Magnus Anderson wrote: phyllo wrote:
We assign probability to every possibility based on data that we possess. The possibility that "God exists" has 0% probability so it's safe to say He does not exist.
Zero probability is called 'certainty'. (As is 100% probability.)
It's good that you are certain but you are in disagreement with the multitude of people who think that there is adequate data/evidence for the existence of God.
You sound like Biguous. Who cares if there are people who think otherwise?
Quite the contrary, Biguous is actually preoccupied more with exploring the reasons that, with respect to God, people have in fact thought "otherwise" throughout the entire length [historically] and the breath [culturally, experientially] of human history.
He merely suggests that this revolves around the manner in which he construes the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
a "particular world" ever and always evolving over time in a sea of contingency, chance and change.
In other words, to what extent is God more an existential contraption rather than an actual existing entity that, using the tools of theology, science and philosophy, can in fact be demonstrated to
James S Saint wrote:Biguous denies proof and relegates everything to opinion.
No, Biguous makes a distinction between 1] those able to demonstrate that what they believe constitutes proof is applicable to all rational human beings and 2] those who insist that if they believe something is true "in their head", that is proof enough.
So, where then is your proof for the existence of the Real God, James?
James S Saint wrote: But Biguous appears to believe that anyone's belief is another alternative. Logic has no say in the matter. That is his curse.
But James appears to believe that anyone's belief that is not wholly in sync with his own is necessarily illogical. That is his...salvation.
James S Saint wrote:[Biguous] tries to handle confrontation by going to the opposite extreme of declaring everything to be wrong (a conflict), therefore even good is wrong, therefore he cannot be declared wrong, but is instead commonly good - a common attempt by many of the currently lost and confounded ("If everyone is bad then I'm as good as anyone thus should not be punished").
Note to others:
I challenge you to be even more
abstract than this in distorting Biguous's point of view.
Also, I challenge you to challenge James to bring this accusation down to earth pertaining to an actual conflict of note.
Magnus Anderson wrote:In the case of Biguous, he clearly is making a choice. Though one can say his choice is less of a choice, it is nonetheless more than complete surrender to chaos.
What does he choose? How does he choose to direct his motion?
By negotiation, moderation, compromise . . . he's choosing to dilute his opinions, to mix them with other people's opinions, so that people can reach some sort of agreement and semblance of truth.
As opposed to clubbing "one of them" over the head with that which he insist is the only truth -- his own. Indeed, when folks like Magnus refuse to dilute their own "truths" [about God or anything else] others end up in re-education camps, or in dungeons, or in gas chambers.
And Biguous doesn't despise the "evil objectivists". That's just the polemicist persona he sometimes embodies here. Instead, he probes the extent to which the objectivists either are or are not able to yank him up out of this:If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
And demonstrating to him the actual existence of a God, the God, your God? Yep, that'll do it.