Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 6:13 AM
216 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Son of Man, Tangle (4 members, 212 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,417 Year: 17,240/29,783 Month: 1,228/1,956 Week: 225/506 Day: 30/131 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
Phat
Member
Posts: 11446
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 211 of 219 (721452)
03-07-2014 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Stile
10-06-2009 8:07 AM


Re: Current rational chances for God: 0.00%
Stile writes:

The only rational, and consistent position is to ignore all propositions for which there are no evidence.

In a sense, I guess we could say that you believe in evidence. By that I mean that you believe...nay we say you know that evidence is a rational grounds for belief.

There is a mental process that allows us to watch reruns over and over and ignore the ending so that we can enjoy the show. Suspension Of Disbelief.

Perhaps what you are suggesting to believers is that in order to embrace reality over fantasy and to be honest, they in essence need to practice Suspension Of Belief. Is that close?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Stile, posted 10-06-2009 8:07 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Stile, posted 03-07-2014 12:12 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11446
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 212 of 219 (721454)
03-07-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Stile
05-12-2008 10:38 AM


Re: Evidence supports something, what is your something?
Stile,responding to Iano writes:

Your "excellent" example is the fact that your wife has had a great impact on your life.
What is this evidence for? What does this evidence suggest?

What if several witnesses approached the stand and declared that Ianos wife had also had a great impact on their lives?

We still have no evidence that Ianos wife exists, but we do know that something or someone is impacting lives. Iano claims that it is "his wife".

Stile,reasoning with Iano writes:

And everyone is asking you "what does this mean or even imply? How does this indicate anything?" Then you simply stare back with a blank face and declare yourself an equivalent.

What is your response? That you too have other things which arguably impact your life as much as Ianos---and that you don't need to meet or know his wife in order to enjoy a rich and fulfilling life? How is this not an equivalent?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Stile, posted 05-12-2008 10:38 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 03-07-2014 11:36 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 216 by Stile, posted 03-07-2014 12:22 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15606
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 213 of 219 (721457)
03-07-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:15 AM


Re: Probability
Phat writes:

By definition,(as defined by believers) God is not a figment nor content of human imagination.


Unfortunately, believers don't get to have their own set of definitions for everything.

Phat writes:

We must first assume...for the sake of argument(and in order to prove/disprove) that if God can even exist,then by definition God is not a product of human imagination.


Again, you can leave out the "by definition".

God is, in fact, a product of the human imagination - which may or may not resemble some real entity.

The probability of some known entity existing, such as a black zebra with white stripes, can be estimated. For unknown entities, such as gods, how do you even do the calculation? That's why I use the term "likelihood" instead of probability for cases where I can't do the math.

The likelihood of gods existing would seem to be very small. The likelihood of them resembling the human imagination of gods is even smaller.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:15 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 03-08-2014 1:08 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 214 of 219 (721458)
03-07-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:34 AM


Re: Evidence supports something, what is your something?
What if several witnesses approached the stand and declared that Ianos wife had also had a great impact on their lives?

We still have no evidence that Ianos wife exists, but we do know that something or someone is impacting lives. Iano claims that it is "his wife".

If, upon further investigation, no objective evidence could be supplied that such a wife exists, then what? It reminds me of Sagan's description of an invisible dragon that lives in people's garages.

quote:
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm


What if Iano says that his wife is invisible, and can not be detected by any means devised by man. What then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:34 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3258
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 215 of 219 (721461)
03-07-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:23 AM


Re: Current rational chances for God: 0.00%
Phat writes:

In a sense, I guess we could say that you believe in evidence. By that I mean that you believe...nay we say you know that evidence is a rational grounds for belief.

To be clear, I would only say that following the evidence is a good thing if your highest priority (at the moment) is to identify reality.

If you are not currently interested in identifying reality... say, you'd rather have some fun at the moment... then "evidence" isn't something you should be overly concerned about. It may or may not help, but it's not the "best known method" for humans to have fun... as it (evidence) is the "best known method" for identifying reality.

When you say "believe in evidence" it makes me think you're trying to parallel it with "believe in God."
Belief in God is generally an all-encompassing, all-the-time thing for most religiously inclined... right?
Belief in evidence is generally only something you do when trying to identify reality. Which has varying levels of importance throughout each day.

There is a mental process that allows us to watch reruns over and over and ignore the ending so that we can enjoy the show. Suspension Of Disbelief.

Perhaps what you are suggesting to believers is that in order to embrace reality over fantasy and to be honest, they in essence need to practice Suspension Of Belief. Is that close?

I don't understand. Are you trying to say that believers "already know" the ending to life? Hah! Sorry... that's just really rich.
There's a difference between saying you know something and actually knowing it:

I can say I know physics better than NoNukes and Son Goku and cavediver all I want. But everyone else can easily see that I don't.
Believers can say they know the ending to life all they want. But everyone else can easily see that they don't.

No, I'm not saying anything like that at all.
What I'm saying is that someone who claims to "know the ending of life" needs a smack upside the head and get back to reality.
You don't even have to be 'honest' to understand that... all you have to be is 'not helplessly delusional.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:23 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3258
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 216 of 219 (721462)
03-07-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:34 AM


Re: Evidence supports something, what is your something?
Phat writes:

What if several witnesses approached the stand and declared that Ianos wife had also had a great impact on their lives?

We still have no evidence that Ianos wife exists, but we do know that something or someone is impacting lives. Iano claims that it is "his wife".

The point is... if you're going to try to claim God exists because he "has a great impact on your life" then you have to show how that impact cannot come from anywhere else. Otherwise it only shows that something has impacted your life and you currently think that it's because of God.

It is known that people can have a great impact on their own lives through the virtue of hope.
That hope can come from God, it can come from family, it can come from yourself, it can come from imagined ideas, it can come from infinite sources.

Therefore... having a "great impact on your life" is not evidence of God's existence.
There's too many alternative explanations for such a piece of information to point at a single source. It doesn't make any sense.

What is your response? That you too have other things which arguably impact your life as much as Ianos---and that you don't need to meet or know his wife in order to enjoy a rich and fulfilling life? How is this not an equivalent?

I think my wording wasn't clear.
"Equivalent" was not meaning iano was on the same level as anyone else who has had "a great impact on their lives" in some way.
"Equivalent" meant "God exists" as much as "my wife" exists.
That is... iano was claiming to be an equivalent on "God exists" as much as anyone else's claim that their "wife exists" just because each has had a "great impact" on their lives.
He's ignoring the other aspects, one being that wives can at least be seen by other people...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:34 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11446
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 217 of 219 (721519)
03-08-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
03-07-2014 11:13 AM


Facts, assertions, and lack of evidence
ringo writes:

God is, in fact, a product of the human imagination - which may or may not resemble some real entity.

I disagree. This fact is not established...only assumed for now...due to lack of evidence.

You and Stile! I tell ya...

This whole idea that humans define/frame reality is a hallmark of unbelievers thinking. Perhaps you are right in that believers are mildly delusional...I am no doubt adding data to that set of information...but the very fact that I am a believer shows that I am looking at this idea that we are discussing differently from you.

Now...this gets back to jars argument concerning god, God, and GOD. His take, if I recall correctly, was that IF GOD (Creator of all seen and unseen) exists, nothing that we humans do, say, believe, or doubt would have any bearing on that reality.

Thus...I would amend your statement.

God may be a product of the human imagination.

IF GOD exists, GOD would quite likely...in fact most certainly NOT be a product of the human imagination. Our idea of GOD would be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 03-07-2014 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 03-09-2014 2:18 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15606
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 218 of 219 (721557)
03-09-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Phat
03-08-2014 1:08 PM


Re: Facts, assertions, and lack of evidence
Phat writes:

ringo writes:

God is, in fact, a product of the human imagination - which may or may not resemble some real entity.


I disagree. This fact is not established...only assumed for now...due to lack of evidence.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Everything you think about God is a product of your imagination. That is not to say that God is only a product of your imagination. A real "God" might exist but there is no way to know whether your imaginings about God have any resemblance to a real God.

Phat writes:

This whole idea that humans define/frame reality is a hallmark of unbelievers thinking.


It's a hallmark of thinking, period, that what we think is only what we think. It is not necessarily what is.

It's only an empty arrogant claim by believers that they understand what really is.

Phat writes:

IF GOD exists, GOD would quite likely...in fact most certainly NOT be a product of the human imagination. Our idea of GOD would be.


That's what I'm saying: our ideas about gods or God or GOD or God-in-twenty-foot-high-flashing-red-italics are always only in our imagination.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 03-08-2014 1:08 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1141 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 219 of 219 (721593)
03-10-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:15 AM


Re: Probability
Keyphrase: figment of anyones imagination. By definition,(as defined by believers) God is not a figment nor content of human imagination. We cant very well attempt to prove something that apriori is a figment of imagination. We must first assume...for the sake of argument(and in order to prove/disprove) that if God can even exist,then by definition God is not a product of human imagination.

Apparently the rather simple argument slipped right past you, Phat, and you descended once again into meaningless nonsense.

The debate is about probability, Phat. It's an old thread you've raised fromt he dead, but even you could read the thread title. What we hypothetically allow for the sake of argument is irrelevant to this discussion.

What we're talking about is the false estimation of the likelihood of god(s) existing. Many people like to think that, since god(s) either do or do not exist, there is a 50% chance of god(s) either existing or not existing.

But that's flat wrong, a mistake that wouldn't be made by anyone with the most basic understanding of probability.

Analogously, despite the fact that any given lottery ticket is either a winner or not a winner, the chances of winning the lottery with a given ticket are nowhere near 50%.

When I say "figment of anyone's imagination," I mean "anyone's unfounded hypothesis about some way the world actually is, without any evidence to support that hypothesis." If you take some offense to me calling god(s) figments of the human imagination, well, that's the same way I see ghosts and souls and leprechauns and Santa.

What you posted, instead of having anything even remotely to do with the actual topic of the long-deceased thread whose rest you took upon yourself to disturb, was a feeble attempt to restore face through appealing to semantic irrelevancies.

No, Phat. God does not become real "by definition." Believers obviously do not believe that God is a figment of the imagination, but their raw belief doesn't make them right. God exists or does not exist, regardless of your beliefs. Your statement (I cannot even call it an argument) implies that we can somehow defines things into being, calling them up from nonexistence through our belief in the words that represent them.

This is not so.

Without evidence, Phat, the probability of any hypothesis, any imagined explanation of the real world, any figment of the imagination, actually accurately reflecting the real world, is no better than a random guess. Any hypothesis about god(s), bereft of evidence or any way for us to actually test for accuracy, floats in a sea of equally likely mutually exclusive hypotheses.

The chance of god(s) existing is no better, and I am not exaggerating, than the likelihood that a fairy rests at this moment on your shoulder. It is possible. However, since I can see no reason to believe such a thing, since there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing might be so, since there is no way to test among the infinite variety of similarly unsupported yet mutually exclusive hypotheses as to which among them might be more or less probable than the others...

I see no reason to consider your God to be anything more than a fairy tale. I'd be more likely to win the lottery a dozen times in a row, than for your personal belief in God to actually accurately reflect the real world.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

Nihil supernum


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:15 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018