God probably exists.

[Big Eye]

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

And I though that lot over there were nuts lol...

 

[Big Eye]

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 agree with much of what you have written here other than I don't think we need the supernatural route to an explanation (insofar as we can point to the probability of God through what we know to exist)...we just need to drop the materialistic mind-independence stuff. All roads then lead to God...even solipsism leads to the concept of a tiny, lonely , pointlessly deluded god.

 

[zyzygy]

And I though that lot over there were nuts lol...

Insults instead of proof, lol. You said that you were leaving.

 

[zyzygy]

I agree with much of what you have written here other than I don't think we need the supernatural route to an explanation (insofar as we can point to the probability of God through what we know to exist)...we just need to drop the materialistic mind-independence stuff. All roads then lead to God...even solipsism leads to the concept of a tiny, lonely , pointlessly deluded god.

Which god would this be? Mankind has invented a slew of them.

 

[Big Eye]

Which god would this be? Mankind has invented a slew of them.

I think the fact that mankind has a natural desire to invent various Gods is an indication that a God may exist....but I make no claims about God in my theory other than what naturally follows from the original idea. So I'm not calling Him a Christian God for example , that's not the point of the thread...the aim of the thread is to demonstrate that if we see the world from an idealist viewpoint then it becomes necessary to believe that a God exists.

The versions of Gods that mankind has created may in fact simply be interfaces of the same God with which we can relate...some better interfaces than others.

 

[Big Eye]

Insults instead of proof, lol. You said that you were leaving.

It was said with humour...that's why I put the "lol" there...I'll go when it suits me or if I'm banned, it has nowt to do with you. If you don't like this thread feel free to **** off.

 

[Daisy]

It was said with humour...that's why I put the "lol" there...I'll go when it suits me or if I'm banned, it has nowt to do with you. If you don't like this thread feel free to **** off.

The guy has no sense of humor...

 

[Deuce]

You could at least answer my question which I've now asked three time: "Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?"

Lets at least get this bit over with before we start jumping around and making accusations about being deluded and emotional, is this really asking too much?

Yes, something can be true but not provable.

So stop pretending you've proven it and we'll be better able to talk. All we ask for is honesty.

 

[Big Eye]

The guy has no sense of humor...

Well I think he's from Belgium...beer's good but they eat ****ing horses so they deserve to be miserable.:mrgreen:

 

[Daisy]

Well I think he's from Belgium...beer's good but they eat ****ing horses so they deserve to be miserable.:mrgreen:

Well, that explains it, then...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.'

Please show me the calculation that leads you to describe the probability of some claim being true is low given the unavailability of evidence?

Go and examine the mathematical definition of probability then show me how you calculate the value "low", can you do that for me?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Probabilities so far as I'm concerned are real numbers between 0 and 1 - anything else is informal and subjective.

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?

I'd say it was probably untrue because we can test this, we can have one hundred cancer patients do that and see the outcome and I'd expect that outcome to be zero even with 100,000 patients assuming they were not receiving any for of treatment.

Which statement is more likely given the evidence you have?

That its untrue.

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.

I disagree, my comments talk very explicitly about unverifiable claims, that is claims for which no repeatable test are possible, in your example we can test and we can gather data and we can calculate a probability.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

But what about facts that are not verifiable in principle? what if there is no verification process possible? are you saying there are no examples of true claims that are nevertheless unverifiable?

Are you saying that if verification is not possible for some claim then we must regard the claim as false?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

I made numerous assertions in my post which of them are you referring to when you say "You can't possibly know that"? Know what?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

The scenario you describe begins with already existing material life, how is that equivalent to an absence of material? You are explaining something material in terms of some already existing material!

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.

I do not see anything in your post that invalidates what I wrote.

The presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because such explanations - by definition - require already existing material.

Science deals only with how the state of an already existing system changes over time, it does not deal with an non-existent system coming into existence nor can it.

Your argument above is fallacious because you are simply referring to material outside of the system in question, affecting the system in question, you require some already existing system but how can that or any preceding system come to exist?

 

[Marrybore]

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.

Mathematics theorems do not exactly exist "outside of us". A theorum may state something that can be applied to the real world. You can say, "Every cat is a mammal, John is a cat, therefore John is a mammal." Sure, cats and mammals and logic would still exist without humans, but so would everything... or would it? Who knows?

 

[Aletheia]

Please show me the calculation that leads you to describe the probability of some claim being true is low given the unavailability of evidence?

Go and examine the mathematical definition of probability then show me how you calculate the value "low", can you do that for me?

Sure, although, I'm sure it's just a venture down the rabbit hole. Not doing this formally, just off top of head.
For assumptions, we can just say the availability of evidence in support of the proposition that god exists equals to zero or approaches it.

Our proposition is that God exists.
let Probability be Probability of evidence in support of proposition divided by Probability of set all Possible probabilities

I'm not aware of any evidence in support of the proposition that God exists, so we can just set that value to zero or close to it. Feel free to add evidence to the set.
The set of all possible probabilities includes the set of all evidence in support of God's existence and the set of all evidence that does not support God's existence.
I argue that the set of all evidence that does not support God's existence is much greater than one, since I can come come up with plenty of evidence that does not support his existence. e.g. I can not see him is one such reasonable piece of evidence. Zero divided by any number greater than zero is zero. I'd say that is closer to low than high.

 

[Aletheia]

The scenario you describe begins with already existing material life, how is that equivalent to an absence of material? You are explaining something material in terms of some already existing material!



I do not see anything in your post that invalidates what I wrote.

The presence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically because such explanations - by definition - require already existing material.

Science deals only with how the state of an already existing system changes over time, it does not deal with an non-existent system coming into existence nor can it.

Your argument above is fallacious because you are simply referring to material outside of the system in question, affecting the system in question, you require some already existing system but how can that or any preceding system come to exist?

Ok, supposing there is a non-material void that precedes everything. You also could not prove in any way that the void is comprised of your definition of god. It could be comprised of any number of infinite such fictitious explanations, by your reasoning. So why even discuss probabilities or science to begin with?

It's more logical to assert that we cannot reasonably assume any specific supernatural being existed (assuming there is an origin), rather than a particular god, consisting of numerous specific attributes, constructed by man, is a more likely hypothesis.

 

[Lisa]

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.

Faith and belief are emotional decisions based on the lack of evidence. That idea also applies to delusions.

 

[WillyPete]

If an all-powerful Gawd does exist he appears to want us to question that existence, which strikes me as a kinda lame passive-aggressive sorta game to play on poor inferior creatures that you've created and filled with stupid ideas.

It would be like all the Smurfs getting eaten alive by Gargamel in the first episode, just to mind-**** the kids watching.

 

[watsup]

If an all-powerful Gawd does exist he appears to want us to question that existence, which strikes me as a kinda lame passive-aggressive sorta game to play on poor inferior creatures that you've created and filled with stupid ideas.

It would be like all the Smurfs getting eaten alive by Gargamel in the first episode, just to mind-**** the kids watching.

When a religionist threatens me, an atheist, with eternal damnation, I respond that God is going to have a special place in heaven for atheists because he will be proud of us for using our “God-made” brains to their full extent rather than just blithely putting that brain in neutral and following the pied pipers of religion and their myths and superstitions.

 

[TypicalRussian]

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.'

how was that an incorect interpretation?

 

[NWO_Spook]

how was that an incorect interpretation?

Can you not read?

 

[nota bene]

When a religionist threatens me, an atheist, with eternal damnation, I respond that God is going to have a special place in heaven for atheists because he will be proud of us for using our “God-made” brains to their full extent rather than just blithely putting that brain in neutral and following the pied pipers of religion and their myths and superstitions.

I don't know how you're using your brain to its full extent when you limit its activities to "reason."

 

[watsup]

I don't know how you're using your brain to its full extent when you limit its activities to "reason."

Huh? Expand.