Swap your roles

[OldTrees]

Wow DesertKnight.
That is an argument I had not heard before.
What is a strong atheist's response to the origin of logic?

[Daxx]

I could provide one but I suspect this is the wrong thread. I'll let some of the theists take a crack at it, see how well they do at cogitive dissonance.

[Daytripper]

I'm used to something.

Ok, let the Christians refute that then, and I might bring some arguments from the old box I don't believe in. Gotta do something. This is looking stale.

[Neopergoss]

I'm sorry for not responding sooner. Now then:

I honestly wonder if the Game Theory argument I was making had flaws and more specifically what flaws it has.

The relative probability of each possibility must be considered.

Thank you. Slight clarification, I epistemologically do not believe that certainty on a belief ever reaches 100% which is the point I define as Knowledge. Hence lack of knowledge does not preclude lack of definition. In fact the set of possibilities combined with the intuitive selection from that set acts as the used definition. The goal is to constantly improve the used definition.

Your definition of "Knowledge" is far too exclusive. There is very little that could be known in such a way. In fact, you can't even know that the sun is going to rise.

One must accept certain facts while conceding that they are less than 100% certain. Without less than certain knowledge, we couldn't make it through the day. Nothing would make sense. Every time you open a door, you're relying on less than certain knowledge. Will the door open when I turn the knob? No way to be sure. But we can be pretty sure.

If the only basis for your belief in one particular possibility is "intuitive selection," then can you really blame another person for "intuitively selecting" the moral possibility that rape and murder are A-OK as long as you enjoy doing it? And how do you define improvement? Is that "intuitive" as well?

You are right I worded the first option poorly. However I did not know how to take a universal set down from that point that would agree with all objective moral theories. I guess I could have split it up into
Wrong because people inherently have a right not to be killed?
Wrong because in total 1 person would be dead and 0 saved?
Wrong because the virtuous person would not wish to kill?
Wrong because people believe it is wrong?
Wrong because our instinct doesn't like it?

To verify the answer you gave:
Morality is purely descriptive and not normative?

"Wrong because people inherently have a right not to be killed?" I would agree that people have this right. But where does the right come from? Why do we have it? Why is it right? It's meaningless to simply assert the right without considering these questions. And the truth is that it originates from our moral instinct. If no one had this instinct, the concepts of right and wrong wouldn't exist. Right and wrong are ideas in people's heads. I don't understand how anyone can say otherwise. They can't exist independently from people that believe in them, just as color doesn't exist without people to see it. There are acts, just as there are wavelengths of light, but a person has to have a perception for something to be blue or for something to be good.

"Morality is purely descriptive and not normative?" Someone without a moral instinct would not perceive people's inherent right not to be killed, but other people must still hold them accountable for it.

[Neopergoss]

That OT discussion should probably be moved. To compensate, I will play along with a defense of theism.

This is what I believed for a long time:
We can't really know what happened before the big bang. All possibilities are equally valid. So I choose to believe that God caused the big bang because I need to explain and understand why and how it happened somehow. Why not God?

[killybob]

i used to believe that as well. that was before i realized that there was a perfectly good scientific explanation for it. however i have in no way rejected the idea of a god.

[Neopergoss]

i used to believe that as well. that was before i realized that there was a perfectly good scientific explanation for it. however i have in no way rejected the idea of a god.

Yeah, I stopped believing in God when I realized that using God as the creator of the big bang doesn't explain anything; in fact, it raises more questions than it answers: specifically, what created God? Without a logical foundation, I couldn't in good conscience believe in God, as much as I wanted to. I even begged him for some kind of proof. So my conclusion was that if he exists, he doesn't want me to believe 

[Pineapple]

i used to believe that as well. that was before i realized that there was a perfectly good scientific explanation for it. however i have in no way rejected the idea of a god.

Yeah, I stopped believing in God when I realized that using God as the creator of the big bang doesn't explain anything; in fact, it raises more questions than it answers: specifically, what created God? Without a logical foundation, I couldn't in good conscience believe in God, as much as I wanted to. I even begged him for some kind of proof. So my conclusion was that if he exists, he doesn't want me to believe 

"begged him for some kind of proof...he doesn't want me to believe"
He was testing your faith, and of course god doesn't have those desires such as "want"ing, but whether or not he wants you to believe has nothing to do with whether or not you spend eternal damnation in hell.

Basically, you try to shift the burden of proof onto the god and the side who believes in him, but how can you believe that he doesn't exist? Your argument is that you demand evidence. Unfortunately, that evidence cannot exist for the production of such evidence contradicts the existence of the god. Yet, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I have never seen someone die first-hand. How can I believe that people die? Because I am a reasonable fellow; the people around me have either experienced death or believe it exists, and there's evidence that everything has an end. The people around me have either experienced a divine epiphany or believe a god exists, and there's evidence that everything has a creator.

[killybob]

finally a good argument towards theism. to answer that i must try to think like God may. we are his creation and he loves to be loved by his creation. now i can easily understand him wanting us to have faith but surely he should give us reason to have faith. as you said there is absence of evidence to his existence. the only reason we have to believe in him is the threat of hell and the promise of heaven. both of these are rather hollow promises now however, since no one has ever found evidence about it's existence. back to the evidence thing again. God seems to have made us naturally reliant on evidence and since he does not provide it he automatically appears to be either rejecting us or non existent.

When God said "Let there be light!", Chuck Norris said "Only for half the day

[Neopergoss]

I had a reply, but I should probably be leaving that to the theists. Gotta remember my role in this thread 

But then, you're also stepping out of your role, aren't you, patch? So here goes:

"begged him for some kind of proof...he doesn't want me to believe"
He was testing your faith, and of course god doesn't have those desires such as "want"ing, but whether or not he wants you to believe has nothing to do with whether or not you spend eternal damnation in hell.

You know, incidentally, that's also the reason why the Flying Spaghetti Monster has never given you any proof of his existence except for cryptic prophecies through Bobby Henderson.

Actually, when I was very little and I first heard about dinosaurs, I asked my mom why they weren't mentioned in the creation story. She didn't have an explanation, but I quickly came to the conclusion that fossils were a test of faith. I'm not unfamiliar with that perspective, but I don't find it compelling. It's a type of special pleading. Personally, I think if God were real, he would want me to see proof for myself. I find the concept of blind faith disturbing, and I can't imagine a benevolent God expecting it of His followers. And as I said to OldTrees already, I find Pascal's Gambit to be quite a despicable perversion of logic.

Basically, you try to shift the burden of proof onto the god and the side who believes in him, but how can you believe that he doesn't exist?

Basically, you try to shift the burden of proof to a negative, which is a perversion of basic logic. How can you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Zeus don't exist but the Christian God does? And how dare you imply that I might go to Hell for not believing in your absurd superstition? That's on par with the belief of obsessive compulsives that their repetitive behaviors can protect their loved ones from dying.

Your argument is that you demand evidence.

Yes, I need evidence before I believe in something. If we start believing in things without evidence, what's to stop me from believing that I can fly? How can you believe that I can't shoot laser beams out of my eyes?

Unfortunately, that evidence cannot exist for the production of such evidence contradicts the existence of the god.

Of course evidence can exist for God. If my keyboard turned into cheese right now

[Neopergoss]

Just kidding. To continue:

...I have to admit I would start to wonder. Or did you mean something else by "evidence for the production of such evidence"? Not really too clear.

Yet, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then? Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or Zeus? Why just the Christian God?

I have never seen someone die first-hand. How can I believe that people die? Because I am a reasonable fellow; the people around me have either experienced death or believe it exists, and there's evidence that everything has an end.

That's completely different. Sure, I may not personally have seen the data from the Hubble telescope, but it's available for me to see, and when I ask if there's evidence, people say, "Sure, just go see for yourself if you don't believe me." But with God, people say "Oh, you just have to have faith," or "You can see proof of His existence in a flower." Please.

The people around me have either experienced a divine epiphany or believe a god exists, and there's evidence that everything has a creator.

What evidence is there that everything has a creator? There actually is evidence that people are hardwired to experience a divine presence (and other superstitions), but there isn't evidence that it exists independently from their mind. To me, that is pretty strongly suggestive that it is indeed just in their minds.

[Daxx]

Okay guys, let's remember the thread's premise here. Stay on your respective "sides". If you want to turn this into an actual discussion just say and I'll happily split the thread off.