50% chance that God exists

[johnsweeting]

So I was watching a debate online on the "Atheist Experience" show between a christian and a non-believer and they were arguing back and forth and the christian was making in my opinion very silly arguments why his position was correct. Then all of a sudden he came up with this statement:

"I believe that Jesus was the son of God. Either he was or he wasn't. That makes it a 50% chance of being true".

His statement above I think is religion in a nutshell. No evidence, silly reasoning even though you can write like 100 pages with your "arguments for god".
By the way....I can jump over the Empire State building in New York city. Either I can or I can't. That makes it a 50% chance that I can.
If I'm really thirsty after having played a tough match of basketball I think I can drink all the water in all the lakes and oceans in the entire world. Either I can or I can't.
That make is a 50% chance that I can...

Question:
What are the other silly argument you have heard when a religious person is trying to make sense of his religious beliefs. I mean, when you don't have any evidence and when they are 10,000 religions out there and you're trying to make arguments that your particular religion is true, then there are no limits to what you can hear.

Here is an clip with another topic of the show that I was talking about....enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ&noredirect=1

 

[9Westy9]

I covered a lot of the generally stupid arguments some people make

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/139569-stupid-things-you-hear-about-atheism.html

Another bad argument I've heard is that you can imagine a perfect being therefore it must exist in reality.

 

[Rival]

It takes for granted that Jesus existed in the first place.
One I've heard is 'but my prayer wish came true!'
So did my eyelash one. Eyelashes must be magickal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmmm.....if I buy a lottery ticket, I might win or I might lose.
So there's a 50% chance I might win. Woo hoo!
I should buy three tickets....so I have a 150% chance of winning.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Everything must have a creator. Therefore the universe was created and has a Creator.

It always startles me when I realize that someone is making that argument with a straight face.

 

[Quintessence]

Everything must have a creator. Therefore the universe was created and has a Creator.

It always startles me when I realize that someone is making that argument with a straight face.

Why?

Is this statement much different from saying "events in the universe are the result of previous causes?" Do you react the same way to that kind of statement?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why?

I'm not sure why it so startles me. I guess because of the question-begging aspect. It strikes me as someone trying to structure his personal assumptions as if a legitimate logical argument.

Everything needs a creator. Therefore the universe needs a creator.

I don't know. It just startles me. Why not just say: I think that the universe was created. That wouldn't startle me. It wouldn't make me think that the speaker is confused about logical thought.

Is this statement much different from saying "events in the universe are the result of previous causes?" Do you react the same way to that kind of statement?

No, that looks more like a bald assertion. As for how I react to it, I rarely do so. It's like free will. I don't spend much time arguing one way or the other about free will. I got that out of my system a long time ago and don't see any use to it.

I'll let the theists argue that there was once an Uncaused Cause but that everything since then has had to be caused. They can also argue the nature of infinity without me.

 

[freethinker44]

Why?

Is this statement much different from saying "events in the universe are the result of previous causes?" Do you react the same way to that kind of statement?

The ridiculous part of that argument isn't that everything has a cause, it is that god exists because everything has a cause. The next logical question is 'what caused god?' and then of course hilarity ensues.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure why it so startles me. I guess because of the question-begging aspect. It strikes me as someone trying to structure his personal assumptions as if a legitimate logical argument.

Everything needs a creator. Therefore the universe needs a creator.

I don't know. It just startles me. Why not just say: I think that the universe was created. That wouldn't startle me. It wouldn't make me think that the speaker is confused about logical thought.

That's fair. I think it is good to keep in mind that many people are not so eloquent. Words come out of their mouths or are typed by their hands, but they do not fully convey the nuances of what they are actually thinking or wanting to express. Some people assume it is understood that when they express their thoughts about something, others will know they mean "this is what I think" and that they are not making a statement of "this is how it is, period."

No, that looks more like a bald assertion. As for how I react to it, I rarely do so. It's like free will. I don't spend much time arguing one way or the other about free will. I got that out of my system a long time ago and don't see any use to it.

I'll let the theists argue that there was once an Uncaused Cause but that everything since then has had to be caused. They can also argue the nature of infinity without me.

Hah, also fair. My path doesn't particularly care about origins of things either. The universe is here. I don't particularly care how it got here aside from academic curiosity and am also quite content to leave those arguments to the other theists. Honoring and celebrating the here and now is what is important.

The ridiculous part of that argument isn't that everything has a cause, it is that god exists because everything has a cause. The next logical question is 'what caused god?' and then of course hilarity ensues.

It's more or less ridiculous depending on how one is defining "god" and its attributes. Their definition of god assigns its essence as an uncaused cause. The entire point is that it is paradoxical and transcends puny human insistence that there can be no uncaused cause. I can see the logic of this particular argument, although I do not personally agree with it. Mostly I just do not care, as noted above, but I also view existence in cyclical, not linear terms.

 

[R34L1TY]

Hmmmm.....if I buy a lottery ticket, I might win or I might lose.
So there's a 50% chance I might win. Woo hoo!
I should buy three tickets....so I have a 150% chance of winning.

Hahahha

 

[McBell]

It's more or less ridiculous depending on how one is defining "god" and its attributes. Their definition of god assigns its essence as an uncaused cause. The entire point is that it is paradoxical and transcends puny human insistence that there can be no uncaused cause. I can see the logic of this particular argument, although I do not personally agree with it. Mostly I just do not care, as noted above, but I also view existence in cyclical, not linear terms.

And thus they are making god an exception to the very rule they claim proves god which shows that their rule does not prove god.

 

[Vultar]

"The proof is in the pudding"

But I've searched through many a pudding and couldn't find it there

 

[Quintessence]

And thus they are making god an exception to the very rule they claim proves god which shows that their rule does not prove god.

I think you're missing the point of their argument. That an uncaused cause is an exception to the rule is the very reason why it is a god - it makes it "greater than" and transcendent of the material reality we know, which is a fundamental attribute assigned to many god-concepts. It's a logical proof, and a pretty decent one.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think you're missing the point of their argument. That an uncaused cause is an exception to the rule is the very reason why it is a god - it makes it "greater than" and transcendent of the material reality we know, which is a fundamental attribute assigned to many god-concepts. It's a logical proof, and a pretty decent one.

It relies on the assumption that linear causality is an actual rule of the universe. That's a really sketchy assumption, and may actually be proven false in the foreseeable future.

 

[Falvlun]

I think you're missing the point of their argument. That an uncaused cause is an exception to the rule is the very reason why it is a god - it makes it "greater than" and transcendent of the material reality we know, which is a fundamental attribute assigned to many god-concepts. It's a logical proof, and a pretty decent one.

It's not a logical proof. It's a hypothesis, at best: If every effect requires a cause, and if a first cause is required, then that first cause could be called god. A lot of "ifs", and then topped off with an opinion.

But, even then, it doesn't really mean much. It doesn't say anything about what that god is, except a mechanism by which the first seed of the universe came to be.

 

[Quintessence]

It relies on the assumption that linear causality is an actual rule of the universe. That's a really sketchy assumption, and may actually be proven false in the foreseeable future.

That's fair, and I stated earlier that I don't agree with the argument. All logical arguments rest on premises which in of themselves cannot be proven, and I don't buy the premise that time is linear either. However, I do see that if certain premises are granted, the logic follows. Credit to that goes to a philosophy of religion teacher I had earlier in life; he explained it very well to me.

And Falvun, it is a logical proof for a certain kind of god used in the philosophy of religion. There's more extensive presentations of it than what I've given, but I would not be the person to ask for that. Not my theology.

 

[McBell]

I think you're missing the point of their argument. That an uncaused cause is an exception to the rule is the very reason why it is a god - it makes it "greater than" and transcendent of the material reality we know, which is a fundamental attribute assigned to many god-concepts. It's a logical proof, and a pretty decent one.

presenting a subjective rule as proof of something then making the something the rule supposedly proves an exception to said rule shows that said rule is not the proof of the something you use said rule to prove.

If god can be an exception to said rule, then why cant the universe be an exception to said rule?

In other words, if they can arbitrarily make exceptions, then everyone else can.
Now if everyone can make whatever they want an exception to the rule, what good is the rule in the first place?

 

[Quintessence]

It's not an arbitrary exception, but like I said, it's not my theology, and I'm not an expert in the theological philosophy behind these proofs.

 

[McBell]

It's not an arbitrary exception,

How is it not?

Sounds to me as though the claim sounds to good for them to let go so when finally someone asked the "who created god" stumper, they, in their desperation, made god an exception, not understanding how doing so completely undermines their whole argument.

but like I said, it's not my theology, and I'm not an expert in the theological philosophy behind these proofs.

Fair enough.

 

[Orias]

I say if its a challenge, it exists.