mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I will use Wikipedia as not as a primary source, but a reference to a source.
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.
Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.
My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.
So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:
We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.
So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.
So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.
My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.
So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?
Regards
Mikkel
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.
Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.
My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.
So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:
- The act or cause of creation is not the same as the effect and we only have the effect. We are looking at the universe as the effect, not the cause.
- If God has chosen to speak differently, then we have no fixed reference point to determine, which God exists.
We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.
So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.
So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.
My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.
So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?
Regards
Mikkel