Mormonism Live on Free Will

[dastardly stem]

Some atheists do make positive claims. They say things like, “There is probably no God.” It’s hard to get attention, after all, for being unconvinced either way on an issue. It’s nicer to have your cake and eat it, too—if you can.

The atheist claim comes after reviewing the evidence for god that gets presented. They don’t say it blindly, or that’s be the reasonable position. This the evidence is viewing the positive evidence for the claim and observing the claim remains unsupported. And there’s no need for an added proposition.

[Rivendale]

Some atheists do make positive claims. They say things like, “There is probably no God.” It’s hard to get attention, after all, for being unconvinced either way on an issue. It’s nicer to have your cake and eat it, too—if you can.

The atheist claim comes after reviewing the evidence for god that gets presented. They don’t say it blindly, or that’s be the reasonable position. This the evidence is viewing the positive evidence for the claim and observing the claim remains unsupported. And there’s no need for an added proposition.

Exactly. People are born with limited beliefs, not blank slates as Steven Pinker points out.Their neural networks are formed but incapable of feedback loops absent experiences. These beliefs are formed by interacting with the world. Other humans act as the arbiter of the god claim. I would claim the first positive claim originates with theists. Theists routinely make the claim that it atheists take the same leap of faith pre-singularity that theists do and feel they are on equal footing. It isn't 50/50 for a creator god pre-singularity vs something else. There is a cumulative case that is made when we examine reality using Bayesian style models that place the god claim in a different statistical realm.

[huckelberry]

I've never seen someone indoctrinating a child into Christianity say "God being omnipresent appears to us exactly the same as God being nonexistent."

I think if religions were honest with the children they raise into the religion, we would have a whole lot more agnostics/atheists.

drumdude, I wondered a bit how a parent might approach your observation. I think that any five or six year old child is intellectually able to make your observation by themselves. The child may ask their parent about this very thing. If god is here why can't I see god? Do I have to travel to some where else, maybe gods home, to see god? I think a parent should respect the questions. If they are believers they may explain that God touches us with encouragement, guidance and inspiration. We hope for Gods help as we learn to deal with life's dangers and difficulties.

[dastardly stem]

Exactly. People are born with limited beliefs, not blank slates as Steven Pinker points out.Their neural networks are formed but incapable of feedback loops absent experiences. These beliefs are formed by interacting with the world. Other humans act as the arbiter of the god claim. I would claim the first positive claim originates with theists. Theists routinely make the claim that it atheists take the same leap of faith pre-singularity that theists do and feel they are on equal footing. It isn't 50/50 for a creator god pre-singularity vs something else. There is a cumulative case that is made when we examine reality using Bayesian style models that place the god claim in a different statistical realm.

Yes. And it never seems to be the case, that any areas where we don't know, like pre-big bang or singularity, that putting God there solves anything for us. It's never the case the probability should favor God over non-God. I mean never. If so, the addition of a God to the whole of what we observe, or have observed, never pushes a probability for God over the probability for non-God. I mean never in any way we try to stretch it. I know I just repeated myself, but it seems to the be crucial point completely ignored by theists.

Going back to PG's suggestion of a first cause argument. It seems he agreed, there is no reason to push the probability for God on such an argument over the probability of no God. I believe he's suggesting that means it should be 50/50 since we don't know. Why would we ever think an unknown or unknowable nothingness, or everythingness should be given the same probability of explanation absent that non-entity? For me trying to describe what God means or what God is demonstrates exactly the unlikelihood of the proposition in the first place. He's just a whatever we imagine it to be idea.

On the God created it, or caused it proposition we have to explain why the vastness of space? Why the over-indulgence in time spans? Why the problem of evil? Why absolutely hide and set it up so everything we observe demonstrates his non-existence?

Sorry it's just an empty claim to magic happened at some point, and that's not really an explanation of anything. It's more of an excuse.

[Rivendale]

Exactly. People are born with limited beliefs, not blank slates as Steven Pinker points out.Their neural networks are formed but incapable of feedback loops absent experiences. These beliefs are formed by interacting with the world. Other humans act as the arbiter of the god claim. I would claim the first positive claim originates with theists. Theists routinely make the claim that it atheists take the same leap of faith pre-singularity that theists do and feel they are on equal footing. It isn't 50/50 for a creator god pre-singularity vs something else. There is a cumulative case that is made when we examine reality using Bayesian style models that place the god claim in a different statistical realm.

Yes. And it never seems to be the case, that any areas where we don't know, like pre-big bang or singularity, that putting God there solves anything for us. It's never the case the probability should favor God over non-God. I mean never. If so, the addition of a God to the whole of what we observe, or have observed, never pushes a probability for God over the probability for non-God. I mean never in any way we try to stretch it. I know I just repeated myself, but it seems to the be crucial point completely ignored by theists.

Going back to PG's suggestion of a first cause argument. It seems he agreed, there is no reason to push the probability for God on such an argument over the probability of no God. I believe he's suggesting that means it should be 50/50 since we don't know. Why would we ever think an unknown or unknowable nothingness, or everythingness should be given the same probability of explanation absent that non-entity? For me trying to describe what God means or what God is demonstrates exactly the unlikelihood of the proposition in the first place. He's just a whatever we imagine it to be idea.

On the God created it, or caused it proposition we have to explain why the vastness of space? Why the over-indulgence in time spans? Why the problem of evil? Why absolutely hide and set it up so everything we observe demonstrates his non-existence?

Sorry it's just an empty claim to magic happened at some point, and that's not really an explanation of anything. It's more of an excuse.

Adding a god to an unknown multiplies the unknowns rather than subtract from it. It is similar to theists morality claims. Theists claim that god grounds the moral question but fail to realize they use the same epistemological process a humanist uses in deciding which morals to act on. As for the distance problem. Dan Peterson loves the epistemic distance theory. Faith can be only true faith if you have no evidence.

[huckelberry]

Adding a god to an unknown multiplies the unknowns rather than subtract from it. It is similar to theists morality claims. Theists claim that god grounds the moral question but fail to realize they use the same epistemological process a humanist uses in deciding which morals to act on. As for the distance problem. Dan Peterson loves the epistemic distance theory. Faith can be only true faith if you have no evidence.

Rivendale, a couple of observations. Your comment about adding to unknowns sounds as though you are observing that in doing physics adding the idea of god does not help understanding of physics at all. I think you are right. Most people thinking about god realize that and would agree. People who believe in God see him as the foundation of the order of the universe and as a subset the order of human relationships. Both theists and humanists will look to the order of human relationships to better understand moral decisions.

I am sure I have missed some counterexample sometime but the only people I recall proposing that "faith can only be true faith if you have no evidence" are agnostics or atheists.(to characterize believers)

[Rivendale]

I am sure I have missed some counterexample sometime but the only people I recall proposing that "faith can only be true faith if you have no evidence" are agnostics or atheists.(to characterize believers)

The epistemic distance theodicy assumes this.

It is only within this framework of epistemic distance that it is possible for humans to genuinely have free will to exercise faith. For indeed, if God’s existence were undeniable, then faith would mean nothing and people would have no choice but to believe. Human persons cannot be free unless “placed at an epistemic distance”

[Rivendale]

People who believe in God see him as the foundation of the order of the universe and as a subset the order of human relationships. Both theists and humanists will look to the order of human relationships to better understand moral decisions.

But both groups use the same subjective rules to determine the overall goal.

[doubtingthomas]

We hope for Gods help as we learn to deal with life's dangers and difficulties.

Out of curiosity, do you believe God helped the Rams win the Super Bowl?

[huckelberry]

We hope for Gods help as we learn to deal with life's dangers and difficulties.

Out of curiosity, do you believe God helped the Rams win the Super Bowl?

no, I cannot imagine god interfering with people making their own best sports efforts. The idea of god choosing sports winners I find ridiculous.