Arguments for the existance of God that don't fall into the "God of the Gaps."

[Blastcat]

OK so we agree entirely, and I think most people get this. So a pit boss might rightfully claim that cheating in his casino is extremely difficult, almost impossible, no direct evidence of it happening, or even any idea hpow it could have happened...

You overestimate the ability of casinos to detect cheating. Some cheaters probably do fool the casinos, but what are the odds of all of those CHEATERS living la vida loca without ever getting caught eventually?.. a lot of cheaters do get caught. That's why casinos spend so much cash looking for cheaters. If they had NO chance at detection, I'm sure they would not even bother observing.

Now, to help your god case, or the universe case, you want me to say that improbable poker hands are like what happened at the start of the universe. The odds of this universe happening. ONCE is very low. Ok, so the odds of this universe happening are very low. But that doesn't mean impossible ever. Just like the royal flush, improbable doesn't mean impossible.

But something isn't going to work, in your analogy. Because while we can do the math about poker hand odds, we can't do that with the universe. What ARE the odds of a universe coming into being? .. er... pick one.

yet he will certainly suspect cheating under these circumstances- that's the power of creative intelligence, it can overcome vast improbabilities where there is motive, purpose, intent, and these phenomena can only exist in a conscious mind yes?

If we had a case of ten royals in a casino, it would be headline news. If the same individual kept getting royals like that he would be banned from casinos.. if possible, or the whole industry would stop. No more casinos.

So, the world press would be all over this story.. statisticians would clear this up for us.. improbable, possible, impossible, we would learn a lot about probabilities and gambling and so on. And then, the best minds on the planet would focus on this math anomaly.

What are the odds of Mt. Everest happening just the way that it did? ... One in a billion or just one in one?..

When something actually HAPPENS, the probability of it HAPPENING has reduced to ONE.
So, all the math pundits would say that no matter HOW it happened, ( and let's say nobody knows ) the ONE thing that IS clear is that the royal event DID actually happen.

IF nobody knows how the royal event happened, then, of course, ONE good theory is the guy is a master cheater. And cheating like that should get him a NOBEL prize of some kind for fooling so many people so well.. this is a new LEVEL of trickery.

In this case money, in the case of God.. what is more valuable? the greatest motivation a conscious being can ever have??

Oh, I see. So, you go from the casino.. which is about making MONEY.. bad, bad, money.. to .. GOD

What was the link?.... between money and god?.. erm.. did you forget to write that part?

All you need is love Blastcat!

I can assure you that your argument wont be affected by our emotional state. And emotions might, as a matter of fact, reduce our capacity to reason without bias. So, I highly recommend that you don't depend on love in order to prove your point.

I don't see how LOVE has anything to do with casinos, royal flushes, establishing probabilities, and theories concerning the origins of the universe. I have ENOUGH trouble following your train of thought here as it IS. PLEASE don't add more complexity.

atheist theories are theories created by atheists, with explicit atheist implications, and overwhelmingly championed by atheists. There have been many- all debunked where testable.

IF you are repeating this myth of atheist science, then.. please. Stop.

The 'big crunch' WAS about an atheist beginning, Hawking (atheist) proposed it as a cyclical system of regenerating the universe which would 'make God redundant' (atheism) in his own words.- can't get much more atheisty than that!

I won't argue about facts. IF you insist on using falsehoods to help your case, I am immediately uninterested.
As I said, and you should look it up.. the big crunch is about the possible END of the universe. Only ONE hypothetical implication is a reformulation of a universe, but CRUNCHING Is not EXPANDING...

you see the word 'HELP' spelled in rocks on a beach- on a deserted island with zero evidence of anybody around- do you assume the waves washed them up that way? why not?

I know about humans. And I know that waves aren't human, and they don't USE English. Do YOU imagine that waves write poetry, too? .. please.. don't try to BOLSTER your hugely defective arguments with one even MORE defective argument.

Try to stay on track. You have explained exactly NOTHING so far.

 

[Typist]

This board is restricted to proof of the existance of God without using any kind of scriptural or "God of the gaps" kind of reasoning. Thanks for complying with the topic/subject of this post. I look forward to your input.

A better question might be, why do you want to discuss this? If you don't believe in God, that's cool. So why not just drop the subject and move on?

Don't you find it a bit curious how many atheists on forums are convinced God is just a big bunch of nothing, and yet they want to discuss God all day long every day? An interesting social phenomena, eh?

 

[leibowde84]

A better question might be, why do you want to discuss this? If you don't believe in God, that's cool. So why not just drop the subject and move on?

Don't you find it a bit curious how many atheists on forums are convinced God is just a big bunch of nothing, and yet they want to discuss God all day long every day? An interesting social phenomena, eh?

I'm not an atheist, as I do believe in God. I, however, do not think it reasonable to treat scriptures as infalible, or take anyone's word for what the nature of God is. I am constantly searching for answers to questions such as these. No matter how strong my faith may be, I will never stop understanding that I could be wrong. That is why I find it extremely valuable to discuss it and see other's points of view.

 

[Typist]

I'm not an atheist, as I do believe in God. I, however, do not think it reasonable to treat scriptures as infalible, or take anyone's word for what the nature of God is. I am constantly searching for answers to questions such as these. No matter how strong my faith may be, I will never stop understanding that I could be wrong. That is why I find it extremely valuable to discuss it and see other's points of view.

Thanks for your reply, I now understand where you are coming much better than I did previously.

If it interests you, we could inquire in to why we seek answers.

First, what is an "answer"? Let's start there, just to be clear on the basics, which might be overlooked as they may appear too obvious.

What is an "answer"? An "answer" is a symbol in our heads, right?

As example, if we were to ask what kind of website this is, the answer would be a symbol, a word in our minds, a word spelled "forum".

And so when we ask if a God exists or not, we are trying to create a symbol in our mind that accurately represents reality. Ok so far?

Now let's revisit what the question, "does God exist?"

Let's get more specific. Does a God exist WHERE?

Everybody on all sides agrees that the symbol God exists, right? So that's not what the discussion/debate is about. God clearly exists within the symbol realm.

The question really is....

Does God exist IN THE REAL WORLD?

Right?

If the question really is "does god exist in the real world?" then the next question might be....

Why are we looking for God in the symbol realm?

Isn't this sort of like looking through a big pile of Facebook photos hoping to find our real life friends? Sure, we have photos of our real life friends, but they are photos, symbols, and not the actual living friends, right?

Thus, we will NEVER find our real living friends on Facebook, no matter how long we look, because Facebook, like our intellectual processes, is a purely symbolic realm.

I have no idea how well I'm explaining this. Questions and challenges will be helpful, thanks.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You overestimate the ability of casinos to detect cheating. Some cheaters probably do fool the casinos, but what are the odds of all of those CHEATERS living la vida loca without ever getting caught eventually?.. a lot of cheaters do get caught. That's why casinos spend so much cash looking for cheaters. If they had NO chance at detection, I'm sure they would not even bother observing.

Now, to help your god case, or the universe case, you want me to say that improbable poker hands are like what happened at the start of the universe. The odds of this universe happening. ONCE is very low. Ok, so the odds of this universe happening are very low. But that doesn't mean impossible ever. Just like the royal flush, improbable doesn't mean impossible.

But something isn't going to work, in your analogy. Because while we can do the math about poker hand odds, we can't do that with the universe. What ARE the odds of a universe coming into being? .. er... pick one.

well exactly, improbable does not mean impossible, but neither does it mean 'most likely answer'-

winning a few poker hands is selling the universe a little short, the odds according to Hawking are apparently close to infinity to one, that being the number of multiverses required to fluke this one without any creative intelligence involved

impossible to calculate obviously, but you're positing an arbitrary universe- developing it's own consciousness to ponder itself with entirely by chance, whatever the odds, they ain't too high! I think most would agree with this

Oh, I see. So, you go from the casino.. which is about making MONEY.. bad, bad, money.. to .. GOD

What was the link?.... between money and god?.. erm.. did you forget to write that part?

read it again- the link is motive, for the gambler it's money- for God; love

It's a simple matter of power of explanation, not a very complex concept, I think you understand- you seem like an intelligent rational honest person to me, and most people debate each other here on that premise.

 

[Blastcat]

A better question might be, why do you want to discuss this? If you don't believe in God, that's cool. So why not just drop the subject and move on?

Don't you find it a bit curious how many atheists on forums are convinced God is just a big bunch of nothing, and yet they want to discuss God all day long every day? An interesting social phenomena, eh?

Yes, precisely, religion is a HUGELY interesting social phenomena. I don't know why you would THINK the subject uninteresting to someone living in our world today.

Why don't THEISTS just drop the subject and move on? .. I would NEVER ask such a ridiculous question to theists.. But of course, it's a perfectly fine one for theists to ask of atheists..

So, here is my humble attempt to answer you.

I believe that we do better when our thinking is clear, and that it follows logically. I'm in these comments mainly to explore how people think about their beliefs and not really what they believe in. So, if I criticize your reasoning.. don't think that I am opposed to you. Think of me trying to help you make a better case. I get accused a lot for being some nasty atheist. I am a nasty atheist.. lol.

And that fact is an advantage to your case, if you ever choose to make one. I don't share your beliefs and that means that I wont be SWAYED by your conclusion. I am really only concerned about your METHOD of thinking on how you ARRIVED at your conclusion, whatever that might be.

Hope that explains my motivation here.. I'm trying to learn how to think better.. it's a bit of a struggle for me. I find that asking people questions about their beliefs is a great way for me to practice logical thinking. I believe that better thinking can only help the world.

I'm trying out explaining where my criticism comes from. I am hoping that it will circumvent useless assumptions that I am a troll on some personal vendetta against people I don't happen to agree with.

 

[Blastcat]

well exactly, improbable does not mean impossible, but neither does it mean 'most likely answer'-

We agree on that. Improbable does not mean impossible. Your god is possible. That says nothing about the probability of your god.

winning a few poker hands is selling the universe a little short, the odds according to Hawking are apparently close to infinity to one, that being the number of multiverses required to fluke this one without any creative intelligence involved

Oh, we have established the probability of the multiverse now?.. I wasn't aware. How many multiverses are there? Did we count them? .. No, the multiverse is a theory.. we don't have more than speculation for that. And I don't think you will find Dr. Hawking very sympathetic to your design argument for the existence of god.

Your incredulity has been noted. Since we do not actually KNOW how the universe actually began, you can fill that gap with a god.

Ok.. Done. Your argument is done. All gaps in our knowledge can now be safely filled with God.
Thank you so much.

impossible to calculate obviously, but you're positing an arbitrary universe- developing it's own consciousness to ponder itself with entirely by chance, whatever the odds, they ain't too high! I think most would agree with this

No, I am not positing an arbitrary anything. I am CERTAINLY not positing some ... consciousness that ponders itself.. What are you imagining? That I fill the gaps in our knowledge with some.. self pondering consciousness of what again?

Your apologists are very creative. Don't believe everything you read, kid.

read it again- the link is motive, for the gambler it's money- for God; love

So, you think that my only possible motivation for not accepting your god of the gaps is due to some MONETARY concern?.. and that an atheist CANNOT be motivated by love? What are you IMAGINING?... or mean?

It's a simple matter of power of explanation, not a very complex concept, I think you understand- you seem like an intelligent rational honest person to me, and most people debate each other here on that premise.

Thank you for your endorsement of my cognitive abilities. But I DO NOT understand you. You will have to try harder.
Your reasoning doesn't really FOLLOW.. sorry.

I can't still FOLLOW your reasoning. And I am TRYING. Should I abandon the project?
This whole thread was about how to use some argument that is NOT a god of the gaps kind of argument.. and that's all you PRESENT here.. how disappointing.

Here is the problem I have so far with your reasoning.

1. You have a very tenuous grasp of how to establish probabilities. And YET you base your whole argument on probabilities.
2. You DO jump from one premise to another without establishing any link.
3. When CHALLENGED for a link, you state that gambling is money and god is love. Well.. wow. No. That's no link at all to anything you said.
4. Apparently, you need me to accept your very imaginative ideas about what I must believe. But I have my own ideas that are independent of your very fruitful imagination. I will go with MY beliefs for the time being, until you can persuade me that you are correct about what I happen to believe in. Maybe you know my mind more than I do. But what are the odds of THAT happening?
5. You incorrectly overestimate your capacity to explain your position in a way that makes sense to me.
6. You incorrectly overestimate your knowledge of quite complex astrophysics and theoretical physics.

So, it IS really quite simple.. fix those little problems up and were honky dory.
But what have you proved here? Anything?

You don't LIKE a universe without a god.. you LIKE the design argument. You seem to LIKE most apologetics.. ok.
You don't really get probabilities, though.. I'd drop that until you read a few books on probability and statistics.. Those subjects are very complicated.. and most people just get it all wrong. Common sense about probabilities is why casinos make so much money.

People are usually just wrong about probabilities..If you were an expert in the field, your arguments would be more persuasive.

Common sense also goes out the door when it comes to Quantum Physics, and theoretical physics. I hate it when apologists pretend to be experts in such highly complex fields. Of course they aren't. They like to pretend.

So, sorry. Your apologists aren't really experts in stats and probabilities.. that's why the fine tuning argument fails. People who ARE experts in the field tell us the apologists have it wrong. Physicists tell us that the apologists have the extremely speculative astrophysics wrong, too.

Who you gonna believe.. a preacher who's only intent is to prove that GOD is the only possible conclusion to any argument, or an actual scientist who IS a real authority on the subject used by the preacher?

You seem to side with the preacher man.. I go with Hawking and Einstein and so on.. yeah, the scientists for the science.. But hey.. must be because I'm a FOOL..Psalm 14:1

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We agree on that. Improbable does not mean impossible. Your god is possible. That says nothing about the probability of your god.



Oh, we have established the probability of the multiverse now?.. I wasn't aware. How many multiverses are there? Did we count them? .. No, the multiverse is a theory.. we don't have more than speculation for that. And I don't think you will find Dr. Hawking very sympathetic to your design argument for the existence of god.

Your incredulity has been noted. Since we do not actually KNOW how the universe actually began, you can fill that gap with a god.

Ok.. Done. Your argument is done. All gaps in our knowledge can now be safely filled with God.
Thank you so much.



No, I am not positing an arbitrary anything. I am CERTAINLY not positing some ... consciousness that ponders itself.. What are you imagining? That I fill the gaps in our knowledge with some.. self pondering consciousness of what again?

Your apologists are very creative. Don't believe everything you read, kid.



So, you think that my only possible motivation for not accepting your god of the gaps is due to some MONETARY concern?.. and that an atheist CANNOT be motivated by love? What are you IMAGINING?... or mean?



Thank you for your endorsement of my cognitive abilities. But I DO NOT understand you. You will have to try harder.
Your reasoning doesn't really FOLLOW.. sorry.

I can't still FOLLOW your reasoning. And I am TRYING. Should I abandon the project?
This whole thread was about how to use some argument that is NOT a god of the gaps kind of argument.. and that's all you PRESENT here.. how disappointing.

Here is the problem I have so far with your reasoning.

1. You have a very tenuous grasp of how to establish probabilities. And YET you base your whole argument on probabilities.
2. You DO jump from one premise to another without establishing any link.
3. When CHALLENGED for a link, you state that gambling is money and god is love. Well.. wow. No. That's no link at all to anything you said.
4. Apparently, you need me to accept your very imaginative ideas about what I must believe. But I have my own ideas that are independent of your very fruitful imagination. I will go with MY beliefs for the time being, until you can persuade me that you are correct about what I happen to believe in. Maybe you know my mind more than I do. But what are the odds of THAT happening?
5. You incorrectly overestimate your capacity to explain your position in a way that makes sense to me.
6. You incorrectly overestimate your knowledge of quite complex astrophysics and theoretical physics.

So, it IS really quite simple.. fix those little problems up and were honky dory.
But what have you proved here? Anything?

You don't LIKE a universe without a god.. you LIKE the design argument. You seem to LIKE most apologetics.. ok.
You don't really get probabilities, though.. I'd drop that until you read a few books on probability and statistics.. Those subjects are very complicated.. and most people just get it all wrong. Common sense about probabilities is why casinos make so much money.

People are usually just wrong about probabilities..If you were an expert in the field, your arguments would be more persuasive.

Common sense also goes out the door when it comes to Quantum Physics, and theoretical physics. I hate it when apologists pretend to be experts in such highly complex fields. Of course they aren't. They like to pretend.

So, sorry. Your apologists aren't really experts in stats and probabilities.. that's why the fine tuning argument fails. People who ARE experts in the field tell us the apologists have it wrong. Physicists tell us that the apologists have the extremely speculative astrophysics wrong, too.

Who you gonna believe.. a preacher who's only intent is to prove that GOD is the only possible conclusion to any argument, or an actual scientist who IS a real authority on the subject used by the preacher?

You seem to side with the preacher man.. I go with Hawking and Einstein and so on.. yeah, the scientists for the science.. But hey.. must be because I'm a FOOL..Psalm 14:1

I will try to simplify.

In both analogies; the only direct evidence is of a random mechanism yes?

Yet in both analogies, we suspect a hidden intent over the given random mechanism, because of it's power of explanation, you see?

The wise man knows himself a fool

 

[Typist]

Why don't THEISTS just drop the subject and move on?

'

Um, theists believe God is the source and ruler of all reality. That's probably why they don't drop the subject and move on.

 

[outhouse]

There are plenty of good reasons to believe in an extremely intelligent and creative brain behind the universe.

And what are those reasons. Most I have seen are based on scientific ignorance and all fall into the god of the gaps.


What does It take to actually think there is an intelligent force that transcends space and time?????? to me it is like sci fi, or simple mythology

Life and all of nature needs no explaining outside of our current knowledge. No where do we see a hand of anything outside the explainable.

 

[outhouse]

The wise man knows himself a fool

And those who follow mythology instead of academia?

 

[Blastcat]

I will try to simplify.

In both analogies; the only direct evidence is of a random mechanism yes?

Yet in both analogies, we suspect a hidden intent over the given random mechanism, because of it's power of explanation, you see?

The wise man knows himself a fool

No, I don't agree about your random chance analogy. Please clarify.. I can't be BOTHERED to imagine what you mean. And I don't Know or really CARE what you imagine I suspect. PLEASE , don't bother imagining my POSITION.

What you have achieved here is ONLY the power to confuse issues. NOT explain anything. I have NO idea what you are trying to explain here. PLEASE be more clear.. how about answering my many objections and questions that I need you to clarify?

I did go through the trouble of numbering them.. it's not as if THAT wasn't plain enough, surely.

Why IGNORE all of that, and expect me to JUST understand, by repeating yourself in even MORE vague words?
Can't you TRY to clarify anything?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I don't agree about your random chance analogy. Please clarify.. I can't be BOTHERED to imagine what you mean. And I don't Know or really CARE what you imagine I suspect. PLEASE , don't bother imagining my POSITION.

What you have achieved here is ONLY the power to confuse issues. NOT explain anything. I have NO idea what you are trying to explain here. PLEASE be more clear.. how about answering my many objections and questions that I need you to clarify?

I did go through the trouble of numbering them.. it's not as if THAT wasn't plain enough, surely.

Why IGNORE all of that, and expect me to JUST understand, by repeating yourself in even MORE vague words?
Can't you TRY to clarify anything?

I see, some very thoughtful, insightful, substantive counter arguments there blastcat, really made me ponder.. see ya

 

[SkylarHunter]

What does It take to actually think there is an intelligent force that transcends space and time??????

Life and all of nature needs no explaining outside of our current knowledge. No where do we see a hand of anything outside the explainable.

If all you believe is what can be explained within our extremely limited knowledge then I'm sorry for you.
Oh, the human arrogance...

 

[Blastcat]

I see, some very thoughtful, insightful, substantive counter arguments there blastcat, really made me ponder.. see ya

I was asking for clarity. You don't feel the need to be clear, then fine.
Insulting me isn't following the rules of the forum.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[McBell]

If all you believe is what can be explained within our extremely limited knowledge then I'm sorry for you.
Oh, the human arrogance...

and yet you did not answer the question.

You might be more convincing if you didn't display your own arrogance.

 

[Sapiens]

If all you believe is what can be explained within our extremely limited knowledge then I'm sorry for you.
Oh, the human arrogance...

No, what can be explained is what can be explained at our current level of knowledge, as our knowledge grows so does what can be explained. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to explain everything since it is unlikely that we will ever know everything. People who make believe that they can short cut the hard work connected with this endeavor by taking a supernatural bypass are the ones with the overinflated view of their own importance in the universe.

 

[outhouse]

If all you believe is what can be explained within our extremely limited knowledge then I'm sorry for you.
Oh, the human arrogance...

What does It take to actually think there is an intelligent force that transcends space and time??????

Life and all of nature needs no explaining outside of our current knowledge. No where do we see a hand of anything outside the explainable.

 

[Looncall]

If all you believe is what can be explained within our extremely limited knowledge then I'm sorry for you.
Oh, the human arrogance...

It's better than making stuff up to fill in the gaps and it is much better than clinging to ancient errors of thought instead of doing the hard work of gaining knowledge.