Question

How plausible individuals find the idea of a God influencing events, such as getting dealt two straight Royal flushes in a poker game, seems to depend on personal beliefs rather than objective evidence. This raises questions about the role of prior probability in assessing the likelihood of supernatural explanations. Do neologicists, in their attempts to address foundational issues in mathematics, prioritize historical plausibility akin to Frege's approach, and has any effort been made to establish a historically plausible account for real numbers that considers representations such as sequences, ordered sets, Dedekind cuts, Cauchy sequences, and surreal numbers within the evolving understanding of real numbers throughout history? Additionally, the analogy between religious beliefs and personal preferences, such as soccer team allegiance or music preferences, suggests that beliefs are often influenced by social and cultural factors rather than objective evidence. The diverse nature of religious beliefs and the absence of a universally correct answer may lead to perpetual disagreements between atheists and theists. How individuals approach the question of God's plausibility appears intertwined with personal desires and cultural influences, further complicating the search for an objective basis in discussions about the existence of God.

Answer 1

The question concerns the philosophical and evidential basis behind belief in God, heavily influenced by individual perceptions and experiences, rather than objective evidence. It highlights the challenges in reconciling personal beliefs with empirical proof in matters of theism and morality.

Step-by-step explanation:

The plausibility of a God influencing events and the likelihood of supernatural explanations often pivot on individual beliefs and cannot be grounded in objective evidence. In philosophical discussions, concepts like Pascal's Wager suggest a probabilistic approach to faith, weighing potential gains and losses rather than relying on empirical proof. The historical development of mathematics and logic, while mentioned in the question, is tangential to its core, which addresses the belief in God and the evidence or experiences considered sufficient to justify that belief. This belief is influenced by social and cultural factors and personal desires, leading to perennial debate between atheists and theists, as no universal empirical evidence can definitively prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

Religious experiences and moral skepticism further complicate these discussions. Evaluating reports of psychic phenomena and religious experiences, skeptics may question their veracity and the justification for concluding a supernatural realm's existence. Ethical claims, grounded in values, also present challenges in proving normative assertions about what 'ought' to be. David Hume's observation that descriptive evidence cannot lead to normative conclusions indicates the inherent difficulty in establishing absolute certainties in morality and theism alike.