JTB and the agnostic

A justified true belief is said to exist if you believe something to be true, it is true and you have justification for your belief.

Philosophers like Gettier point out that you might consider that you have a justified true belief when, in fact, you do not have one that stands up to scrutiny.

A classic example of a false true belief happens if you believe it is seven o'clock, it is seven o'clock and your justification is that your watch states that is seven o'clock.   The reality is that your watch stopped twelve hours ago and is only showing the correct time by sheer coincidence.   This does not prove that there are no justified true beliefs but only that inference is not a good source of justification.   When we look at our watches, we infer they are telling us the accurate time because they have done so the last thousand or so times we used them to check on the time of day.

If you look at the cases made for the existence of God, or the non-existence of God, you will usually find the justification is based on some sort of inference.

Which is the basis on which a number of agnostics argue there is no sound deductive argument to show the existence or non-existence of God.   The faith of the theist and of the atheist has, so far, never amounted to a justified true belief on the matter

My faith in God is a justified true belief. It is justified because I have a relationship with God through my faith in Christ. The fact that you cannot justify my faith (because you have no relationship with God yourself) does not detract from the reality of my faith. It's like a blind man telling a seeing man what he is seeing isn't real.

chapabel wrote:My faith in God is a justified true belief. It is justified because I have a relationship with God through my faith in Christ. The fact that you cannot justify my faith (because you have no relationship with God yourself) does not detract from the reality of my faith. It's like a blind man telling a seeing man what he is seeing isn't real.

I think that you have unwittingly proven my case by asserting your justification is faith based. All faith based beliefs are founded in inference, otherwise they would not be faith based. And I have no intent of making you lose your faith: simply observing that it cannot meet the definition of a justified true belief itself.

My relationship with God is as real as any other relationship I have. It is made real by my faith in Christ. Faith is the avenue by which I have access to God.

faith (n) - a belief that is not based on proof.

As Gettier and others have demonstrated, a justified true belief, to meet that definition, requires a proof that is not based on inference

Simply accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and the Holy Spirit of God will provide all the proof you need. The proof is available but if a person is not willing to receive the proof, he is a blind man telling a seeing man what he sees isn’t real. If a person refuses the proof that’s available, he shouldn’t be asking for more proof, or for proof that meets his standards.

I have no problem with the faiths that others choose to follow. Live and let live is the mantra of the Agnostic. The Muslim can rightly claim that his religion is the most logical, the Jew that his is the oldest of the mainstream faiths, and the Christian that he is justified in doing the most unholy things in the name of his Savior.

But that they are convinced is no compelling case that I should change my belief to match theirs, just because they demand that I do so. And since each is so ardent that they are the ones following the one and only true religion, it seems nothing more that a series of coin tosses to decide who to declare to be the winner.

It’s not a coin toss. Again, accept Jesus and you will know the truth. If a person refuses to accept the truth, I will live and let die.

Bill wrote:The Muslim can rightly claim that his religion is the most logical,

Really? Is it logical to deny women an education? Is it logical to outlaw different religions? Is it logical to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah? If so I question your logic.

Every religion known to mankind has adherents who misinterpret their religious tombs. You would not believe what some radical Christians once got up to, citing Jesus as the source of their inspiration to wreak havoc. Possibly started with that injunction not to suffer a witch to live.

For, as their Imams say: "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Islam encourages women to be educated in the religion and in all beneficial matters in which they are capable. Seeking knowledge, especially religious knowledge, is an obligation upon all Muslims regardless of their gender."

The good Christian misinterprets the Koran as regularly as they misread their own doctrines.

(Quran 9:5) “And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush…”

Seems pretty obvious to me that Muslims are commanded to kill anyone who doesn’t worship like them. Not really sure how this could be misinterpreted. That seems logical to you? What Christian doctrine have I misread?

chapabel wrote:(Quran 9:5) “And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush…”

I have always treated quoting out of context to be an underhand way of trying to win an argument. If you read the verses before and after the one you quote, it is clear that the idolaters in question are some Pagan Arabs who entered into a treaty with the muslims and promptly broke it. The implication of a quote out of context is that all idolaters everywhere are to be slaughtered. This is neither the intent nor the message of the original.

So it’s ok to simply kill a “pagan” if they break a treaty with you? So not all idolaters are to be killed just the ones who break a treaty. That still seems logical to you?

Jesus reprimanded His disciples for wanting to pray down fire and brimstone on the Samaritans who didn’t welcome Jesus into their town. Jesus said He came to save men’s lives and not destroy them. Given the two options, Christianity seems the better choice.

It was a pity that your Saviour was not around to save the babies and children who dwelt in Sodom and Gomorrah and who perished simply because Yahweh was really ticked off with their parents.   Perhaps he decided that they were idolators and needed to be taken out before they got up to idolator no good.

Sin has consequences. Most of the time those consequences affect the ones we love the most. God told man that the consequences for sin was death, but man disregarded God's warning and chose to live in sin. The parents were responsible for the death of their children, not God.

I personally think that such logic would win a major prize at the Annual Convention of the Contortionists. If god kills a parent and its child is collateral damage, that is the parent's fault for ticking off God, and God can wash his hands of the matter? wow

But you’re forgetting about grace. Grace wipes the slate clean so that there is zero punishment for any and all sins. The most heinous act, forgiven. The most horrid sin, forgiven. The most unspeakable crime, forgiven. As hard as it is to accept God’s punishment, it’s even harder to comprehend His grace. The great thing about God is He let’s each person decide for themselves if they will stand in judgment or if they stand justified. I chose justification.

I can understand the logic of a case that says we should be grateful that God has got rid of his evil-doing ways and become a good guy, but not accept that atones for his past wrongdoings. He could have found one of numerous ways of ridding Sodom and Gomorrah of adult sinners and sparing the kids. Wiping out the kids makes him some sort of a prototype Putin.

Well, you are certainly entitled to hold this somewhat inaccurate view of God if you choose to do so. However, if God killed all the adults and left the children, they would have suffered tremendously with no one to care for them. They would have slowly and painfully starved to death, been eaten by wild animals or kidnapped as slaves by passing strangers. Using your logic that flying airplanes into buildings represents a more logical religion, I suppose starvation, mauling and enslavement are better than instant death? The religious leaders of Jesus' day held a similar negative view of Him. So you are not alone in your disparagement of God. You are in a notoriously distinguished group.

Your version of god seems to be one of utter incompetency. He cannot care for orphans or save them from danger. And if we are to judge religions by the evil committed by some of its adherents, Christianity would probably head the list of such offenders.

All of which leads us back to the original post: there is no deductive logic in believing in any god.

I'll be the first to admit the Roman Catholic church committed atrocities during the Dark Ages (hence the name). However, what they did had zero Biblical support. It was all at the direction of man (the Pope) and not God. But since it happened under the banner of "Christianity" all of Christianity bears a black eye. Also, there were slave owners using the Bible incorrectly to support slavery. Both Catholics and slave owners abused the Bible and committed awful crimes against humanity. All we as Christians can do about the past is learn from it and not commit the same sins.

Getting back to the original post: while there may be no deductive logic in believing in a God, I believe each person was created with a sense that there is a powerful being beyond our comprehension. Mankind has believed in and worshipped gods from the beginning of creation. I would suggest it's in our makeup.

The case would go along the lines of: "a large number of people sense, and have sensed, that there is a powerful being beyond their comprehension and infer the sensation is caused by the existence of such a powerful being."

That does not mean there is no such being, just that the belief in it comes from inferential logic, not deductive logic.

I note that you posit that the evil done by Christians is in defiance of their scripture. Would it not be unreasonable to infer that the evil done by Muslims is also done in defiance of their scripture?

I don't think it's in defiance of their scriptures. We have already seen where it's perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who breaks a treaty with Muslims. Look at Surah 3:151 We will cast horror into the hearts of the disbelievers for associating ˹false gods˺ with Allah—a practice He has never authorized. The Fire will be their home—what an evil place for the wrongdoers to stay!

Look at Surah 2:190-191 Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors. Kill them wherever you come upon them1 and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution2 is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.I don't believe America was fighting Islam when the terrorists attacked on 9/11

Then you have this from Surah 4:56 Surely those who reject Our signs, We will cast them into the Fire. Whenever their skin is burnt completely, We will replace it so they will ˹constantly˺ taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

The Quran is definitely confusing. For instance, was man created from dust or a blood clot? Surah 96:1-2 Read, ˹O Prophet,˺ in the Name of your Lord Who created humans from a clinging clot  
Surah 3:59 Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was!

The Quran does not know how many days creation took: Surah 7:54 Indeed your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne. He makes the day and night overlap in rapid succession. He created the sun, the moon, and the stars—all subjected by His command. The creation and the command belong to Him ˹alone˺. Blessed is Allah—Lord of all worlds!
Surah 41:9 Ask ˹them, O  Prophet˺, “How can you disbelieve in the One Who created the earth in two Days? And how can you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of all worlds.

The Quran is more confusing than a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing.

And yet the Christian bible is totally comprehensible and coherent.

Hahaha…no the Bible can be difficult to understand, it the Bible is consistent on creation. Jesus was also clear on His instructions to love your enemy instead of dragging them down the street and burning them.