It is not useful to prove or disprove gravity or evolution or that we are not brains in vats. But still I believe those things.

Or, it could be the problem that all the laws of the universe are not known. If they are then that should be proven. It is not, as far as I know. Therefore, the jury is just out on a bunch of stuff. Probabilistically one could say that it is unlikely that something will turn out to be true, but that is a belief - which is OK. Rationality has to require an empirical grounding to promote a belief to a fact. Otherwise, it requires leaving a placeholder marked with a question mark and the current calculation of the probabilities. This could also be described as agnosticism.

As to Pinker, it is irrelevant and no basis for an argument that I can see. The supposition that our ancestors on the Savannah did not invent formal proofs, but rather invented probabilities does not discredit proofs, therefore, it does not warrant the statement that the utility of formal logic or proofs is vanishingly small today. Interestingly, those early hominids did not invent airplanes either, but airplanes sure are useful today. Further, just for fun, airplanes were invented by ancestors, just a little more recently, same with formal proofs.

The utility of proofs is in dealing with very abstract concepts. One could argue that the age of reason really pushed the need for formal logic. As we became more reasonable (pun intended), and strove to understand more abstract concepts, we discovered logic. I would venture that God is a very abstract concept that begs for formal logic. It is one of the few tools for dealing with this weird phenomonon that so many people share independently of culture.

As to the good fortune that most of us deal with probabilities today, it is only fortunate if you are trying to make the argument that God does not exist and also asserting that proofs are not useful in that endeavor. I refer back to Dawkins as to the assertion that it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It’s a bit late, so I might need to fill in some arguments at a nicer hour, but in summary, you can’t state unequivocally that God does not exist without partaking of faith yourself, and that is fine, as long as you recognize it. Trying to dismiss logic because it doesn’t get used all the time by us or by early humans is like saying that cows don’t contribute to green house gases because they aren’t made of styrofoam

I can’t prove something is more plausible, because it’s subjective, but I think the fact that millions more people believe in the christian god than the FSM, makes it more plausible. How much more plausible depends on your view of humanity. I certainly don’t think millions of people believing in thing x is a conclusive proof.

Kev, my previous post might be beating a dead horse now that I re-read your post about aliens water, wine and brains in vats. I think we’re in agreement except for the “could a god exist if advanced aliens count, and if so, does that change anything”, where I’m unclear of your posistion. I am clear WRT your views on this and christianity.

God(s) … no evidence whatsoever, therefore I am an athiest as far as the existance of god(s) go.

I present a counter-challenge to you: Prove that the christian god is more plausible than the FSM.

I had understood you to say earlier that gods can’t exist, practically impossible that is, therefore you know the christian god can’t. Supernaturalness was a key part of your argument.

If you don’t think they’re practically impossible, supernaturalness isn’t requried, then that changes things a lot I’d think. I agree that the christian god was probably made up, (based on my view of human nature, not because I think it’s much simpler) and I’m as sure as I’m sure that if I buy a lotto ticket tomorrow it won’t win. I’m not certain though. If I didn’t believe that a godthing could have a non-supernatual origin, then I’d be certain it doesn’t exist. (actually, that’s a lie, because I’m not sure there aren’t supernatural forces afoot, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t, but you know what I mean in the prev sentence).

I don’t think some something being around in biblical times is unlikely like it’s unlikely a dropped rock falls up. I thought you were saying it’s this kind of unlikely which would lead to a certainty I could understand. Perhaps you’re saying more like your certain jesus wasn’t over 7 feet tall, or closer to that anyway.

Clearly certain is subjective, so again, I’m not trying to tell you what to be certain about based on what I am or am not certain about, but I’m questioning your logic.

I believe that future humans and hypothetical advanced societies elsewhere in the universe will have technologies that appear magical to us. I believe that those technologies will obey all the known laws of the universe.

I am certain of it.

I am certain that visitors from outer space did not resurrect Lazurus or turn water into wine, part seas or carve tablets. There is a simpler explanation. Those things did not happen. The stories were made up by people. I am certain of it.

What would it take to change my mind? Evidence. Any evidence at all. There is none.

Given enough time, and if we don’t blow up the planet 1st, might advances in genetics and technology produce something / someone that meets the definition of god to the 2007 Kevin? The whole “advanced enough tech becomes indistinguishable from magic” thing. Or does the fact that this future thing not considered supernatural to the year 200007 brights, even though it can part the red sea, set bushes aflame, have a fatherly regard for some less evolved species/people and give them tablets with commandments, etc mean it’s not “god”. If it can do everything that the god of religion x,y and z can do?

You can see where I’m going with this, one jillion planets in the universe, the odds of life on any if them is nonzero, the odds of them evolving thus is nonzero, etc. Seems we have one data point with a planet where people progressed in not much time at all to be able reverse cardiac arrest, screen for genetic diseases before birth, go to the moon, be able to vaporize cities on the opposite side of the planet etc, which seems a good percentage of the way there between what was possible in say jesus’ time and today.

If you detonate 10 nuke warheads in my bathroom while I’m in the shower, I’m certain I’d die. I’m not certain there’s not something/someone out there that’s as powerful as the god of the christian bible, (particularly if you read some of it as metaphor), that got that way through an explainable progression. The universe is a big place, and things have been happening for quite some time. I’d think if this god came and gave a powerpoint presentation on his origins to the next Bright Convention, he’d be warmly welcomed. If he happened to be the christian god, (which seems highly unlikely to me, but I’m not certain) then you could have brights in church and we could all agree that supernaturalness was not a key part of their doctrine.