology, it is likely true. If others had personal evidence for the existence of Thor, then Thor probably exists as well.

It doesn't matter if you have evidence for these things. To be coherent, you are saying that if somebody has personal evidence for them, then they are likely to be true.

I'm going to answer the question as though you are being honest with me. I have some serious doubts since you claim you worship the traditional Christian God, but then deny He has any of the powers normally ascribed to Him.

If you are saying that anytime somebody feels that they have personal evidence for something, that it is likely that that thing is true (and this certainly appears to be what you are saying), and if the existence of god you worship does not in any way preclude any other supernatural belief (as defined by its followers) from being true so long as followers have personal evidence, then your belief is not incoherent with respect to how you treat personal evidence.

Now, that being said, I'm very interested in what kind of god you worship and why you feel it is important to worship such an impotent god.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is the traditional Christian God K. He did create everything...and He said there are other gods that people worship.

See above K. God claimed He was the Creator...so do I. God also claimed there were other gods...so do I. As such I don't dismiss the personal evidence of others.





This is getting sloppy K. Time to shore it up.

I am not making any statement one way or the other about the truth value of a hypothesis supported by evidence someone has personally experienced. All I am saying is that if a person has evidence that supports their belief...that persons belief is not irrational.







We are getting pretty close here, but we are still off a little bit.

I would like to iterate that I am making no statement like if 'they have personal evidence for something, that it is likely that that thing is true'. I'm sure you'd agree that it is meaningless for me to make a truth statement about someone else's hypothesis that is supported by evidence they (not I) have witnessed. I really can't do this.

All I am saying is that this belief would be rational...for them. That is all. I'm not saying it is true (or false). I'm not saying I believe it. I'm not even saying it is rational for me to believe it. I am just saying it is not irrational for them to beleive it.


Would you agree?





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

If your God created everything, then He is fundamentally incompatible with every other god who is claimed to have created everything. Therefore, claims of the existence of your God is a de facto rejection of the personal evidence of any god that is said to have created everything.

This discussion isn't about what your God has claimed. It's about whether it is rational for you to believe in you God because of your personal evidence. By your own definition, a belief must be coherent in order to be rational. If you believe that personal evidence is enough to make the existence to your God likely, then to be coherent, you must also believe that personal evidence is enough show that any other supernatural claim is likely true. Now, since your God is fundamentally incompatible with a large percentage of the deities out there, you are stuck in an incoherent belief.


As stated above, your own definition of rational says that it must be coherent. Allowing personal evidence for the existence of your own God while dismissing that of others is incoherent.

Didn't you claim that you have personal evidence for your God, making His existence likely to be true? (You're not actually claiming that your belief in God because of personal evidence is rational because it means his existence is likely to be FALSE, are you?)

Now to be coherent, your claim that personal evidence makes the truth of your supernatural claim likely would also mean that personal evidence (not your personal evidence - anybody's) for other supernatural claims makes them likely to be true.

Not true. You have claimed that personal evidence (and you listed some specific examples) is sufficient to support your supernatural claim. Now to be coherent, you would have to believe that anybody else who experienced those same examples for a different supernatural belief have sufficient evidence to support their beliefs. To be coherent, this would have to be true even though many of these other supernatural beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with your God.

Can you even begin to see the problem here?

BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF RATIONAL, IT MUST BE COHERENT! If personal evidence is sufficient to support your supernatural beliefs, THEN IT HAS TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OTHERS'!

On the other hand, if you are saying that your personal evidence isn't sufficient to support the existence of your God, then how in the world can you be claiming that your belief in God is rational because of personal evidence?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

I think I see the problem here...your use of 'coherent'.

K...to claim that my belief in God given the evidence is irrational you must show that my belief is not coherent.

The definition of coherent is...coherent: having clarity or intelligibility : UNDERSTANDABLE


How does belief in God being supported by...

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

...lack clarity or intelligibility?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

This is what Webster's has to say:

Your definition seems to be missing the important part about consistency. The word is even derived from Latin words meaning "to cling together".

Is it your position that an inconsistent or haphazardly applied interpretation of evidence is still coherent?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

I'm using the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Check it out...www.m-w.com.

Main Entry: co·her·ent
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French cohérent, from Latin cohaerent-, cohaerens, present participle of cohaerEre
Date: circa 1555
1 a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : CONSISTENT <coherent style> <a coherent argument> b : having clarity or intelligibility : UNDERSTANDABLE <a coherent person> <a coherent passage>
2 : having the quality of cohering; especially : COHESIVE, COORDINATED <a coherent plan for action>



Regardless...the definition you gave works equally well.

How is...

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

...inconsistent with my belief in God?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

It is an inconsistent treatment of evidence - personal evidence is sufficient evidence to support your supernatural belief, but the same exact evidence is not sufficient evidence to support the supernatural beliefs of anyone whose beliefs are incompatible with your God.

Treating personal evidence as sufficient evidence for supernatural beliefs across the board leads to an inconsistent model of reality where incompatible deities and supernatural concepts exists at the same time.

I'll go back to the odd number example.

I could claim that 5 was the only odd number. My evidence would be that 5 is not evenly divisible by two.

Despite the fact that 5 is odd because it isn't evenly divisible by 2, the claim is not coherent. It implicitly rejects any other number as being the only odd number - even though, in some cases, the evidence to suggest that they are the only odd number is exactly the same as the evidence I used in my claim for 5.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
???

This is absolutely false. If someone witnessed the above evidence it would support their belief in their god. I've said this a number of times now K.

Given that this is the case...

Please explain how my belief in God is inconsitent with

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

?