K

SOMMS:

Actually, I didn't call it 'invalid'. I said that it was an insufficient basis for a rational belief.

That's fine. I never said that all PWE is an insufficient basis for rational belief.

Unless your definition requires coherence. Then the fact that so many incoherent beliefs are based on AS-AP-FPJ is reason enough to consider that AS-AP-FPJ is not a sufficient basis for a rational belief.

But that's what I've been trying to point out all along. The belief has to be coherent with more than just the evidence presented. Presents under a Christmas tree is evidence that is completely compatible with the existence of Santa Clause. But, beleiving in Santa Clause is not rational because his existence is not coherent with other known facts about reality.

My position is that AS-AP-FPJ is compatible with the existence of God in that it is not contradictory. It is not compatible in that it suggest that there is good reason to believe in the truth of the proposition "God exists".

There is a HUGE difference between saying:

I would stop far short of saying that it implies that ALL PWE is a sufficient foundation for a rational belief.

and

I would stop far short of saying that it implies that ANY PWE is a sufficient foundation for a rational belief.

Note that I said the former. It only means that I believe irrational beliefs can be based on some forms of PWE.

If I had said the latter, that would imply that I believe that all forms of PWE lead to an irrational belief. This isn't even close to what I said.

OK, then. Let's use the Santa Clause example. Or the example of Thor causing thunder.

AS-AP-FPJ doesn't suggest God exists, because there is no way to consistently allow AS-AP-FPJ to suggest the truth of the beliefs supported by them.

For you to believe that Scientology probably doesn't reflect reality, you would have to believe that no Scientologist has any AS-AP-FPJ for his/her belief in Scientolgy. That would be special pleading.

My discussion of Scientology above isn't an analogy. It's a direct implication of your position that AS-AP-FPJ suggests the belief held because of it.

I've never done that. I've been claiming that 'God exists' isn't rationally supported by AS-AP-FPJ.

You've already claimed that AS-AP-FPJ was an instance of PWE. Therefore, AS-AP-FPJ would make the beliefs rational.

But you seem to be requiring some sort of physical evidence for the existence of the aliens. The AS-AP-FPJ alone should be sufficient to make their beliefs rational. You offered no physical evidence to suggest that a guy who died 2000 years ago rose from the dead. You offered only AS-AP-FPJ as sufficient to make your belief rational.
No, in order for you to believe that the Heaven's Gate beliefs were not likely to be true, you would have to believe that no member had any AS-AP-FPJ. Your position has been that AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of a belief.

Actually, your stated position was that PWE is a sufficient basis for a rational belief with AS-AP-FPJ being a subset of PWE.

You must then believe that none of them had any AS-AP-FPJ.

That's true. I've been calling beliefs irrational, but that simply means that the believer is behaving irrationally in holding the belief.

No. The resulting belief has to be formed form a consistent use of the evidence and it must be coherent with other beliefs.

I would simply lengthnen 'suggst' to 'suggest the truth of'. They mean the same thing, but one is more explicit.

It does not guarantee that X is true. It 'implies' it from an English standpoint - not from a logic operator standpoint.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

I actually think we are making some headway in this conversation.

Quick note: I think we are saying the same thing here. You are saying it is not a valid basis for rational belief...my words for 'invalid'.




I believe what you mean to say is that 'so many incompatible beliefs are based on AS-AP-FPJ'.

First, this is not technically correct...as we are specifically talking about my belief relative to my experience. I have never witnessed evidence for Brahma, Buhdda, IPU, (an infinite number of hypothesis), etc. So technically speaking, there is no AS-AP-FPJ for Buhdda, Brahma, IPU, (an infinite number of hypothesis), etc. Since I have no evidence for these I have no belief in these and thus my PWE for God (AS-AP-FPJ) does not present any 'incompatible beliefs'.

Second, I don't find my God belief incompatible with others god beliefs. That is I think it is likely that other people may have PWE (not necessarily AS-AP-FPJ) for their beliefs. If they do...I claim their beliefs are rational.




Correct. However, I don't see God's existence as 'incompatible with other known facts about reality'. I think if one first assumes this then interprets the facts to support this assumption they are commiting the fallacy of circular reasoning.


This is the weak spot of your position. How does 'Praying to God and hearing God's voice' NOT suggest God exists? Try this experiment K (and anyone else reading this discussion). Pull up a DOS prompt (Start->Programs->MS-DOS Prompt). At the command line type 'ping www.yahoo.com' It should look something like this...

C:\ping www.yahoo.com

Now you should get multiple responses that look something like this...
C:\Reply from 66.218.71.91: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=48

Does this suggest that www.yahoo.com exists?

Yes or no?




This is not technically correct. I believe what you want to say here is that 'AS-AP-FPJ is not allowable for rational belief'. That is you dismiss AS-AP-FPJ as basis for rational belief. This does not mean that AS-AP-FPJ doesn't suggest God exists. It means you are not allowing it as evidence. Would you agree with this?


Furthermore, AS-AP-FPJ is just a subset of PWE which is the basis for rational belief. It seems that you dismiss the subset of PWE that supports God belief.


I think you need to clarify your position on two points K.
1-Are you saying 'AS-AP-FPJ' is not allowable as basis for rational belief?
2-Are you saying 'AS-AP-FPJ' doesn't suggest God exists?

The distinction here is slight but very important.







Technically you are correct here. It was implied that this evidence was consistent with other pre-existing beliefs. Thanks for pointing this out. Point 2 should read:

2-Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X' AND this hypothesis is compatible with what they know.




Thoughts and comments welcomed


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

If by 'invalid', you mean that it is not a sufficient basis for a rational belief, then we are saying the same thing.

The incompatible beliefs are only a subset of the incoherent beliefs based on AS-AP-FPJ. There are also beleifs based on AS-AP-FPJ that are internally inconsistent and others that are incoherent with the observed workings of the universe.

But I have never witnessed evidence for your God. So, by your reasoning above, there is no AS-AP-FPJ for your God.

By denying the AS-AP-FPJ of others, you force me to deny yours.

Frankly, I believe you when you say you've experienced AS-AP-FPJ just as I also believe Scientologists when they say they have. That is why I find it much more coherent to believe that AS-AP-FPJ suggests a common emotion shared by humanity rather than it suggesting the truth of all the incompatible and incoherent beliefs based on it.

But Allah (as defined by Muslims) and God (as defined by you) are incompatible by their very definitions. Allah is defined to be the only god, and the Creator. Your God is also defined to be the Creator. AS-AP-FPJ can't suggest that both of these are true.

Just like belief in Santa is not rational given knowledge about the world, your belief that AS-AP-FPJ suggests God's existence becomes irrational as soon as you know that there is AS-AP-FPJ out there to suggest something that is incompatible with your God (eg. Allah).

You could deny that there is AS-AP-FPJ to suggest the existence of anything like Allah, but that is special pleading - an inconsistent treatment of evidence.

We know that AS-AP-FPJ is claimed as proof of the existence of Allah. We know that God and Allah are fundamentally incompatible (Allah is defined as the only god and as the Creator). If we insist that AS-AP-FPJ is sufficient to suggest that the belief based on it is true, then we would have to believe that the existences of both God and Allah are implied. This is incoherent.

Yes it does. That is physical, verifiable evidence. Belief in God based on verifiable physical evidence would be rational as long as it wasn't incoherent with other knowledge.


Now I'm thinking 'ping leprechaun'. And I can practically "see" in my head:

C:\Reply from 999.999.999.999: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=48

Is that evidence sufficient to suggest that leprechauns exists?

Clearly not. It suggests the workings of my brain much more than it does the existence of leprechauns.

Not at all. I mean that it does not suggest that God exists. It doesn't suggest that God exists any more than the AS-AP-FPJ of the Heaven's Gate suggested that a spaceship waited for them behind Hale-Bopp. I think we both agree that the AS-AP-FPJ of Heaven's Gaters doesn't actually suggest the existence of this spaceship, don't we?

I dismiss any subset that is demonstrably the basis of irrational beliefs. AS-AP-FPJ has been used as evidence for such a wide variety of incoherent beliefs, that is simply can not be considered sufficient to make a belief rational.

I'm not saying that it's not allowed. I'm saying that it fails the test for being a sufficient basis for a rational belief. My only claim about your AS-AP-FPJ is that, until you show otherwise, it is no different whatsoever from that of the Scientologists, Heaven's Gate cult, and prehistoric dolphin channelers.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. If AS-AP-FPJ suggests that God exists, then it also suggests that Allah exists (and that Scientology is true). Since all the beliefs based on AS-AP-FPJ can not be true, AS-AP-FPJ doesn't suggest the truth of any of them.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

First a few comments on your last post...

A clarification: thats what you are saying...not me. I am claiming you are dismissing the evidence...you say the evidence is not a valid basis for rational belief. I think we are saying the same thing. Ultimately you are not actually considering the evidence.



Absolutely correct...for you. That is your belief in God would not be rational because you have no PWE for God. However, this does not mean that I have no PWE for God. Just because I have no PWE of your parents does not mean you don't have PWE for your parents.



??? But I am not the one denying PWE of others K. You are.



You find it 'more coherent'? You find it 'more coherent' than what?



This will be addressed later.



Correct...and in the same way answered prayer and hearing God's voice suggests that God exists.



K, if you honestly, repeatedly see 'C:\Reply from 999.999.999.999: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=48' on a consistent and uncoerced basis after thinking 'ping leprechuan' than you would have evidence to support your belief that 'leprechuan' exists. Your (not my) belief in 'leprechuan' would be rational.


My belief in 'leprechuan' would not be rational...because when I think 'ping leprechuan' I don't see 'C:\Reply from 999.999.999.999: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=48'. I see no evidence for 'leprechuan'.



Uh...K. But you must first assume that the belief is irrational to conclude that some subset of PWE is 'invalid'. You are assuming your conclusion K. You are saying...

1-R is an irrational belief
2-S (a subset of PWE) supports R
3-Therefore S is not allowed for basis of rational belief

Surely you can see this is a huge fallacy.



??? You are saying it is not sufficient basis for rational belief. You are saying it is not allowed as support for rational belief. Yes or no?



But I am not asking 'What if it suggests God exists?' K...I am asking 'Does it suggest God exists?. I'm sure you see the difference. You've already concluded that receiving a ping response from something suggests it exists. Why does 'Praying to God and hearing God's voice' NOT suggest God exists?




K, there are a number of logical fallacies in your argument. Though we are discoursing over my personal belief in God...it is really your assumptions that we are disagreeing about. I think we agree about the definition of rational belief:

Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X' AND this hypothesis is compatible with what they know.

However, I think the main weaknesses of your position are the following...

#1-Others have AS-AP-FPJ for their beliefs.
This is not technically true. AS-AP-FPJ is something specific to me. That is AS-AP-FPJ denotes evidence I have personally witnessed for God. Technically speaking...Hindu's, Buhhdists, Muslims, even other Christians don't have AS-AP-FPJ...only I do. I think what you mean to say is that 'Others have PWE for their beliefs'. In addition, I don't have AS-AP-FPJ for Brahma or Buhhda, etc.

#2-One cannot have rational belief in C...a member of a set R of mutually exclusive hypotheses...if there is evidence for other hypotheses in R.
This of course is false. There can be evidence for all of the mutually exclusive hypotheses. This is the case with many scientific theories. Gravity, relativity and the atom are all instances where (at one time or the other) there was evidence for mutually exclusive hypotheses. I'm not certain your saying this but it seems like you are.

#3-Belief C must be globally consistent with all other beliefs for it to be rational.
This of course is completely false. 'Rationality of belief' has nothing to do with what everyone else believes...it only has to do with why the particular individual believes. Using our definition of rational...one only need evidence that is not contradictory to ones knowledge set to form a rational belief.

#4-The God of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam are incompatible.
This is false. All these religions believe in the same God...the God of Abraham...that's why they are called Abrahamic religions. In fact these religions are all based on the same core text. They all hold that the God of Abraham created the world, man sinned and that a redemptive relationship with God is how to get to Heaven and rejection of God is how you get to hell. The primary distinction between these religions is how they regard Jesus: Jews say he was nobody, Christians say He is the Son of God, Muslims say he was a prophet of God.

While it is true to say that at most one hypothesis about Jesus (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam) can be correct...it is fallacious to say 'The existence of the God of Judaism, the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are mutually exclusive.' This just illustrates how little one really knows about these religions.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

But I did consider the evidence. I found it lacking for the reasons already stated. Considering your evidence doesn't mean that I have to find it sufficiently proves its case. That wouldn't be consideration of the evidence. It would be an explicit assumption that the evidence implies the factual nature of the belief.

But, as I've said before, I'm not claiming that your reasoning makes YOUR belief in a 2000 year old talking dog rational. I'm claiming that your reasoning means that DAVID BERKOWITZ' belief in a 2000 year old talking dog is rational. He was the one with PWE for a 2000 year old talking dog.

So, if your PWE forces me to say that your belief is rational, then David Berkowitz' PWE forces you to say that his belief was rational. Otherwise, it's special pleading.

Just to make sure we're clear here. PWE makes the beliefs of Berkowitz, Scientologists, astrologers, and Heaven's Gater's rational? You don't deny their PWE and that their PWE makes their beliefs rational?

If this is true, then we are using different definitions of rational.

Also, I have never denied the PWE of others. I believe people are telling the truth when they claim AS-AP-FPJ. I only claim that it leads to incoherence to say that AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of all the beliefs that are based on them.

As I said, I find it more coherent than believing that AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of all the incompatible beliefs taht are based on it.

Wow, I picture it every time I think 'ping leprechuan' and I still don't believe in leprechuans.

Would you really call my belief rational? David Berkowitz saw non-physical, unverifiable evidence for a 2000 year old talking dog. Does that really make his belief rational?

We are simply using two completely different definitions of rational.

No fallacy there - as long as R is determined to be irrational by a means other than the fact that it is base on S.

I know that Scientology is irrational because it is incoherent with known facts about the universe. I know that Scientology is supported by AS-AP-FPJ. Therefore, I know that AS-AP-FPJ is not a sufficient basis to make a belief rational.

I know that Young Earth Creationism is irrational because it is incoherent with known facts about the universe. I know that Young Earth Creationism is supported by AS-AP-FPJ. Therefore, I know that AS-AP-FPJ is not a sufficient basis to make a belief rational.

I don't even know what you're asking. What does it mean to say, "not allowed as support"?

I'm saying it is not sufficient to make a belief rational. I don't know how to put it simpler than that. I'm not sure what you find objectionable about the process of examining evidence and finding it insufficient. It has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing the evidence.

Asking 'What if it suggests God exists?' is ESSENTIAL when determining coherence. How else can you possibly know whether evidence is being treated consistently?

No, unless you're looking at it in the simplistic manner that would mean presents under the tree actually suggest that Santa Clause is real.

Yes, verifiable physical evidence that fits into a coherent model of the world. Pinging does not suggest Yahoo exists and that it doesn't at the same time. AS-AP-FPJ would suggest that your God exists and doesn't exist at the same time. (AS-AP-FPJ would also suggest Allah exists who, by his very definition, would force your God not to exist).

Because it doesn't meet the criteria outline above. Pinging meets all three.

If you are claiming that you are the only one with AS-AP-FPJ, that is an obvious case of special pleading. If you would deny that others have experienced AS-AP-FPJ for their beliefs simply because you haven't experienced it, then I can deny that you have AS-AP-FPJ for your belief because I haven't experienced it. Can you see why denying the evidence of others is does not help your case when you want me to evaluate yours?

This would be a problem - if it were my position.

I'm saying that one can not have rational belief in C ... a member of a set R of mutually exclusive hyposthese... if the evidence that it is founded on is identical to evidence that purports to show the truth of other hypotheses in R.

Again, this is not my position. My position is that unless C is globally consistent with all other beliefs that are SUPPORTED BY IDENTICAL EVIDENCE, then it is not rational.

And if you were completely unaware that others had made claims of AS-AP-FPJ to support their beliefs, you would have a stronger claim to the rationality of your belief based on AS-AP-FPJ.

Since you do know that other beliefs (some of which are in direct opposition to your belief) are based on AS-AP-FPJ, you are no longer rationally able to hold that:

AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of the belief based on it.

CHRISTianity holds that Jesus is God. Islam and Judaism hold that He is not. Is Christ's divinity not fundamental to CHRISTianty?

Christ is either God or He isn't. If Allah exists, Christ is not God.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

You have just nailed the lid on the coffin of your argument K...




Point #1-We have both agreed upon (even jointly constructed) what constitutes a 'rational belief' here and here...
Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X' AND this hypothesis is compatible with ones knowledge set.

In addition to being compatible, it was agreed here that this evidence must suggest the hypothesis.




Point #2-Now, you state that the evidence I have witnessed is compatible with God here, here and here.




Point #3-You also admit that this evidence suggests God exists insofar as similar evidence suggest other gods exist here,
here, here and in your last post...

Point #4-However, as mentioned here and here...existence of other gods (especially Allah) is not incompatible with my knowledge set.




Therefore, if you agree to the above definition of rational belief you must admit that my belief in God is rational.






Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

That's quite an incredible stretch you just made.

This is acceptable. The phrase "they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'x'" is a little loose. I would suggest "they have witnessed evidence which suggests the truth of hypothesis 'x'.

Sounds good.

I have only agreed that your evidence was compatible in that it isn't contradictory. Like I've said many times before it is as compatible as the evidence the Heaven's Gate had for their beliefs.

How could you possibly have twisted my statements so badly? I stated that your evidence DOESN'T suggest that God exists. One reason is that IF it did, it would also suggest that Allah and a whole host of incompatible entities exist. I have never claimed that AS-AP-FPJ suggests that Allah exist - only that if it suggests God exists, then it would also have to suggest Allah exists.

If you are willing to agree that Christ isn't divine, I am willing to agree that I have no reason to believe that Allah is incompatible with your God.

Whoa. Even if you renounce the Trinity and admit that Jesus wasn't divine, you would still be stuck with Scientology. Scientology (which you've already called irrational) is not compatible with your God. It is supported by AS-AP-FPJ. The list goes on and on.

Plus, as I've pointed out above, you think I've agreed that your evidence suggests that God exists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

Exactly. This is not problem. This is not contradictory to my knowledge set as pointed out here and here. My knowledge set holds that the existence of other gods is not incompatible with the existence of God. Now it may or may not be the case that you agree with this, however it is superfluous to do so...as we are not talking about your beliefs relative to your knowledge set. We are talking about mine.

So if you have another reason why the evidence does not suggest God then please divulge it...otherwise if you agree to our definition of rational then you must concede that my belief in God is rational.




And I just want to iterate something you said...
Yet when I asked you if sending a message to Yahoo! and getting a response back suggests Yahoo! exists you said...
You admit that sending a message to something and getting a response back suggest that that something exists. This is a no brainer. This is just common sense.


However, the evidence I have witnessed for God is exactly this.

-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.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I pray at times I can hear God's voice.

All of these pieces of evidence that I have witnessed match the pattern of sending a message and getting a response back (especially in the case of God's voice).



So you must either tell me why in this particular case recieving a response from God does not suggest His existence or admit that one possible explanation of this is that God exists and that my belief in God is rational.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

Earlier in this discussion, you claimed that you meant the Christian God. The Christian God is fundamentally incompatible with Allah. If Allah exists, his definition rules out Jesus being divine.

Even if you agree that Jesus wasn't divine (which I assume you are doing by claiming that Allah's existence is compatible with your God), you still are forced to deal with Brahma - the creator of all. And how about Scientology. Is your God compatible with Scientology being factual?

Well, now I'm not exactly sure what God you worship. Earlier you claimed it was the Christian God, but that can not be (the Trinity is fundamentally incompatible with Allah as pointed out above).

You haven't even touched the objections based on Scientology and other beliefs based on AS-AP-FPJ being true. They are as damning to your case as Allah is. Even the incompatibility between Allah and Vishnu (two beliefs that you don't share that are supported by AS-AP-FPJ) undermine the idea that AS-AP-FPJ suggests the truth of the belief.

That's some selective quoting you're doing. I said that the Yahoo evidence suggested existence because it was physical and verifiable.

As soon as your response from God is physical and verifiable, let me know. Actually, you won't have to. It would be the biggest news ever.

You must be kidding me. You honestly believe that there is no difference between a message popping up on your computer screen and hearing a voice in your head?

I suppose you also believe that schizophrenics are hearing ACTUAL voices in their heads. They are definitely from real beings - they're just like email.

Let's do a little experiment. You go ahead and pray for a green elephant to pop into my living room right now. If it happens, we will have that physical evidence needed.

We're really begging the question by saying that your evidence is "receiving a response from God." I've got no more reason to believe that you got a response from God than I have to believe that the Heaven's Gaters were in contact with a UFO behind Hale Bopp. I also have no reason to believe that the 9-11 hijackers got their claimed command from Allah. I assume you do believe that Allah commanded them to do it.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

I understand this is the way you intepret things K. However, this is not how I intepret things. I know that other gods have to exist if God exists because God Himself says so. Moreover, I do not perceive Judiasm, Christianity and Islam as worshipping fundamentally different Gods. Each of these religions believes that the God of Abraham created the universe, created man, man fell, redemption is based on relationship with God and not having a relationship with God separates you eternally from Him. To get an idea of just how similar the beliefs of these religions are look here.


The descrepency lies in how each group describes the attributes of God...specifically concerning Jesus. Jews claim He was a man, Christians claim He was God, Muslims claim He was a prophet from God. This does not mean however that we are talking about different gods...it only means we have different understandings of the God of Abraham.


Lastly and most importantly: you may or may not agree with the above position that the existence of other gods is compatible with God and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are talking about the same God. This is fine, however, it does not affect the rationality of my belief. What matters for my belief to be rational is that the evidence I see is compatible with my knowledge set not yours.


Even though you may or may not agree with this position you have to allow that it is a possibility, that there has been a fair amount of thought put into it and is therefore a valid position to take.







Two things:
#1-Scientology, Hinduism, etc were addressed above.

#2-Technically, AS-AP-FPJ only exists for me. AS-AP-FPJ is a specific instance of my PWE for God. This is not to say that other don't have PWE for God or other gods...this is just being accurate with the terms. AS-AP-FPJ specifically denotes my (not tims or bobs or judys) evidence for God. So technically if AS-AP-FPJ denotes a specific instance of my PWE for God then 'AS-AP-FPJ for Vishnu' doesn't exist. 'Judys AS-AP-FPJ' doesn't exist. I believe what you mean to say is that other people may (or may not have) PWE for other beliefs (Vishnu, Brahma, Buhdda, etc).





From what I have witnessed it is most certainly verifiable and in the case of answered prayer it is especially physical.

Though you may not believe in God you must allow that if one is open to God's existence the above seems suggestive of God.





Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

Regardless, this doesn't affect the rationality of my belief. The rationality of my belief with respect to my knowledge set is in no way affected by whether you do or don't have reason to believe that 'Heaven's Gaters were in contact with a UFO behind Hale Bopp.'

Surely you see this K.


This is an important point.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas