Do you think that this is because in the actual world (or the part of it we live in) Christianity is the majority religion? Or because of some characteristic of Christians that would still be the case if some other religion were more prevalent in society?
That depends on whether or not the evidence leans towards the hypothetical entity being possible, and whether or not we should logically have evidence they can/do exist. God and fairies violate known physical laws; therefore we should disbelieve, not simply withhold judgement ( as ** Diogenes ** said ). We should also have evidence, if there was any to be found ( especially in the case of fairies, so I’ll give God the edge there ).
The Evil Sillyness section, of course ! 
Why is Magellan’s god needed? My position is that no concept of God is needed. The universe is entirely explicible without one. As long as there is no necessity to postulate supernatural explanations then “God” is no more needed than invisble dragons (and how do you know that invisible dragons did not create the universe? Why are invisible dragons less plausible than Yahweh?)
My response is somehting you agree with. As you say above,"…all evidence tells us that there is always something that caused something else…".
What caused invisible dragons to come into existence. Ke3ep in mid, your question assumes their existence by them creating something.
You are infatuated with evidence, as if that is the only tool we use. It is not. There is a murder committed. We have a dead man with his own knife in his chest in a pool of blood. Forensics experts scour the scene and finally determine that they have zero evidence, nothing, no fingerprints, DNA, nada, not one iota. But the murder is a fact. So is every single person in the city equally suspect? In the state, country, world? The “evidence” is equal regarding all of them.
So you easily dismiss the theory of a supreme being as a possibility because it violates the natural laws as we know them. Fine. But, then, you embrace the theory of self-creating, eternal multiverses or the spontaneous creation of matter even thought we can point to no other examples of self-creating anything, existences equallying infinity, or matter “poofing” up anywhere. Whichever poster that offered this is correct: both your position and mine require a leap of faith. We each have an opinion and for various reason believe them to be correct. They may or may not be.
SentientMeat offered some evidence that he feels is on point. Namely, Bell’s Experiment. It looks rather involved but I look forward to diving into it when I have more time. His claim about Higgs field theory I don’t think is proof on anything, as even he states in his post, it describes how “matter” arises from field fluctuations. If it arises from anything—field fluctuations or anything else—it operates under causality. We might not be able to fully understand the “how” or “why”, but they exist all the same. That is my opinion anyway.
Well put, Cosmos
But what exactly is a Chrsitian/Christianity? Does such a thing actually exist?
Yes there is; they have a body, which proves that there was a killing, and quite a lot about how.
On the other hand, there’s no evidence that Gandalf did it.
Once again, virtual particles; mentioned by myself and others. They “poof” up everywhere, permeating the universe.
All evidence tells us is that events A causes results B insofar as particles are rearranged or transformed. We have no evidence showing us that any event A caused B to exist. So we have no evidence to inform us of a creation.
On the very simplest level, what causes the die to end up 3 instead of some other number?
To say that there must a precise cause even though we may never know what it is, is futile because it leads nowhere.
What caused God to come into being? If that question isn’t a problem for God, why should it be a problem for invisible dragons. Invisible dragons are eternal and uncreated. There have always been invisible dragons.
Um…yeah…it pretty much is. That and systematic thinking.
The question is should an infinite number of hypothetical supernatural explanations be given the same consideration as natural ones. Can you rule out vampires? How do you know?
You are simply factually incorrect about this. For one thing, you are still mistaken in your belief that the multiverse in brane theory has a “beginning.” It does not. You are also don’t seem to get it about quantum fluxations and the appearance of matter from quantum vaccum. It does happen and it has been observed.
No. Quantum fluxuations are uncaused. That’s the beauty of them. I’m sorry to bust your bubble but the Cosmological argument for God is scientifically defunct. Do you really imagine that physicists like Stephen Hawking would be stumped by a freshman philosophy argument like First Cause?
No, to believe in no is not equivalent to not believing in any. Unfortunately, the world of language is not some sort of logical game we can parse using boolean operators and de Moivre. Otherwise how explain the double positive “Yeah, right!” indicating a negative?
Not believing something indicates just that, a lack of belief. It is not equivalent to a belief in the contrary. The point I’m trying to make here is that belief is an active thing. And believing in thing X is an action. Saying “I do not believe in X” does not imply that I do believe in not X. Here are a couple of examples:
1a. I do not believe the person to my left owns a car.
1b. I believe the person to my left does not own a car.
2a. I do not believe Sentient Meat is drinking coffee while he reads this thread.
2b. I believe Sentient Meat is not drinking coffee while he reads this thread.
I claim that the a statements are fundamentally different from the b statements. Why? Let me add an option c:
1c. I do not believe the person to my left does not own a car.
2c. I do not believe Sentient Meat is not drinking coffee while he reads this thread.
I can, in good conscience, say that both 1a and 1c are true. To paraphrase Ramda’s PR people, how the $%*# do I know whether they have a car or not? It doesn’t matter though, because in statements 1a and 1c, I’m not doing any believing. I neither believe she does or doesn’t. A lack of believe. I am an a-persontomyleftownacarist.
If you want, I’m a weak a-persontomyleftownsacarist, because I have no conviction one way or the other. You, however, may be a strong a-persontomyleftownsacarist by, in addition to not believing she owns a car, also believing that she does not own a car. So it’s harder to be a strong version than a weak version, because you have to do more things. I fear this will start to muddy the waters, so I won’t go any farther into it.
As far as your 50-50 balance goes, I ask you this question: Do you believe that sinjin is left handed?
Bear in mind that a large majority of people are right handed, so you could reasonably say that six times out of seven (?) sinjin is not left handed. Which of these options best describes your beliefs about my handedness:
3a. I believe that sinjin is left-handed.
3b. I believe that sinjin is right-handed.
3c. I do not believe that sinjin is left-handed.
3d. I do not believe that sinjin is right-handed.
To muddy the waters, let’s put in the other options, too:
3e. I believe that sinjin is not left-handed.
3f. I believe that sinjin is not right-handed.
3g. I do not believe that sinjin is not left-handed.
3h. I do not believe that sinjin is not right-handed.
Wow. That’s a lot of choices. However, I claim that 3a and 3c are not opposites. I also claim that 3c and 3e are not equivalent. If they were, then 3d and 3f would also be equivalent. However, it is perfectly possible for 3c and 3d to be true, while it is not possible for 3e and 3f to be true. (Unless you think I’m ambidextrous or an amputee, neither of which is the case, I assure you.)
Just for kicks, I’m going to assign philosophies to some of my statements:
3a. You are a Sinistrist.
3b. You are a Dextrist.
3c. You are an Asinistrist.
3d. You are an Adextrist.
3e. You are a Dextrist. (If you believe I am not left-handed, you must also believe I am right-handed.)
3f. You are a Sinistrist.
3g You are an Adextrist.
3h You are an Asinistrist.
Sorry if this is long winded, but you keep on going on about how lack of belief is the same as belief not, and I strenuously disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to not have a belief in which hand a stranger on the internet writes with, without thinking they have no hands. (That is, you can be both an Asinistrist and and Adextrist without having to be an Amputist. Their meetings are a total horrorshow, I’ll have you know.)
sinjin
And also, the thing about 1 was a joke. 
And (omega + 1)^(-1) is smaller than (omega)^(-1). That’s the beauty of the extended Real numbers, they still satisfy the axiom that between any two (extended) real numbers there is a(n) (extended) real number. Next you’ll ask me what the biggest number is. The answer of course is 1
And also, the thing about 1 was a joke.
And (omega + 1)^(-1) is smaller than (omega)^(-1). That’s the beauty of the extended Real numbers, they still satisfy the axiom that between any two (extended) real numbers there is a(n) (extended) real number. Next you’ll ask me what the biggest number is. The answer of course is NUMBER.
Hehehe…
How you’d measure the validity of a belief system is not clear, nor is there a requirement that the things that are input to someone’s belief system are valid. Someone can derive a belief system from a glimpse of something, or from a dream.
Far more important, and the bad thing about many religious belief systems, is whether the belief system involves the need to impose itself on others. If it does, the validity of the inputs and the reasoning from those inputs becomes a lot more significant.
If you say “I think it is wrong to eat candy on Saturday” I’ll think it odd. If George Bush says this, and submits a law about it, I damn well want to know the reasons.
the answer is simple and clear…he should not have joined the marines.Because when he decided that he decided that he agrees to kill for money.Have you ever seen fahrenheit 9-11?Who is ben laden(an ex very good friend of bush),and so on(check it out)…by the way …it is banned in the US.
Wait, Fahrenheit 9-11 is banned in the US? This Farenheit 9-11? The one that was the highest grossing documentary in history,? Is that the Fahrenheit 9-11 you’re talking about?
Because I kinda think you might be mistaken about that.
What caused your bearded sky-god to come into existence? Another bearded sky-god? Invisible bearded sky-gods come from the same place as invisible dragons.
tap tap tap … is this thing on?
Matter does not exist everywhere in the universe (notably near its “north pole” where the temperature is too high for “matter”), but spacetime and the Higgs field does. Why are you so obsessed with “matter”, which is effectively only one configuration of spacetime? It’s rather like me saying that the surface of the Earth exists over all the Earth, and you saying ah, but America has a coastline! I repeat my question for the nth time: If spacetime has always existed, how can it be said to have been caused?
That’s called sarcasm. In any case, it does not in any way support your distinction since you admit that the two things mean the same.
Where there is a third option, I see the distinction. But when the options are exclusively binary, such as God’s existence, believing absence islogically equivalent to not believing presence.
So when I believe a loaded coin will land heads it is “active”, but believing it won’t land tails isn’t?
ie. you consider “she owns a car (SOC)” to be just as likely to be true as false.
No, to call yourself a aSOCist of any strength you’d have to consider SOC to be at least infinitessimally more likely to be false than true.
Yet again, I simply do not see the distiction.
As a guess, no. It is not a strong belief, since I’m only going on statistics. I ascribe to weak aSLH-ism.
Barring ambidextrousness (ie. a third option), I tentatively ascribe to (and cannot distinguish) 3b and 3c.
I tentatively ascribe to (and cannot distinguish) 3e and 3h.
WHY?
I KNOW - HOW AREN’T THEY?
Eh? Why not? We’re not talking about the truth of the statement yet, we’re talking about logical equivalence: 3c and 3d are just as different in semantic content as 3e and 3f. Where’s the difference between the pairs?? You just keep saying there is one.
3b, c, e, h are equivalent. YES??
And now you have introduced a third option out of the blue. Can you even follow your own logic? You are leaping about like someone trying to play draughts during a chess match, and have not demonstrated anything beyond your assertion.