Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not claiming god does not exist. I lack a belief a god exists.

I ignore solipsism because as of yet nobody has a solution to it. Practically I ignore it to live my life. This is the reason I don't believe we can know anything with 100% certainty, that does not mean we cannot know things with high enough confidence levels to warrant belief.

What is a "confidence level" in your opinion? Is it some kind of subjective concept, or is it a scientific concept? I'm not clear here as to what you mean by this term.

 

[Silmarien]

No, It is not equally possible. It is a remote possibility based on my experience and the fact there has never presented credible evidence that magic is real.

How does that make it only a remote possibility? How do you determine whether something like this is highly probably or only remotely so?

No, at the end of the day I don't believe that magic is real. But I cannot conclude that it is not real.

If someone has a bowl of skittles and they say it has an even number of skittles in the bowl. If I say I don't believe there are an even number of skittles am I saying that there are an odd number of skittles?

Honestly, the skittles analogy is stupid, because we know that there is an equal chance that the number of skittles in a bowl are odd or even. Do you believe that the same goes for magic and that there are 50/50 odds that magic is real? Why or why not?

A better example would be someone saying that they have a skittle of a color that you know doesn't exist. If you say that you don't believe that they really have a skittle of that color, that does mean that you think the skittle doesn't exist. You could be wrong, but until they produce the skittle, I don't think anyone is genuinely going to be wandering around being undecided over whether or not this rainbow colored skittle is real.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What is a "confidence level" in your opinion? Is it some kind of subjective concept, or is it a scientific concept? I'm not clear here as to what you mean by this term.

I am talking about a subjective term not the statistical term. It is based on everyone's different standard of evidence. By definition if you believe something you have a high enough confidence in its truth for that belief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am talking about a subjective term not the statistical term. It is based on everyone's different standard of evidence. By definition if you believe something you have a high enough confidence in its truth for that belief.

Ok. That's fine. I can respect the fact that you feel you haven't received the kind and amount of evidence you need in order to maintain a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I just hope you'll afford me the same mutual respect, then, in return if I say I feel compelled to maintain my belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Deal?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How does that make it only a remote possibility? How do you determine whether something like this is highly probably or only remotely so?

Based on the fact that magic has never been demonstrated to be true. Every time that I found out how a magic trick was done it always had a natural explanation. So I believe that the trick was not done by magic but has a natural explanation. But I could not rule out magic 100%.

Honestly, the skittles analogy is stupid, because we know that there is an equal chance that the number of skittles in a bowl are odd or even. Do you believe that the same goes for magic and that there are 50/50 odds that magic is real? Why or why not?

No, I have already answered this a couple if times.

A better example would be someone saying that they have a skittle of a color that you know doesn't exist. If you say that you don't believe that they really have a skittle of that color, that does mean that you think the skittle doesn't exist.

My reason for writing this was to show that saying I don't believe something does not mean I am saying that I believe the opposite. And how can I possibly know any color does not exist?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok. That's fine. I can respect the fact that you feel you haven't received the kind and amount of evidence you need in order to maintain a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I just hope you'll afford me the same mutual respect, then, in return if I say I feel compelled to maintain my belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Deal?

I believe that you believe god exists. I have no problem that you believe this. I don't agree with your reasons for your belief. People should be respected, ideas do not need to be respected.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe that you believe god exists. I have no problem that you believe this. I don't agree with your reasons for your belief. People should be respected, ideas do not need to be respected.

Sure. I can agree with that. But just remember that there are often (and usually are, really) deeply ingrained human feelings behind those ideas that you've decided to disrespect.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sure. I can agree with that. But just remember that there are often (and usually are, really) deeply ingrained human feelings behind those ideas that you've decided to disrespect.

Which I have not told you which ones I disrespect. Disagreeing and disrespect are different things. I respect religious belief I just disagree with the reasons for belief. I disrespect the idea to discriminate against gay/trans people for example based on religious belief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which I have not told you which ones I disrespect. Disagreeing and disrespect are different things. I respect religious belief I just disagree with the reasons for belief. I disrespect the idea to discriminate against gay/trans people for example based on religious belief.

Ok. So, it sounds like my interaction here with you is done then. I can go off in peace to continue to live and speak, as best I can, my own Christians views while I live my existential life in this world.

That's all I wanted to know.

Thanks!

 

[Silmarien]

Based on the fact that magic has never been demonstrated to be true. Every time that I found out how a magic trick was done it always had a natural explanation. So I believe that the trick was not done by magic but has a natural explanation. But I could not rule out magic 100%.

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I might as well say that I've never heard Japanese spoken in person, and every time someone claimed to speak it, it turned out that they were just making up words. Based on that, how would I be able to determine the chances that Japanese was actually a real language? I don't see how I could assign it either a high probability or a remote probability if I've never come across an actual Japanese speaker.

You do seem to have now admitted that you actually have a positive belief that the trick has a natural explanation now, instead of claiming that you just don't happen to believe that the answer is magic. I take it this means that you now think that positive beliefs can be justified?

My reason for writing this was to show that saying I don't believe something does not mean I am saying that I believe the opposite. And how can I possibly know any color does not exist?

Familiarity with the brand of candy? If I see a jar of regular M&Ms and someone tells me that they pulled a purple M&M out of that jar, I'm not going to believe them because that's not a standard M&M color. I'm not going to say, "Well, I don't believe you have a purple M&M, but that doesn't mean I believe you don't have one," since my reason for rejecting the claim is that I didn't think there were purple M&Ms in that jar in the first place.

 

[cvanwey]

No lol, that is absurd.

Great, apparently, you still don't get it. I'm asking you about a simple concept. Just as if a theist would ask of a staunch unbeliever. (i.e.) If God always was, then He was not created. yes or no?

Many theists have no problem arguing for a timeless, spaceless, eternal God; using various 'proofs' and 'evidence'.

So if we agree that all the scientific evidence is wrong, and the universe appears to be eternal in the past, so the best proved laws in physics (the laws of thermodynamics) are wrong, and over 40 proofs for inflationary hot big bang cosmology are wrong, and Einstein's theory of general relativity were wrong...

I'm not asking you to actually concede an eternal universe. Not at all. I'm asking you to acknowledge that IF the universe is eternal, then asserting a creator becomes an illogical proposition; no different than what a theist would ask about their 'eternal God'. The unbeliever might then begin to make an argument, as to why all theistic arguments fail to meet their burden of proof. -- All '40 proofs' of them.

Furthermore, unlike some theists, whom are in the public arena, (church pastors, televangelists, other), whom might more-so enjoy the advantage of assertions without the possibility of true falsification, I don't find that Sean Carroll, Alan Guth, and others, would risk possible 'career suicide', shame, or embarrassment, by just overtly and blankly asserting the concept of an 'eternal universe' without first doing their homework. I'm fairly confident such scientists are smart enough to know what possible conflict they raise. And if you wish to challenge the concepts, by all means, perform your work, and collect your Nobel prize.

Oh and the very foundation of science which is out of nothing,nothing comes turns out to be wrong.

Again not relevant to this particular concept.

then we would eliminate one inference for God as the best explanation, namely the Kalam cosmological argument.

Great. Not that it was ever a 'good' one to begin with IMHO. But it would be nice to not hear the theistic population mention it anymore. But we both know that will never happen, no matter what, right?

All you have done, besides destroying the majority of cosmogony, is falsify the 2nd premise. So the Kalam would be false, but the Liebnizian version would not be. Nor would the various teleological arguments, nor would the argument from the uncanny usefulness of math in describing our physical world, or the transcendent arguments from beauty or no atheists in fox holes.

So these arguments prove YHWH?

But why engage in such destruction of things we know of the real world?

Again, I ask you the same fundamental question at the very top. You know, like the one posed to many unbelievers.

 

[BigV]

"On balance, given that God's existence is the best explanation of:

- The beginning of the universe from nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no energy

- The fine-tuning for life of the universe and solar system

- The sudden arrival of algorithmically complex information in the form of DNA

- The existence of objective moral values and duties

- Meaning in human existence and in suffering

- The fact that there are no atheists in fox holes

- Numerous experiences of an other-worldly presence known in scripture as the Holy Spirit

I don't know how Universe began, and neither do you. So, that's not evidence of anything. Not knowing =/= evidence. Same goes for the fine tuning and the DNA.

If there are objective moral values, then the Bible needs to be thrown out based on the objective moral values, for the Bible advocates death penalty for gathering sticks on a Saturday. (See Numbers 15). It requires that a rape victim marry their rapist, as long as the victim was a virgin before the rape and the father gets 50 shekels.

I am not sure how you can confidently assert that there are NO atheists in the foxholes. I was born in the USSR where many of my people died during WWII. I'm not aware of too many theists in the foxholes.

And if there is Hell, which, the theists are starting to argue against, that's an even bigger problem. Btw, I wonder if there are surveys or polls on the Christian understanding of Hell. Based on my conversations with Christians, majority of them believe in the Eternal Hell with conscious torment. Ironically, most, if not all of them will agree on God and objective moral values.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I might as well say that I've never heard Japanese spoken in person, and every time someone claimed to speak it, it turned out that they were just making up words. Based on that, how would I be able to determine the chances that Japanese was actually a real language? I don't see how I could assign it either a high probability or a remote probability if I've never come across an actual Japanese speaker.

When someone makes a claim you assess how extraordinary or mundane it is. If a person spoke Japanese to me I would believe it was Japanese becasue that is a mundane claim. If I am wrong in my belief, the consequences are low. Mundane claims require little evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said your name was Julie I would believe you without any supporting evidence. That is an ordinary name and the consequences are low if I am wrong. If you said you were born on Mars I would require more evidence for belief due to the extraordinaryness of the claim. Remember we do not choose our beliefs we are either convinced or we are not based on the evidence and that has to do with our subjective standard of evidence we require.

You do seem to have now admitted that you actually have a positive belief that the trick has a natural explanation now, instead of claiming that you just don't happen to believe that the answer is magic. I take it this means that you now think that positive beliefs can be justified?

What is the difference between a positive belief and a belief? All beliefs should be justified. Of course I believe the trick has a natural explanation. That does not mean that I ruled out 100% that it can be magic.

Familiarity with the brand of candy? If I see a jar of regular M&Ms and someone tells me that they pulled a purple M&M out of that jar, I'm not going to believe them because that's not a standard M&M color. I'm not going to say, "Well, I don't believe you have a purple M&M, but that doesn't mean I believe you don't have one," since my reason for rejecting the claim is that I didn't think there were purple M&Ms in that jar in the first place.

The only ting I was trying to get across with the candy is that if I do not believe there are an even amount of skittles that does not mean then that I believe there are an odd number. That's all. So when I say I don't believe that a god exists that does not mean that I believe there is no god.

 

[Silmarien]

When someone makes a claim you assess how extraordinary or mundane it is. If a person spoke Japanese to me I would believe it was Japanese becasue that is a mundane claim. If I am wrong in my belief, the consequences are low. Mundane claims require little evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said your name was Julie I would believe you without any supporting evidence. That is an ordinary name and the consequences are low if I am wrong. If you said you were born on Mars I would require more evidence for belief due to the extraordinaryness of the claim. Remember we do not choose our beliefs we are either convinced or we are not based on the evidence and that has to do with our subjective standard of evidence we require.

How do you determine the difference between an ordinary and an extraordinary claim?

What is the difference between a positive belief and a belief? All beliefs should be justified. Of course I believe the trick has a natural explanation. That does not mean that I ruled out 100% that it can be magic.

You seemed to previously be under the impression that you didn't have any beliefs. Instead of saying that you believed that the trick had a natural explanation, you would just say that you didn't believe that it had a supernatural explanation. This is what I meant by a "positive belief," since until now you seemed reluctant to admit to any beliefs at all.

In any case, you seem to have now come to the conclusion that it is justified to believe that something does not come from nothing, as long as one does not claim absolute certainty.

The only ting I was trying to get across with the candy is that if I do not believe there are an even amount of skittles that does not mean then that I believe there are an odd number. That's all. So when I say I don't believe that a god exists that does not mean that I believe there is no god.

The comparison between whether there is an odd or even number of skittles and the existence of God is completely invalid. It is entirely possible that there is an odd number of skittles in a jar, and it's also entirely possible that there's an even number. Both are possible states of affairs.

This is not the case with theism. There can't be possible states of affairs where theism is true, and others where theism is false. Unless you think that there are days when God exists, and other days when God doesn't exist, there's no reason to treat the question as if the answer were the equivalent to a coin toss.

More troubling, the skittles analogy indicates that you think there is a 50/50 chance that theism is true. If you believe it's just as likely that theism is true as that it is false, Pascal's Wager becomes a really serious issue for you, since you cannot write theism off as an unlikely state of affairs not to be taken seriously if you don't believe that there is no God.

 

[MrsFoundit]

No it is not. One definition of special pleading is this:

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

A definition that applies very well to the contents of your own posts throughout this thread.

All I am saying is that an explanation needs support by evidence to be believed.

Is this principle itself support by evidence? No, therefore it is self defeating.

Lets say there are three explanations for why someone lives in Minnesota.

1. They were born there.
2. Aliens put them there.
3. Pixies told them to live there.

The best answer of the three known answers is that they were born there. But the answer is actually that they got a job there.

What this demonstrates is that a correct explanation can be a thing not initially considered, it does not validate your conclusion.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Justify your belief in a god that is moral then you would be correct.

Justify your position as a moral adjudicator of anything, and then you will have a good point.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I don't know how Universe began, and neither do you. So, that's not evidence of anything. Not knowing =/= evidence.

Correct. Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe. Our current physics are incapable of addressing anything prior to Planck time. We don’t know what the ‘absolute beginning’ was, or if it can even be called a ‘beginning’ in any sense that we currently understand.

We also don’t know if the universe represents the totality of existence.

So, which world is best, World 1 or World 2? Please give reasons for your choice.

We are not held accountable by Yahweh for our actions. We’re held accountable for what we happen to believe *about* our actions at the moment of death. People can sin all they want, offering no retribution to anyone they victimize, provided they have a conversion at some point.

So I’m going with world 1. In both worlds, human beings are left to our own imperfect devices of justice, during our mortal lives. But in world 1, there is no risk of the lifelong atheist philanthropist and human rights volunteer going to hell, while the serial child rapist torture murderer who had a last second death bed conversion goes to heaven.

That’s my reasoning.

 

[public hermit]

Correct. Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe. Our current physics are incapable of addressing anything prior to Planck time. We don’t know what the ‘absolute beginning’ was, or if it can even be called a ‘beginning’ in any sense that we currently understand.

We also don’t know if the universe represents the totality of existence.



We are not held accountable by Yahweh for our actions. We’re held accountable for what we happen to believe *about* our actions at the moment of death. People can sin all they want, offering no retribution to anyone they victimize, provided they have a conversion at some point.

So I’m going with world 1. In both worlds, human beings are left to our own imperfect devices of justice, during our mortal lives. But in world 1, there is no risk of the lifelong atheist philanthropist and human rights volunteer going to hell, while the serial child rapist torture murderer who had a last second death bed conversion goes to heaven.

That’s my reasoning.

Thank you for responding. As my comments throughout this thread show, I disagree with that assessment of World 2. And, even though that assessment isn't necessarily entailed in how I framed it, It is a view of World 2 that is warranted, given how many Christians speak about it. I won't repeat what I've said on all of this. And, I also won't repeat my critique of World 1. I do appreciate your responding.

To be honest, this thread hasn't produced the kind of dialogue I was hoping for. I probably need to rethink my own style of engagement. This will probably be my last post. Y'all have fun.

 

[cvanwey]

To be honest, this thread hasn't produced the kind of dialogue I was hoping for.

You know @public hermit , I find myself saying this often times as well

What specifically are you wanting to know or address?

 

[public hermit]

You know @public hermit , I find myself saying this often times as well

What specifically are you wanting to know or address?

Well, I guess the probability of that being my last post was pretty low, haha.

I don't know what I was looking to know, exactly. I have learned a few things. What I was wanting was genuine engagement.

I left both worlds sparse, so that not too many assumptions would be given and so that each participant could fill in the details as they saw fit. A couple things have become clear to me. Those who choose World 1 are often concerned about the conditions of accountability in World 2. This idea that just merely believing in Jesus earns everlasting life, and a well lived life is simply damned is a genuine concern. I have addressed this on two levels:

1) I have acknowledged that the idea of eternal damnation, especially for simply not believing, is problematic. It is not an idea I hold to and I have suggested a possible option. I don't think we can just waltz into the divine presence without being prepared. So, a live option for World 2, as far as I see it, is a remedial hell. So that, hell is not punishment, but a continued willingness on God to better prepare the individual for everlasting life. There is some evidence in Christian history by reputable Christians that this is a possibility (e.g. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa). I'm not saying that is the case. But, I do think it should be on the table, especially among Christians, for discussion. If there is one thing that should be clear, the doctrine of eternal damnation for no account is unintelligible. So, part of what I want is that if someone is going to engage me, they need to read what I have written and then respond based on that. I'm not trying to be harsh, but that's how discussions work.

2) I have given a more robust account concerning how I understand the way that World 2 and grace works in post #340. Grace is not mere forgiveness, but the work of God through Jesus Christ where the path to everlasting life is made available, since everlasting life in the divine presence is God's goal. I also acknowledged, in what I consider to be proper humility, that the final judgements of God have not been revealed. It's a shame that more Christians seem unwilling to admit that. But, I have. Maybe I didn't describe how I see things clear enough, but I doubt the most charitable reading of what I wrote is that God simply condemns people for not having believed and yet having lived good lives. Surely, God's accounting takes all of that into consideration. If we are going to say that God is just, which is what I certainly believe, then a charitable reading of how I see World 2 based on what I have written is going to accept that. If there are questions about how that works, fine. But, don't come back with the initial concern that God damns the good and saves those who blantantly do evil, as if something hasn't been said on it.

If I am willing to acknowledge and at least attempt to address the weaknesses and problems in World 2, I am going to expect the same from those who think World 1 is better. When I raise issues concerning morality, justice, meaning, purpose, and personal identity and responsibility as it occurs World 1, simply responding that I haven't proven something or that it isn't a genuine concern is not going to work for me. Does that make sense?