P-inductive argument for God's existence

[Recusant]

I have experiences that lead me to believe; you don't.  Let it go at that.

Fair enough. You aren't the one who proposed the arguments in this thread, and if you aren't interested in defending them, I don't blame you.

Bandit4god obviously put some effort into creating this thread, and then into adding a couple of premises (and additional material) when he returned after his absence. I think that by examining his premises and putting forward counter-arguments/objections, I'm giving him some feedback. I suppose I could have written some sort of off-hand dismissal of the whole thing ("I don't agree with your arguments, and never had a personal numinous experience that convinced me that there is a deity of any sort; I can't be bothered paying attention to those that have"), but that wouldn't have been any fun, nor would it have been a proper acknowledgment of the efforts that he put into his posts in this thread.

He may find my responses frustrating and thick-headed, but he was taking a chance that he would get unsatisfactory responses when he proposed the arguments in the first place.

Regarding your previous post proposing "veri" as opposed to "omni" attributes of the Christian god, I have no problem with that. It's up to Christians to describe their god. However, since you don't seem to put much store in the Old Testament, why bother describing YHVH's opinion of the Amalekites at all? I think it's a good thing for you that you hold that (Old Testament discounted) position though, because in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9, it certainly sounds as if YHVH is willing to lie. Oops, what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where the Christian god purposely sends a delusion so that the followers of "the man of lawlessness" will "believe the lie"? Ah, I forget myself; 2 Thessalonians can also be dismissed as "not a true Pauline epistle." Never mind. YHVH/Jesus/Holy Ghost never lies, if viewed from the proper interpretive perspective.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Regarding your previous post proposing "veri" as opposed to "omni" attributes of the Christian god, I have no problem with that. It's up to Christians to describe their god. However, since you don't seem to put much store in the Old Testament, why bother describing YHVH's opinion of the Amalekites at all? I think it's a good thing for you that you hold that (Old Testament discounted) position though, because in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9, it certainly sounds as if YHVH is willing to lie. Oops, what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where the Christian god purposely sends a delusion so that the followers of "the man of lawlessness" will "believe the lie"? Ah, I forget myself; 2 Thessalonians can also be dismissed as "not a true Pauline epistle." Never mind. YHVH/Jesus/Holy Ghost never lies, if viewed from the proper interpretive perspective.

The Bible is not a perfect book.  It may have any number of contradictions.  People are relating their experiences of God, and those differ.  The core of the early Christian gospel revolved around a few historical events such as the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  Other than that, there was a wide range of experiences and concepts of God.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that people will experience the same thing differently - take an 80 year-old and a 15 year-old to a Justin Bieber concert and they will have vastly different experiences of the exact same thing.

[bandit4god]

He is ultimately setting the bar too high for the definition of "God."  He says:

Let h be our hypothesis "God exists" which I take to be logically equivalent to "there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things."

Why does God have to be "perfectly free"? Can he not be limited by his own nature?  Why does he have to be omnipotent?  Again, can he not be limited by his own nature, such that he is incapable of acting contrarily thereto?   Why does he have to be omniscient?  Can he not be limited in his knowledge because he created beings whose actions are inscrutable?  And why does he have to be perfectly good?  Is there a standard above God that judges his actions (the "good")?  Can't he just be himself?    

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  As I mention above, it is simpler to posit a God with "omni" attributes than "veri" attributes (though, as also mentioned above, it may come to pass that more evidence will be levied that warrants additional specificity).

Nobody knows the origin of the universe.  Only fundamentalist theists purport to do so, but they are just as stupid as the rest of us.  We are all speculating about what might have been "on the other side" of the Big Bang, but none of us know.  All theists need to say is "based on the totality of my personal experiences, I believe that God exists."  They don't have to pretend to have actual knowledge - they just have faith based on their experience in life.  Everyone is actually agnostic, whether they admit it or not, because none of us "know" about these ultimate issues. It just seems to me that the whole matter has been blown out of proportion.  I have experiences that lead me to believe; you don't.  Let it go at that.

This is an exciting perspective, Ecurb, thank you for posting it.  Nearly everyone approaches this topic inductively, and it looks as though your own inductive reasoning process gives considerable weight to your personal experiences.  I have many myself that also carry immense evidential weight (e.g., watching RPGs bounce off of humvees in Iraq, the curious actions of family members in their final minutes, etc.), but past occasions in this and other threads have led me to believe sharing these experiences do little to advance the discussion... and in many cases draw no small amount of ridicule.  So I've opted to keep it cerebral!  

Worth mentioning, though, that I have come to find that love is the only way to truly pass these personal experiences on.  I love each and every person on this blog and would cheerfully do all I could to help meet the needs of any out there who are experiencing tough times with their jobs, medical bills, or otherwise to do what I can to help, no strings attached.  Just huck me a personal message, would love to chat!

[Too Few Lions]

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  

Deism is the simplest form of theism, therefore in your own words 'the one with the highest intrinsic probability'. But you're a Christian, and Christianity has a creed, a holy book, a son of god, a saviour and an entire religion, therefore it is not 'bare theism'. You believe in lots of things that have nothing inherently to do with the idea of a god. Theism can exist without all of this excess baggage.

[bandit4god]

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  

Deism is the simplest form of theism, therefore in your own words 'the one with the highest intrinsic probability'. But you're a Christian, and Christianity has a creed, a holy book, a son of god, a saviour and an entire religion, therefore it is not 'bare theism'. You believe in lots of things that have nothing inherently to do with the idea of a god. Theism can exist without all of this excess baggage.

Yep!  I'm not delivering an inductive argument to Christian Theism on this thread.  I'm delivering an inductive argument to bare theism.

Even deism adds a complicating hypothesis from the standpoint that it depicts God as "stepping back" or "remaining absent" after the setting in motion of the universe.  Bare theism is even simpler than this in that it doesn't have that hypothesis.

[Too Few Lions]

ah cool, sorry b4g, I didn't understand the 'vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism' comment. You're right that bare theism is the type with the highest intrinsic probability