Essay talk:An argument against the existence of a human God

You begin: "Now I am going under the assumption that there are an infinite number of possible religions, and that only one is correct.".

I suppose you first assumption may be correct - but I see no basis whatsoever for the second.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is still kind of a wip. I wrote this on the toilet on my smart phone last night. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 12:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

also it's just an assumption for the sake of the argument, if you look at aw PacWalkers essay on Pascal's wager there is more on other assumptions that can be madeBubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 12:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - it is an assumption for the sake of the argument. But it's completely unwarranted. If I start an argument using as my bases assumptions that the Loch Ness Monster is an intelligent being who wants to communicate with us, then people would probably question my assumptions before engaging with my argument.

So what would be basis of your assumption that one religion is the true one?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker's essay? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about PacWalker's essay. I am responding to this one.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was asking, because as far as I knew, PW doesn't have any essays [1][2]. I thought you were referring to Essay:Why Pascal's Wager is stupid and I hate it instead. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry fuzzy, i got confused, i got confused with a thing pac made that was simmilar, with lots of charts i belive it was a coop Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 21:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

There is only one god!

Bela-Farin-Rod!!--Arisboch (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

So could 'the one true religion' be that of hallucigenia/some sentient species on a planet that is beyond the 'visibility sphere of the universe' from Earth's point of view? 31.51.113.101 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In theory yes, since the universe exists everywhere simultaniously, not just what we see from here. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The obvious flaw here

Like every other kind of idea: religions do not have equal odds of being right. A religion that alleges the sky is yellow is observationally wrong. A religion that alleges that alleges a bunch of scientifically true statements in a religious framing is correct(like say let's invent sun worshipping religion that says "all energy for life comes from the sun"), but in a coincidental way.

Taking the implied assumption of your essay, that being a religious idea doesn't automatically render an idea incorrect, with the relatively straightforward notion that all ideas are not equal, the argument becomes undermined. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

yes but in order to do that we would need to find a way to calculate waht chance of a religion being correct is, which is next to impossible due to the unobservable nature of religion. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 13:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm providing a counter argument to the essay. If the odds are incalculable, that would instantly invalidate an essay predicated on calculating those odds. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no sound logic to the opening series of statements. You suggest that an infinite number of possibilities mean that the possibility of any being correct is infinitely small. Is this how you approach every situation where you don't know something? Or do you actually make judgements about which possibilities are more likely to be accurate than others? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the suggestion that "A religion that alleges the sky is yellow is observationally wrong." is three-fold:

1. Religions rarely makes such blatantly idiotic claims about the world.
2. Religious texts are usually very convoluted about such scientifically testable claims.
3. Because of the vague and/or poetic/mystical nature of religious texts as well as the differing dogmas and theologies of their human adherents and interpreters, it's usually always possible to construct some Rube Goldbergish interpretation which allows the believer to claim that if you screw your eyes up just right when reading the text, it isn't contradicting scientific facts.

So while, in principle, empiricism might work as a sorting mechanism, in practice it would quickly run into problems. Let's take the Greek pantheon, for instance. You could say that the fact that we've been to the top of Mount Olympus and haven't seen either Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, Apollo or any of the other cavorting Greek deities means that their existence has been empirically debunked (through negative verification). However, if there were a lot of believers in these deities, they'd likely respond with some parallel to the Christian distinction between the sky and heaven, or claim that Olympus is a metaphor, that (the) god(s) can choose to be invisible etc. etc. etc. This is why, while it's often difficult prove a negative in general, it's virtually impossible to do so when dealing with supernatural claims which lend themselves so easily to Last Thursdayism. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)