K

SOMMS:

I don't see how this conversation can go much further. You claim that there can be many, many sole creators of the universe and many. many sole creators of humanity. It doesn't matter if the Bible says you should expect other gods. If you think your God is the sole creator of the universe, then it is fundamentally incompatible with all other Gods who are the sole creator of the universe.

You also insist that you and Muslims worship the same God, yet you admit that they explicitly state that your God (Christ) was not a god. It doesn't matter if the religions are very similar. If they say that Christ is not a part of Allah and you say that He is an essential part of God, God and Allah are fundamentally incompatible.


I said long ago that the argument I've used here carries no weight if you're not aware that others have claimed PWE just like your AS-AP-FPJ for their beliefs. You've shown through this discussion that you are aware of such claims.

I don't deny that there has been a lot of thought put in to it. That doesn't make it rational.

Earlier you said you thought Scientology was irrational. Now it sounds like you're changing your tune.

That is a pure case of special pleading to deny that others have claimed as proof of their believes:

AS - Accomplished Something (like your coding challenge)
AP - "Answered" Prayers
FPJ - Feeling of Peace and Joy

These have been claimed as proof of the supernatural for ages. But now you insist that you are the only person who has experienced them? That's a tough one for me to believe.

If it's verifiable, let's set up an experiment. I already offered the green elephant test. It didn't happen.

Are your prayers "answered" every time? Are you praying for things that are impossible to happen without a supernatural occurance?

If I pray to a blue bar of soap to make a flipped coin come up heads, it will "answer" my prayer about half of the time.

And because David Berkowitz was open to the existence of a 2000 year old talking dog, his evidence "suggested" its existence. That doesn't make his belief rational.

Maybe not, but it is affected by whether or not YOU have reason to believe that Heaven's Gaters were in contact with a UFO behind Hale-Bopp. Your claims would force you to believe that they actually were in contact with the UFO as long as they had AS-AP-FPJ to suggest the truth of their beliefs. After all, AS-AP-FPJ does suggest the truth of the belief based on it, right?

However, it looks like you are planning on taking the special pleading route by claiming that you are the only person who has ever experience AS-AP-FPJ for his/her beliefs.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

Well, I can see why you would want to bring this up...your position seems more and more precarious with every post.


Not at all. I believe there is one Creator of the universe...the God of Abraham (as do the Jews and Muslims). I believe this because I have PWE for God (specifically AS-AP-FPJ). There may (or may not be) other gods...I don't know...I haven't PWE for any other gods so I have no belief them.


Correct. Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that the God of Abraham created the universe and mankind. These religions disagree about the descriptional relationship of Jesus to the God of Abraham (some say he was only a man, some say he is God, some say he is a prophet of God).




I think you missed the point here K: claims other people may or may not make (and my knowledge of these) have no bearing on the rationality of my belief. Period.

Perhaps an example will illustrate: I walked into my yard today and started floating around. Using scientific methods I have determined the following: gravity doesn't exist. You are now aware of (your knowledge set contains) a claim someone else made (me) that is contrary to your belief in gravity.

Does my claim make your belief in gravity irrational? Yes or no?




You missed what I was saying here. What I am saying above K is that 'Jews, Christians and Muslims believe the God of Abraham created the universe' and 'the existence of other gods is not incompatible with the existence of God' are valid positions. They are not necessarily false. While you may not personally hold them as true you must acknowledge that others may. You must also allow that those whose knowledge set contains the above do not see a contradiction in the evidence (or claims) of other gods.




Technically speaking, a hypothesis (which I assume you mean in this case 'aliens behind comet') can be neither rational or irrational. Only true or false. Ones belief in a hypothesis can be rational/irrational based upon the evidence one has for said hypothesis.

So technically I am claiming...
A-Scientology (ie the 'aliens behind comet' hypothesis) is neither rational or irrational...in a strict sense it is only a hypothesis.
B-I have no belief in 'aliens behind comet' as I have no evidence of 'aliens behind comet'. If I did believe in 'aliens behind comet' it would be irrational because I have no evidence.
C-I am doubtful that any of the cult members actually had PWE for 'aliens behind comet'. I believe Heavens Gate was a cult...a community whose members blindly (with no evidence) believe what their leader tells them.
D-However, IF someone DID have PWE of hypothesis 'aliens behind comet' and they believed 'aliens behind comet' I am claiming that their belief would not be irrational. This is just the definition of 'rational belief'.

Hope that clears up my position.




Now you are changing the meaning of 'AS-AP-FPJ'. As you explicitly stated here and here 'AS-AP-FPJ' is merely shorthand for the evidence I (not someone else) have personally witnessed for God (not Brahma, IPU), namely...

-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.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-A definite, noticable sense of peace...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A definite, noticable sense of happiness...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A noticable sense of strength. I can do things I could not do before. Public speaking and workload to name a few.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, I can hear God's voice.




Thus, technically you, Tom, Beth, Judy, (or anybody else) have not witnessed (for example) me praying and feeling God's presence. I think what we need here is better notation. When I refer to 'AS-AP-FPJ' I am referring to my witness of the above. Perhaps the above should be referred to as 'PWE(SOMMS, God)' denoting that I have witnessed these things for God. Would you agree with this notation?

And to address your concern, I am in no way denying (or affirming) other peoples PWE.






Yes.

No.




Correction...rational for you. Using the definition of 'rational belief' we have agreed upon...IF DB have evidence of '2000 year old talking dog' that was compatible with his knowledge set AND he believed '2000 year old talking dog' THEN his belief would not be irrational.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

My position is precarious?!! You are the one who has the constantaly shifting position. Your evidence doesn't suggest God exists - then it does. Sometimes you claim to believe in the Christian God - then you believe in the God of Abraham and the divinity of Christ is no longer one of your beliefs.

The real reason this conversation isn't progressing is that you demand special pleading (you are the only one with AS-AP-FPJ). I maintain that special pleading is an inconsistent treatment of evidence

But others do have PWE including AS-AP-FPJ for Brahma (the Creator of the universe). That suggests his existence.

It doesn't matter if you've experienced the AS-AP-FPJ for Brahma. If your position is the AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of the belief, then AS-AP-FPJ for Brahma suggests that he actually exists.

But Muslims maintain that their god, Allah, is not a triune god. They claim that Jesus is not a god. Christianity holds that Jesus is indeed an INTEGRAL part of God. If Jesus is not part of the Trinity, then the resulting deity is not the CHRISTian God. Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is an integral part of God? If you do, your God is incompatible with Allah.

That's a very poor analogy for several reasons. Your analogy uses different evidence to disprove something for which an overwhelming amount of physical and verifiable evidence already exists. To be closer, the analogy should consist of the same type of non-physical evidence proving the existence of something incompatible with the the original belief. For example:

I claim that, because I had a dream that I could fly, that it is rational for me to believe that I am the one person who was given the ability to fly. You counter with the fact that billions of people have had dreams of flying. They would all have to be the one person with the ability to fly. I reply that my belief is still rational because I have not seen their evidence and technically, I am the only person who has ever had a dream of flight.

A god whose existence explicitly forbids the divinity of Christ a god whose existence necessitates the divinity of Christ are fundamentally incompatible regardless of what I think of either belief.

I think you're thinking of Heaven's Gate - not Scientology.

That's fine. We're talking about belief in the hypothesis.

YOUR belief in Scientology is irrelevent. The question is whether it is rational for the BELIEVERS to believe it.

Then how about focussing on Scientology instead of Heaven's Gate. John Travolta has offered evidence of all parts of AS-AP-FPJ for his belief in Scientology. Do you also dismiss those as fabrications or mind control? Or do you agree that this proves that beleif in Scientology is rational?

No, that's not the definition. It's amazing how quick you are to drop the coherence part of the definition.

No, I stated it when I offered the definition. What did you think the letters stood for.

AS - Accomplished something
AP - "Answered" prayers
FPJ - Feeling of peace and joy

It looks like you've added God's presence and God's voice which weren't in your original list of evidence. In fairness, you've been using them for a while now, So I'll add them.

FP - "Feel" a presence
HV - "Hear" a voice

So now, we have:

AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV

That's not the point. If your feeling God's presence implies that God exists, then my feeling the presence of elves suggest they exist.

I will agree to that notation if you agree that:

if PWE(SOMMS, God) => God exists, then
PWE(person X, Belief Y) => Y is true

Otherwise, I think it's important to note that others have based their beliefs (some of which are incompatible with yours) in PWE that is just like yours.

And here is where we really differ. A 2000 year old talking dog can not fit into a coherent model of this world any more than we can have both God and Brahma as the sole creator of the universe.

My definition call Berkowitz' belief irrational. Yours does not. We are debating while using two very different definitions of rational.

Is it your position that every belief is rational for the person who believes it? It would seem that everyone has some sort of PWE for their beliefs - no matter how flimsy. Everyone can always insist that their knowlege doesn't contradict their belief (such as your claiming that Allah (a deity whose existence forbids the divinity of Christ) is compatible with God (a deity whose existence necessitates the divinity of Christ).

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

Extremely precarious...this is why: You have agreed upon a definition of rational. My belief in God exactly matches this definition...yet you won't admit that my belief in God is rational. This mishap is propagated by at least 4 logical fallacies you seem to be repeating.

#1-You a priori categorize certain hypotheses (like Heaven's Gate) as 'irrational'. First, this is technically wrong...a hypothesis is only a hypothesis...neither rational/irrational. Second, this is a logical fallacy. If we are going to a priori categorize hypothesis as 'rational/irrational' we don't need to come up with a definition of 'rational belief'.


#2-You repeatedly change your definition of 'rational belief'. Sometimes you agree that 'rational belief' means...
Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X'. This evidence must be compatible with ones knowledge set and suggest the hypothesis.

like you do here...yet other times you retreat from its consequences like here...
I'm sure you see the discrepency here.



#3-You can't seem to make the cognitive leap between your knowledge set and assumptions and [/b]my knowledge set and belief[/b]. That is...you keep claiming
A-Existence of other gods is incompatible with existence of God
B-Jew, Christians and Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham.

You fail to make the cognitive leap in understanding that these are only your assumptions, not necessary truths and certainly not my position. When I repeatedly explain that and why I don't believe these...you simply ignore this and repost your affirmation that both A and B are true. ???

Now, while I don't necessarily agree that A and B are true...I grant that one can hold these positions, however (and again) you can't seem to make the leap that one might not hold A and B true.



#4-You seem to vascilate over whether or not the evidence I've witnessed suggests the hypothesis. Sometimes you indirectly avoid this question by saying it suggests it as much as other beliefs (ok...that's fine with me)...other times you directly avoid the question by simply claiming it does not suggest the hypothesis. However when pressed for details as to why it doesn't suggest the hypothesis you retreat to 'it only suggests it as much as it suggests other beliefs'.




Succintly, this is my position:
#1-Rationality is a behavior relating ones belief to ones knowledge set. We can't determine before hand what hypotheses are rational and which ones aren't.


#2-The definition of rational belief...
Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X'. This evidence must be A-compatible with ones knowledge set and B-suggest the hypothesis.


#3-Preemptively addressing your objections...I hold that
A-The existence of other gods is not incompatible with the existence of God.
B-Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham but disagree as to the exact relationship of Christ to the God of Abraham.


#4-I believe that God exists because of the evidence I have witnessed. This evidence has been outlined many times before, most recently here. This evidence is both A-compatible with my knowledge set and B-suggestive of God. This can be denoted PWE(SOMMS, GOD) or 'my PWE for God' or 'AS-AP-FPJ' or however you wish as long as it specifically denotes evidence I have actually witnessed.





So K....

Do you agree with #1, yes or no?

Do you agree with #2, yes or no? You must fully realize the ramifications of answering 'yes' here. If you say 'yes' this means that if Heaven's Gaters witnessed evidence both compatible with their knowledge set and suggestive of 'aliens behind comet' AND they believed 'aliens behind comet' then their belief would be rational.

Do you agree that one (not necessarily you) can hold the positions 3A and 3B. Again...this is not saying you agree with these postions. Yes or no?

Do you agree with 4A...that the evidence I've witnessed is compatible with God's existence? Yes or no? If no why?

Do you agree with 4B...that the evidence I've witnessed is suggestive of God's existence? Yes or no? If no why?







Not at all. I am claiming I am the only one with AS-AP-FPJ because that's how you defined it. That is AS-AP-FPJ is shorthand for my witnessing of...

-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.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-A definite, noticable sense of peace...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A definite, noticable sense of happiness...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A noticable sense of strength. I can do things I could not do before. Public speaking and workload to name a few.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, I can hear God's voice.


I am not claiming others don't have PWE for other beliefs. In fact I am claiming that other may (or may not) have PWE for their beliefs.





Technically speaking K, if AS-AP-FPJ is shorthand for my witnessing...
-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.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-A definite, noticable sense of peace...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A definite, noticable sense of happiness...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A noticable sense of strength. I can do things I could not do before. Public speaking and workload to name a few.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, I can hear God's voice.


...then others don't have AS-AP-FPJ for Brahma. This is not saying they don't have PWE for Brahma...this is just saying AS-AP-FPJ denotes my experience.




Uh...???

Yes it does. We are discussing the rationality of my belief K. I have no belief in Brahma.








No it doesn't K. I used a mass scale to determine that acceleration of the earths mass upon mine. It was zero. Moreover, I dropped several objects that just 'hung' there in midair. These are the exact same techniques people use to verify gravity.

Now again, I have scientific evidence (the same methodolgy used to show gravity exists) that gravity doesn't exist...does this claim and your knowledge of it make your belief in gravity irrational K? Yes or no?













Correct! And as I said here...

Please replace the term 'aliens behind comet' with whatever the scientologist believe.





I think you missed the point again K. If I had a belief in Scientology...it would be irrational...because I have no PWE for Scientology. If John Travolta has PWE for Scientology that is compatible with John Travolta's knowledge set and suggestive of the Scientology hypothesis (whatever it is) AND he believes in the Scientology hypothesis THEN John Travolta's belief in Scientology is not irrational.

You can't make a general, blanket claim about the rationality of 'belief in Scientology' as rationality specifically pertains to an individuals belief relative to their knowledge set. I know this is what you want to do...but if we are using the definition of 'rational belief' like we have outlined above it you can't make general statements like 'belief in X is irrational'.





Correct!

If you consistently see PWE for 'elves' your belief in 'elves' would not be irrational. Belief in 'elves' would be irrational for me...as I see absolutely no evidence for 'elves'...as such I don't believe in them.





I can't agree to this as this is logically false. That is 'evidence for X' does not neccessarily imply 'X is true'. One can have evidence for hypotheses that are false (Bohrs model of the atom, the Steady State Model of the Universe, a forest pixie helped me win the state lottery to name a few).






Sorry I have to do this to you K but...

Why?





Thoughts and comments welcomed,



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

Your belief in God doesn't come even come close to meeting the agreed upon definition.

Where I you getting this? I categorized the belief of the Heaven's Gaters in their hypothesis as irrational. I have consistently called the belief irrational. You are the only one talking about hypotheses being irrational.

I also haven't apriori called them irrational. I labelled them irrational because they are don't meet the coherence requirement of rationality.

[QUOTE]You repeatedly change your definition of 'rational belief'. Sometimes you agree that 'rational belief' means...
Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X'. This evidence must be compatible with ones knowledge set and suggest the hypothesis. [QUOTE]

You've got to be kidding me. We had agreed a long time ago on the definition of rational as it was defined in Webster's. This definition focussed on logic and coherence. It is you who proposed this new definition. I agreed to it because "suggests the hypothesis" and "is compatible" imply coherence.

If you don't like the new definition, why did you change it? I'd just as soon use the original one since it actually explicitly spells out the coherence necessity. And, if you'll recall, I suggested that you should change "suggests" to "suggests the truth of."

If you don't want a changing definition of rational, then by all means STOP CHANGING IT.

I have to say that I've never before been involved in a discussion where my opponent changed a definition, asked me to accept it (quietly ignoring my suggested wording changes, of course), and then accused me of changing the definition.

After all of this discussion, did you honestly think that I believe David Berkowitz' evidence actually suggests the truth of his belief?!! I thought it was clear that I was showing how being "open" to something has nothing to do with what evidence is necessary to actually suggest the truth of the belief. I was simply mimicing your wording to (obviously unsuccessfully) show you how ridiculous your position was.

I have maintained all along that evidence doesn't suggest the truth of the belief simply because a person is "open" to that belief.

You professed belief in the Christian God. The existence of the Christian God, BY DEFINITION, necessitates the divinity of Christ. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, you don't believe in the Christian God.

The existence of Allah, BY DEFINITION, precludes the divinity of Christ.

You can say all you want that your god is compatible with Allah, but that would mean that your god doesn't necessitate the divinity of Christ and, therefore, would not be the Christian God.

We aren't talking about what positions people can hold. We are talking about what postitions people can RATIONALLY hold.

I could hold that the fact that Yao Ming is person who is much taller than I am is compatible with my belief that I am the tallest person. But a taller person is fundamentally incompatible with the defintion of the tallest person. I can not RATIONALLY hold that these two things are compatible.

Allah and the Christian God are fundamentally incompatible, by their very definitions. One can not rationally hold that they are compatible without changing their definitions.

I've never retreated from it the question. I've always stated that your evidence does not suggest the truth of your belief.

Saying that your evidence suggests the truth of your belief as much as similar evidence of others suggests the truth of their beliefs is a valid criticism of your belief. It means that belief based on PWE like yours is either all rational or all irrational. It sounds like we agree on this point. Where we differ is that I claim that all of these beliefs are irrational. You claim that they are all rational.

What does this even mean? Before what? We can judge whether a belief in a hypothesis is rational. There is a definition which requires logic and coherence.

I'm not sure I should agree to this definition again. I wouldn't wan to be accused of changing the definition.

The truth is, I accept this definition. It isn't worded as well as the original, but the logic and coherence is implied with "must be compatible" and "suggest the hypothesis."

A. God and Brahma can not both be the Creator. Zeus and God can not both be more powerful than any other god. There are many more examples of incompatibilities with other gods.

B. If you don't hold that the divinity of Christ is an essential part of God, then you don't worship the Christian God. That is the definition of the Christian God.

You're asking for special pleading. You've given no reason why I should believe that:

-Your accomplishment is more evidence than the accomplishments of others

-Your "answered" prayers are more evidence than those of others

-Your feelings of peace and joy are more evidence than those of others

-Your feeling of a presence is more evidence than that of others

-Your "hearing" a voice is more evidence than that of others

You've given me no reason not to treat your AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV any differently than anyone else's.

I don't even know what #1 means.

That's fine. The Heaven's Gaters' evidence did not suggest the truth of their belief and it certainly wasn't compatible with their knowledge set.

I think I'm beginning to see why you are trying to use this reformulated definition. I think you may be trying to hide the coherence and logic requirements behind "compatible with their knowledge set." That way you could claim that if they feel that it is compatible, they are rational. If this is the case, then I would have to reject the definition. The belief would have to actually be compatible with their knowledge set.

They can hold them, but not rationally. They are incompatible by their very definitions.

It is not contradictory to the existence of God.

[QUOTE]Do you agree with 4B...that the evidence I've witnessed is suggestive of God's existence? Yes or no? If no why? [QUOTE]

No, as I've stated countless times before. If your evidence suggested the truth of your belief, then the same type of evidence from others would suggest the truth of their beliefs. Some of these beliefs are fundamentally incompatible - they can't all be true. Because your evidence can not suggest the truth of your belief without leading to an impossible state of affairs, your evidence does not suggest the truth of your belief.

No, I defined it as shorthand for evidence just like yours:

AS = Accomplished Something
AP = "Answered" Prayers
FPJ = Feeling of Peace and Joy

Since the original definition, I have added:

FP = "Felt" a Presence
HV = "Heard" a Voice

You have yet to explain why your evidence is more substantial evidence for your belief than the AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV (as defined above) of others is for theirs'.

But my criticism focusses on the PWE of others that is just like yours, AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV. Clearly some PWE is sufficient to support rational belief and some isn't. I am claiming that AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV isn't.

Yes, but you believe your evidence suggests the truth of your belief. If so, the same type of evidence for Brahma suggests that he actually exists. Brahma and God are fundamentally incompatible since they are different gods that are both defined as the sole Creator.

A local reading of less than anticipated gravitational acceleration using a scale does not suggest that gravity doesn't exist. At the most, it might indicate that the current theory of gravity might need a little tweaking.

If I was aware that you had evidence that the gravitational acceleration in your backyard was zero and it was of the same quality as the evidence for gravity (all other forces systematically eliminated, etc.), it would be irrational for me to believe that the current theory of gravity is sufficient to explain all gravitational accelerations.

This is a far cry from like evidences suggesting that both God and Brahma (both the "sole" creator) exist.

Why are you using "suggestive of" now? Is it to further water down the definition? If John Travolta's evidence suggests the truth of Scientology, then it also suggest that God doesn't exist.

If the evidence doesn't suggest the truth of the hypothesis (ie, the belief based on the evidence leads to incoherence), then I can say that the belief is irrational regardless of the person's knowledge set.

I think we should go back to the original definition, since you seem intent on abusing this one. You seem to intent on using it to mask the need for coherence and logic.

If your going to claim that belief in Scientology is rational as long as the Scientologist BELIEVES that the evidence suggests the truth of the hypothesis and BELIEVES the hypothesis is compatible with his/her knowledge set, then your current definition of rational is clearly different than the original that required logic and coherence.

So I guess a belief is only irrational if the person doesn't believe it!

OK, I know that's a strawman, but come on. By that reasoning, no behavior could be labelled irrational as long as the person holding the belief felt that there was evidence for it. You don't even put a stipulation on the truth of the belief being logically derived from the evidence. This would make the word "rational" essentially meaningless.

This is logically false? The only way the above statement could be logically false is if:

[PWE(SOMMS, God) => God exists] is true

and

[PWE(person X, Belief Y) => Y is true] is false

How is this instead.

if PWE(SOMMS, God) suggest God exists, then
PWE(person X, Belief Y) suggests that Y is true

The only reason I insist on this is that I want to ensure that the notation stands for PWE that is just like your PWE for God (AS-AP-FPJ-FP-HV).

Because a 2000 year old dog is incoherent with the life expectancy of dogs. Because human speech is incompatible with the physiology of a dog. Because known mental disorders cause people to receive PWE similar to Berkowitz'. In short, the evidence doesn't suggest the truth of the belief. Instead, it suggests a mental disorder.









This has gone on FAR too long. We are simply rehashing the same arguments again and again. Unless there is something significantly new, I'm going to exit this discussion. I'll try to outline what we agree on and where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agree:

Your belief in God based on your PWE is just as rational as all of the other beliefs based on the same type of PWE.

Disagree:

You contend that all of the beliefs are rational because each one has evidence that the believer feels supports the belief (Feel free to fix this one up).

I contend that all of the beliefs are irrational because if that type of PWE were accepted as suggesting the truth of the belief, the result would be incoherent (the existence of mutally exclusive entities).

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

Last comment first...

Yes, this conversation has gone on for quite sometime. However, I think we are zeroing in on the points of contention. From my point of view it really does seem like you are desperately retreating from logic and reason in an attempt to protect your worldview. Not the most unbiased approach to be sure. I could be wrong about this...but it seems this way.

First, some comments on the progression of the definition of 'rational belief'...
K, I originally used the definition of 'rational' from the Merriam-Webster dictionary...this was posted on page 5...
However, you repeatedly claimed that this wasn't a reasonable definition of 'rational' because...page 7...
...which could lead to absurdities like...also page 7...
So we added that the stipulation that the evidence must be A- coherent with ones knowledge set and B-suggestive of the hypothesis. We ended up with...
Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X'. This evidence must be compatible with ones knowledge set and suggest the hypothesis.


We can use either one...I don't care really...you weren't happy with the first one so we modified it so you would be.






Now about where this conversation stands. I *think* we agree on the basic framework of 'rational belief'. We seem to disagree about 3 things:


#1-What 'compatible/consistent' means. Let me explain:

The way 'compatible/consistent/coherent' is used in the definition is as a qualifier of the evidence to the hypothesis...not to some global model of reality. The definition states that the evidence must be consitent with the belief...it must 'fit' the hypothesis and ones knowledge set. It says absolutely nothing about some global model of reality...much less the constistency of one.

However, this is your main objection to idea that my belief is rational! You claim that my belief ultimately leads to some inconsistent model of reality (ie God and Brahma created universe).

My response to this is...
A-Rational belief has nothing to do with some global consistent model of reality. Consistency only applies to the evidence, the hypthesis and that persons knowledge set.
B-Moreover, my belief doesn't lead to an inconsistency.
C-Global models of reality don't really exist.
D-People have rational beliefs in 'globally' inconsistent models of reality all the time...you are an example.



#2-Existence of other gods being compatible with existence of God.
This was touched on above but I wanted to outline my position here. This is not something we are going to 'agree to disagree' on. You simply are calling my position 'wrong'. Here is why your statement is faulty.

While it is true that at most one God created the universe...this is not incompatible with the existence of multiple gods...it is compatible with the claims of multiple gods.

You need to read this carefully K to see the point. Multiple gods having their own creation myth is NOT incompatible with the existence of these gods...it's incompatible with the truth of their claims to creation. It is perfectly compatible that 10 gods who claim they created the universe exist. The reality is that at most 1 of them is telling the truth.

I'm sure you see this. This is why I don't find your claim that 'other gods are incompatible with God' a logically valid objection. Your thoughts?



#3-That the evidence suggests the hypothesis.
This has been brought up a bunch of times. Each time you claim that 'IF it does suggest God is true...it leads to an inconsistent model of reality'. As you can see I have addressed this particular concern above. What I am interested in is assuming that it doesn't lead to an 'inconsistent global model of reality'(which I intend to show)...how does the evidence not suggest the hypothesis?

Now, please, please, please, please don't respond with 'IF it did...it would lead to an inconsistent model of reality'. I know this is a position of yours...that is why I addressed it above. These are really two completely different topics 'Consistent models of reality vs What does the evidence suggest'. I am hoping to better understand your position by breaking these up and talking about them seperately.

What I am wondering is if the evidence is not suggestive of God...what is it suggestive of? Do you have a better explanation?
To a person who is open to God's existence...it certainly seems to suggest God exists. Wouldn't you agree?





Thoughts and comments welcome,



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

I said I was would only respond if there was something substantially new to address. There wasn't. However, I do feel compelled to make one last post.

First, let's talk about changing definitions. From the time we first agreed on the original defintion of rational, I have stuck with it. If you'll check, you'll see that all of my arguments address coherence - an important aspect of the definition. I did have to reign you in when you tried to imply that coherence simply meant that the evidence was not contradictory to the hypothesis. This in no way changed the defintion of rational I was using.

You, on the other hand, have changed the defintion many times. Sometimes you claimed that it meant having any kind of evidence at all for the belief. Once you even claimed that holding a belief was rational if the believer had "some reason" for believing. Now you've got a defintion that included "suggests" (which I recommended changing to "suggests the truth of." You are, even now, trying to change that by using "is suggestive of." Please don't accuse me of changing the definition when you are the one making the changes.


You have also claimed that I am retreating further from logic and reason. That is amusing coming from someone who has argued the following positions:

1. Your evidence does not suggest that God exists (you insisted on saying this twice for emphasis). Interestingly, when cornered, you did a full 180 and said that your evidence did indeed suggest that God exists.

2. A god whose existence, by definition, necessitates the divinity of Christ and a God whose existence, by definition, precludes the divinity of Christ are not only compatible, they are the same god. This is supposedly logically coherent as long as the believer believes it is coherent.


Now, let's look at the way you've been trying to use the word rational. A person is rational to believe a hypothesis if they have personal evidence that suggests to them the truth of the hypothesis and they don't believe the hypothesis is incompatible with their knowledege set.

My hypothesis is:

It is irrational for you to believe in God based on your evidence.

I clearly have evidence that "is suggestive" to me that this hypothesis is true. It is also not incompatible with my knowledge set. Therefore, my belief in this hypothesis is perfectly rational (by your standards).

You are stuck with a self-defeating position when you try to wiggle your way around the necessity for coherence the way you have been lately.

I'll repeat my desire to end this discussion unless there is something significantly new to discuss.