Uh, that doesn't explain anything, other than saying that atheists are wrong because they can't explain away God after evolution and that you're a tool if you think it does. ...what? That's a strawman and ultimately really stupid.
There is a CHANCE that God exists...? What the...
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
Uh, that doesn't explain anything, other than saying that atheists are wrong because they can't explain away God after evolution and that you're a tool if you think it does. ...what? That's a strawman and ultimately really stupid.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
So you are saying that there are 2 classes of events, those with a probability of zero and those without (which is what you have defined to be a possibility).
How do you decide which class a (theoretical) event belongs to?
EDIT: In an infinity of universes of course, both sets have infinite numbers of events within themQED.
EDIT2: That makes the problem undecidable. Unless you have observed the event to have happened, in which case you know it is in the non-zero probability set.
Hmmm I would agree the chances of say "Life" forming in the intense heat of plasma white sun would have a zero possibility given that life requieres the existence of heavier more complicated elements. How ever as Perfect pointout scientific rules which govern this universe may or my not be the same as another ot again perfection stated Isaac (I think it was him) that theorised that there can be but one path of evolution and all others lead to extinctions thus there would only be variations of this in an infinite mutliverse.
/meh were probably just specks squating in the dust (another referance for those whom know)
eg: unable to comprehend the vast knownledge which remains out of our reach.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
If that is the case...Then there is a chance that Lion-O and the Thundercats exist too.
In fact, all the fantasies we have constructed for ourselves might exist!
Gods, Lion-O, Santa, Easter Bunny...All human-produced fairy tales.
...
azzaman333
meh
The chance that 'god' exists is so close to 0 that it is irrelevant to take it into account.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
There is a possibility that God would exist, but I have no evidence nor knowledge to prove that he actually exists. So I would have to chuck this up to Agnosticism.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Wasn't 'Red Eye' some sort of spoof documentary?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Well said.
Firstlady
Sunlight's Breaking
Why do people need to be able to prove He exists?
It's about having faith; believing that He is real.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Given that there are so many other insanely remote possibilities that 'must exist' somewhere, yet are clearly ludicrous; why are we expected to give the chance that God exists special status?
nivi
Call me Ishmael
Theres a chance a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias might come to existance several miles above the ground, it's not a very big one I admit, but you never know.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Spoiler :
Nylan
Characters Welcome
This is different from any "remote possibilities" for multiple reasons. The first is that it is very widely believed, in one form or another. If it is wrong, then it is the biggest factual oversight the world has ever seen, by a long shot. That's hard to prove.
Secondly, its about what feels right, what helps you be a better person and live a better life, what helps you to prepare for what happens after death. There is proof, but it is personal proof. Not only do you actually have to be willing to accept that God exists if that answer is given to you, you have to be willing to act upon that knowledge. Conscience is a perfect example of a gift we have been given to help make decisions.
Secondly, its about what feels right, what helps you be a better person and live a better life, what helps you to prepare for what happens after death. There is proof, but it is personal proof. Not only do you actually have to be willing to accept that God exists if that answer is given to you, you have to be willing to act upon that knowledge. Conscience is a perfect example of a gift we have been given to help make decisions.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
We're discussing whether he actually exists or not, not whether people have faith that he exists.
You can have faith in anything you want; it doesn't make it true.
Nylan said:
That sort of thinking is called Argumentum ad populum or the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Nylan said:
What feels right and what is right are two entirely different things. It feels right to me that the Earth is still, yet that couldn't be further from the truth.
This is about what is true, not about what you want to be true.
I don't know. There have been many factual oversights that have been shattered, with great significance. "Earth not being the center of the Universe, stars not being dots of light" is going to be of huge significance when we expand to the stars. The Earth could maybe sustainably hold 10^10 people, our the Asteroid Belt alone could hold 7,500 trillion people. We're talking about a 100-fold increase in the number of humans who can be alive in a couple centuries. We're talking about a geometric growth of our population rate for millenia longer than anybody a few hundred years could have thought.
Another factual oversight is that we used to think that the human brain was significantly unique from those of animals. Time and again, we're shown that this isn't true, and because brain research in animals can be translated into useful results into people means that we're able to understand our mind in MUCH greater detail than was ever thought possible. We can use mice to understand the fundamentals of humanity: morality, kindness, greed, love. We used to think that the mind was a separate entity from the brain, thankfully, we now know this is not true.
Fully agreed. People should do their utter best to find reasons to be good and loving. A 'good' world and a 'loving' world is so much better than the alternative, that it should be pursued at all opportunities.
I have issue with this logic. Why would you trust a feeling that tells you about the afterlife, when it's the same feeling that had you believing that the Earth was covered in a Global Flood a few thousand years ago? This feeling was verifiably false in an extremely-easy area to discern, why should it be trusted with telling us about the unknowable?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
a) Argument from popularity. b) It's trivially easy to prove: There is no evidence for it. 'Factual oversight' proved, move along...
Hmm, birth rates drop dramatically in 'modern' societies for a number of reasons (essentially it's just too expensive to have lots of children). I think that predicting a continuation of high population growth for centuries is a bit of a stretch.El Machinae said:
Nylan
Characters Welcome
What all of you failed to realize is I'm not saying that makes it true. I'm just saying it will be earth shattering if its not. Therefore its not a light, "trivial" issue as previously mentioned.
Furthermore, there is not enough evidence against it either. Therefore, you can't say with certainty that it is not true. It is about faith, which "oddly enough" is in line with many religious teachings.
Most of you will never understand what it is I'm saying, because you have never felt anything spiritual, or at least have not felt it in a large enough quantity to be recognized. Its intangible, and if it was not it would, theologically (sp?), defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.
Furthermore, there is not enough evidence against it either. Therefore, you can't say with certainty that it is not true. It is about faith, which "oddly enough" is in line with many religious teachings.
Most of you will never understand what it is I'm saying, because you have never felt anything spiritual, or at least have not felt it in a large enough quantity to be recognized. Its intangible, and if it was not it would, theologically (sp?), defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Whether it's earth shattering or not doesn't affect whether it's true or not; so why even bring that up?
A revelation proving that we all live inside a computer simulation would be earth-shattering too.
The earth-shattering factor is irrelevant.
1. You can't prove a negative.
2. There is no evidence for it at all.
That's yet another logical fallacy...
I have had plenty of spiritual experiences.. I am not going to make a leap of faith and assume that they were caused by a God, though. Spiritual experiences happen to everyone.. agnostics, atheists, deists, theists, etc.
C~G
Untouchable
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,146
The blanket of comfort.
I'm willing to bet that even many atheists don't actually fully realize what it means to be dead. It's possible we all have trouble with it.
People find many kind of solutions to comfort themselves about the death since the idea we just sometimes cease to exist and be conscious is hardwired to us. The idea of "no meaning" could be impossible for our brain to imagine without losing it's original purpose of securing the survival of the brain.
Define "spiritual".Nylan said:
Personally I can say that my atheist is based into revelations through Zen Buddhism. It was clear I could only end up being non-believer after the spiritual insights I gained. Some of them might claim these are "non-spiritual" in nature since they showed me the way that there's no God. My logic just happens to also agree with this view so it's easy one to follow for me.
That is actually the reason why I don't see faith as logical problem since probably others end up into different kind of realization after "spiritual awakening" and their logic just follows the same path oddly enough.
There's still small chance that there could be God and that's why I could also claim to agnostic about the issue. But the way my life and thought is constructed I don't see how I could possible change this view of mine. It's almost become hardcoded like the color of my skin. That's why I also understand those that are religious and I don't even dare to dream convert them to atheism. What I can only do is to show how I ended up having the view I have and maybe over time they invidually choose not to follow any God.
The whole idea of logically trying to approve/disapprove God's existence is absurd IMHO.
It's an exercise in futility.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Fallacy:
The fact that spiritual experiences happen to everyone doesn't mean they're not caused by God.
If you Can't prove a negative, then for all you know you are black, since you can't prove that you're not black...it's a negative.
The "earth shattering factor" was brought up because the question of God's existance was considered trivial...which is something I already mentioned. Are you going to put forth points or are you going to argue for the sake of arguing, and debate semantics?
The fact that spiritual experiences happen to everyone doesn't mean they're not caused by God.
If you Can't prove a negative, then for all you know you are black, since you can't prove that you're not black...it's a negative.
The "earth shattering factor" was brought up because the question of God's existance was considered trivial...which is something I already mentioned. Are you going to put forth points or are you going to argue for the sake of arguing, and debate semantics?
Similar threads
