|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What are the odds of God existing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I said in another thread: So according to my scheme, there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.
Another poster said: I would really like to see this scheme layed out (perhaps in a new thread?) So here it is: There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for the origin of the universe: 1. it was created by an eternal Being2. The universe has always existed in some form All other possibilites can be reduced to these two. A Pagan-style God, for example, a God that arose from nature, would reduce to option #2. Such a God would be logically unnecessary. It we say that perhaps the universe came into existence as a result of some other universe, that also reduces to #2. The options are Nature (an eternal thing) or a god (an eternal being). Now, if all we consider is the fact of creation (rather than the nature of that creation--problematical to say the least), there is no reason to choose either option 1 or option 2. We might as well flip a coin. The odds are 50/50. Faith and belief forum, perhaps.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-26-2006 08:08 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-26-2006 08:10 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-27-2006 12:32 PM God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I think I agree with you.
This argument almost sounds like "there's a 50/50 chance of myfavouritefaith(tm) being right. This doesn't work at all, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't imagine you are saying this. I think, logically those two options are the only ones (n.b - "in some form"), but each one embraces such a multitudinous variety of possibility that we don't learn much from the knowledge that it was one of those two. I suppose there is another option actually, which is that the universe came from nothing. I don't know if we have any conclusive evidence that this is impossible. I suspect that you will say that the nothing that preceded the universe was simply the universe in another form, and I'm not sure if I wholly disagree; but at the same time, its concievable that that view isn't correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I suppose there is another option actually, which is that the universe came from nothing. Nothing can come from nothing--if we mean literally nothing. God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"there's a 50/50 chance of myfavouritefaith(tm) being right. This doesn't work at all, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't imagine you are saying this. No, it has nothing to do with some particular religion, although it might have something to do with what sort of God is possible. Option #1 pins it down to an "eternal being." That's a start. God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Mathematically speaking this argument is best described as bollocks. The "probability" is solely an artefact of the way you carve up the available options. So your schema does not produce a valid probability. The rest of the argument is even worse.
quote: This list is not exhaustive. The universe could, for instance, be a product of a being that is not eternal. Therefore you have failed even to correctly make a bogus argument
quote: And this is a clear non-sequitur. Apart from the fact that pagan Gods do not always arise from nature, a God that did arise from nature might be logically necessary. And that is without getting into the questions of what it means to say that the universe "always" existed or the meaning of "eternal".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The universe could, for instance, be a product of a being that is not eternal. "Eternal"--that which has existed forever. If it had not existed forever, it would have arisen from nature--revert to option #2.
a God that did arise from nature might be logically necessary. Such a possibility would revert to option #2. The point is that there had to be something or some being always around. Something cannot come from nothing. We have something, so there always had to be something or other. There's two entities it could be, a being or a thing. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-28-2006 07:02 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-28-2006 07:03 AM God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That is taking two choices, and assuming there are equal chances of each choice being true.
What chance is there of my dying tomorrow. I will either live, or I will die. Is the chances I will die tomorrow 50/50?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What chance is there of my dying tomorrow. I will either live, or I will die. Is the chances I will die tomorrow 50/50? No, there's a difference. There are other factors we can consider in regard to your chances of death (your health, etc.). But if we consider the fact of creation only, there are no other factors to consider. God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
1. it was created by an eternal Being 2. The universe has always existed in some form These aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible you can have a temporally infinite universe (always existing) and still have a creator. Conversely, you can have a temporally finite universe that isn't created (or at least there is no known physical objection to it yet).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
robinrohan writes: There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for the origin of the universe: 1. it was created by an eternal Being2. The universe has always existed in some form I take it that by 'being' you mean some kind of conscious entity, as opposed to the non-conscious 'thing' of your second option. I sense that you put it that way because you want to make the distinction between a 'willed' universe - a universe that is created by a willful act of said being - and an eternally existing universe - which does not need such an act to exist. But whether the origin of the universe is a conscious entity or a non-conscious thing has no bearing on the fact that both must exist prior to the existence of the universe. However, the very meaning of the verb 'to exist' - that is to say, the meaning which is applicable in the current context - is to have a place and time. In order for a thing to have a place and time, a place and time must exist prior to the thing itself. So we have a paradox: if the universe has an origin, then, on the one hand, for the universe to exist, the origin of the universe must itself exist first. On the other hand, in order for the origin of the universe to exist, the universe itself must exist first. The only way to avoid this paradox is to conclude that the universe has no origin, no cause. This can mean two things, and they are almost exactly the two things you mention in your opening post: 1. The universe was created - or rather, started to be;2. The universe always existed. Note that, contrary to your option #1, mine does not mention a creator or cause. I might still flip a coin to choose between the options, but neither outcome would lead me to accept the existence of a causal entity, conscious or not; let alone something that could be considered to be a 'god'. By the way, your second option isn't really an origin, is it? In my vocabulary, an 'origin' is where something starts. An eternally existing universe has no such starting point. (It's part of my reasoning above.) "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
temporally infinite If by "infinite," you mean "eternal," then "temporally infinite" is a contradiction in terms, like round square. God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: As others keep pointing out, this does not exhaust the possibilities. The universe may simply exist without having always existed, without a cause. You keep saying that this isn't possible, but the only reasons you give for your statement is that you cannot comprehend the possibility. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I notice that you don't address the major point which invalidates your whole argument.
quote: This argument is incorrect. Option 2 is
2. The universe has always existed in some form
This is not the same as the idea that the universe did not always exist in some form, but was instead created by a being that was not eternal. It is also false to say that a being that is not eternal must have arisen from nature (to use an obvious alternative it coudl itself have been created by an Eternal being - doubtless you would say that that devolves to your option 1, although it is clearly not identical to it)
quote: Your response here is an irrelevance. The stated point was that you were in error to state that a being that arose from nature could not be logically necessary.
quote: Even if this is correct you cannot validly calculate probabilities just by arranging the possibilities in a way you like. However it is not what you stated in the OP - you allowed precisely two options - the universe "always" existed or "an Eternal being" directly created our universe. I don't think that the ekpyrotic theory, for instance, neatly fits into either option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
1. The universe was created - or rather, started to be; This sounds to me like another way of saying the universe came from nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. You have to have something to make it come into being. As regards the word "origin," perhaps it should be changed to "explanation for the existence of anything."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024