Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[Marcus]

I don’t disagree about default skepticism, and think you’re right that “it is what it is” feels more like an excuse than a method that helps decide how truth claims or authority should be considered—regardless of whether a creator God exists.

Right! My intention was simply to show that the hypothetical "if there is a creator god" has no weight in this case, since its negation leads to the same conclusion.

Mentalgymnast wants a draw on starting assumptions. I think he missed your point about starting assumptions completely.

[Marcus]

When I was on my mission I had dinner with a couple who were Calvinists. The guy was pretty high-brow, but I worked up the courage to ask him what he thought of a baby being born who didn't happen to be elect dying, and going straight to hell for eternity? He thought for a moment and said, "tough", and we continued to eat.

What if there is a creator God who elects some to live with him and not others? If there is such a God, then "it is what it is".

The part I somewhat agree with you on is that we must accept reality when it's counterintuitive if the evidence becomes overwhelming.

I know you think I’m misapplying it…but here we go again, Sorites Paradox/principle. Who decides if the evidence is overwhelming if smart folks on both sides of the ‘God divide’ are at least equally sure the other side is not looking at all the evidence?

Evidence, facts, and truth are not subject to popularity votes. Mentalgymnast seems weighed down with misnaming these irrelevant arguments, but the real irony is that he actually is demonstrating an aspect of Sorites paradox, the one that explains why his vague answers are ultimately insufficient.

The sorites paradox, sometimes known as the paradox of the heap, is a paradox that results from vague predicates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

[Gadianton]

Mg, why did you quote my post and then respond with something that had nothing to do with what I wrote?

[malkie]

Right! My intention was simply to show that the hypothetical "if there is a creator god" has no weight in this case, since its negation leads to the same conclusion.

Mentalgymnast wants a draw on starting assumptions. I think he missed your point about starting assumptions completely.

Missed, failed to understand, or chose to ignore - difficult to tell sometimes. Burden of proof, and all that - missed, failed to understand, or ignored. Par for the course.

[I Have Questions]

I don’t disagree about default skepticism, and think you’re right that “it is what it is” feels more like an excuse than a method that helps decide how truth claims or authority should be considered—regardless of whether a creator God exists.

Right! My intention was simply to show that the hypothetical "if there is a creator god" has no weight in this case, since its negation leads to the same conclusion.

Belief in God is a choice a person makes absent of any evidence. They then seek anything and everything they can that reinforces their initial choice. Turning a blind eye to anything and everything that might suggest their choice was erroneous. In the face of it, at a basic level, I understand why a person might make that choice. But if that choice becomes institutionalised (i.e. a religion) it leads down a path of mental gymnastics and gaslighting and abuse of power. Every. Single. Time. It will lead to individuals justifying to themselves and others all sorts of behaviours and actions that they would not tolerate in any other walk of life.

I find that people who believe in God but who are not attached to a particular sect or religion, have a much more mature and Christlike way of seeing the world.

[Limnor]

Mg, why did you quote my post and then respond with something that had nothing to do with what I wrote?

I read it—your response is intriguing, and it is a shame that it was not addressed.

I’ll take a stab at it to continue the thought process—accepting reality once it’s unavoidable is one thing, but is there value in seeking answers to how we should evaluate claims about truth, or God’s justice and authority (and those who claim to have it) beforehand? If not, “it is what it is” just replaces discernment rather than helping to develop it.

[Limnor]

Right! My intention was simply to show that the hypothetical "if there is a creator god" has no weight in this case, since its negation leads to the same conclusion.

Belief in God is a choice a person makes absent of any evidence. They then seek anything and everything they can that reinforces their initial choice. Turning a blind eye to anything and everything that might suggest their choice was erroneous. In the face of it, at a basic level, I understand why a person might make that choice. But if that choice becomes institutionalised (i.e. a religion) it leads down a path of mental gymnastics and gaslighting and abuse of power. Every. Single. Time. It will lead to individuals justifying to themselves and others all sorts of behaviours and actions that they would not tolerate in any other walk of life.

I find that people who believe in God but who are not attached to a particular sect or religion, have a much more mature and Christlike way of seeing the world.

Kierkegaard would say faith isn’t choosing God without evidence—there is evidence, though you could certainly debate that evidence. So it becomes choosing God without certainty, and accepting the risk. Meaning you may have trusted a portrayal of God that turns out to be unjust, and you don’t get to excuse yourself by saying “I had no choice” or “it is what it is.” The value in that uncertainty is developing discernment.

[Gadianton]

accepting reality once it’s unavoidable is one thing, but is there value in seeking answers to how we should evaluate claims about truth, or God’s justice and authority

The second part is intriguing in its own right, but I'll admit all I was really concerned about is the first part. I'm assuming we have perfect knowledge of the state we are in for now. I knew MG wouldn't answer the question, and he won't. Think back to that coworker who said the answer to the Book of Mormon can't possibly be "no".

MG wishes for others to consider a possible world that contradicts the person's own beliefs about reality. I'm happy to do this, in fact, I enjoy it. However, he can't do the same. When he says to consider the hypothetical where there really is a creator God, he doesn't constrain God to be Mormon or even Christian, but he implicitly forbids creator God from being anything that contradicts his own personal beliefs. This is odd since Mormons occupy such a thin slice of theists and he is but a single person. He is unwilling to entertain the possibility that creator God isn't Mormon; it's simply NOT a possibility that can even be entertained hypothetically.

This shows what a sham "crooked lines" are. Anyone who truly accepts the world has crooked line should readily accept the possibility that their own personal beliefs are wrong. He won't even entertain it for a hypothetical discussion. Lines can only be crooked such as to make evidence against his beliefs not count. It's a superficial and childish exercise.

On a more interesting note, I think traditional theology requires a straight-line God. Crooked lines really fit best in the world of empiricism. God, in theism, after all, is an a priori exercise.

[malkie]

Also, if there is no creator god, which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

Exactly! Either way, what we see is what we see. So by that token it is not unreasonable to believe in God. If He exists, it would still be what it is.

Draw?

Regards,
MG

[Thoughts while shoveling a large amount of snow this morning. Breaking my own internal "rule" for economy - can't be bothered to rewrite to not quote MG. I may live to regret this.]

No - not a draw at all for MG's version of god.

Person 1 says: "If I have a unicorn in my garage, then X".
Person 2 says: "If you do not have a unicorn in your garage, then also X".

Is that a "draw" for the existence of my unicorn as far as the implications of "X" are concerned?

===

Coming back to the "what it is" discussion

P1. If there is a creator god, then it is what it is.
P2. If there is no creator god[/b], which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

I believe that the combination of P1 and P2 is a draw only if said creator god is inconsequential - that is, is a god who does not have any effect on "what it is". Such a god is not distinguishable from no god at all.

OTOH, if you want a god who has an effect on "what it is", and is clearly distinguishable from no god at all, then I would submit that the suggested "draw" is a significant concession to the benefit of the "no god" side of the argument.

===

OK - I need some help here. My brain is too fuzzy (snowblind?) to sort this one out

I concede that I do not in fact have a unicorn in my garage. Does the fact that I have no garage weaken any case I might make for simply having a unicorn - beyond the falsus in uno argument?
Of course, I can avoid this problem by simply removing the phrase "in my garage" from my claim, but I left it in deliberately because I may want to use an analogous argument in the future.

[MG 2.0]

Exactly! Either way, what we see is what we see. So by that token it is not unreasonable to believe in God. If He exists, it would still be what it is.

Draw?

Regards,
MG

[Thoughts while shoveling a large amount of snow this morning. Breaking my own internal "rule" for economy - can't be bothered to rewrite to not quote MG. I may live to regret this.]

No - not a draw at all for MG's version of god.

Person 1 says: "If I have a unicorn in my garage, then X".
Person 2 says: "If you do not have a unicorn in your garage, then also X".

Is that a "draw" for the existence of my unicorn as far as the implications of "X" are concerned?

===

Coming back to the "what it is" discussion

P1. If there is a creator god, then it is what it is.
P2. If there is no creator god[/b], which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

I believe that the combination of P1 and P2 is a draw only if said creator god is inconsequential - that is, is a god who does not have any effect on "what it is". Such a god is not distinguishable from no god at all.

OTOH, if you want a god who has an effect on "what it is", and is clearly distinguishable from no god at all, then I would submit that the suggested "draw" is a significant concession to the benefit of the "no god" side of the argument.

===

OK - I need some help here. My brain is too fuzzy (snowblind?) to sort this one out

I concede that I do not in fact have a unicorn in my garage. Does the fact that I have no garage weaken any case I might make for simply having a unicorn - beyond the falsus in uno argument?
Of course, I can avoid this problem by simply removing the phrase "in my garage" from my claim, but I left it in deliberately because I may want to use an analogous argument in the future.

"It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against. I would have to agree that the burden of proof lies with the theist. The neutral claim logically does not result in a draw. You've made a good argument.

Regards,
MG