@Mujus-
The thing about it (or, perhaps more accurately, how I read that) is that for you God is a no-brainer, something that is so obviously true that if everyone else would just pay attention they would see. And I think that if I shared your experiences I would likely feel the same way. But I don't, and I don't think that it is something that will appear to me, either. If my life takes a different path I very possibly could come to that place, but that is not where I am now.

@uclabb,
I guess we will disagree (though I will still hope otherwise). I see both free will and god as "on the table"... appropriate for examination. Presumably those who don't want to examine the question of god's existence (or convince others) wouldn't have entered a thread titled: "Does God exist?"

Can I or others definitively disprove the existence of God? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that no information is being passed or processed by the participants in the conversation. As someone pointed out in a recent thread, they themselves changed their view some based on such a conversation.

By arguing against God, hopefully (in any unlikely case I convince someone) I'm not leaving them suspended in the air like Wiley Coyote right after he looks down. There are other ways to make sense of the world. Not long ago I heard of a poll in the U.K. that reported a majority were "non-religious". In the U.S. atheists variously make up about 5% of the population and agnostics and non-religious another 10-15%. A friend of mine who has lived long term in Japan says that a majority there don't believe (and only about 1% are Christians). A number of very successful happy people are atheists, and atheists are statistically less likely to end up in jail... If the Consequences of Belief argument was truly to be made, I think there would be a strong case in favor of atheism.

It's funny that you say that about free will. I operate as if it is true because it makes my life bearable and sensible... but, I can't bring myself to conclude that it *must* be true. (so I guess I'm agnostic on the subject)

But you can't conclude that anything *must* be true, so that is a meaningless statement.

Fair enough - what I mean is that I can't logically support the idea of free will in any convincing manner (preponderance of the evidence or something like that) - only that it "feels" like I have free will, whatever that means. Indeed, several views of mine logically undermine the concept of free will.

And all I'm saying is that logical support need not be a necessary condition to believe something.

@uclabb,
I'm not so sure of that. Mujus, for example, has his logic - based on his experience and his value system of what sorts of evidence is significant. semck has his logic, as serpentine as it is, he has a way that he arrived at where he is. I've talked with white supremacists, communists, anarchists, Moonies, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Pagans, Nihilists, Existentialists... all kinds of believers... and they all have their underlying logic. I often have my objections to their logic when I see fallacies or unfounded assumptions but there is logic... and best intentions, for that matter. If you have an example of something that is believed but is beyond logic I'd be interested in hearing it. (Assuming it is something that the believer has examined and is not simply unconscious).

@ Jack, you make an interesting point--Not what I was saying, but still interesting. It made me think. However, my point there was that once we open the door, it's possible and even easy to see evidence of God in nature, in science, through our objective observations. :-) Dexter, also a very interesting comment! But my point in response to uclabb's post was that we need to use all of the means we have of gathering evidence--logic, for sure, and what our senses tell us about the world (objective observations), plus our own experience (the subjective witness), plus the circumstances that happen us along the way. And I firmly believe that God can be known and promises to make himself known to all who seek him.

Also @ Dexter, the world is full of people whose beliefs defy and even deny logic, deep-rooted emotional and social constructs, including about religion, or even about atheism. To those people I recommend an inquiring mind, and not to be afraid of whatever the truth is when you find it.

Agreed, Mujus.

God existence or non-existence cannot be proved.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/222/946/pmsaT.gif

Thucydides: Not that I've really been following this thread, but that in itself should resolve the issue for people.

@uclabb
"And all I'm saying is that logical support need not be a necessary condition to believe something."
But if there's no rational/logical evidence to suggest that a belief is true/justified, then what reason do you have to think its true. You may be able to believe something in defiance of rationality, but that in no way justifies the belief.

"And all I'm saying is that logical support need not be a necessary condition to believe something."

You're right, it's not. But it is central to trying to win non-believers over to your point of view, or all arguments resolve to

"Did not!"
"Did too!"

ad infinitum

I'm glad we are in agreement santosh.

Thucydides: And by that I mean that it should resolve the issue as much as it resolves, for instance, idiotic assumptions and theories in, say, psychology.

So, Grand Duke Feodor, have we helped at all??¿

OK, I'm finally taking the time to respond to the last round of posts. Sorry for the delay. Also, this week continues to be extremely busy, so further responses may be just as sporadic.

@dave bishop,

Thank you for your post. You make an interesting point, but not a succesful one. I'm going to address your second, subsidiary point first, though. You say,

"Atheism is not irrational. The belief that the laws of nature will continue to be the same in the future may be irrational, but that does make a non-belief in God irrational. It is not a shambles of a worldview to admit there are some things we can’t know rationally, or to admit all knowledge is subject to some doubt. It is a shambles to invent an entity to solve your epistemic problems and then trick yourself in believing that rationalises all your other world beliefs. "

Atheism is indeed irrational if it cannot support reason or the ability to know. In such a world view, there is not even such a thing as reason in the sense we mean reason. Let me try to put it another way. You grant above that (assuming your world view) belief in regularity of nature is irrational. But that means every atheist is committed to a belief that is not rational in his own world view, and to living his life by it. I would consider this an irrational worldview.

Now, on to your main points.

Every world view, Dave, requires some assumptions. I've said this again and again, and nobody's disagreed, so I suppose it is not controversial. So I am not attacking atheists for having some assumptions. However, the assumptions should not be completely arbitrary, and outside the supposed system of knowledge in the world view. The atheistic world view is deficient because _on its own terms_, there is no believe in any source of actual knowledge. This is not true about the Christian world view. Let me elaborate.

Let's talk about belief in regularity, or induction, again (I could choose other things, of course, but we started there, so let's stay there for now). Awhile ago I made a big deal of pointing out that induction cannot be supported by a logical argument that is not circular. (David Hume originated this argument, of course). Still, that might be OK. Maybe we know it for some extra-logical reason. So perhaps we might say, OK, let's just assume it.

Now here's the question: is it a general belief of the atheist that whatever we assume is true? No, it is not. Of course not. Nobody thinks that. So assuming it does not support its truth _in your world view_. Well, OK. We're born with a belief in regularity. Is it a belief that whatever humans are born believing is true? No, that's not true either. Actually, you have beliefs about how humans gained their innate knowledge (evolution, etc.) which would instead _undercut_ any belief that such knowledge was correlated with the actual behavior of the future.

OK, so, it turns out there just is no adequate source of this knowledge at all, in your world view. It has to be an assumption, but it's going to have to be an arbitrary assumption by your own standards. It will be a belief that does not comport with your own beliefs about why things should be believed.

Or, to put it another way: suppose you do just assume induction. That then enables you to "know" many things. But it still doesn't enable you to know how you came to know that induction was true. Even taking it as a bare assumption, you can't deduce anything that would enable you to know it was true.

Now, let's compare Christianity. As Dexter pointed out earlier, there's a certain circularity here, as well, as there will be for basic beliefs -- but it does NOT suffer from the deficiencies pointed out above. For example, you've brought up the issue of whether God changes (in sufficiently radical ways that His promises of near-order would be broken). Well, what do I believe as a Christian? I believe that God is all-knowing and tells His followers the truth in His Word. So, given that He says He won't change like that, I can believe that He won't.

"But wait, semck," (you'll say) "why do you believe that He is all-knowing and tells the truth in the Bible? Isn't it because the Bible says so? Do you expect me to believe such ludicrous circular logic?"

No, I don't, because you're not a believer, but we're critiquing the consistency of _my_ beliefs. So let's do that. So again, we see there is circularity here, as before, so there is going to have to be some other source of the information. Well suppose we just assume it, as before -- the Bible is the true Word of God. Do we run into the same problem as the atheist did for induction? Ah! We do not. Unlike your bare assumption of induction, which provides no further knowledge to make it anything more than a bare assumption, my assumption of the Bible is no longer a bare assumption in the worldview that that assumption entails. It explains how I would know such a thing: an all-knowing, truthful God told me so. Hence, _inside the Christian worldview_, all the knowledge that I claim can be accounted for. I don't have any beliefs that contradict my own beliefs about what can be believed or known.

So, although I criticized induction for being circular to illustrate that it did not follow from reason and show that it was an assumption, in a real sense it is precisely because your worldview _fails_ to be circular (in a different sense) that it falls apart. You can assume all you want, but none of your assumptions explains why your assumptions could have any validity.

So what about all the points you raise -- the lying God, the changing God, etc., etc.? Well, those just aren't my world view. Those are other flawed world views that also would not support knowledge; but I have a perfectly sound way _inside my worldview_ to rebut them. Of course I can't from yours, but from yours I can't rebut anything at all.

Hence, we come to perhaps your key claim, "[Christianity] assumes more beliefs that aren't rationally justified." Here I say you're putting the cart before the horse. Christian theism gives a basis for taking rationality seriously at all; in your world view, reason itself is arbitrary, no better than a bare assertion.

I do thank you for the careful and interesting response, which clearly demonstrated you had read and thought about my points. I imagine you'll spill a deal of ink on this one. I'll do my best to get back to you when time allows. : )

@santosh,

I wish you had answered more of your questions, because I own myself still confused by what your core claims are. What is it we're modelling in the first place? You've admitted again and again that we can know nothing about the future to any probability, yet it seems implicit in much of what you say that it is the behavior of the universe, _including_ the future behavior, that we are modelling, and in that case, it contradicts the earlier point to suggest that one model is more rational than another. So I will have a hard time responding until we clear up this business about what it is that we are modelling.

"'But it seems that you're violating the minimality principle now by assuming NOT chaos.'

Incorrect, for the data I already have from the past, my current models are sufficient, and chaos is unsupported because I can observe order, as presented in my models which satisfy the observed data. "

Well, chaos in the _past_ is unsupported, but so is order in the future. So again, IF you're modelling the future, then it's certainly true that you're disobeying minimality. Probability theory is the science of creating models with minimal assumptions, and if you don't assume order, it certainly won't give you any form of regularity in the future just because you had it in the past. Since you're getting a different result, you're not being minimal at all.

Say you're told that there are going to be 1000 numbers printed. Say the first 10 are these:

1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100

An obvious model for the remainder would be that it's going to be n^2 all the way up. But this model certainly assumes a TON. If you want to assume nothing, then all you can assume is that there will be 990 more numbers and you know nothing about what they are.

On the other hand, if you DON'T mean that you're model includes a model of the future, then you still haven't given a vaguely adequate reason for why you don't turn your steering wheel the opposite direction from how you want to go, ever. Why always test only the (non-minimal) ordered model? Why not test the chaotic model sometimes? I don't mean the model where it was chaotic in the past -- as you say, that has been eliminated by observation -- but the model where it gets chaotic RIGHT NOW. You just haven't addressed this issue.

"This constitutes my world view, which contains zero assumptions, and as such I submit is more rational than the theistic worldview. "

Well, first, it doesn't contain zero assumptions. Unless you're just talking about modelling the past. But in that case, what does it even mean to say it's more rational? It's not making any claims, in that scenario, it's just a hobby. You make toy models of the past for fun. Hobbies are neither rational nor irrational.

@dexter, I find myself increasingly depressed at what seems to be a lack of interest on your part in actually reading my posts. This surprises me, because in your abortion thread, you showed yourself to be one of the more careful at doing this. Anyhow, I'll allow that they've been kind of long in this thread. Anyway, here goes, to your 7 , in order:

1) First, certainly there are good reasons from probability theory (the assumption of maximal ignorance) to assume that, if we have absolutely no reason to assume order, then disorder is probable. Most possible configurations of space, of spacetime, of matter, or of anything else are maximally disordered. This is an interesting field. One could motivate it fairly easily by pointing out, again, that if a ball is going through the air, and you assume it will keep going in the same direction (or curve in a parabola, due to gravitation), you are choosing one out of infinitely many directions, whereas disorder makes no such assumptions. Even if you break it up into finitely many, say 360 -- one for each degree -- you're choosing 1 in 360 degrees at each moment. The numbers add up to pretty bad for order pretty fast. This is the heuristic argument. It can be made more precise but the math gets dreadful.

But even assuming one could adduce no positive reason for thinking order unlikely, it seems to me the best one could do is be agnostic. You say there is no reason to believe disorder is more likely than order. Even assuming that (which is false), there's also no reason to assume the opposite, _but you do_.

The remainder of point 1 includes explaining to me what begging the question is (thank you, certainly, that was not something I ever encountered in law school) and responding to a charicature of my point.

2) This is extremely similar to point 1. But I'll just respond to one further thing. You claim that I am making an argument from ignorance. But you miss what I'm doing. I'm merely pointing out that _your_ belief has no support. I don't need to support the negation of your belief in order to do that. It is you who are making the argument from ignorance (which, by the way, thank you for defining for me).

3) I did not anywhere make the argument that the Christian God exists because it agrees with experience and intuition. Your refutation is therefore irrelevant, and constitutes the Straw Man fallacy.

4) I nowhere mentioned positive emotions or desires as an argument for the Christian God, or indeed, at all. Your argument is therefore what is known as the Repeated Straw Man fallacy.

5) I nowhere appealed to the fact that many people around the world believe in the Christian God, or even mentioned such. Are we now just running through some standard checklist you always go through when talking to Christians? In any case, given that I did not even so much as allude to this argument, your offering a refutation of it as a refutation of my argument constitutes what is known as a Third Straw Man, or in some circles, a Straw Man Hat Trick.

6) I did not make or allude to any of the various arguments which you attempt to refute in point 6, and now confess myself thoroughly mystified as to what you think you are responding to.

7) Ah! We're finally back on topic. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy that little excursion through irrelevancy, though. I of course understand the feeling of disappointment one feels when an opponent in an argument does not make the particular bad argument I was hoping, but I would still encourage you not to rush forward and refute it anyway. It only serves to confuse.

Anyhow, let's see here. Subpoints!

a) OK. Well, in this case, then indeed knowledge IS impossible. (One may choose to believe in such an irrational world view, of course, but then there is little point in arguing about it, because to argue suggests you put faith in reason).

(These remarks deal with a1-a3 as well).

b)
b1) Well, be specific. If you once decide that your worldview is irrational and decide to adopt a different one, yet decide not to adopt Christianity, we can discuss the rationality of your other world view at that time.

b2) "The universe does not need a god to make it rational"

Well, it could do whatever it wanted, of course, but we would have no source of knowledge to tell us we weren't in case a1. I think this addresses b2a as well.

b2aa). Umm, I don't think I ever said God HAD to create the universe. So yes, I'll sign onto this one.

b2ab) Dizzying -- isn't this the same as a3?

b2b) Isn't this the same as a2? Or is the difference that this time the universe is rational? In that case, see remarks attending b2, above.

Thank you, of course, for your further explanations of various formal fallacies that followed your main post.

As to your following post -- I feel inclined to respond, although as I'm sure you would want me to point out, disbelieving something because it is "negative" or "pessimistic" or makes one unhappy would be the fallacy of Appeal to Emotion. It's funny how perspective changes things, of course, but I think most Christians view atheism as pessimistic and Christianity as optimistic. Of course, I happen to agree with you that neither point of view has much to do with the truth of Christianity one way or the other, so I'm not going to spill many pixels discussing it. But anyway, a belief that the ultimate reality is good, just, and loving, instead of meaningless, does not particularly seem pessimistic to me.

As for the substance in this post, my point in some sense is this: your brain is not outside the world. Rather, it is part of it. You need not only to say that you view the world as rational or inevitable; you have to explain why such a view, coming from your brain, should be regarded as likely to be true. After all, you take a strictly naturalistic view of the brain and its origins, yet you are claiming to have to have got your hands on some very big metaphysical truths with it. I would love to hear how.

@ucla, Thank you for the post. The probability calculation you suggest only makes sense within some worldview. Within Christianity, of course the probability that God exists is 1. As an atheist, then it would be 0, but but so would the probability of order or reason being true.

As for FSM and other gods, I actually do not think they succeed in supporting rationality as does the Christian God (and the Christian world view).

In any case, my probability argument was a little more subtle than I think you are taking it to be, but since I'm not sure which argument exactly you're referring to, it would be hard to go further. In any case, it's now crazy late, and I've written an absurd amount, so I hope the answer to your objection lies somewhere up the page, because I am now going to leave (and probably not come back for a day or two, if I can help it).

Oh, oops, I forgot spyman's argument. OK, spyman, this might not be the highest quality, but let me not ignore you. Actually, rereading, I am not really sure I fully understand your points, but I'll try. Why is the probabilistic outcome of a coin flip unknowable? Making no assumptions, I suppose it's 50/50. While it's true that actually atheism would undercut things like probability as well, I didn't really go there, so I'm not sure I take your point.

In any case, I have never been arguing that the universe actually is disordered, or that reason actually is flawed. It's not, but that's because God does in fact exist.

Second paragraph: the reason it's the Christian God is because the other religions you mention don't actually succeed at supporting knowledge any better than atheism, for various reasons. Again though, once you're asking that question, you're already allowing that atheism is completely flawed and Christianity isn't. I don't think you're actually there, so why look at what else might not be, yet?

The rest of your post, I think, doesn't really engage the points I've made. Science rests on the assumptions I've been talking about. It cannot do without them. I understand how science works, but that's orthogonal to whether its assumptions are correct.

OK, and now I'm really off. Sorry to be a little on the long winded side. If I'm only going to respond sporadically, I'd like to try to actually respond, at least.

Take care!

Okay, just read the bit that was responding to my previous post.

@semck, I'll go over this once more.

1. I'm trying to explain all the data I have with me
2. I am constantly on the lookout for new data that contradicts my models.

So when the future happens, I am still looking for data that will contradict my current model. I have no reason to believe that my model will still hold at all, it's just that I'm looking for examples of my model being wrong. If it doesn't happen, yay, I was right. If it does, alright, now let's take all the data we have, see where it went wrong, and update my model and carry on.

Why this model and no other? Because whatever model I pick has to
1. Explain all the past data, and do nothing else.
2. Enable me to look for deviations from my previous model.
which is exactly what my previous model is.

@santosh,

Thanks! As I say, it'll probably be a few days till I respond. But would you mind answering the other question, for when I do? It will enable me to respond better. Namely -- what is it you are modelling, exactly?

Thanks! Take care.

@semck83
Thanks for a great response. I love discussing knowledge and stuff like this so I appreciate you taking time to respond. Again I’ve tried to explain why I think you’re mistaken, with 2 . Sorry its so long.

1. Is my stance irrational? Is yours?
Be sure you don’t confuse rational beliefs with rational actions. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. That belief, in itself, is not irrational. A belief in the regularity of nature is irrational. A belief in the Bible’s truth is irrational.

It is not irrational to accept a belief is not rationally justifiable, but still act on it. So I might accept love or greed isn’t rationally justified, but still make decisions using it. So if I say “I know the regularity of nature can’t be rationally justified, but can’t help living as if it is”, that’s a rational belief. My actions (which assume induction) aren’t irrational (as rationality doesn’t say anything about the issue), but a-rational (if that’s a word).

It IS irrational however to say an irrational belief is rational, as this is an intellectual error. This is what you seem to be doing. I say that because you would likely claim the Bible is “true” in a way I would not claim it was “true” that induction was valid.

To clarify, intellectually I wouldn’t say induction is a rational belief to have. It is irrational to assert its truth. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t live like its true for pragmatic reasons. Hume also argues we’re governed by a-rational emotions (rather than rational desires) but it doesn’t follow we shouldn’t act on them.

2. Assumptions, assumptions, assumption…
You seem to argue that, because we need SOME assumption to get going, that ANY sets of assumptions are equally valid and should just be compared for their consequences. I argue we should minimize unnecessary assumptions, and just include the bare few ones that are needed. Making extra assumptions can’t be justified on pragmatic or academic grounds.

Your response: “you're putting the cart before the horse. Christian theism gives a basis for taking rationality seriously at all; in your worldview, reason itself is arbitrary, no better than a bare assertion” is interesting, but a little confusing.

Rational views are ones that can be justified by observation or logic. We both must assume the validity of rationality – you need it to interpret/understand the Bible (and reach your assumption) and I need it to know anything. Having assumed it, the principle (rationality) itself dictates that minimal further assumptions should be made.

You however make many other assumptions (that every single statement in the bible is true) whereas I make only a minimal few. So I win ;-)

[As an aside, is belief in rationality irrational? Can it be? It seems logical unjustified for sure, but not illogical…]

@santosh
Surely your model specifically predicts things about the future... This is a major part of science, and shouldn't be ignored. To extrapolate in this way it must assume it applies in the future?

The whole idea of using 1 model to encapsulate results from a long period of time assumes one model could be valid throughout: scientists ensure the new model includes all results, old and new, so they don't think a different model applied to the future.

Moreover, all your decisions involve extrapolating past experiences to the future. Don't jump in front of a bus because laws of momentum and biology will kill you. This is rationally unjustifiable.

@semck, Let's start with the Strawman claims:
"I did not anywhere make the argument that the Christian God exists because it agrees with experience and intuition. Your refutation is therefore irrelevant, and constitutes the Straw Man fallacy."

While you technically didn't say "experience and intuition" I challenge you to explain to me how what you said was any different. You deny any physical evidence as compelling and deny rationality as compelling... you clearly then depend on what is between your ears - to the exclusion of physical reality... I would call such a decision quite subjective and emotionally based (i.e. based on your personal experience of what you interpret as God and your intuition of the same). As evidence I submit the following quotes from you from previous pages in this thread - that all reference a Christian god, and many of which depend on your faith and personal experience rather than referencing something tangible... if you don't want to call it "experience and intuition" than we are only talking about a difference in word choice not in meaning. Here are the quotes [with my comments in brackets]:

Page 3:
"You criticize God for not giving you evidence of His existence, and then it turns out you lack evidence for everything you believe, and reason for your every decision. You're not holding your own beliefs up to the same standard you're asking of others."
[herein you admit both Christian beliefs and avoid answering the assertion that there is no evidence of "His" existence... and infer that such evidence is not necessary. Christianity regularly requires faith without evidence - faith simply because you've prayed and felt (read this as personal experience and intuition) that you got the answer - felt (intuitioned) what was God's will, etc.]

Page 4:
"(In mine, I can know things, because God who made my mind also made and sustains the universe, and has revealed Himself and some aspects of His creation, including the fact that it is mostly regular and is made to be known by man)."
[you depend on God having "revealed Himself" as your reason for knowing... this is your experience - and since such experience only occurred in your head, it is intuition rather than objective experience that happened in the physical world... that is, unless you are claiming that God took on human form (or a burning bush) and literally talked to you (are you claiming this?)]

"And yes, I am claiming that there is a source of knowledge in the world, the same God who made it. Within my worldview, this and everything else make sense. "
[Again, where is this source of knowledge? Was it presented to you like Jesus physically appearing before Thomas? ...or was it completely within your head - which you *chose* to interpret as divine inspiration. I would call this your personal experience or intuition - not something objective or evidence based.]

Page 5:
"Incidentally, you" [Putin, that is] "were correct earlier that Christianity, specifically, does make historical claims about the world, such as the resurrection of Christ. Any attempted "disproof" of such a thing, though, could not be on naturalist or neutral grounds. Obviously a naturalist is going to interpret the evidence in light of his naturalist beliefs, just as I interpret the evidence in light of my Christian beliefs."
[And what are these beliefs based on?]

Page 6:
[said by someone else: "Anyway why does it matter Semck? You assert god is a logical necessity regardless of what the bible says."]

"Well no, certainly not regardless of what the Bible says. The Bible is part of it."
[So... you *do* accept physical evidence... but you are selective about it and only accept those pieces of evidence that support your pre-existing view. From what stance do you choose to accept certain evidence but not other evidence? Your feelings?]

Page 7:
"As for the argument for God: I have no direct-line argument from this to His existence. Rather, I'm inviting you to compare worldviews with me, and suggesting that yours is epistemologically bankrupt, while mine is not."
[I read that as, more or less, "my invented model for the world does not contradict itself, therefore it is true" i.e. Reification fallacy... because you think something you take it as real.]

"Nature COULD of course just happen to be regular even if it were chaotic -- there's always that one in infinity chance. So I wouldn't want to make this particularly strong claim.

"BUT: in the Christian world view, yes, there is near-regularity AND the ability to know it. As I said earlier, every worldview has assumptions. The assumptions in my world view, though, account for how I am able to know them, how I am able to know that the universe is regular, etc."
[So - here you admit that you *can't* know that your view is correct... yet you still use the word "know" as if there is no doubt. How do you "know" this? Well, you simply assert that Christianity allows you to "know" it. Sounds like faith / voices in your head / it feels right / intuition... or personal subjective experience of same... Again, use a different word if you like, but what your talking about is in my book not based in objective reality and is invented by your mind. ...and I was being polite calling it intuition. Somewhere else I called it delusion.]

"Yes, God performs miracles sometimes to further His redemptive plan in history. But these do not breach the fundamental order so profoundly as to make acting in the world impossible, particularly to those following Him. They are by no means chaos, and meanwhile, He makes it clear that the world as a whole is indeed ordered and knowable."
[this according to your faith - which is based on your feelings and intuition - though you'd probably call it "revelation"... which I see as having about as much value as someone saying "God told me to do it"]

Page 8:
"...the point is, whichever one He did, He then told us about it, and that's the absolutely key point. In my worldview, Christianity, God both created the world and created our minds; created the latter to understand the former; and told us He had done so. We thus have a sound epistemic (_in my world view_) for believing that the world will be ordered. I do not have to believe that my mind has mystical or magical capabilities to know the future, only that it was made by the same Person as the future, and designed so it could know it.

"That's another thing that an all-knowing God would know and be able to tell us (and He has). [...] The existence of God -- an all-knowing, all-powerful being Who is the ground of all being and cause of all existence -- is not just the kind of thing you test by a measurement in a lab. It is a fundamental, worldview-defining belief."
[again, based on what? It is a world view that is invented and simply feels good. It "explains" the world the same way that saying "magic did it" does. There is no explanation there - it is simply a bundling up of doubts and questions into a neat package and calling it done. Your heart or something (call it intuition) says this is a valid way to approach hard questions... I say it's a copout and is not based in anything outside of your head and the collective heads of those who have drunk the Kool-Aid. Mass self-delusion is still delusion. ...or intuition if you like.]

@semck, as to the Strawmen in points 4 and 5, I concede your point - someone else in the thread (or, regrettably possibly even the previous thread) made those (I confirmed you didn't and don't feel like spending further time tracking it down). Unfortunately I posted that before checking the source. These *are* common arguments - but they are not ones you made. Please accept my apologies.

@semck, as to point 6, you clearly reference the bible as evidence despite the fact that it in many places actually is provably wrong and where not provably wrong claims things that are highly dubious... but since you are not explicit for how you base this selective and absolute faith, I withdraw my specific accusations of fallacy. However, maybe you'd like to tell us how you arrive at such a selective and absolute faith in the bible? (usually it depends on such fallacious arguments) Maybe there are no logical fallacies on your part simply because you've never applied logic to the bible (you would not be alone in this - indeed most Christian thought discourages believing evidence and logic when it contradicts the dogma). As uclabb says, "...all I'm saying is that logical support need not be a necessary condition to believe something." i.e. you can believe without thinking about it. That is true. Once you think about it logically and honestly you will run into these fallacies... so, by all means, selectively don't apply logic to the bible even though you apply it seemingly everywhere else.

@semck,
...in response to your response to points 1 and 2:
To say that we have absolutely no reason to assume order then therefore that disorder is probable is nonsense. In order to make such a statement you (and the probability theory you mention) have to assume probability itself as a valid concept... which would be itself assuming rationality. Further, the assignation of equal probability to every imaginable world is arbitrary. You have no basis to make such an assumption. And... simply because you can imagine something does not give it likelihood. The only world that we can currently have any knowledge of its likelihood is the one that exists... we know it is possible and you cannot refute the possibility that it is inevitable (which I believe it is - in the same way that I believe that 2+2 will inevitably =4). An inevitable world has no need of a god.

I see a rational universe... which is consistent with it being either God-run or inevitable... I don't see a god (and I do see quite a bit suggesting no god), therefore I figure it (the universe) must have been inevitable.

@semck,
In regards to your response to #7 - I think maybe you missed my main point. My point was that each of these alternate beliefs (alternate to typical Christian belief) were each "possible" given what we know of god (i.e. nothing). And for you to argue that my belief (bb2b) [the universe in not chaotic and the universe does not need a god to make it rational and god does not exist] is "epistemologically bankrupt" while saying that your belief that [the universe is not chaotic and that the universe needs a god to make it so and therefore that god must exist] is not, does not make sense to me. You appear to bootstrap yourself into this conclusion: i.e. Christianity demands faith that it is internally consistent, you provide such faith, therefore, under your newly adopted (probably inherited, actually) faith, it is internally consistent. Nonsense.

@semck,
"a belief that the ultimate reality is good, just, and loving, instead of meaningless, does not particularly seem pessimistic to me."
Ah - but your world view *requires* the special God-foundation to make it so. My personal reality is good, just and loving and full of meaning and I didn't need a god to get there. Your view of reality without god is disturbing and dark - chaotic and irrational and unloving and possibly evil. I don't see the world that way - and I don't need to inject god into it to explain it.

Similarly, many Christians (not you necessarily - though I invite a response) feel that people are essentially bad and that they would do bad things all the time if they could get away with it (and didn't have God looking over their shoulder) and didn't have commandments against bad behavior. Indeed, many Christians feel that moral behavior is actual reducible simply to behavior that is in line with God's will - period. i.e. it is completely morally relative. I see this as an evil, actually. It is the sort of logic that leads people to kill because god told them to (Abraham willing to kill Isaac, for example). The god in the bible encourages such blind loyalty - loyalty that does not reflect any absolute morality. I admit that morality in my world view is not absolute either... but I do see it as logical and in my self-interest and the interests of those I love to endeavor to be moral... my view does not change when no one is looking - even without an all-seeing god. In this way too, Christianity (as commonly held) is more pessimistic about human nature than I am.
---
"As for the substance in this post, my point in some sense is this: your brain is not outside the world. Rather, it is part of it. You need not only to say that you view the world as rational or inevitable; you have to explain why such a view, coming from your brain, should be regarded as likely to be true. After all, you take a strictly naturalistic view of the brain and its origins, yet you are claiming to have to have got your hands on some very big metaphysical truths with it. I would love to hear how."

I don't believe in spirit realms or metaphysics. That's a start.
1) I observe the universe to be rational.
2) I don't observe any god - and I see many many reasons to doubt that a god is active in the world.
3) I see no need for a god to push evolution or even to create life (or similarly to push the stars around, or whatever). My understanding of biology is sufficient to be completely comfortable with the view that chemical processes over billions of years would result in outcomes such as ours here on Earth, given the necessary conditions and raw materials found here on Earth.
4) While I can concede that I'm somewhat agnostic about the beginnings of the universe, I understand from physicists such as Stephen Hawking that the big bang did not require any god - that the physics/math/probabilities were sufficient by themselves. I figure they probably know what they are talking about (and at least have an "epistemologically" consistent view on the matter, if that's the right word [it's not a word I'm used to using]). (i.e. I reserve the possibility of a completely absent/passive god that got the ball rolling, as they say... but I lean against it based on there being apparently no need for it [though my understanding of quantum physics falls somewhat short - and depends on the opinions of experts here]) Further... this view that the physics/math/probabilities were sufficient by themselves is consistent with points 1-3.
5) The concept of god somehow solving a prime mover problem is wholly unsatisfying and illogical to me. If the universe needed a god, then god needs a god before it. Alternatively, if a god does not need a god before it, then why does a universe need such a thing. Further... imagining something magical does nothing for me. ...and something magical erodes the very idea of the world being rational. It is not rational if it needs a cheat to work. In other words, having no god: a) appeals to my concept of rational, b) follows Occam's Razor by not introducing unnecessary elements when less will do for a functional model.

Hopefully this helps. I started with only #1 and #2 when I was young, and have added to that start since then. #3 requires either an understanding of biology and chemistry or the sort of faith in the scientific community that I display in #4 at the least... as Christianity has done its darnedest to undermine science when it conflicts with Christian dogma, it is no surprise that the average person in the U.S. has difficulties with #3 and #4. #5 seems to me to be self-evident logic... though I admit that it does not prove that god doesn't exist, only that it complicates the model.

@semck,
One last post for today... regarding your comments about my brain (and anyone's brain) being part of the world and how that somehow puts the onus on me to explain why I feel that the world is rational or inevitable.

Perhaps you've heard of Last Thursdayism:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
Well, that's where you end up if you simply decide to doubt the evidence of your senses and doubt that things are rational... doubt a little less, and you might end up Christian or Muslim or some such more conventional religious belief... doubt not at all the physical evidence and rationality and you end up believing something agnostic or atheistic with a scientifically rational basis for valuing evidence.

Here is the most succinct explanation I have found for why I believe both that a universe is inevitable and doesn't need a prime mover (it goes to the heart of #4 from the previous post):
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing

@semck, and here's one other essay/analysis I was looking for... happy reading!... (pay particular attention to the argument about probability):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html