/lit/ - Literature

>>16074989
>But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other
If you can't check some hypothesis, but it is more popular or people you like support it, then you should prefer it.

Correct. Maybe lacking the option to consider all of them.

>>16075004
Or if it has some personal benefit

>>16075004
It's easy to check, just read the bible.
>>16074989
Russell was a pseud. We have evidence for satan, but none for any of those other gods.

>>16074989
Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that God can't possibly be comprehended.
>they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge
This is undeniable.

>>16075028
Where is the evidence of Satan?

>>16075067
In the bible, retard.

>>16075031
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that God can't possibly be comprehended.
Nonsense. The theorems are only about first-order formal logic to mathematical axioms. Nothing else.

>>16075004
jesus

>>16074989
1. Is it really true that no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other? We can definitely that some pantheons and religions encounter more problems than others, in terms of coherence. We might also apply Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony to polytheism.

2. a)they lie outside the region of even probable
knowledge,
b) and therefore there is no reason to consider any
of them

Is this argument sound? Might there not be reasons to consider things outside the region of even probable knowledge?

>>16074989
he is correct

>>16075075
>a book is evidence
Brb writing some books

>>16075110
Proof?

>>16075075
>Imagine actually believing this.

>>16075109
>Is this argument sound? Might there not be reasons to consider things outside the region of even probable knowledge?
they are unknown and will always remain unknown, talking about them is talking about nothing, you can only point at it.

>>16075114
That's not how evidence works and you know it. There's a difference between the revealed Word and some NEET fag's schizo ramblings.

>>16075119
Being is a bubble that looks inward. Proof? think really hard.

3. We cannot a priori rule out the possibility of evidence of a god (as opposed to a different god) -- for example, if impossible, miraculous, or otherwise deeply unnatural events were to occur that pointed in the direction of the existence of God (understood according to a particular tradition). So then the question becomes: do we have any such evidence? This presupposes the idea that the existence of one type of God is more or less probable than another.

>>16075067
In Bertrand Russell's very existence

>>16075126
If you want to take a Kantain perspective, that 'pointing' is, in a way, similar to 'considering' -- just because something cannot be articulated doesn't mean it cannot be experienced, or understood, or believed in.

>>16074989
>it's another materialist epistemology judges spiritual ontology episode
very cool

4. a) But no one of these hypotheses is more
probable than any other:
b) they lie outside the region of even probable
knowledge

Is this argument sound? Just because two hypotheses are of equal probability doesn't mean they have no probability at all. Similarly, a hypothesis could have an unknown probability, but that doesn't make it incoherent -- and it is still possible to reason about what that probability might be.

>>16075160
But here's the thing: is it even necessary to set up that dichotomy? There are ways of criticising this argument within the framework of materialist epistomology.

>>16075158
How can you experience or understand what your experience points outside of itself? We can only be aware of the inner limits, and everything outside is unthinkable

>>16075100
Christ himself!

>>16075109
I'd call myself firmly confident in the existence of some kind of god, but Russel's argument is technically right in the sense he means it. That is, conceiving of a firm absolute knowledge of God, as a physical progenitor of events is unprovable. The evidence would come from the Resurrection, an event one can only know to any degree approaching 100% certainty if and only if they were there. If one does not assume the words of the Bible are divinely inspired, and one really has to assume, then the translations themselves could be anywhere from a misunderstanding to outright fabrication. In a sense then, debating theology or the existence/non-existence of God is then a bit like, if you've ever been unlucky enough to experience this, sitting in the room with two people who keep arguing about the accuracy of Star Wars wikipedia pages or something else that is really a waste of time and probably an outlet for knowledge posturing rather than legitimate interest.

But most religious people don't think about the arguments of the existence or nonexistence, and nature of God to be whether he really created the universe, but more about whether the story of God is reflective of the conditions of the Earth, and therefore what it says about how one should live their life. So Russell ends up being the one who is insufferable because the people around him are trying to have a conversation about God and Russell, being in this way a die-hard materialist, isn't even capable of recognizing how a discussion about the Fall of Man is about the emotional experience of man but just chalks it up to two nerds posturing about their knowledge of Genesis.

>>16075181
>There are ways of criticising this argument within the framework of materialist epistomology.
Interesting. Elaborate.

>>16074989


I think he's being unfair when comparing God to a specific being. When in reality we've been adjusting our worldviews forever dancing around the subject of God and re-defining it to be an even fairer representation of God.

By trying to capture God as a concept, we are aiming at defining an abstract Will that is analogous to the human one.

We can't find this abstract Will anywhere in particular but we share parts of our physical attributes with stars, asteroid, dung beetles. Pieces of God are everywhere. We can then go to the conclusion that we are bits and pieces of God.

Are all these pieces unified somehow? Yes. In spacetime? No.

This unity exist outside spatio-relations and cannot be reasoned with. It can, however, be glimpsed at. Moreover, this unity has to be assumed because it's what makes the universe makes sense. We are ignorant. Then how come we know particulars? Because the holistic, unified Will allows, permits, gives it.

>>16075141
>revealed Word

cracker please, white people use this to trick people into convincing them white people don't smell like wet dogs.

>>16075195
>DerridaNo.jpg

>>16075189
go back to r*ddit or whatever bootlicking cumstain board you came from

>>16075241
i would rather smell like the wettest, mangiest, most feral muttiest dog than catch one whiff of a nigger

>>16075192
This is a cool argument, but I think despite your distinction between a) legitimate discussion about the God-myth as reflective of the conditions of man on Earth, and b) insufferable nerdic posturing about meaningless and unknowable ideas, (b) is still, in fact, a legitimate.

For example, as mentioned, imagine if tomorrow a big glowy man started flying around, saying he was an angel, saying the New Testament is 100% accurate historical fact, etc etc -- this would certainly be evidence for the Christian God hypothesis -- not, mind you, evidence that could take that hypothesis to a 100% probability (maybe the angel is actually an alien, maybe he is lying, etc.), but still: working within the insufferabilite's framework, we have some reason to think the Christian God exists.

The question then becomes: do we have any historical (or perhaps psychological) evidence of this sort? The debate is no longer meaningless: there is some grounds for discussion, some potential probability value that might be assigned.

>>16075195
basically what I'm trying to do in the other posts

>>16075264

t. not realizing this is a christian site

>>16075264
Wow!

>>16075216

>>16075067
very real

Give this cunt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. I hate that Russell bastard so much.

>>16074989
religion can be tested just like scientific theories. See for yourself if they’re true by following their maxims and traditions. The Bible talks in many places about seeking God in order for him to seek you. Seek God, and see what happens.

>>16075067