What is faith? Really?

[Hermit]

Define accessible by prayer.

I provided an example here. You can generalise a definition from that yourself.

[mistermack]

To determine a percentage, circumstances must be quantifiable to begin with.

To determine a percentage, yes.

But I can easily give a percentage, and say that that is my best estimate of how I feel on the subject.
I just did it on the OJ Simpson question. 95% guilty, 5% doubt. People can easily do the same thing, about the existence of god. It's a way of expressing an opinion on your level of certainty.

It's got to reveal more than just ''I believe'' or ''I don't believe''.

[Hermit]

To determine a percentage, circumstances must be quantifiable to begin with.

To determine a percentage, yes.

But I can easily give a percentage, and say that that is my best estimate of how I feel on the subject.
I just did it on the OJ Simpson question. 95% guilty, 5% doubt. People can easily do the same thing, about the existence of god. It's a way of expressing an opinion on your level of certainty.

It's got to reveal more than just ''I believe'' or ''I don't believe''.

The likelihood of OJ's guilt is a matter of determining and evaluating empirical matters of fact (about which we can of course quibble), but OK, let's see how close I can get: My lack of belief in a God creator thingy is 100% because I have encountered no evidence whatsoever for his existence so far. Can this serve as a basis for even approximately guessing the (un)likelihood of his existence? I think not. I read somewhere Richard Dawkins saying he is about 99.9% certain that there is no God. Nowhere does he explain on what basis he did his arithmetic, let alone how, and I don't know how he could if he even tried.

[mistermack]

To determine a percentage, circumstances must be quantifiable to begin with.

To determine a percentage, yes.

But I can easily give a percentage, and say that that is my best estimate of how I feel on the subject.
I just did it on the OJ Simpson question. 95% guilty, 5% doubt. People can easily do the same thing, about the existence of god. It's a way of expressing an opinion on your level of certainty.

It's got to reveal more than just ''I believe'' or ''I don't believe''.

The likelihood of OJ's guilt is a matter of determining and evaluating empirical matters of fact (about which we can of course quibble), but OK, let's see how close I can get: My lack of belief in a God creator thingy is 100% because I have encountered no evidence whatsoever for his existence so far. Can this serve as a basis for even approximately guessing the (un)likelihood of his existence? I think not. I read somewhere Richard Dawkins saying he is about 99.9% certain that there is no God. Nowhere does he explain on what basis he did his arithmetic, let alone how, and I don't know how he could if he even tried.

Yes, but you are perfectly free to estimate.
Just because you use a percentage, that doesn't mean you can't guess at it. There is no obligation to calculate the figure from hard facts.

The IPCC do exactly that, each time they issue a report. They give their confidence as a percentage figure.
They don't calculate that from hard figures, using a proven method.
That just pick a number out of the air, having studied the form.

A bit like the pope does, when he give an ''infallible'' declaration.

[Tero]

Define accessible by prayer.

I provided an example here. You can generalise a definition from that yourself.

It does not really mean anything or measure anything. If I pray to a potted plant to cure me and I'm cured, welll...I had access to a potted plant!

[Hermit]

you are perfectly free to estimate.

Based on what criteria? Any estimate of the likelihood of the existence of a God thingie is fundamentally arbitrary and therefore a waste of time, no matter if the estimate is 100%, 0% or anything in between. Why should anyone bother?

The IPCC do exactly that, each time they issue a report. They give their confidence as a percentage figure.

As I said, you can evaluate empirical matters of fact and quibble, which is exactly what you do in the case of climate change. The proposition "There exists/does not exist a supernatural God thingie" is not subject to empirical examination except for individual gods of which empirical claims are made, such as, for example "A God who answers prayers exists." or "A God who punishes nations with tsunamis because they are populated by sinners, gays, communists, whatever,exists."

[Hermit]

Define accessible by prayer.

I provided an example here. You can generalise a definition from that yourself.

It does not really mean anything or measure anything. If I pray to a potted plant to cure me and I'm cured, welll...I had access to a potted plant!

Go back to your lab, Tero.

[mistermack]

The proposition "There exists/does not exist a supernatural God thingie" is not subject to empirical examination except for individual gods of which empirical claims are made, such as, for example "A God who answers prayers exists." or "A God who punishes nations with tsunamis because they are populated by sinners, gays, communists, whatever,exists."

That's not the proposition though.
The proposition is ''how sure am I that there is/is not a god''.
Not ''is there'' or ''isn't there''.

You're stating the strength of your own belief/disbelief.

I have no idea whatsoever what the actual odds are, but I can say with confidence that I'm more than 99% sure that there isn't one.

[Hermit]

The proposition is ''how sure am I that there is/is not a god''.
Not ''is there'' or ''isn't there''.

That's not a distinction I have any use for.

[mistermack]

The proposition is ''how sure am I that there is/is not a god''.
Not ''is there'' or ''isn't there''.

That's not a distinction I have any use for.

That's what the thread's about though.
Not ''is there or isn't there a god'' but how strongly you believe, or disbelieve.

[Hermit]

The proposition is ''how sure am I that there is/is not a god''.
Not ''is there'' or ''isn't there''.

That's not a distinction I have any use for.

That's what the thread's about though.
Not ''is there or isn't there a god'' but how strongly you believe, or disbelieve.

Reiterating what you said is of no help. Is it my turn to repeat myself? OK, here goes: The strength of my lack of belief in the existence of a God thingie cannot be quantified. All I can say is that I lack a belief in the existence of a God thingie because I have yet to encounter empirical evidence for such an entity's existence.

[mistermack]

Is it my turn to repeat myself? OK, here goes: The strength of my lack of belief in the existence of a God thingie cannot be quantified.

I entirely agree. I never said it could, so why repeat yourself?

I'm pointing out that anyone can estimate it, and you repeat that it can't be quantified, whatever you mean by that.

To me, it's like you dodge the question by answering a different one.

If you are saying that you are incapable of estimating or guessing such things, fair enough.
It takes all sorts.

[Hermit]

I can haz estimation of the strength of a belief, or a lack of a belief, without reference to quantifiable units within a defined scale? That's just so cool. In that case I estimate mine to be more on the baroque end of the spectrum than the polyunsaturated.

[mistermack]

I can haz estimation of the strength of a belief, or a lack of a belief, without reference to quantifiable units within a defined scale? That's just so cool. In that case I estimate mine to be more on the baroque end of the spectrum than the polyunsaturated.

I understand.

[JimC]

My lack of faith is bigger than your lack of faith!

So there!