God probably exists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The whole title of this thread is false to begin with. If the evidence in support of a claim is virtually nil, it 'probably' would not be true.

How did you reach this conclusion? something can be true yet have no evidence, the absence of evidence simply cannot be used to infer that some claim is "probably untrue" this is not a logical conclusion, feel free to explain the reasoning though.

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

If you disagree with me (as some here do) then I can only attribute that to the fact that you simply have not yet grasped the absolute seriousness of all this, you have not honestly considered the situation, the universe's presence is impossible to ever explain scientifically - this is very serious and you must grasp that in order to move forward in your search for knowledge.

 

[Aletheia]

How did you reach this conclusion? something can be true yet have no evidence, the absence of evidence simply cannot be used to infer that some claim is "probably untrue" this is not a logical conclusion, feel free to explain the reasoning though.

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

If you disagree with me (as some here do) then I can only attribute that to the fact that you simply have not yet grasped the absolute seriousness of all this, you have not honestly considered the situation, the universe's presence is impossible to ever explain scientifically - this is very serious and you must grasp that in order to move forward in your search for knowledge.

I am speaking in terms of well known probability and logic. If something has zero evidence, that does not mean it is probably likely -- rather, it means it is probably 'unlikely'. That is precisely why I said it would be better worded as 'probably' does not exist, or 'there is a conceivability god exists, though extremely small.'

 

[NWO_Spook]

I am speaking in terms of well known probability and logic. If something has zero evidence, that does not mean it is probably likely -- rather, it means it is probably 'unlikely'. That is precisely why I said it would be better worded as 'probably' does not exist, or 'there is a conceivability god exists, though extremely small.'

And the post you quoted is a classic example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, or 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy.

 

[Aletheia]

How did you reach this conclusion? something can be true yet have no evidence, the absence of evidence simply cannot be used to infer that some claim is "probably untrue" this is not a logical conclusion, feel free to explain the reasoning though.

probability and likelihoods are based upon the weights of existing evidence. If the weight of existing evidence is overwhelmingly against something existing, then the likelihood of that something existing is also exceedingly small. Therefore it is would likewise, probably not exist, in the probability/logical sense.

If someone told you they cured cancer overnight by chanting candyman three times in their mind, even though you couldn't prove their assertion, would you think it was probably true, or probably not true? Which statement is more likely given the evidence you have?
If you stubbornly cling to it is more likely probably true (or even assert both outcomes are equally likely), as you did earlier, that statement is not only false in the logical sense, but it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[devildavid]

Who gets to decide what is and is not "factual" evidence?

No one gets to decide that. It is decided by having independently verifiable evidence. This is what decides ir, not "who".

 

[NWO_Spook]

Your dismissal of well known and accepted probability and logic theory is indeed an appeal to ignorance.

I think you misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the post you quoted, not your response to it, which I agree with. Note the following:

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

That is the example I was talking about. There is absolutely no sound reason to entertain a notion of the supernatural as the cause.

 

[devildavid]

How did you reach this conclusion? something can be true yet have no evidence, the absence of evidence simply cannot be used to infer that some claim is "probably untrue" this is not a logical conclusion, feel free to explain the reasoning though.

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

If you disagree with me (as some here do) then I can only attribute that to the fact that you simply have not yet grasped the absolute seriousness of all this, you have not honestly considered the situation, the universe's presence is impossible to ever explain scientifically - this is very serious and you must grasp that in order to move forward in your search for knowledge.

You can't possibly know that. No one ever can as long as there is scientific inquiry going on.

 

[devildavid]

How did you reach this conclusion? something can be true yet have no evidence, the absence of evidence simply cannot be used to infer that some claim is "probably untrue" this is not a logical conclusion, feel free to explain the reasoning though.

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

If you disagree with me (as some here do) then I can only attribute that to the fact that you simply have not yet grasped the absolute seriousness of all this, you have not honestly considered the situation, the universe's presence is impossible to ever explain scientifically - this is very serious and you must grasp that in order to move forward in your search for knowledge.

Hey everyone, stop looking for answers because one guy on an internet forum tried for years and failed.

 

[Aletheia]

Having said that, the evidence that God exists and created the universe is almost obvious, the presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because scientific explanations only describe the behavior of already existing material.

So science cannot ever in any way explain the presence of the universe, therefore if you seek an explanation you must be willing to consider explanations that are not scientific, that is supernatural explanations, there really is no other choice, believe me I tried for many years and failed.

So, let's look at that. Have you watched the movie, Prometheus? In it, they hypothesized that some sentient beings (not omniscient or benevolant) came to our universe long, long ago, and dropped the seeds of DNA into the primordial soup, that evolved to later day humans (or something like that, let's just use that though). It meets all the criteria above, and gives a hypothesis that can explain a possible beginning that we have not found through any of our existing scientific knowledge and mechanisms.

Now, I can come up with a million more hypotheses like that. In fact, L.Ron Hubbard came up with another explanation about aliens coming to earth and leaving secret knowledge, and many of his followers would be downright upset at you for telling them his explanation was not true. Point being, why is your hypothesis any more valid than any other of millions of alternative hypotheses? Just because you believe in something that might explain away a void you can't fill, does not make it 'almost obvious.' It is not any more obvious than the others I presented.

Now, if you say something like, well, it resonates with everything I've seen all my life and perfectly fills the knowledge gap for me, and I accept it on faith -- then, that's reasonable, it's between you and the deity you believe in. No one can take that away from you. That doesn't however make it probably or obviously any truer than any other unproven hypothesis, however, the lack of evidence does make it less likely to be true from a probability and logic perspective.

 

[TypicalRussian]

You have reading to do. The ontological arguments are logically absurd.

Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do you understand the argument of Russell's teapot?






Where is the empirical evidence of a sentient creator that does not rely on faith and belief?

russels teapot is a flawed argument

 

[Lisa]

russels teapot is a flawed argument

What logical mistake did Bertrand Rusell make? Have you ever thought about writing and publishing your claim that Bertrand Russell's argument was flawed or do you plan to keep it to yourself?

Bertrand Russell won a Nobel prize for his work in philosophy, so your argument has a very steep mountain to climb.

 

[TypicalRussian]

It's double-talk. In the end, it means nothing.



double-talk noun





To save this word, you'll need to log in.



Log In



dou·​ble-talk | \ ˈdə-bəl-ˌtȯk How to pronounce double-talk (audio) \



Definition of double-talk

1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language

that is not a double talk

 

[TypicalRussian]

What logical mistake did Bertrand Rusell make? Have you ever thought about writing and publishing your claim that Bertrand Russell's argument was flawed or do you plan to keep it to yourself?

Bertrand Russell won a Nobel prize for his work in philosophy, so your argument has a very steep mountain to climb.

russel was good at other stuff but atheism vs theuism was never his thing so he took a shot in the dark

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/554a/04dea71e0a0d13d8b7b7afa4cce886132f76.pdf

 

[NWO_Spook]

russel was good at other stuff but atheism vs theuism was never his thing so he took a shot in the dark

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/554a/04dea71e0a0d13d8b7b7afa4cce886132f76.pdf

Yes, I've seen this flawed appraisal before. Note the following:

According to this variant, if the theist cannot meet the burden of proof for the existence of God, then we should conclude that there probably is not a God...

Which is an incorrect interpretation of the point. Here is a short explanation from wiki:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated...to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

B. Russell (1952): 'Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.'

 

[watsup]

I have not mentioned religion nor have I posted an emotional argument, you're being dishonest when you say that.

Of course. In your world, it’s ALWAYS the other people who are dishonest. And you are the one who gets to decide that, of course.



Its all around you, just open your eyes and look.[/QUOTE]

We’ve looked. There’s no real evidence. Nor can you evidently provide any, given the number of times we Jane asked you to do so and you obfuscate instead.
So again. Do you have any actual reality-based evidence for your “God”. Witnessing Is NOT evidence.
Claiming that you “just open your eyes and look” is not evidence.

 

[Daisy]

I have not mentioned religion nor have I posted an emotional argument, you're being dishonest when you say that.

Of course. In your world, it’s ALWAYS the other people who are dishonest. And you are the one who gets to decide that, of course.



Its all around you, just open your eyes and look.

We’ve looked. There’s no real evidence. Nor can you evidently provide any, given the number of times we Jane asked you to do so and you obfuscate instead.
So again. Do you have any actual reality-based evidence for your “God”. Witnessing Is NOT evidence.
Claiming that you “just open your eyes and look” is not evidence.[/QUOTE]

You who? Who the heck are you talking to? Quit screwing up the quote feature, why don't cha?:doh

 

[Jonsa]

God's existence doesn't need any empirical evidence for those who have faith. The faithful perceive the evidence of their god's existence all around them and within their own experience.

God's existence requires empirical evidence for those who don't have faith. The atheists sees no evidence of god in anything around them nor within their own experience.

NEVER the twain shall meet. There is absolutely NO resolution in arguing with each other since neither accepts the others foundational arguments.

That is until the day God reveals itself to mankind, in which case I will freely admit to being wrong, but even that won't stop me from giving it a piece of my mind. Burn in hell my ass.

 

[watsup]

We’ve looked. There’s no real evidence. Nor can you evidently provide any, given the number of times we Jane asked you to do so and you obfuscate instead.
So again. Do you have any actual reality-based evidence for your “God”. Witnessing Is NOT evidence.
Claiming that you “just open your eyes and look” is not evidence.

You who? Who the heck are you talking to? Quit screwing up the quote feature, why don't cha?:doh[/QUOTE]


Talking to Sherlock.

 

[Daisy]

You who? Who the heck are you talking to? Quit screwing up the quote feature, why don't cha?:doh

Talking to Sherlock.[/QUOTE]

My quote was the results of your screw up, not mine...:roll:

ETA...you're still doing it...:2razz:

 

[Big Eye]

Remind me not to bother posting in this section of the forum again...what a complete and utter waste of time lol.:lamo

 

[Daisy]

Remind me not to bother posting in this section of the forum again...what a complete and utter waste of time lol.:lamo

Yeah, go back to politics or conspiracies...much more common sense over there...:2razz:

 

[Paradoxical]

God probably exists for these reasons...

There is no legitimate reason for believing that anything exits beyond thought. In fact Occam inclines us to discard that which adds nothing of use , eg materialism. The idea of materialism (ie, mind independence) serves no purpose other than to deny the existence of God...it serves no other purpose.

So if we naturally (due to Occam's advice) drop materialism (ie. mind independence) we come to the conclusion that the world is a world of thought .

You can naturally descend into solipsism with such a view of reality...the trouble with that is that most of us (ie , the sane ones) feel that we are not all that there is to know...therefore other things (like mathematical theorems) exist outside of us .

If we accept that mind independence can not exist but that other things exist outside of ourselves, then it stands to reason that we exist in an external non-material reality. That external reality must be the product of another mind (since mind independence does not exist).

We exist in another mind (God) much in the same way that the Chrome browser can exist within Windows 10 .Separate but dependent.

What are the attributes of your imagined God?

 

[Big Eye]

What are the attributes of your imagined God?

If it starts getting silly here again I'm off lol...

In this theory God would be the substance that we exist in, his mind would encompass everything ...so I guess it would be the traditional omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent malarkey.

 

[Paradoxical]

If it starts getting silly here again I'm off lol...

In this theory God would be the substance that we exist in, his mind would encompass everything ...so I guess it would be the traditional omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent malarkey.

The universe, then.

 

[Big Eye]

The universe, then.

The Universe would be the product of his mind (like a thought or dream). So it would exist in a non materialistic way. Reality would still exist though, there are rules (scientific rules etc) that define the boundaries of reality , so in that sense we treat the world as we do already , nothing changes except we drop the concept of mind independence as Occam would suggest in this situation.