Originally posted by AThousandYoungOn this basis, Christianity being the leading world religion, is the one to believe. It's roughly 1.5 times more probable than Islam. But maybe that will change, Islam being on the upswing, in which case our evidential calculi might need to be updated.
Interesting. That is one of the only bits of evidence I feel religion (including Christianity) has going for it.
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt's not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's only a tiny bit of evidence; not nearly enough.
On this basis, Christianity being the leading world religion, is the one to believe. It's roughly 1.5 times more probable than Islam. But maybe that will change, Islam being on the upswing, in which case our evidential calculi might need to be updated.
Suppose you looked at two people. One clearly has blue eyes, the other clearly has brown eyes. However, every single other person who meets these two insists that they see them both with blue eyes. Wouldn't this be evidence that maybe there's something wrong with your vision and that the two people really do have blue eyes? Maybe not enough evidence to believe it, but it's at least some evidence for that claim, no?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungProve that other people exist outside of yourself. The exterior world could be, however, unlikely a figment of my imagination... a bit of not quite digested pea soup. Assuming that human senses are not 100% reliable, you cannot prove the existence of others, let alone God. Hence, if you assume people exist, it is safe to assume God exists without necessarily being able to prove either.
It's not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's only a tiny bit of evidence; not nearly enough.
Edit: This is of course a perversion of Berkley's "to be is to be perceived" notions.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAnd how would you substantiate that claim?
On this basis, Christianity being the leading world religion, is the one to believe. It's roughly 1.5 times more probable than Islam. But maybe that will change, Islam being on the upswing, in which case our evidential calculi might need to be updated.
Not by the number of believers.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateNo, believing the evidence of your senses is clearly that. Belief in god is disbelief in your senses.
Prove that other people exist outside of yourself. The exterior world could be, however, unlikely a figment of my imagination... a bit of not quite digested pea soup. Assuming that human senses are not 100% reliable, you cannot prove the existence of others, let alone God. Hence, if you assume people exist, it is safe to assume God exists without n ...[text shortened]... her.
Edit: This is of course a perversion of Berkley's "to be is to be perceived" notions.
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThis sentence is false. It does not follow that assumption of the natural world, percievable by the senses, allows an assumption of the supernatural world, impercievable by the senses. In a world in which you assume senses to be enough to constitute reality, they ONLY constitute reality, they lend no weight to the insensible.
Hence, if you assume people exist, it is safe to assume God exists without necessarily being able to prove either..