coComments related to Blackblade's Blog

Before I was a Christian, I pr

2009-08-27T15:02:28.517+02:00

Before I was a Christian, I probably held the percentage that God existed at less than 10%. I was an Objectivist and a fan of Nietzsche, if that gives you a flavor of my brand of atheism. I started reading the Bible (to stick it to those deluded irrational believers I thought!)...and one day I prayed the Sinner's Prayer. I didn't know why at the time (now I know it was the Holy Spirit). Fast forward, and today I'm saved. So let's go with your 3.6% chances. What would it cost to avoid a four out a hundred chance of eternal damnation... Praying to Jesus to repent your sins, and asking Jesus to reveal Himself to you, and send the Holy Spirit to help you know the Truth...Perhaps 2-10 minutes, depending on how long you want to pray. Be sincere about it, even if you keep in mind that it only has a 4 out of 100 chance of being heard. Would you spare 2-10 minutes to avoid a 3.6% chance of eternal misery? Let's increase the cost a little bit. Let's say you also go to see a pastor to ask him to pray with you to reveal Jesus (perhaps 20-60 minutes). Let's say you download a few sermons as MP3s to listen, or even attend a few church services. You read Mere Christianity by Lewis or Basic Christianity by John Stott. Let's say you try to pray every day for just a few minutes, and try to read a book or two of the Bible (such as the Gospel of John). What are we up to now? 12 hours, tops? Half a day of your life? Perhaps you take an Alpha Class at church, a couple of weeks for just an hour? To be on the safe side, let's say it costs you 24 hours of your life. Is this really too expensive?

Nate
Amusingly by your own bastardization of of a decision tree... God is more likely to exist than Trex.
I did say, and the whole point behind it was, that the evidence you include, what you think that evidence says and the weight that you then give it is how you make up your mind. To my mind, you used the wrong factors to determine the likelihood ... but the result could be accurate from your perspective :-)

How about we apply the same sy

2009-08-27T14:05:01.477+02:00

How about we apply the same system to say.... T-Rex. Historical Documentary Evidence: 0% Its geology for crying out loud. Objective reproducible evidence: Not a single Trex has ever been produced in a controlled environment. Belief: Fewer people belief in T-rex than believe in God. Logical Derivation: Logic? In geology??? Ethics vs Ethos: Lack of Observed Interaction: 0%. Amusingly by your own bastardization of of a decision tree... God is more likely to exist than Trex.

Mrs. Pilgrim

2009-08-27T12:33:56.394+02:00
Mrs. Pilgrim
With all due respect, I think your assessments are biased, sir--understandably so, being only human as we all are. You might want to rework them with a few modifications, after some research.
Of course they're biased ... this is my fundamental point. The weighting that one gives different types of evidence is a personal decision. This is why rational, smart people can reach different conclusions from the same data.

Some juan
There is a 0% likelihood of a "lack of any directly observed interaction"?
No, that fact suggests that there is no God (0% likelihood of God) ... that's how it works.

Do you really mean that you wo

2009-08-26T20:30:42.830+02:00

Do you really mean that you would discount your own interaction that much? 70% from a scale that weighs 260% is about 27%. So if you personaly saw God, he spoke to you and granted you three wishes, you would only credit that as a 27% chance He exists? I think your process ans setup are flawed.

On our discussion on Vox's sit

2009-08-26T20:03:19.509+02:00

On our discussion on Vox's site about the cost vs. risk of eternal damnation, you wrote this: "So ... 18% (God exists) * 20% (It is the Christian one and hell therefore exists) ... equals 3.6%" Where did you come up with the 20% in this calculation?

Under what catagory would you

2009-08-26T20:01:52.416+02:00

Under what catagory would you place testimonies of living people who have interacted with God?

There is a 0% likelihood of a

2009-08-26T19:51:25.448+02:00

There is a 0% likelihood of a "lack of any directly observed interaction"?

Mr. Blackblade, did you consid

2009-08-26T19:44:14.546+02:00

Mr. Blackblade, did you consider records of observed interactions? For instance, Matthew 3:15-17, or Acts 9:1-8? There are plenty more, and obviously, somebody saw something. That you personally are not convinced that the Factor X is/was God, does not mean that it must NOT have been God and therefore invalidates the event for consideration. With all due respect, I think your assessments are biased, sir--understandably so, being only human as we all are. You might want to rework them with a few modifications, after some research.

Hey Philaegle ... great to see

2009-08-26T15:27:27.782+02:00

Hey Philaegle ... great to see you here ... how could I forget our conversations :-) I will definitely pop by your blog ... I don't often update this one to be honest .. as you can see.

I came across this entry from William Lane Craig while surfing the net. " Dear Professor Craig, The cumulative case for the existence for God proceeds from some data (physical constants, sentient souls, testimonies for miracles, etc.) to the existence of God as the best explanation of these data. There are some important objections. 1. Such inference does not show why theism is a better explanation than, say, the hypothesis of the existence of a very powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster. 2. Neither it says why some evil being - some powerful, malevolent being, say, something like Satan - is not a better explanation than God; especially when the existing evil is included in the data. How would you counter? Thank you very much. Vlastimil" The Dr Craig answers his questions and you can check it out via the link.

Hey Blackblade. I've discusse

2009-08-26T14:59:53.319+02:00

Hey Blackblade. I've discussed issues with you a few times in the past at Vox's blog. I look forward to doing so here. If you like, my blog is www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com . Check it out at your leisure. I've just bookmarked yours.JDC

Voted 5 for this :) Great job!

2008-08-13T13:44:34.952+02:00

Voted 5 for this :) Great job!

2008-08-06T17:18:47.358+02:00

Delayed Shameless Self Promoti

2008-07-31T20:32:06.555+02:00

Delayed Shameless Self Promoti ...

Testing my own commenting syst

2008-07-30T14:56:47.796+02:00

Testing my own commenting system.

coComments related to Blackblade's Blog

Before I was a Christian, I pr

How about we apply the same sy

Some juan There is a 0% likelihood of a "lack of any directly observed interaction"? No, that fact suggests that there is no God (0% likelihood of God) ... that's how it works.

Do you really mean that you wo

On our discussion on Vox's sit

Under what catagory would you

There is a 0% likelihood of a

Mr. Blackblade, did you consid

Hey Philaegle ... great to see

Hey Blackblade. I've discusse

Voted 5 for this :) Great job!

Delayed Shameless Self Promoti

Testing my own commenting syst

Some juan
There is a 0% likelihood of a "lack of any directly observed interaction"?
No, that fact suggests that there is no God (0% likelihood of God) ... that's how it works.