Athiesm and disproving God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

astronomically improbable

And a god isn't?

To me, this feels a lot like someone saying "it's nearly impossible for a ticket with '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' to win the lottery, so the winning numbers MUST have been 'pi, e, i, Avogadro's Number, 32.2, infinity, and blue'."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And a god isn't?

To me, this feels a lot like someone saying "it's nearly impossible for a ticket with '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' to win the lottery, so the winning numbers MUST have been 'pi, e, i, Avogadro's Number, 32.2, infinity, and blue'."

I don't think God is less probable, no.

How about- that person with that ticket- has already won 12 times this year, with that same number, is dating the girl who operates the lotto machine- and they both just emigrated to Brazil in their private jet.. but there is no direct empirical evidence of cheating

What are the odds? well in fact they are no less than any particular 12 people winning with any particular numbers right? so there is absolutely no need to suspect 'creative intelligence' being involved in the results?

The point is, chance being a possible answer doesn't always mean chance is the most probable, because all those equally tiny odds of chance are easily overcome where there is another possibility- where there is a specific significance, payoff, potential motive to a particular result, you have a power of explanation that even if apparently 'improbable' is far less so than the alternative

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think God is less probable, no.

How about- that person with that ticket- has already won 12 times this year, with that same number, is dating the girl who operates the lotto machine- and they both just emigrated to Brazil in their private jet.. but there is no direct empirical evidence of cheating

What are the odds? well in fact they are no less than any particular 12 people winning with any particular numbers right? so there is absolutely no need to suspect 'creative intelligence' being involved in the results?

The point is, chance being a possible answer doesn't always mean chance is the most probable, because all those equally tiny odds of chance are easily overcome where there is another possibility- where there is a specific significance, payoff, potential motive to a particular result, you have a power of explanation that even if apparently 'improbable' is far less so than the alternative

You can not calculate the probability for things being the way they are. Probability is comparative.

 

[JustWondering]

But if you are claiming as an atheist that there is no God, then we can assume that you have some sort of answer as to where all things come from. We have a right to know that. It is not as simple as just saying there is no G-d.

Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another. That is a much more rational idea than that an invisible supernatural intelligent force HAD to do it.

Perhaps you can explain why luck is a better answer?

Intelligent design is a flawed argument. What created the creator, and the creator's creator, and so on, and so forth? Where would the first creator come from? He just exists?! What luck!

 

[McBell]

I don't think God is less probable, no.

How about- that person with that ticket- has already won 12 times this year, with that same number, is dating the girl who operates the lotto machine- and they both just emigrated to Brazil in their private jet.. but there is no direct empirical evidence of cheating

What are the odds? well in fact they are no less than any particular 12 people winning with any particular numbers right? so there is absolutely no need to suspect 'creative intelligence' being involved in the results?

The point is, chance being a possible answer doesn't always mean chance is the most probable, because all those equally tiny odds of chance are easily overcome where there is another possibility- where there is a specific significance, payoff, potential motive to a particular result, you have a power of explanation that even if apparently 'improbable' is far less so than the alternative

You do understand how ridiculous you sound trying to argue the odds of something that has already happened as being to improbable to happen, right?

Or is it you have had success within the choir using that nonsense and are now trying it out on the non-choir?
Either way, the only thing you are doing with the non-choir is destroying your credibility.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another. That is a much more rational idea than that an invisible supernatural intelligent force HAD to do it.

The universe came from the big bang, so science tells us. Whatever it was before, in whatever form, does not mean that God does not exist. It is less rational as you now need sheer luck and magic to bring everything into being.

Intelligent design is a flawed argument.

I was not promoting that. I am speaking of evolving consciousness in physical terms

What created the creator, and the creator's creator, and so on, and so forth? Where would the first creator come from? He just exists?! What luck!

But that is a false argument. You have the same problem. Where does the univere come from, and then the multiverse? Perhaps there is a stellaverse, and a hyperverse. Then what? Perhaps they always existed. Now there is an answer. But is that not what we say about God? Yes. So how is your answer better than ours. Something ultimately, by necessity, has to be there, and whatever that is, if it has intelligence, it is far more plausible than if it has not. Luck is not an answer.
Everything cannot come from nothing. Dawkins says that to say there is a God just puts the problem further back, so does not entertain it. Why? It seems a dereliction of duty to not answer. And yet he is prepared to go one futher back, so long as it is to the multiverse. (which by the way I have no problem with)
What you are is what you speak of.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then how do you know it is objectively real? That's a question I keep asking and nobody even pretends to have an answer.

We don't know anything is objectively real because personal experience is always subjective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Yes, and cosmologists are now heading towards that conclusion, for example the idea that our current universe is one of an infinite series. So there is no need for a first cause and no need for "God". Adding in "God" is uneccessary and irrational.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and cosmologists are now heading towards that conclusion, for example the idea that our current universe is one of an infinite series. So there is no need for a first cause and no need for "God".

There never was a need. Recent developments only illuminate some alternatives.

Adding in "God" is uneccessary and irrational.

You make "unnecessary & irrational" sound like bad things. I do both all the time. Hmmmm....maybe they are a little bad.

 

[JustWondering]

But that is a false argument. You have the same problem.

I do not share the problem of trying to insert a specific god into a rational model of the universe.

Where does the univere come from, and then the multiverse?

I already answered that question.

Everything cannot come from nothing.

Says who? Because you cannot wrap your head around something does not automatically equal "god did it!".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Our ancestors didn't understand the weather so they put it down to gods. Maybe it's not much different now, though the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I do not share the problem of trying to insert a specific god into a rational model of the universe.

You have to have an answer, and you don't.

I already answered that question.

i don't see it.

Says who? Because you cannot wrap your head around something does not automatically equal "god did it!".

haha.... so there is absolutely nothing (in the fullest sense of the word) and you think that is where everything comes from. I really don't know what to say to that. So to you, ''Nothingdidit''.... haha, absurd I think

 

[Robert.Evans]

Our ancestors didn't understand the weather so they put it down to gods. Maybe it's not much different now, though the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

It is the same conscious of God that does it, they were not wrong. It is just taht nowdays we can explain it in physical terms. That does not mean that there is no God, only that now it is seen in a different way than it is within the higher-consciousness of God... that is all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can not calculate the probability for things being the way they are. Probability is comparative.

our universe, our planet and our sentience is mind bogglingly improbable- comparative to millions of other species, a silent galaxy and an infinite variety of non functioning universes you'd get by altering the values of the universal constants infinitesimally

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another. That is a much more rational idea than that an invisible supernatural intelligent force HAD to do it.



Intelligent design is a flawed argument. What created the creator, and the creator's creator, and so on, and so forth? Where would the first creator come from? He just exists?! What luck!

you don't see any contradiction in these two arguments?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Our ancestors didn't understand the weather so they put it down to gods. Maybe it's not much different now, though the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

I agree there, bad weather being caused by angering the weather Gods instead of natural forces, being appeased by sacrifices, is one of the oldest superstitions of mankind- and the most easily abused by those in power- accepting sacrifices on Gaias behalf- whether using scary masks or computer simulations, it's these sort of dangerous superstitions that Christianity strove to move beyond.

record snow depth here today...

 

[Cephus]

We don't know anything is objectively real because personal experience is always subjective.

Which is why we look at things collectively and compare individual experiences. The more we can examine the universe collectively, the more we can factor out faulty individual subjective views. It's not a perfect system to be sure, but it is the best we currently have.

 

[McBell]

The universe came from the big bang, so science tells us.

Agreed

Whatever it was before, in whatever form, does not mean that God does not exist.

If you word it that it does not rule out the existence of a god(s), I can agree.

It is less rational as you now need sheer luck and magic to bring everything into being.

This is nothing more than you setting up a strawman to beat up on

I was not promoting that. I am speaking of evolving consciousness in physical terms

Make up your mind.
Your are either talking about where everything came from or an evolving universe....

But that is a false argument.

bold empty claim.
Care to support it with something other than more bold empty claims?

You have the same problem.

No I don't.

Where does the univere come from, and then the multiverse?

I do not know.

Perhaps there is a stellaverse, and a hyperverse. Then what? Perhaps they always existed. Now there is an answer.

Of sorts.

But is that not what we say about God? Yes. So how is your answer better than ours.

I am not trying to put an imaginary figure into the equation.

Something ultimately, by necessity, has to be there, and whatever that is, if it has intelligence, it is far more plausible than if it has not.

Argument from incredulity only works on the choir.

Luck is not an answer.

Seeing as YOU are the only one making any sort of claim that it is...

Everything cannot come from nothing.

Depends upon which definition of "nothing" you are referring to.

Dawkins says that to say there is a God just puts the problem further back, so does not entertain it. Why?

Because outside the wishful thinking of those who claim god, there is no reason to make the assumption there is a god, let alone that god did this and that.

It seems a dereliction of duty to not answer. And yet he is prepared to go one futher back, so long as it is to the multiverse. (which by the way I have no problem with)
What you are is what you speak of.

I do not know enough about the "multiverse" claim to answer this.

 

[McBell]

You have to have an answer...

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

You have to have an answer, and you don't.

I don't believe that I "have to have an answer".
Why must I?

But hypothetically, let's say that I must have
one, & that I don't. What should I then do?