What are the odds of God existing?

Are you guys really gonna go through another 300 posts telling RR how wrong he is only to have him restate his false premises, reiterate his conclusion, or totally avoid the posts that he cant do that too?

You thought wrong.Your premises have been shreded to bits and you conclusion is arbitrary in the first place, its illogical.

Ya know, RR, you once asked me what my problem was and this is it.It took you 300 + another 150 posts to really explain yourself when a simple refutation of your premise wouldn't suffice. You asserted rediculous, IMO, assumptions and just restated them, cockily, to any challange of you postion. This post could have happend 400 ago and I wouldn't have had a problem. All perfectly safe assumptions that I would agree with. Well, personally, I can think of other possibilities. So, this is why I disagree with your premises. When I desagree, simply restating them causes me to have a problem. A simple explanation is all I ask for. The line "I mean fundamentally different" confuses my definition of 'different'. IMO, there could be other things that are different from the universe that are not beings (And me not being able to come up with an example does not convince me that it is not possible, especially when your claim is as bold as "Thats all that is possible.") But when you introduce this additional defintion, I don't really know what you are talking about so I just maintain that there are differences that aren't beings. Simply restating your reasoning or claiming that it is based on logic causes me to have a problem. I agree that a being can reason and a thing cannot. IMO, animals cannot reason, at least not anywhere near how we can, so for all practical perposes, they cannot. Their magnitude of reasoning is negligible. I disagree that these are the only two types of entities that could be. And me not being able to come up with anther type does not convince mean that the other type doesn't exist, at least not enough to include it in a premise. Which is why I disagree with your premise, which can easily be refuted with, "yeah, well there could be anther type." Especially when your premise is as bold as "That's all there can be." OK, I get your drift, I just don't agree with it. There can be other things out there. Its not illogical.Then you apply a conclusion that the probabilities are equal, for which there is no data to support, so you conclusion is arbitrary, to premises that I find false. Your argument is invalid, "I mean fundamentally invalid." Sorry to be a smartass. But that's it in a nutshell.

No! In all that infinite empty nothingness is us, the one and only. I'd say that we are the most significant. The OP suugested two possibilities and asserted that they were all the possibilieties, 'thats all there is'; its obviously wrong. /nod this looks like a reply to RR in your reply to Phat

But its more complicated than that to me. Some things have properties, like gravity, that are not things or beings. Some beings, like animals, are not conscious (for all practical purposes or when compared to us) so they could also be seen as things. Like I said, I just disagree with the claim that beings and things are "the only thing out there".

Heh, apply that question to the Beings/Things idea. I can have a discussion with the assumption that we got either a thing or a being, and thats it. So, what was the discussion again? Heh, just kidding, but I gtg so I'll get back to it later.

I don't know who Eric is. But anyways, if you disagree with what you typed then you mislead me and forget it, but otherwise I maintain my claim. I'm not, but from what you posted, that seems to be the case. At least for all practical purposes, as far as we know, i mean.So, what do you say?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't put words in my mouth post.I don't despise you, I just find you assertions rediculous, and to simply restate them is a little disappointing, and it feels like you end up wasting my time, which causes me to "have a problem", but despise?, no. I typed before, that I can hold a discussion assuming that only these things/beings exist. You could write an OP with the line "Assuming only things and beings exist, blah blah blah." and I'll reply with whatever I feel like. But to assert that claim in a premise of an argument, that I found false regardless, is rediculous. I'll say, but your premise is wrong, its all about how you phrase the discussion, especially in an online forum, where 90% of the communication is lost through the means.I've already typed the difficulties I have with asserting that only things and beings exist, look a couple posts up. I just don't think the classification is that well defined or easy to assert. Whatever, I can still type about a discussion with the assumption that that is all there is. So, lets do it. I don't think its the content of the discussion, its the way you state it. I think we could discuss a lot of stuff, just don't be so sure of yourself, and remeber that I am losing a lot of the meaning through the means we have for discussion. A lot of words have to be well defined and maintain thier definitions for us to understand each other. I can't walk on the surface of the sun, that's not possible. But in some situations, like the beginning of the universe I would say that yeah, anything is possible (but I could still eliminate some scenarios, like things that are contradictions or really really rediculous). I find nihilism rediculous. Actually, I think that our reasoning, morality and ethics are the only things that we can know do exist. I'm curious how old you are. I'll be 25 in May. Well, IMHO, it is important. Especially if you think there is an afterlife. Well, personally, its not the 'reasoning out', its your method. Like I typed a long time ago, your method is bold (and semi insulting).

Well sortof, you don't have to include all the doubt, you just have to aknowledge that your making assertions for the sake of argument.

According to the OP's logic, wouldn't that lower the odds of god existing to 33.33%?ABE: Isn't your satisactory explanation a tautology?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 05-03-2006 09:04 AM

So...does God sleep?

I want you to be clear on the 'cocky assertions' that cause me to 'have a problem'. I just get such a matter-of-fact context from the post and these statements aren't neccessarily true. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, or maybe I'm just immature and ignorant, Faith.But anyways....WRT the opening post, what if the universe was created by a council of power-limited gods that worked together?Maybe this council was doing something else altogether and one of the gods farted and out came our universe, a denied accident.The point is, there's more than the two options. Also, even if we assume those are the only two options, we shouldn't assume they have equal probability. For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that electrons are things. I agree, except I don't think a lack of consciousness makes you a thing. Everything is a thing and having consciousness is what makes you a being. Beings are things but things are not neccessarily beings. Its a thing by default.

damn, sorry for starting an off topic bitchfest earlier.

What if the council was not eternal. These gods, which are also not eternal, just happened to find themselves existing and decided to create our universe. I think you would reply that this is option #2 and it is our universe in another form. But, it could be not from another form, that they actually created energy and matter and our universe from their multidimensional superverse. It sorta moves the goalposts to where did that superverse come from but think of it this way. If the scenario described is truly the way it happened, what does that do to your odds of God existing? Ahh, but it isn't. The gods of the council are not eternal beings and they still created the universe. Why do you say that they must be eternal? Because otherwise its option 2? But its not that option because the universe was created by a god(which is a council of them). If there's no reason for selecting either one, why not put the coin down and NOT SELECT ONE. No, I agree, the terms are fine. I was just nitpicking at the way they are defined. I don't think you should define a thing as a thing that lacks consciousness. I think you should define a being as a thing that has consciousness. Because obviously all things are things (and all beings are things) but not all things are beings. You should put the limit of the definition on the beings.Now, I'm still not convinced that beings and things are all that exist. But lets just assume that it is true and move the discussion forward. Where are we going from here?

well that was a disappointing reply