An honest look at Christians and Atheists and what they don't see, maybe.

[Halbhh]

No, I acknowledged it takes magic to "know they aren't privy". Why shouldn't I use magic in hypotheticals? Why is my hypothetical problematic?

If someone claims they can read minds, generally others are going to doubt they can, of course.

 

[Moral Orel]

If someone claims they can read minds, generally others are going to doubt they can, of course.

Okay, I'm not following. No one is making the claim that they can actually read minds.

Why shouldn't I use magic to eliminate variables in a hypothetical?

 

[Halbhh]

Okay, I'm not following. No one is making the claim that they can actually read minds.

Why shouldn't I use magic to eliminate variables in a hypothetical?

I'm not quite sure precisely how you mean that, so perhaps you should give a concrete example, and then I could see just what you are asking.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

That's how you form a hypothetical. You eliminate things, magically if you have to, to make a point.

At which point, the hypothetical becomes meaningless.

 

[GDL]

If you consider me naive for thinking as I do, then what does that make you for so slavishly following such a god?

Well, firstly, He's not telling me to do anything like the things we're discussing, and there are no New Covenant Writings that speak of such things for us to be involved in, so no issue there. You're hard-pressed to associate me or anyone today with what you're attempting to do.

Secondly, you put yourself in the position of determining what is right & just in all times of history, knowing nothing but what you think you know now. You're simply not qualified, nor am I. You're the judge of no one but yourself, for yourself.

Thirdly, the punishment fits the crime. So, although we haven't discussed it, and although I understand many of the issues, I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes and I believe war can sadly be necessary.

Fourth, although genocide, including infanticide is indeed very tough to understand and relate to, once again, you know nothing about the circumstances, you have no ability to see forward through time (nor objectively backward it seems) to know what will take place, you nor anyone else has the ability to ascertain what is truly in the blood and soul of any people group, nor explain why some even from good families, simply become mass murders who may even enjoy eating their victims, so, again, you are not a qualified judge nor a meaningful critic. The instruction about God is that He does know such things and all of the facts by which to judge.

Next, you have no understanding of how law works and what can be instituted with success in a culture in times and among a generation where things are considered "normal." If you were to research the slavery issue and timing of God's Law you'd find it quite different in many ways to the slavery you're familiar with and inserting into the issue apart from knowledge. Your biased view is nothing for me to get into with you. There are plenty of researched writings on the topic if you're truly interested and can even remotely find a position of impartiality from which to judge fairly. I doubt you could clear your hostility.

The bottom line in all of this is you're an atheist who has found a pet area for reasoning your rejection of God. Nothing new under the sun as has been said. You're clear on what can be expected from you - God's bad - you know better...

 

[Moral Orel]

At which point, the hypothetical becomes meaningless.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not quite sure precisely how you mean that, so perhaps you should give a concrete example, and then I could see just what you are asking.

We've been working with a concrete example. You told me that no one can know, and you told me what I should have said. You haven't said why though. What is problematic about a hypothetical that uses even magic to eliminate irrelevant lines of questions?

What if I had said that you and your friend watched the jellybeans being poured into the jar. And it wasn't just one guy at the fair doing the pouring. He took a little foam ball out of his pocket, threw it into the crowd while his back was turned, and had that person grab a handful and put it in the jar. Then that person did the same thing with the foam ball, and the next person, and so on, ensuring that a random amount of jellybeans was poured into the jar. But neither of you were close enough to count them as they poured. You just happened to have gone to the eye doctor with your friend that very same day, and you found that you have identical vision prescriptions, so his eyesight is exactly the same as yours. But you also were close enough that you would have seen the guy at the fair if he tried to switch out jars in some pre-orchestrated maneuver with your friend to play a bizarre trick on you. He wasn't inside a tent, he was behind a glass table, and he didn't pour every last jellybean into the jar so your friend couldn't simply spy the bag, which the guy at the fair destroyed before you or your friend could get close enough to read it.

Now sure, there's just about nothing we can "know" with 100% certainty. But if I wrote all that out, would it be fair enough to say that your friend isn't privy to any more information than you are?

And whether I wrote all that out, or I just wrote "you know that your friend isn't privy", how does that have any effect whatsoever on the principle in the hypothetical? You've already stated that a person can "withhold" (i.e. lack) belief, so the hypothetical served it's purpose. What is your objection to eliminating variables in a hypothetical that are irrelevant to the principle on display?

 

[Par5]

Well, firstly, He's not telling me to do anything like the things we're discussing, and there are no New Covenant Writings that speak of such things for us to be involved in, so no issue there. You're hard-pressed to associate me or anyone today with what you're attempting to do.

Secondly, you put yourself in the position of determining what is right & just in all times of history, knowing nothing but what you think you know now. You're simply not qualified, nor am I. You're the judge of no one but yourself, for yourself.

Thirdly, the punishment fits the crime. So, although we haven't discussed it, and although I understand many of the issues, I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes and I believe war can sadly be necessary.

Fourth, although genocide, including infanticide is indeed very tough to understand and relate to, once again, you know nothing about the circumstances, you have no ability to see forward through time (nor objectively backward it seems) to know what will take place, you nor anyone else has the ability to ascertain what is truly in the blood and soul of any people group, nor explain why some even from good families, simply become mass murders who may even enjoy eating their victims, so, again, you are not a qualified judge nor a meaningful critic. The instruction about God is that He does know such things and all of the facts by which to judge.

Next, you have no understanding of how law works and what can be instituted with success in a culture in times and among a generation where things are considered "normal." If you were to research the slavery issue and timing of God's Law you'd find it quite different in many ways to the slavery you're familiar with and inserting into the issue apart from knowledge. Your biased view is nothing for me to get into with you. There are plenty of researched writings on the topic if you're truly interested and can even remotely find a position of impartiality from which to judge fairly. I doubt you could clear your hostility.

The bottom line in all of this is you're an atheist who has found a pet area for reasoning your rejection of God. Nothing new under the sun as has been said. You're clear on what can be expected from you - God's bad - you know better...

You have just trotted out the usual excuses I have repeatedly heard from Christians regarding biblical mass murder and slavery.
I asked you if you would be capable of participating in an act of genocide and infanticide if ordered to do so by your god and you sidestepped the question by saying the new covenant says nothing that would involve you in such behaviour. That is not the same as saying you wouldn't take part in such acts.
What part of putting children and infants to the sword are you having difficulty with? What is stopping you from saying such a thing is wrong?
You make out that biblical slavery is not the same as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Christians liken biblical slavery to some sort of social welfare program for down and outs. It is slavery, and just like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, people were considered to be the property of others. Considering people to be your property is wrong. The slave's children and wife could be taken from him and kept by the slave owner. Slaves could be beaten.
You say I am not qualified to judge if those things are wrong,. How qualified do you need to be to say genocide and infanticide and treating people as your property is wrong? Whether it happened several thousand years ago or just last week, such things are wrong.
You ended by saying that I think god is bad, that I know better. If you are talking about a god that orders genocide and infanticide and is happy to accommodate slavery, then for once I agree with you. That kind of god is bad and I do know better!

 

[Halbhh]

We've been working with a concrete example. You told me that no one can know, and you told me what I should have said. You haven't said why though. What is problematic about a hypothetical that uses even magic to eliminate irrelevant lines of questions?

What if I had said that you and your friend watched the jellybeans being poured into the jar. And it wasn't just one guy at the fair doing the pouring. He took a little foam ball out of his pocket, threw it into the crowd while his back was turned, and had that person grab a handful and put it in the jar. Then that person did the same thing with the foam ball, and the next person, and so on, ensuring that a random amount of jellybeans was poured into the jar. But neither of you were close enough to count them as they poured. You just happened to have gone to the eye doctor with your friend that very same day, and you found that you have identical vision prescriptions, so his eyesight is exactly the same as yours. But you also were close enough that you would have seen the guy at the fair if he tried to switch out jars in some pre-orchestrated maneuver with your friend to play a bizarre trick on you. He wasn't inside a tent, he was behind a glass table, and he didn't pour every last jellybean into the jar so your friend couldn't simply spy the bag, which the guy at the fair destroyed before you or your friend could get close enough to read it.

Now sure, there's just about nothing we can "know" with 100% certainty. But if I wrote all that out, would it be fair enough to say that your friend isn't privy to any more information than you are?

And whether I wrote all that out, or I just wrote "you know that your friend isn't privy", how does that have any effect whatsoever on the principle in the hypothetical? You've already stated that a person can "withhold" (i.e. lack) belief, so the hypothetical served it's purpose. What is your objection to eliminating variables in a hypothetical that are irrelevant to the principle on display?

On the face of it the question: "What is problematic about a hypothetical that uses even magic to eliminate irrelevant lines of questions? " seems not to make sense as I understand the world, but I don't assume you are being irrational, so I just assume I'm not sure what you mean precisely, but fortunately you next offer a precise concrete hypothetical situation! --

What if I had said that you and your friend watched the jellybeans being poured into the jar. And it wasn't just one guy at the fair doing the pouring. He took a little foam ball out of his pocket, threw it into the crowd while his back was turned, and had that person grab a handful and put it in the jar. Then that person did the same thing with the foam ball, and the next person, and so on, ensuring that a random amount of jellybeans was poured into the jar. But neither of you were close enough to count them as they poured. You just happened to have gone to the eye doctor with your friend that very same day, and you found that you have identical vision prescriptions, so his eyesight is exactly the same as yours. But you also were close enough that you would have seen the guy at the fair if he tried to switch out jars in some pre-orchestrated maneuver with your friend to play a bizarre trick on you. He wasn't inside a tent, he was behind a glass table, and he didn't pour every last jellybean into the jar so your friend couldn't simply spy the bag, which the guy at the fair destroyed before you or your friend could get close enough to read it.

And in this scenario we can see/know it's definitely the case the friend isn't privy to any information about the exact number of jellybeans. We don't have to guess, but instead we definitely do know that the friend doesn't have any special knowledge, is not privy to information about the number of beans. In this scenario.

Here:
"What is problematic about a hypothetical that uses even magic to eliminate irrelevant lines of questions?"
-- it seems you are asking about the original and different first scenario (earlier in the thread), where we did not know whether the friend could be privy. We just didn't know for sure in that original other scenario earlier.

I can't with good communication address this good question -- "What is your objection to eliminating variables in a hypothetical that are irrelevant to the principle on display?" -- until I know precisely which scenario you refer to in this question. Maybe you want me to answer about scenario #2??? I'm not sure.

While we both eliminate irrelevant variables all the time no doubt, I try to only do so when I know it's a sure thing (that the variable is definitely 100% never relevant), not just on a probabilistic estimate -- a guess.

If one does use guessing, then one needs to state any conclusion one reaches is is a guess, to be accurate and honest.

Suppose I guess that my friend is home. I can't honestly say to you, "My friend is at home." Instead, the honest statement would be "I'm guessing my friend is at home."

That let's you know, accurately, that the estimate could be incorrect.

 

[Moral Orel]

On the face of it the question: "What is problematic about a hypothetical that uses even magic to eliminate irrelevant lines of questions? " seems not to make sense as I understand the world, but I don't assume you are being irrational, so I just assume I'm not sure what you mean precisely, but fortunately you next offer a precise concrete hypothetical situation! --

That lengthy version is actually the same thing, just with more detail. The longer story simply justifies the statement "You know that your friend isn't privy". Just because I stated something without stating the justification, doesn't mean it's a guess.

I can't with good communication address this good question -- "What is your objection to eliminating variables in a hypothetical that are irrelevant to the principle on display?" -- until I know precisely which scenario you refer to in this question. Maybe you want me to answer about scenario #2??? I'm not sure.

While we both eliminate irrelevant variables all the time no doubt, I try to only do so when I know it's a sure thing (that the variable is definitely 100% never relevant), not just on a probabilistic estimate -- a guess.

Here's how I know it's irrelevant. In both versions, one in which you didn't like the formulation and one in which you did like the formulation, you recognized a lack of belief. You understood that a person can not believe X while also not being required logically to believe not X. But I'll take it a step further. Check out this hypothetical:

Suppose you and your friend see a jar of jellybeans and your friend claims "There is an odd number of jellybeans in that jar". But imagine you can read minds so you can hear him thinking to himself that he's just making a random guess to fool you. So you reply "I don't believe you". That does not require you to believe that there is an even number, does it?

Even if I use magic, you're still recognizing the same principle in all three formulations of the hypothetical that you aren't required to hold a counter belief because you lack belief in a thing.

If one does use guessing, then one needs to state any conclusion one reaches is is a guess, to be accurate and honest.

Suppose I guess that my friend is home. I can't honestly say to you, "My friend is at home." Instead, the honest statement would be "I'm guessing my friend is at home."

That let's you know, accurately, that the estimate could be incorrect.

But this isn't related to the principle of a lack of belief. This is just about justifying the elimination of a variable. It isn't linked to the conclusion at all.

 

[Halbhh]

That lengthy version is actually the same thing, just with more detail. The longer story simply justifies the statement "You know that your friend isn't privy". Just because I stated something without stating the justification, doesn't mean it's a guess.

Here's how I know it's irrelevant. In both versions, one in which you didn't like the formulation and one in which you did like the formulation, you recognized a lack of belief. You understood that a person can not believe X while also not being required logically to believe not X. But I'll take it a step further. Check out this hypothetical:

Suppose you and your friend see a jar of jellybeans and your friend claims "There is an odd number of jellybeans in that jar". But imagine you can read minds so you can hear him thinking to himself that he's just making a random guess to fool you. So you reply "I don't believe you". That does not require you to believe that there is an even number, does it?

Even if I use magic, you're still recognizing the same principle in all three formulations of the hypothetical that you aren't required to hold a counter belief because you lack belief in a thing.

But this isn't related to the principle of a lack of belief. This is just about justifying the elimination of a variable. It isn't linked to the conclusion at all.

Then if your friend wasn't present in front of you for some time, many minutes, and then arrived, without saying where he'd been, and then says his own statement about how many beans are in the jar, you would assume:

Which?

A) he probably doesn't know how many beans in are in the jar
or
B) he absolutely cannot possibly know how many beans are in the jar
or
C)?some other thing, you can state clearly here?

 

[Moral Orel]

Then if your friend wasn't present in front of you for some time, many minutes, and then arrived, without saying where he'd been, and then says his own statement about how many beans are in the jar, you would assume:

Which?

A) he probably doesn't know how many beans in are in the jar
or
B) he absolutely cannot possibly know how many beans are in the jar
or
C)?some other thing, you can state clearly here?

Do you understand and agree with my post, or is this response supposed to be continuation of the argument that I should have phrased my hypothetical different?

If you are posing your own unique hypothetical to talk about a different principle, I will be happy to do that. But if you're still trying to make a connection between lacking belief in the odd/even quantity of the jellybeans and how you know what evidence your friend is privy to, you're going to need to draw that connection for me. There's all sorts of stuff we can talk about trusting people and evaluating evidence, but none of that is relevant to the concept of lacking belief vs believing a negative.

 

[Halbhh]

Do you understand and agree with my post, or is this response supposed to be continuation of the argument that I should have phrased my hypothetical different?

If you are posing your own unique hypothetical to talk about a different principle, I will be happy to do that. But if you're still trying to make a connection between lacking belief in the odd/even quantity of the jellybeans and how you know what evidence your friend is privy to, you're going to need to draw that connection for me. There's all sorts of stuff we can talk about trusting people and evaluating evidence, but none of that is relevant to the concept of lacking belief vs believing a negative.

You seemed to be saying originally in the very first post, the first scenario, you could "know" your friend could not possibly be privy, with certainty. I've been addressing that and why it's something to reconsider. Why you cannot know that. That's all, so far, I have written about in our discussion.

 

[Moral Orel]

You seemed to be saying originally in the very first post, the first scenario, you could "know" your friend could not possibly be privy, with certainty. I've been addressing that and why it's something to reconsider. Why you cannot know that. That's all, so far, I have written about in our discussion.

Okay, so it has nothing to do with my point about a lack of belief, that's fine. Then I guess I'll just point back to this description here:

What if I had said that you and your friend watched the jellybeans being poured into the jar. And it wasn't just one guy at the fair doing the pouring. He took a little foam ball out of his pocket, threw it into the crowd while his back was turned, and had that person grab a handful and put it in the jar. Then that person did the same thing with the foam ball, and the next person, and so on, ensuring that a random amount of jellybeans was poured into the jar. But neither of you were close enough to count them as they poured. You just happened to have gone to the eye doctor with your friend that very same day, and you found that you have identical vision prescriptions, so his eyesight is exactly the same as yours. But you also were close enough that you would have seen the guy at the fair if he tried to switch out jars in some pre-orchestrated maneuver with your friend to play a bizarre trick on you. He wasn't inside a tent, he was behind a glass table, and he didn't pour every last jellybean into the jar so your friend couldn't simply spy the bag, which the guy at the fair destroyed before you or your friend could get close enough to read it.

To which you replied:

And in this scenario we can see/know it's definitely the case the friend isn't privy to any information about the exact number of jellybeans.

So it is possible to "know definitely" that the friend isn't privy. And now I don't know what you're driving at anymore.