Mitch wrote:JustJim wrote:Mitch wrote:Lets compare all these three. A) god that can be demonstrated, B) god that cannot be demonstrated, C) god that does not exist.
6. Is a likely candidate for creator of the universe: A) no, B) yes C) yes.
If you have any questions regarding any of these answers I will be happy to explain.
I think I'd benefit from explanations of almost all of them, just to make sure I'm understanding you.
For example, in your Item #6, above, you say that god that does not exist is a likely candidate for creator of the universe. To me, that is no different from saying that other explanations besides god are likely candidates for the origins of the universe.
Correct, I thought that both B and C were likely candidates. I have stated numerous times that I think the cosmological argument is unconvincing and that no creator seem to me to be a perfectly rational possibility. I particularly like Stephen Hawking suggestion that it all began with a quantum event. I don't believe that this is what happened but I don't measure rationality by my own beliefs.I also scratched my head a lot wondering how a god that does not exist could be a likely candidate for God of the Bible, and I still don't get that.
In other words, I think that one can decide that the god described in the Bible is a god that does not exist and that this is perfectly rational decision. Again I don't believe that this is the case but I don't measure rationality by my own beliefs.
I guess I can add that this means that I do not pretend that my beliefs are decided by some line of thinking that determines one possibility as the only rational possibility. I think that people who do this are just fooling themselves. Instead I look at all the rational possibilities and choose one (if I can) that best seems to fit my experience. Which is to say that at most I will only judge a possibility to be lacking in rationality (though I usually prefer to say that it is not very reasonable and use "rationality" to refer only to logical self-consistency) if it contradicts the objective evidence and not (say that it isn't rational) if it contradicts the evidence of my personal experience.
Super, Mitch. That clears up a WHOLE LOT of stuff! Thank you!
Mitch wrote:P.S. Your previous complaint had me "looking over my shoulder" so to speak to try to see how I write things compared to your "bar room" vocabulary preference. I see that that a lot of the difficulty is because I try to close all the holes through which someone can make a legitimate criticisms. Surely you can see how self-serving a request that I don't do that would sound to me. You may indeed prefer that I speak in a way that makes it easy for you to tear what I say to shreds. But I would simply take myself elsewhere (like a bar or a pub) before I would do that here.
I think the things you're referring to were stated about Moonwood the Hare, and not you. I have no trouble understanding your posts -- at least not because of the way you phrase or express things. I admit I sometimes (often?) have trouble understanding your meaning, but I attribute that equally to your and my difficulties with being understood and understanding each other.
Thanks for your reply here, Mitch. I could enjoy a pleasant dinner conversation with you if it went like this.... (Assuming you'd be buying, that is....)