I'd be happy to discuss this as well, it's really interesting.

I suppose a god exists. I acknowledge my suppositions can possibly be wrong, but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief.

However, I do not suppose I know the nature of God; as God is undefinable to begin with — he does not possess intrinsic accidental nor essential attributes. What we know of him, is only approximate. In fact, his maximum superiority is not mentioned in the bible (eg. omniscience and omnipotence) so we do not know for sure what conceptually, God is.

I will also have my take on an argument for God, specifically. It will tackle religious pragmatism and the underlying paradoxical characteristics towards the indication of flaws in faith.

Personally I find it useful to frame it as a “Concept”. This can work as a useful bridge between atheistic thought and theistic thought.

If you look at someone as putting their views in a rational and scientific frame then maybe looking at them as worshipping “Athena” as a rough analogy of their chosen position. Whilst if an atheist you can simply reverse the analogy and view the monotheistic “God” as a concept that supposedly lies over all other concepts (ie. The Concept of Concepts). Or if they often talk of Love as a being the main aspect of their concept of “God” then you can equate this to “Eros” or maybe some other representation from theistic history in order to build up a better picture.

Someone obsessed with music and art would understand Dionysus more than Athena etc.

I'd be happy to discuss this as well, it's really interesting. — SethRy

Great. I also find it interesting.

I suppose a god exists. I acknowledge my suppositions can possibly be wrong, but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief. — Seth

Okay.

I was a practicing Catholic at one time...but my position on the issue now is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I will also have my take on an argument for God, specifically. It will tackle religious pragmatism and the underlying paradoxical characteristics towards the indication of flaws in faith. — Seth

Fine.

For the record, I see the words "believe/belief" to be a substitute for "suppose/assume/guess."

I see "faith" as an insistence that the supposition/assumption/guess has to be adhered to no matter what...sorta the thing you shared when you wrote, "...but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief."

What do you see as the most compelling reason for supposing a god exists?

What do you see as the most compelling reason for supposing a god exists? — Frank Apisa

I mean, I could just blurt out faith but then that wouldn't make any sense, philosophically, would it?

To me the most compelling reason is just our plain existence. I have hold unto the theory of intellectual design but I have altered a few things to, I suppose, make it better. The theory is as it follows;

Some humans practice idealism, the constant pursuit of perfection — perfection however; varies dependently on the human's vision. Our view of perfection, is a contingent perspective, whilst God's view on perfection, is necessary. That necessity conforms to the principle that how God or generally, a god designed the universe: the rocks, the trees, or even far greatly, the universe, is perfect. That perfection is tainted by human delusions, thus, moral evil like: Starvation, Corruption, Greed and whatnot, start to appear because of the pursuit of perfection.

Oh and by the way, my argument for God will be posted as a discussion. I will select more arguments as per needed, I have a few below my sleeve :lol:.

Be sure to let me know that you have started such a discussion. I will participate.

I assure you, you will be.

To be absolutely fair we can't really comment on the God issue can we?

Also, if you believe in God then great. I secretly hope for a God too as I especially like omnibenevolence. Why the need to make such a profound truth public? I don't see such motivation in other truths. According to the Tao Te Ching, those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak. What do you think?

Wait, what's an example of sarcasm in the Bible? Thou shalt not murder?

I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. — OpinionsMatter

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You do realise that this is a philosophy forum: a place where you're supposed to think critically.

To see what would happen after I was convinced of the existence of God. I thought, "Hey, I don't care if the dog dies, but if I pray will it live?" The answer to the prayer further convinced me, but I don't count prayer as a complete form of evidence. I also use the term 'believe' rather loosely, because I don't believe so much as I am convinced. — OpinionsMatter

I actually think you're just making things up. Maybe you do have a dog. Maybe you even have a dog that had cancer. Maybe you don't even have a dog.

Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition — Devans99

So the problems begin there. What would be the epistemological basis for saying it's 50/50 at any point?

So the problems begin there. What would be the epistemological basis for saying it's 50/50 at any point? — Terrapin Station

The idea is for a boolean question like 'was the universe created?' that we start at 50%/50% yes/no before considering any evidence. Then we modify that value up/down in the light of the evidence. So imagine if you were tossing a coin. You'd start at 50% heads / 50% tails as a guess as to how often it would come up... its the same thing for any question before evidence is admitted. If I then told you the coin was weighted to heads, that would count as evidence and you would change the estimate (eg to 90% heads). This is the mechanism my calculation employs.

I'm not sure where else you can start except 50%/50%:

- We could start by assuming 0% but that would be showing a bias towards the universe not being created.
- We could start at 100% but that would be showing a bias towards the universe being created.
- So its correct to start at 50%/50%, equidistant between the two extremes.

I'm not sure where else you can start except 50%/50%: — Devans99

Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it?

Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it? — Terrapin Station

I guess (Just an educated guess, I could be entirely wrong) what he is saying is the confusion of potentials and the philosophy of Mathematics. You're not picking two stones from a bag, it is two sides that are completely different, principals and beliefs. I mean if that 50/50 analogy to if not a god exists, then I also have 50/50 chance of walking down the street encountering a box of gold, or not at all.

The capacity of the philosophy of Mathematics to calculate possibility is logically capable, but by the rudimentary laws of: Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology, it just cant.

Bayesian, not Boolian.

I guess (Just an educated guess, I could be entirely wrong) what he is saying is the confusion of potentials and the philosophy of Mathematics. You're not picking two stones from a bag, it is two sides that are completely different, principals and beliefs. I mean if that 50/50 analogy to if not a god exists, then I also have 50/50 chance of walking down the street encountering a box of gold, or not at all.

The capacity of the philosophy of Mathematics to calculate possibility is logically capable, but by the rudimentary laws of: Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology, it just cant. — SethRy

Right. I'm just trying to get him to realize that there would need to be some epistemic justification for assigning a probability to it, otherwise it's just arbitrary.

Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it? — Terrapin Station

Starting any any value other than 50%/50% would be arbitrary. Its optimal to assign 50%/50% - no bias at all for/against the proposition.

Do you understand what we're saying though?

no bias at all for/against the proposition. — Devans99

Mathematically, that may be true. But philosophically, it is questionable.

I think you can object on philosophical grounds that one should not take a position for/against a proposition without evidence.

But if you look at my method, 50% is just the starting point for the probability analysis; I then adjust that number up/down as I take into account evidence for/against the proposition.

So if you look at the first step in my probability analysis, it looks 'philosophically questionable', but if you look at the analysis as a whole, it should make sense.

If your starting point, despite they're equidistant, is arbitrary because like what you admitted, philosophically questionable as it doesn't consist of epistemic justification; it also flaws the entire analysis. Your tower won't stand if the logic of structure is proper in the beginning — if not it will collapse. Mathematically, it might make sense, but by the principles of philosophy, it won't.

Well it does not matter mathematically whether you do the 50% allowance as a first step in the analysis or as a last step, the calculation comes out the same.

If you do not accept my method, how else would you perform a meta-analysis for proposition X when you have inductive statements A, B and C that each tell you something about the truth of X? How do you go about combining the % likelihood that A, B, C, imply X into one overall % likelihood of the probability of X?

I can see no other valid method apart from the one I'm using.

how else would you perform a meta-analysis for proposition X when you have inductive statements A, B and C that each tell you something about the truth of X. — Devans99

That's the thing, you don't conduct an equation for the existence of a god. It's not two marbles with three factors telling a truth about them that predominantly adjusts their truthfulness. It's two extreme suppositions that are infinitesimally possible.

Analyse it this way, if it's 50/50 for both suppositions or; extremes, then it is also 50/50 for me to walk down the street, and encounter a case of gold, or I do not. The epistemic justification behind that for it to make sense is if someone called me to walk down that street, and mentions he will leave a case or not; but obviously, it is worth the risk. Therefore it is logically 50/50 then your mathematical statement can come to execution.

Analyse it this way, if it's 50/50 for both suppositions or; extremes, then it is also 50/50 for me to walk down the street, and encounter a case of gold, or I do not. — SethRy

It's not a 50/50 proposition - we know the distribution of cases of gold is very low - you are taking into account evidence against the proposition implicitly.

If you look at the proposition 'was the universe created?', it contains no 'built in' evidence as too whether the answer is yes or no, so 50%/50% is the correct assumption.

If the distribution of cases is low, what makes it different to the existence of a god? Two completely different viewpoints that could explain the reason and purpose of everything tangible and perceivable in the universe and even the beginning of time, is not?

It just doesn't make any sense anymore. There is no epistemic justification behind the 50/50 argument of God's existence, you have confused probability, from possibility. Even shortening it to just an existence of an entity, the chances of both sides are incredibly small, yet then the case of gold distributed is the small chance factor here?

The philosophy of mathematics does not have the capacity to portray the concepts of metaphysics or epistemology. You simply can't calculate the beginning of the universe by starting at 50/50 with no epistemic justification and having a basis solely because there are two factors.

So far as I am concerned you may believe what you like. Why not leave it at that? — tim wood

I agree with him. Really. More than one person thinks your calculations are flawed; and I know conforming to utilitarian principles is not always right, but this time it might be.

It just doesn't make any sense anymore. There is no epistemic justification behind the 50/50 argument of God's existence, — SethRy

Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm saying 'was the universe created?', that is not the same question as 'Is there a God?'. I think the 2nd is not a 50/50 proposition if you include attributes like omnipotence in your definition of God.

You simply can't calculate the beginning of the universe by starting at 50/50 with no epistemic justification and having a basis solely because there are two factors — SethRy

Yes there is epistemic justification. If you truly have no evidence either way then you have to assume 50/50. If I were to toss a coin 100 times, what would you assume the outcome would be? The best assumption, in the absence of any other evidence, is 50 heads / 50 tails. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.

I agree with him. Really. More than one person thinks your calculations are flawed; and I know conforming to utilitarian principles is not always right, but this time it might be. — SethRy

More than one person does not understand my calculation I would say.

Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm saying 'was the universe created?', that is not the same question as 'Is there a God?'. I think the 2nd is not a 50/50 proposition if you include attributes like omnipotence in your definition of God. — Devans99

So, you are saying the creation of the universe can be, not of a god? okay, fair enough. That helps my point, it can be of the existence of God, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster that the universe was created, if it wasn't, then it could be The Big Bang, or the causation of nothingness, or over a million more ideas that are not idealized by human concepts.

Yes there is epistemic justification. If you truly have no evidence either way then you have to assume 50/50. If I were to toss a coin 100 times, what would you assume the outcome would be? The best assumption, in the absence of any other evidence, is 50 heads / 50 tails. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise. — Devans99

No there isn't. You're simply gathering two things and therefore making it 50/50 because logically, 100 split to two certain possibilities are two, hence 50. But no, those possibilities are not certain as there will be over a million possibilities that the human brain has not even thought of.

You can toss a coin a hundred times, because both possibilities are given, whereas the creation or non-creation of the universe is not. The fact that the concrete, perceivable state of a coin is given, also provides it's epistemic justification; it's presence to the human eye straightforwardly confirms that there are only two possibilities, and then you can count on numbers. For the universe's origin, there is not, hence the conclusion; your mathematical statement has no epistemic justification.

Yes I'm just arguing for a creator, not God (it's not my OP).

For a god/entity's existence, there is not, hence the conclusion; your mathematical statement has no epistemic justification. — SethRy

There are two possible states: either the universe was created or it was not (I am not arguing for God's existence, just creation of the universe).

Say you have a proposition X for which you truely have no evidence for. In fact you do not even know what the proposition is, only that it has a boolean outcome. Would you assume:

1. 100% certain that X is true?
2. 100% certain that X is false?
3. 50% certain that X is true/false?

So the question is, what is the distribution of answers for boolean questions for which we have no evidence for? It would be most remiss to choose 1 or 2 as that goes against our experience with boolean questions. It is best, in the absence of any other evidence, to assume a normal boolean distribution and to therefore to assume 50%/50%.

So for the question 'is there a creator?' we should assume 50% yes, 50% (as a starting point before weighing the evidence for/against).

Do you believe, that it is logically possible, to comprehend the origin of the universe, solely by statistical calculations?

Just for you to see, I am a theist. Like; a theist who's beliefs revolve around faith.