Ask a Christian

[Erik Mesoy]

Or the aribtrary assumption should be discarded. Logically, one should not assign any arbitrary infinite negative disutility, how you put it, because it leads to logical annulments as you've pointed out.

Do you suggest that because of what you just said, Pascal's Wager is still valid? Why Pascal's Wager and why not my Inverse Wager?

Because of probabilistic weighting. With equal priors and epsilon weight given to any form of gnosis, scripture, testimony, etc, the Christian God has a higher probability of existing than the handily invented God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

 

[Defiant47]

Because of probabilistic weighting. With equal priors and epsilon weight given to any form of gnosis, scripture, testimony, etc, the Christian God has a higher probability of existing than the handily invented God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

Ooooh! Interesting! Please show me how this works! How did you get to this conclusion? Please outline the logical process that you conducted.

...because for me, I see that plenty of other things have scriptures, but also believe that these are more or less irrelevant. Would it be possible to invent a God, write a whole bunch of stuff, start brainwashing people to it (through force if necessary) and wait a little while, thus making my God the most likely candidate then?

 

[scy12]

As I see it:
"Almighty" means having supreme authority and unchallengeable power. No other being can dictate terms to or foil the actions of an almighty being. However, an almighty being is not necessarily able to create or lift a rock of arbitrary size.
"Omnipotent" means having either all logically possible power or all imaginable power, depending on who you ask. The first runs into problems like whether there exists a particle so fundamental that an omnipotent being cannot split it (so far we're down from atoms, to protons, to quarks...), and if so, who dictated that it was to be this way, the second runs into even odder problems like whether such a being can deny its own existence without lying, and both of them run into problems generally filed under "Omnipotence paradox" (check Wikipedia if you like) and arguments over semantics. Also, saying "God is omnipotent" gets you in trouble with people who want to know why God wasn't powerful enough to create free will without evil.

I disagree. One may debate the nature of omnipotence and run into problems whether or not one cares whether or not there is an omnipotent being.

My answer is "God is not omnipotent".


That's one possible reason.

Doesn't this run counter to what you were recently saying, in that Zeus was clearly not omnipotent?

Since I don't recall saying that the universe is the control of God, I hope you'll understand that I don't feel compelled to rebut this statement.
I think that might depend on the hypothetical power level of this alternate Satan, but I agree with the general principle.
Beware of oversimplification.
And I say that (the problem of) evil does not coexist with (benevolent) omnipotence and that (benevolent) almightiness can coexist with evil because evil is a temporarily necessary means to other ends.

Eran gave the simplified version already, let me quote the Sura I was referring to.
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Al-Baqara 62, not sure what the correct quoting style for the Quran is, also Yusuf Ali.)

If this helps you imagine it: Name me a few religions that do accept Christians into their local good afterlife, assuming that that other religion is true as specified. Now name me a few that don't. Now consider the reverse: following which of those get you to a good afterlife if Christianity is true?

Lazybones. Read the Wager yourself.
Here's the Pensees that it appears in. Section III, last part of number 233.

I think there is no problem with your answer , as an answer to my post. Only that i already answered several of the issues you bring up when Eran brought then up , before you . But that is not your fault and there was nothing you could do i guess but that makes me less happy when i have to answer this post ... It is not your fault but ...

My answer is "God is not omnipotent".

That's one possible reason.

Doesn't this run counter to what you were recently saying, in that Zeus was clearly not omnipotent?

No , because Zeus is a different kind of God than the Christian God. Zeus has Human morality while the Christian God supposedly doesn't. The way Christianity describes the concept of God one can be lead to the conclusion that he does not interfere,exist. The way the Greek myth describes Zeus one can not (for those reasons but he can for other reasons), as there are not claims of omnipotence or perfect morality.

Since I don't recall saying that the universe is the control of God, I hope you'll understand that I don't feel compelled to rebut this statement.

If God is not in control of the universe then is there anything he controls ?

And I say that (the problem of) evil does not coexist with (benevolent) omnipotence and that (benevolent) almightiness can coexist with evil because evil is a temporarily necessary means to other ends.

Which ends is evil a necessary means to ?

Actually, I think a debate on the nature of God in general (and what it means to be a god) is better suited for that thread, since it doesn't deal with Christianity in particular. At any rate, I am not sure I have anything more to say on the matter here.

Alright.

 

[Truronian]

Because of probabilistic weighting. With equal priors and epsilon weight given to any form of gnosis, scripture, testimony, etc, the Christian God has a higher probability of existing than the handily invented God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

The God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven (aka Jonnyboy) doesn't like gnosis, scripture and testimony; the lack of these things backing up his existance shows Jonnyboy has a higher probability of existing that the Christian God.

To rephrase: you can't assign God's existance a probability.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven (aka Jonnyboy) doesn't like gnosis, scripture and testimony; the lack of these things backing up his existance shows Jonnyboy has a higher probability of existing that the Christian God.

Bold mine. What, exactly, are you assigning evidential weight to? The lack of evidence in general? In that case I should be able to convince you of any number of ridiculous things in other fields.

To rephrase: you can't assign God's existance a probability.

Not with any degree of precision, no. But I can say that God's existence has a probability at least epsilon higher than Jonnyboy.

 

[Truronian]

Bold mine. What, exactly, are you assigning evidential weight to? The lack of evidence in general? In that case I should be able to convince you of any number of ridiculous things in other fields.

The point I was trying to make is that one can call any thing evidence for the existance of a god when that god has been defined in such a way as to make that thing evidence. Jonnyboy was defined in such a way that lack of Jonnyboy scripture indicates his existance. Christian God has been defined in such a way that the Bible, the Pope and the Red Sea indicate his existance.

If we could fathom how God works perhaps we could start discounting some of the more outlandish ideas, but then he wouldn't really be godly anymore.

Not with any degree of precision, no. But I can say that God's existence has a probability at least epsilon higher than Jonnyboy.

In that case can you a ballpark figure?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The point I was trying to make is that one can call any thing evidence for the existance of a god when that god has been defined in such a way as to make that thing evidence. Jonnyboy was defined in such a way that lack of Jonnyboy scripture indicates his existance. Christian God has been defined in such a way that the Bible, the Pope and the Red Sea indicate his existance.

That makes no sense.

(1) I have reasonable confidence that I am wearing black socks at the moment I type this.

I submit that (1) is evidence for my wearing black socks at the moment etc.

(2) I have no evidence either way as to whether there is a bald man on the third floor of the building that I am in at the moment etc.

I submit that (2) is not evidence for there being a bald man on the third floor etc. I further submit that you do not have the opportunity to redefine the bald man in such a way as to make (2) evidence.

I finally submit that you should assign the possibility that I am wearing black socks higher probability than the possibility that there is a bald man on the third floor, not because I have defined them in a special way, but because I have testified to one and not the other.

My argument is based on a testimony carrying evidentiary weight for what it testifies to, not on the definitions of the gods in question.

 

[scy12]

There are enough evidence to support that it is possible for anyone to be wearing Black socks as Black socks is something we have all witnessed and observed. We accept that Black socks exist and we just have to either believe or not your testimony that you are wearing them and not that they exist. As they exist it is not unlikely that you could wear them.

 

[Truronian]

@Erik: Yeah I didn't put that very well. My point was that a testimony to the existence of something uncomprehendable doesn't really work as evidence.

1~ I see a spider on my wall.

Either [a] There is a spider on my wall

or A bored artist has snuck into my room and painted a picture of a spider on my wall.

I discount as being less likely because my room was locked and I don't know any artists.

2~ I read the Bible. It tells me the Christian God exists.

Either [a] The Christian God exists

or Some other god exists and is a fan of spreading false scriptures about.

I cannot assign deduce to be less likely because I cannot comprehend godhood.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

@scy: Which is why I said "with equal priors" in my example.

@Erik: Yeah I didn't put that very well. My point was that a testimony to the existence of something uncomprehendable doesn't really work as evidence.

1~ I see a spider on my wall.

Either [a] There is a spider on my wall

or A bored artist has snuck into my room and painted a picture of a spider on my wall.

I discount as being less likely because my room was locked and I don't know any artists.

This is pulling in a whole host of other information and logical steps that we know about and assume but skip, like "artists have difficulty getting into locked rooms" and the relative prevalence of spiders vs. spider-painting artists. Again, equal priors. Set the Christian God and Jonnyboy on the same initial footing, more evidence for the former if you assign epsilon evidentiary weight to any of the many forms in which testimony for the Christian God exist.

2~ I read the Bible. It tells me the Christian God exists.

Either [a] The Christian God exists

or [b] Some other god exists and is a fan of spreading false scriptures about.

I cannot assign deduce to be less likely because I cannot comprehend godhood.

Perhaps not, but you have to spread the probability of [b] over all the possible gods who like spreading false scripture about, and to do that in the first place, you have to consider such deceiving gods. You also have to consider aliens, Last-Thursdayism, random memory reformation, and a host of other things that don't actually explain anything, but act as excuses to say "no explanation".

That does not merit equal probability in the first place!

I may be wearing black socks. Other people may be wearing black socks. Or an elephant-like alien that you can't comprehend may be tricking you into thinking that people wear black socks when they don't in fact have feet at all! But if you wish to assign the meddling alien and people wearing black socks equal probability, I have a philosophical position to sell you.

 

[philippe]

I have a question to protestant christians:

back in the reformation a lot of art was destroyed becuase of the lavishness of the catholic church and of the wealth of the church in general.

Although the art it self on it's own is in fact a "tribute" to God.

Also, do you know of any protestants who held back any fellow believers to destroy the churches?

Also, are there any arguments in this present-day to resent the lavishness of the beautifull barok paintings while not have a problem with the barok music? Isn't both their beauty a sample of dedication and an expression to the love of god?

 

[Elrohir]

2~ I read the Bible. It tells me the Christian God exists.

Either [a] The Christian God exists

or Some other god exists and is a fan of spreading false scriptures about.

I cannot assign deduce to be less likely because I cannot comprehend godhood.

I think your options are overly narrow, and don't cover the full range of possibilities. But since I agree with a, and not c or d, which you didn't cover, I'll leave that alone for now.

You say you cannot deduce which is less likely and which is more, because you cannot comprehend godhood. But you don't have to fully understand godhood in order to make a judgment about whether a certain behavior is likely or what kind of nature God has. Do you need to know everything about humanity in order to determine what a probable sort of behavior is? Or ever single detail and code of the law before you can form an opinion on how a trial may come to pass? I think you're being much too strict here, and limiting your philosophical and theological options way too much.

You have the Christian Bible. You have the world around you. You have yourself. And you have reason. These are all tools you can use to gain insight into the nature of God - as well as man, the universe, and other topics, of course. Now, using those tools, what do you think is more likely? That the Christian God exists, and has revealed Himself to us? Or that some other Being, who we cannot detect and has great powers (And is, in other words, an unknown malevolent god) and just happens to enjoy screwing with us?

Who is this being, and why hasn't he revealed himself to us? If he has always existed, then did he create the universe, like the Christian God? If he has not always existed, where did he come from? What is his purpose in intentionally deceiving humanity, what does he get out of it? Amusement? Why do you assume that any unknown, powerful, transcendental being has a sense of humor at all, much less one that is recognizable to us, and is malevolent from our point of view? Christians have the Bible to back up the idea that God has a sense of humor, in a good way - what do you have to back up the idea that your hypothetical trickster/Loki god has such a sense of humor? If he is only interested in messing with us, then why doesn't he do more? (I'm sure there's plenty more room for absurdity and confusion in the world today) Is this god the only god that exists? If so, what does this say about morality, specifically the Christian ideas about morality? (Meaning, are all the rules in the Bible wrong? Or are they all right? Or are they all mixed up?)

Those are just a few questions off of the top of my head that Christianity can, I think, answer, that you haven't shown you can answer. The Christian God is a more developed, more reasonable, more rational, and more probable being than the Loki type figure that you're proposing. Can the type of figure you're proposing be ruled out, absolutely? No. But philosophically, I'm not sure I can rule out that this entire universe - including all of you - isn't some kind of illusion. The inability to know that something is false is not evidence, much less convincing evidence, of truth.

In short, you can believe anything you like. But saying that the Christian Scriptures are just as likely inspired by a trickster God interested in screwing with us as the actual Christian God is absurd.

 

[Truronian]

That does not merit equal probability in the first place!

I may be wearing black socks. Other people may be wearing black socks. Or an elephant-like alien that you can't comprehend may be tricking you into thinking that people wear black socks when they don't in fact have feet at all! But if you wish to assign the meddling alien and people wearing black socks equal probability, I have a philosophical position to sell you.

Who said anything about equal probability? I don't think you can can assign probabilities to the existance of god...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Because of probabilistic weighting. With equal priors and epsilon weight given to any form of gnosis, scripture, testimony, etc, the Christian God has a higher probability of existing than the handily invented God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

Ooooh! Interesting! Please show me how this works! How did you get to this conclusion? Please outline the logical process that you conducted.

Missed this post for a bit. I thought it was fairly obvious in the simplified version I gave. Equal prior probability, no known evidence for Jonnyboy, at least one piece of evidence more strongly supporting the Christian God than Jonnyboy, epsilon weight assigned to that evidence, result: higher probability for the Christian God.
(BTW, since someone asked me this on IM, "epsilon" is borrowed from mathematical proofs with the general meaning of "a nonzero quantity of very small size".)

...because for me, I see that plenty of other things have scriptures, but also believe that these are more or less irrelevant. Would it be possible to invent a God, write a whole bunch of stuff, start brainwashing people to it (through force if necessary) and wait a little while, thus making my God the most likely candidate then?

That would be cheating and intellectually dishonest, but if you did manage to commit such a mass mangling of evidence, then yes, your invented God should be considered the most likely candidate to exist for a person living under the described circumstances with the expected information.

Who said anything about equal probability?

I did.

I don't think you can can assign probabilities to the existance of god...

I can assign probabilities to anything. The question is how well calibrated those probabilities are. (Of course, if you're determinist, all probability between 0 and 1 is technically wrong. But that's another can of worms.)

 

[Sidhe]

Well you certainly can't apply any scientific probability based on a lack of statistics, but as for philosophy then you'd need to establish a rationale why one probability is greater than another or more valid or whatever, which is presumably what you mean by assigning probability, and that really is a can of worms. I'd go with an equal probability that God exists and that he doesn't, even if that is contentious. To clarify, I'd say there is no evidence either way, but then I wouldn't make a very good agnostic if I didn't say that.

 

[Truronian]

I think your options are overly narrow, and don't cover the full range of possibilities. But since I agree with a, and not c or d, which you didn't cover, I'll leave that alone for now.

I was simplifying it to save me having to type forever.

You say you cannot deduce which is less likely and which is more, because you cannot comprehend godhood. But you don't have to fully understand godhood in order to make a judgment about whether a certain behavior is likely or what kind of nature God has. Do you need to know everything about humanity in order to determine what a probable sort of behavior is? Or ever single detail and code of the law before you can form an opinion on how a trial may come to pass? I think you're being much too strict here, and limiting your philosophical and theological options way too much.

Let me make a stronger assertion then. We don't know anything about godhood. We're not even sure if there are things that live it.

You have the Christian Bible. You have the world around you. You have yourself. And you have reason. These are all tools you can use to gain insight into the nature of God - as well as man, the universe, and other topics, of course. Now, using those tools, what do you think is more likely? That the Christian God exists, and has revealed Himself to us? Or that some other Being, who we cannot detect and has great powers (And is, in other words, an unknown malevolent god) and just happens to enjoy screwing with us?

Reason is a wonderful tool for working stuff out in the world around you, but then God exists outside this. God works in mysterious ways...

Who is this being, and why hasn't he revealed himself to us? If he has always existed, then did he create the universe, like the Christian God? If he has not always existed, where did he come from? What is his purpose in intentionally deceiving humanity, what does he get out of it? Amusement? Why do you assume that any unknown, powerful, transcendental being has a sense of humor at all, much less one that is recognizable to us, and is malevolent from our point of view? Christians have the Bible to back up the idea that God has a sense of humor, in a good way - what do you have to back up the idea that your hypothetical trickster/Loki god has such a sense of humor? If he is only interested in messing with us, then why doesn't he do more? (I'm sure there's plenty more room for absurdity and confusion in the world today) Is this god the only god that exists? If so, what does this say about morality, specifically the Christian ideas about morality? (Meaning, are all the rules in the Bible wrong? Or are they all right? Or are they all mixed up?)

This being is known as Defggrak, creator of the universe. He was created by a being named Tony. Tony had no creator. He intentionally deceives humanity with the Bible to see who is reasonable enough to discount it as untrue. The Christian ideas of morality are correct in places and incorrect in others.

Those are just a few questions off of the top of my head that Christianity can, I think, answer, that you haven't shown you can answer. The Christian God is a more developed, more reasonable, more rational, and more probable being than the Loki type figure that you're proposing. Can the type of figure you're proposing be ruled out, absolutely? No. But philosophically, I'm not sure I can rule out that this entire universe - including all of you - isn't some kind of illusion. The inability to know that something is false is not evidence, much less convincing evidence, of truth.

And why is he more probable?

In short, you can believe anything you like. But saying that the Christian Scriptures are just as likely inspired by a trickster God interested in screwing with us as the actual Christian God is absurd.

They are both possibilities to which you can't assign probabilities.

I can assign probabilities to anything. The question is how well calibrated those probabilities are. (Of course, if you're determinist, all probability between 0 and 1 is technically wrong. But that's another can of worms.)

What's the probability that the answer to this question is 0?

 

[Holycannoli]

I have a question to protestant christians:

back in the reformation a lot of art was destroyed becuase of the lavishness of the catholic church and of the wealth of the church in general.

Although the art it self on it's own is in fact a "tribute" to God.

Also, do you know of any protestants who held back any fellow believers to destroy the churches?

Also, are there any arguments in this present-day to resent the lavishness of the beautifull barok paintings while not have a problem with the barok music? Isn't both their beauty a sample of dedication and an expression to the love of god?

I thought that was a result of protestants at the time believing that the church's artwork was icons? Even today many protestants consider any art or statues of religious figures to be icons, which are banned according to the Bible. They just don't understand what icons actually are.

I'm not protestant by the way, I'm roman catholic. So maybe I'm not the best person to try to answer these questions. But I have heard plenty from some protestants who seem to be anti-catholic in just about every way, like iconism or calling priests "father" and whatnot. (hint: icons aren't merely pictures or statues of religious figures)

 

[Elrohir]

Who said anything about equal probability? I don't think you can can assign probabilities to the existance of god...

I cannot assign deduce to be less likely because I cannot comprehend godhood.

By saying that you are unable to determine the likelihood of either, you are, in effect, saying that they are of equally indeterminate probability.

I have a question to protestant christians:

back in the reformation a lot of art was destroyed becuase of the lavishness of the catholic church and of the wealth of the church in general.

Although the art it self on it's own is in fact a "tribute" to God.

Also, do you know of any protestants who held back any fellow believers to destroy the churches?

Also, are there any arguments in this present-day to resent the lavishness of the beautifull barok paintings while not have a problem with the barok music? Isn't both their beauty a sample of dedication and an expression to the love of god?

The art, though, was part of a general excessive wealth that much of the upper parts of the Catholic church enjoyed. I mean, sure, you had village priests that were as poor as their neighbors - but you also had bishops eating off of gold plate, in a large mansion with a hundred servants and five horses, while children starved a mile away. So while in theory the pretty stuff in the churches were "for God" it wasn't viewed that way. And while I like beautiful things and beautiful art, I can at least see where they were coming from when they destroyed or sold artwork, even if I don't agree with a lot of it.

I don't know of any prominent protestants that protested () the destruction or theft of artwork and the like. I'm sure there were some, but that sort of behavior was pretty common at the time, despite what some people think. Plotinus might have some specific names for you.

I don't think there are many arguments today about beautiful artwork being good, whether it's old or not. I'm sure there are some who don't approve, but overall the American evangelical view of art is very approving, if traditional. (I mean, I've met people who are hardcore YEC's who dream of traveling to the Louvre and seeing all the paintings. So honestly, I don't think it's much of an issue anymore) Now, how "fancy" churches should be is a different issue, and there's some dispute along those lines. But that's kind of separate.

 

[Elrohir]

Let me make a stronger assertion then. We don't know anything about godhood. We're not even sure if there are things that live it.

Why?

Reason is a wonderful tool for working stuff out in the world around you, but then God exists outside this. God works in mysterious ways...

No. Not all things about God are knowable, and not all things about Him or things that He does appear reasonable to us, because of our finite knowledge. However, God Himself is imminently reasonable, and there is no reason why reason cannot be applied to theology, philosophy, and the search for God, wherever possible.

This being is known as Defggrak, creator of the universe. He was created by a being named Tony. Tony had no creator. He intentionally deceives humanity with the Bible to see who is reasonable enough to discount it as untrue. The Christian ideas of morality are correct in places and incorrect in others.

Why do you believe this is so?

And why is he more probable?

Because the explanation of His existence, His nature, our nature, our existence, the universe's nature, and the universe's nature offered by Christianity makes sense. Because Christianity actually offers answers and proofs - not conclusive 100% 2+2=4 proof, but proof nonetheless. That is infinitely more probable than a Defggrak/Loki figure who you're obviously making up. And truly, I think I'd say the same about other religions as well - I think it's much, much more likely that Mohammad was the true prophet of Allah, or Siddhartha Gautama truly the Buddha than that your hypothetical is true.

They are both possibilities to which you can't assign probabilities.

Not exactly, no, because this isn't mathematics. I can tell, however, when one idea is clearly more sensible than another.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

According to me, God makes and works in the world through science. Why did these scientific processes first take place?