[thechat] the god game

Paul Cowan paul at wishlist.com.au
Tue Feb 19 16:13:21 CST 2002

Martin wrote:
> Hmm - some sloppy phrasing of questions imo.
> There is no logical inconsistency in your answers.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Actually, what they've just said is that there *is* consistency in my
> answers...

I had a problem with the same question (and, indeed, many of the
same issues you raise). I was told:


The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster)
you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to
rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness
monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.


Indeed... and I think there's a world of difference. What I know
about probability suggests that if people have been looking for
hundreds of years for a monster which, presumably, manifests
itself physically in some way, then you are quite justified to
BELIEVE (key word) that it doesn't exist.

Not having any proof that a "God" exists is a different matter
again -- not the least because there is no reason (and my earlier
answers were consistent here) there is no reason for a "God" to
manifest itself physically in any way if it doesn't want to. You
can LOOK for a Loch Ness monster: by the very nature of "God",
you could look forever and said God might have no inclination
(or, indeed, ability) to manifest physically.

I think it's foolish to believe there is no God because you have no
proof that one exists: believing that it's rational to not believe in
a Loch Ness monster is a different kettle of fish.

The subtle differences in the way the word "belief" can be interpreted
from one question to another are also rather glibly ignored.

The questions themselves are rather vague anyway (conveniently so) and
poorly phrased: and, I think, are very biased towards the Judeo-

Anyway, 2 direct hits, no bullets.


More information about the thechat mailing list