Evolution

Originally posted by Halitose
It's an absurd idea to determine the validity of a proposition by the amount of acceptance it receives.

Interesting. That is one of the only bits of evidence I feel religion (including Christianity) has going for it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Interesting. That is one of the only bits of evidence I feel religion (including Christianity) has going for it.

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.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
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.

It's not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's only a tiny bit of evidence; not nearly enough.

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?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's only a tiny bit of evidence; not nearly enough.

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 necessarily being able to prove either.

Edit: This is of course a perversion of Berkley's "to be is to be perceived" notions.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
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.

And how would you substantiate that claim?
Not by the number of believers.

I was being a tad ironic, you know.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
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.

No, believing the evidence of your senses is clearly that. Belief in god is disbelief in your senses.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, believing the evidence of your senses is clearly that. Belief in god is disbelief in your senses.

u can fool sum people sum times but u cant fool all the people

Originally posted by hakaman
u can fool sum people sum times but u cant fool all the people

Obviously why less than half of the people on the planet are christians.

Originally posted by hakaman
u can fool sum people sum times but u cant fool all the people

That saying doesn't make sense if you leave off the last qualifier.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That saying doesn't make sense if you leave off the last qualifier.

what the hell r u on been smoking that funny stuff again funnyman

Originally posted by hakaman
what the hell r u on been smoking that funny stuff again funnyman

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

can u fool all the people sum time no u cant tiger

Originally posted by hakaman
can u fool all the people sum time no u cant tiger

Take it up with the cliched phrases department shuckfunt.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Hence, if you assume people exist, it is safe to assume God exists without necessarily being able to prove either..

This 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.