There is a CHANCE that God exists...? What the...

[brennan]

Not all ideas of god must be a personal god. You're denying the chance of any type of god.

Bit of a cop-out to redefine God though huh? So long as he's supernatural, he doesn't exist.

 

[Fifty]

Oh, i'll grant that it's possible

Then why did you say earlier in this thread that it was impossible, and if its possible then why are you denying that there is a chance?

 

[GenMarshall]

Bit of a cop-out to redefine God though huh?

Disagree, it's not a cop-out to redefine god. Ever heard of Deism? Pantheism? or even Panentheism (all is god)?

So long as he's supernatural, he doesn't exist.

Once again, supernatural or not, God does exist.

Also, how do you know if God is a he? God could be a woman or Androgynous.

Then why did you say earlier in this thread that it was impossible, and if its possible then why are you denying that there is a chance?

Brennan just wants to spin us all around in a mass confusion .

 

[brennan]

Then why did you say earlier in this thread that it was impossible, and if its possible then why are you denying that there is a chance?

Clarification: It is possible that our understanding of the underlying physics is not complete, however I would point out that in this field our paradigm shifts, for example from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's Relativity, do not show our previous knowledge to be wrong, but merely an example that we were dealing with a special subset of the later knowledge. IOW: there is no reason to believe that the next discovery in physics will lead us to discover fairies at the bottom of the garden. Thus I state that God and other supernatural entities are impossible, since they violate a whole raft of general principles. As well as being logically unnecessary.

 

[brennan]

Also, how do you know if God is a he? God could be a woman or Androgynous

Could be a hermaphroditic giraffe for all I care. He doesn't exist.

 

[GenMarshall]

however I would point out that in this field our paradigm shifts, for example from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's Relativity, do not show our previous knowledge to be wrong, but merely an example that we were dealing with a special subset of the later knowledge.

However, I do acknowledge that Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity. But I don't use them to prove God's existence.

Thus I state that God and other supernatural entities are impossible, since they violate a whole raft of general principles.

However, I disagree with you. I state that God and other deities are a possibility and they don't violate any raft of principles since they eather exist outside this realm or are part of the universe itself as a whole.

Could be a hermaphroditic giraffe for all I care. He doesn't exist.

He exist. I'm sorry to tell you Mr. Joseph "brennan" Stalin, but God does indeed exist whether you like it or not. I don't care if you don't believe in God, just don't go around telling believers in God that he does not exit.

 

[Gogf]

He exist. I'm sorry to tell you Mr. Joseph "brennan" Stalin, but God does indeed exist whether you like it or not.

Just wondering: what are your views on the problem of evil?

 

[emzie]

Bit of a cop-out to redefine God though huh? So long as he's supernatural, he doesn't exist.

Beliefs are redefined daily. What's to say that what drives physics as we understand them isn't or wasn't a conscience thing? Yeah, it's an absurd / really unlikely thought, but it's possible.

It's also possible we're all in the matrix. It's also possible that this is a big antfarm-like universe (marbles in Men In Black).

 

[brennan]

However, I do acknowledge that Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity. But I don't use them to prove God's existence.


However, I disagree with you. I state that God and other deities are a possibility and they don't violate any raft of principles since they eather exist outside this realm or are part of the universe itself as a whole.

I am well aware that you think God exists because you say he does (see: circular argument).
Let's not pretend we can have a discussion about it.

Beliefs are redefined daily. What's to say that what drives physics as we understand them isn't or wasn't a conscience thing? Yeah, it's an absurd / really unlikely thought, but it's possible.

That sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing a sociologist would say (see Pseudoscience)

 

[emzie]

He exist. I'm sorry to tell you Mr. Joseph "brennan" Stalin, but God does indeed exist whether you like it or not. I don't care if you don't believe in God, just don't go around telling believers in God that he does not exit.

Yeah, you realize the hypocrisy in that statement, I hope?

 

[Fifty]

Clarification: It is possible that our understanding of the underlying physics is not complete,

It's also possible that they are completely wrong.

however I would point out that in this field our paradigm shifts, for example from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's Relativity, do not show our previous knowledge to be wrong, but merely an example that we were dealing with a special subset of the later knowledge.

Who cares? You still can't rule out a discovery that physics is completely wrong in some fundamental way. Of course it is wildly improbable, but a chance is still a chance, no matter how unlikely.

there is no reason to believe that the next discovery in physics will lead us to discover fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Again, that doesn't matter. We're talking about any chance here, not high levels of probability.

Thus I state that God and other supernatural entities are impossible, since they violate a whole raft of general principles. As well as being logically unnecessary.

Aside from the problems I've previously outlined, I'm not sure if this is accurate either. How can you say that a supernatural entity is in violation of principles to which it doesn't apply (by definition)? That's really a side question though and not really a major problem with what you're saying.

 

[brennan]

It's also possible that they are completely wrong.

Then they would not have predictive/explanatory value, which of course they do; I think this is just begging the question really.

Aside from the problems I've previously outlined, I'm not sure if this is accurate either. How can you say that a supernatural entity is in violation of principles to which it doesn't apply (by definition)? That's really a side question though and not really a major problem with what you're saying.

I think that essentially you are pleading the case for dualism: that there esists a class of things that is not a part of the 'natural' universe. As such I would say that you are admitting that they are entirely seperate from the reality that we are part of and can have knowledge of, that rules out any kind of Theistic God.

 

[GenMarshall]

Just wondering: what are your views on the problem of evil?

The problem with evil? Well kind of OT, but I see evil the problems of evil (Not sure where you are going with this) are rooted as follows:

Egotism leads to desire, craving, and attachments which can lead to unwholesome thoughts and or behaviors. Also, Psychology and social sciences can also fully explain wrongdoings of mankind. Sorry if that is not what you are looking for but thats the best I can come up with .

I am well aware that you think God exists because you say he does (see: circular argument).
Let's not pretend we can have a discussion about it.

Sorry, it's not a circular argument. I believe that God exists because there are things from within this universe that cant be explained. You should cast off that you are well aware that I think God exists because I say he does. That is not the case.

Once again, I will tell you that the reason why I believe in God and why he God is All (Pantheism). It is because I feel and believe that there are things in this universe which are unexplainable and I feel that a deity is behind it.

As such I would say that you are admitting that they are entirely seperate from the reality that we are part of and can have knowledge of, that rules out any kind of Theistic God.

I highly disagree with you on that, It rules out nothing. It does not rule out a Theistic God or any kind of God.

 

[Fifty]

Then they would not have predictive/explanatory value, which of course they do; I think this is just begging the question really.

Not really, they could have high predictive value and still be completely wrong. Again, not saying that is even remotely probable, but the point is that there is a chance.

How can you acknowledge that these things are at least possible and then sit there and say god is impossible. Adding your giant proviso of "if the laws of nature are correct" is a huge an unnecessary leap.

I think that essentially you are pleading the case for dualism: that there esists a class of things that is not a part of the 'natural' universe.

I'm not saying there are, I'm saying that it is possible that there are. A difference you seem to be continually confusing. This thread is about CHANCE.

As such I would say that you are admitting that they are entirely seperate from the reality that we are part of and can have knowledge of, that rules out any kind of Theistic God.

There's no particularly airtight reason to believe that non-natural things cannot interact with natural things. Again, keep in mind that we are talking just about possibility here.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Supernatural entities do not exist.

In an infinite multiverses ALL possibilities must exist.

 

[GenMarshall]

In an infinite multiverses ALL possibilities must exist.

That is what I would have to agree upon .

 

[ParadigmShifter]

There's a difference between infinite possibilities and infinite realities though. Just becasue the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely complex and never repeats itself doesn't mean we will see The Mona Lisa sitting somewhere within it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

There's a difference between infinite possibilities and infinite realities though. Just becasue the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely complex and never repeats itself doesn't mean we will see The Mona Lisa sitting somewhere within it.

Or a teapot orbiting an earth like planet.
However given infinte possibilities the mona lisa will be sculptured somewhere on a mountain rockface to be discovered by a sentinant species.

It could be such a species or indivual could very well evolve, geneticly enginneer, mechanically enginner themselves to an unprecentdented level of evolution beyond our possible scope with the very reall capabilities of creating or seeding new sentiant life. Or the very reall physic / mental capbities which would match our imagination of a divine being.

 

[Nylan]

Impossible to prove that he does exist, impossible to prove that he doesn't. Thus, its all based on faith...its based on what you want to believe. Theists aren't superior in their reasoning to non-theists, nor is it the other way around.

That's the beauty of it.

 

[Perfection]

In an infinite multiverses ALL possibilities must exist.

Nuh uh, you could have a system of infinite multiverses where only some possibilities exist.