Is Theism Justified?

[LiamOS]

In the thread 'Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?' EduChris wrote:

[...] theism is at least as justified (and probably more justified) than non-theism.

For Debate:
-Is Theism justified?
-If so, is it more justified than Non-Theism?

[I AM ALL I AM]

... d.thomas: Offer a non-theistic set of beliefs about the nature of reality that you feel more likely to be true than belief in God.

G'day Jester.

Why would this be necessary ?

Another "set of beliefs" neither validates nor invalidates a "belief in God".

If a "set of beliefs", in this case christianity, cannot stand on its own, then what difference if there are no other beliefs proposed ?

I also do not see where this is a rule for this subforum and it appears to be a personal condition that you are imposing.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Why would this be necessary ?

As per the rules, be sure to respond to moderator comments via PM.

[EduChris]

...So how do you propose to move from belief in this UAN&N-CR to 'knowledge' of it?...

There might be any number of possibilities here, but none have anything to do with my very limited thought experiment, which serves only to show that the assumption of theism is objectively more justified than the assumption of non-theism.

...And how does knowledge of IT move to knowledge that we humans actually matter in some way to IT?

If you go back to my original thought experiment, you will see that the theistic God is defined in this manner.

[bernee51]

...So how do you propose to move from belief in this UAN&N-CR to 'knowledge' of it?...

There might be any number of possibilities here, but none have anything to do with my very limited thought experiment, which serves only to show that the assumption of theism is objectively more justified than the assumption of non-theism.

I still think your conclusions are wrong.

I might choose 1 - based on the 'truth' that theism is false.

Now I might be confused over this...but is that due to my lack of understanding...or your confused thought experiment

...And how does knowledge of IT move to knowledge that we humans actually matter in some way to IT?

If you go back to my original thought experiment, you will see that the theistic God is defined in this manner.

You can define god however you like...it is your fantasy.

[Question Everything]

...why would theism being true cause you to choose option 1 instead of option 2?

Humans instinctively, intrinsically, inescapably endeavor to find meaning; we are meaning making creatures. Given the reality of theism, there could be nothing more meaningful than the possibility of knowing the "ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent Reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way."

I don't see how what you just said squares with:

In this situation, the objective truth about our condition could not help us--it would in fact cause us to become insane--and we would be better off not knowing the objective truth.

[Question Everything]

I see it as Pascal's wager...

I don't see it as Pascal's wager, I see it as something different that resembles it. Whatever it is, it does not make any sense to me at all.

[EduChris]

...I might choose 1 - based on the 'truth' that theism is false...

Of course anyone can choose whichever option they want. But my thought experiment is only concerned with rational choices; and given non-theism, option #1 amounts to the irrational decision to cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Cathar1950]

...why would theism being true cause you to choose option 1 instead of option 2?

Humans instinctively, intrinsically, inescapably endeavor to find meaning; we are meaning making creatures. Given the reality of theism, there could be nothing more meaningful than the possibility of knowing the "ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent Reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way."

I don't see how what you just said squares with:

In this situation, the objective truth about our condition could not help us--it would in fact cause us to become insane--and we would be better off not knowing the objective truth.

No it doesn't and I suspect this is because of his misunderstanding of meaning as as more secondary experience as if we just invented meaning out of the blue.
Meaning is more reflective and it is more of a result of learning and experiencing relationships.

...So how do you propose to move from belief in this UAN&N-CR to 'knowledge' of it?...

There might be any number of possibilities here, but none have anything to do with my very limited thought experiment, which serves only to show that the assumption of theism is objectively more justified than the assumption of non-theism.

...And how does knowledge of IT move to knowledge that we humans actually matter in some way to IT?

If you go back to my original thought experiment, you will see that the theistic God is defined in this manner.

If I recall we objected to your false choice and rather questionable meaning of objective. Objectivity turned out to be rather subjective and a red herring that begs the questions with sophism...

[Furrowed Brow]

1) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for truth, and only secondarily for this-worldly human flourishing.

2) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for this-worldly human flourishing, and only secondarily for truth

Sorry EduChris I clicked here for the link you provided in another thread and I admit I have not read all this thread. So if this point is made already I apologise. Your thought experiment is about personal motivations and you seem to misunderstand at least some non theists, or at least do no consider they are able to hold values that take precedence over "flourishing". It fails to allow that some non theists are attracted to greater cogency, rigorous thinking, positions least guilty of logical fallacy and if they could would always choose the most adept handling of semantics. Have you not stopped to consider they might choose this life over "flourishing".....every time. A life with no invalid inferences seems a fine life. For those who value reason and logic in the highest there should be no other choice; that is, other than personal weakness means they would sacrfice reason for personal gain. Maybe your thought experiment is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives some non theists.

[Cathar1950]

...I might choose 1 - based on the 'truth' that theism is false...

Of course anyone can choose whichever option they want. But my thought experiment is only concerned with rational choices; and given non-theism, option #1 amounts to the irrational decision to cut off your nose to spite your face.

It seems it is you that are cutting off their noses because you cut off yours.
That you try to narrow it down two two rational choices is irrational.
Much of our experiencing of choice is more choosing between equally good choices that may or may not have equally bad consequences making them bad choices.

I think we spend our lives developing our worldviews and hopefully find our views shared and informed. Not only are our worldviews shaped by our experiences as organisms inherited from our ancestors but also as we mature developing and maturing both socially and individually in our contexts.
Social pressures and forces are powerful forces shaping our beliefs and worldviews as we share ontological existence as humans. .

I can see or imagine God as not only creator but also the ultimate creature that includes all contingent creatures. Humanity is not fallen; we are evolving, maturing, social, cultural animals. Everything is included in and enriches the life and memory of God, forever without loss to God. God can only be enriched as God includes all satisfaction that even evil consequences can overcome or diminish allowing novelty and increase.
From our limited perspective, it may seem our end is nihilistic while our existence could not fail to enrich God or even the universe of what is. Your proposal begs the question while reducing others as wrongly nihilistic as even the worse of scoundrels can love and care for others given life meaning enough to justify living and living better with others.
I would think God does a better job with plants and insects that seem to have no need for your alternative and not only do they flourish but at times seem perfectly willing to lay down their lives for each other.
I like to think of us all as having come from a long line of successful ancestors that through time (maybe three billions years or so) and as the mutated and adapted managed to make some interesting and complex possibilities even as their existences changes the world they evolved in with greater responses and satisfactions. Maybe the goal of life is to have someone represent us at the end of the line and see what we have become together...