No – by virtue of teaching him to drive, helping him get his license, ensuring he has insurance, access to a car, and sufficient fuel, I’m permitting him to use the car.
Perplexity wants to waste our time with ideas that the Catholic Church has been working on for two thousand years.
But “omnipotent omniscient morally perfect person who causally explains…” doesn’t necessarily imply that he approves or restricts every action and decision of the lives of his creation. That idea fits more with the medieval Islamic philosophers, who got into all sorts of problems trying to prove exactly what you’re asserting!
This ^ is insanity folks.More from Perplexity: :hey_bud::hey_bud::hey_bud:
Perplexity wants to waste our time with ideas that the Catholic Church has been working on for two thousand years.
The Church has spent centuries working out all the problems and has come up with solutions to every consideration it is possible for the human mind to imagine. The volume of all this material is impossible for any single person to absorb. That’s why we depend on the infallibilty of the Pope together with the Church Madisterium as a whole to provide the truth.
Any question you can think of can be answered if you research the Church’s vast knowledge. This is why Rome is considered the final authority on religious matters by the Christian world.
But people like Perplexity think they know better and waste their own time as well as ours on detals which they think they can work out on their own, like a kid interested in frogs thinking he can figure out the biology that makes a frog work without learning what thousands of scientists have already discovered.
Inevitably, they get it wrong. :yyeess::kiss4you::hammering:.
You permit him to use the car, which is neither a good or bad thing. You don’t permit him to kill himself with the car.
Sure, you can create any absurdity you want. This does not mean it is true. In fact, it does not prove anything. I still do not believe that you can interpret philosophy in a probabilistic fashion.Well, I’ve simply interpreted ST probabilistically. As we can see, all sorts of absurdities fall out from this, so I wanted to use the most absurd ones I could find (I’ve got a big pool to draw from
Yes you are. You said explicitly,ST informs us that we can’t be sure of whether God would or wouldn’t permit it, it follows that on ST, we can’t be sure of whether any given E will occur in your OP.
Right. And you have made no credible argument that suggests that if ST is true, then we cannot know if an event occurred. In fact, you have slyly suggested, by saying using Bayes’ theorem, we could prove that ST’s probability is near 0.0 (i.e., irrational); but, I don’t want to kill dialogue with technicalities., that that statement is true and moved on. You did offer some numbers, but you offered no justification for the chosen numbers.
False! You are not pretending that the event did not occur, you are pretending to remove knowledge of the event. Our background knowledge is that we know that people do die, we are pretending to remove the knowledge of that fact.
Step 3 is fallacious. We can be sure events occur because we can witness them. If ST is true, then the only thing we would not know is what the reason behind it is. Why do people die? I do not know. Do people die? I do know. Very different questions that you are aligning in Step 3.
See my first response in this post.
I get the 0–>1 scale of it, but you have no valid reason to assert any numeric value to any probability in untestable circumstances.
It seems to me that you are directly conflicting your definition of ST. You defined it in your first post and I previously copied what you wrote nearly verbatim. Now you are here stating that it is not what you wrote? By your own definition, a ST is one who accepts God exists, but does not accept revelation of His knowledge/reason. If God does not reveal Himself, he is impersonal by definition. If God is an impersonal God, then He is no different than the Deist interpretation of God.
You’re assuming a theory of probability never called Bayesian.
You must’ve missed my explanation conditional probabilities. We’re not even talking about whether events actually occurred, or whether we know why some event has occurred. We’re talking about whether an event would occur if some hypothesis were true.
I disagree, I’ve explained myself clearly on this point. Skeptical theism tells us that we can’t be privy to God’s moral justifications, so on ST we can’t know whether God would be morally justified in permitting an event E, or morally justified in prohibiting E. The justification of the numerical assignments is simply that it’s agreed upon that 0.5 is the numerical representation of the state of doxastic indifference. This isn’t controversial.
As I explained, when the theist say E would likely occur given theism, he’s simultaneously affirming that it’s unlikely that God would prevent E. He can’t say this on ST. Further, (3) can’t be fallacious, it’s a premise not an inference and (4) is a logical deduction.
No, you are assuming that you do not need to make tests to believe your results. Rudolph Carnap proposed a logical/inductive probability in much the same regard as Bayesian probability and, in the same monograph, rejected its use due to the fact that it is meta-scientific at best and the values associated with the hypothesis are vague and very ill-defined–he did, however, suggest that if logical probability could possibly be developed more and unified among every person, then one could use it; however, it is still as poorly developed now as it is then.
You are being fairly obtuse about this point. I have disagreed with your conclusion and I have offered what I think you are trying to state.
This is controversial because you have no reason to choose any number outside of 1, 0.5, and 0, and even by choosing one of the three, you are being selective about the numbers. Why is it not possible for the ST to have a P(ST)=0.75? Because you are choosing it to be 0.5? That is not a good reason.
As I have explained numerous times now, knowing that an event occurred and knowing why an event occurred are two different things. A ST may not know why God allowed an event to occur, but he certainly would know that an event occurred. Thus, 3 is fallacious.
Inasmuch as “killing himself with the car” is one of the possible outcomes of “permission to use the car”, there’s an implicit permission of the former in the latter. This doesn’t mean that I will it, or condone it, or explicitly permit it – just that I’m giving a permission which entails a certain freedom.
That doesn’t fit Catholic theology at all! And, in fact, we say exactly that! God is the “first cause” acting through us, the “secondary causes”: (CCC 306-308, 311; all emphases mine)
So, God permits all human actions, not because of their value on their own face and in the context of human understanding of those actions, but because God knows the good that God’s Providence will accomplish in creation.
That’s true, but what does it mean?
No, no. You’ve misunderstood. I was referring strictly to the root word, “skeptic.” In the case of Skeptical theism, it’s an adjective (skeptical). In the case of Cartesian skepticism, it’s a noun (skepticism). So the former system is, in essence, theism. The other, in essence, is skepticism.
Well, of course you can, but it’s obvious before you even do so what the outcome will be. As I said, the reason you derive absurdity from it is because you’re attempting to use it to do exactly what it says you cannot do. Skeptical theism says you cannot expect any particular action on God’s behalf, because you cannot understand how he operates. So if you plug ST into an equation to decide whether, based on ST, you can expect God to do something, you’re just being absurd. So naturally, you will derive absurdity from it.
The premise negates the question. The premise eliminates the possibility of prediction, and you then try to ask if, based on a supposition that flat-out denies having predictive power, you can predict something. I know I’m repeating myself here, but it just seems so obvious, yet you cling to it.
I don’t follow this at all
I agree. But, we’re not concerned with whether E actually occurs, we’re only concerned with whether it would if skeptical theism were true.
Well, It might or might not - depending on whether God wants to allow or prevent it (as your particular Skeptical Theist might think)
Exactly! It depends on whether God would allow it, and skeptical theism says we can’t know if God would allow it or prevent it, so it follows that we can’t know whether any event would occur, given that skeptical theism is true. (Note, this is quite different from saying we wouldn’t know that any events occur)
Why do you continuously ignore the charge that skeptical theism does NOT say we can’t know whether or not God would allow an event, but only that we can’t know WHY he allowed it?
Hmm, well see i’d say that while the skeptical theist might not know the reasons for God allowing something to happen or not, they might well be reasonably certain that an event may or may not occur, due to simple observation and prior experience.
Ok, I’ll concede these points.
Precisely! All I’m doing is translating skeptical theism (and what can be deduced from it) into probability. So, if I’m translating accurately, we should hope the outcome is obvious.
I would be doing exactly what skeptical theism says I cannot do if I was expecting particular actions on God’s behalf. But, I’m not. You see because the statement (your words) “you cannot expect any particular action on God’s behalf” entails the statement, “you cannot know whether God would permit or prevent any given event E.” So, when we ask how likely some event is, given that God exists, ST replies with the above statement. All I’ve done is translate that. It’s absurd whether I translate it or not.
I’m sorry but I can’t make heads or tails of your claim that skeptical theism shouldn’t be put through Bayes’ theorem because it’s absolute skepticism. I’ll have to chew on it more.
Exactly though! Skeptical theism eliminates the possibility of prediction, which is absurd! We can’t say whether anything would happen, given that skeptical theism is true.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying. The fact that skeptical theism means all phenomena become equally likely is the absurdity.
I’ve never heard this before. I think you guys might be thinking that Christian theism entails free-will. But, we’re dealing with bare-theism here.