Wikipedia: The conjecture has been shown to hold up through 4 × 10 to the 18th power and is generally assumed to be true, but remains unproven despite considerable effort.
Cool. I'm going with true.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Here's Your Chance: Stump the Atheist!
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
Wikipedia: The conjecture has been shown to hold up through 4 × 10 to the 18th power and is generally assumed to be true, but remains unproven despite considerable effort.
Cool. I'm going with true.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Ah, but I was asking to know for a fact! Bwahahahaha!
adi2d
Active Member
You don't need a large pipe. A short one will work fine. Just attach an aquarium pump to the pipe and to the inside of your gas mask.....oh wait. Wrong pipe. Nevermind
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Ok, we get your point. Even though this math formula has been shown to be true for the first quintillion examples it is possible it may not always hold true and therefore we cannot establish it as a fact. Well if we approached life that way then we can be sure of nothing and therefore, what, don’t act on favorable probabilities?
Of course we do. Except when it comes to acknowledging God? Because there is a one in a million chance God does not exist, you are going to order your life on that chance? As though if you are wrong you can tell him later “if only I could have known for certain I would have acted differently?”
You think atheists are organizing their life around something they'd see as a one in a million possibility (ie. God not existing)?
Rubbish. Atheists are organizing their life around 'favourable probability'. What you appear to be asking is 'Why don't atheists organise their life around what you (ie. thau) sees as the overwhelming likelihood of God's existence. Your belief in God actually has completely zero to do with anything in terms of why and how atheist's organise their life. No atheist on the planet believes God is more likely than not.
But even if I knew for certain there was a "God", I don't think I would act any differently.
No, actually I don’t. I was just making fun of his own joking sent my way (which did not offend me in the least). It was not really intended to connect any dots.
Well of course there is a difference of opinion there. Seems to me that is often what we are arguing about. Such as, the probabilities that dumb luck or mindless “natural selection” could come up with eyeballs and hearing and engage in producing a spleen or a pancreas when once there was none. That is my take on probabilities.
Oh, I don’t see how that can be? I mean, if an atheist claims a standard level of intelligence and inquiry, then I assume they have considered some of the well known claims of Christians in part of their decision if God exists or not?
You sure about that? It could be some are 60 / 40 they think God may exist but they are living their lives as though He does not. I imagine there are many, many Christians who are not sure God exists but are going the believing route as a hedge.
fantôme profane;3680372 said:
Well if that were true, then maybe it would be best that person remain an unbeliever? Because as a believer you would now be more accountable. Perhaps.
John 9:39-41
"I came into this world," said Jesus, "to judge men, that those who do not see may see, and that those who do see may become blind." These words were heard by those of the Pharisees who were present, and they asked Him, "Are *we* also blind?" "If you were blind," answered Jesus, "you would have no sin; but as a matter of fact you boast that you see. So your sin remains!"
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
If we forget traditional views of god, like the Abrahamic, for a moment...If we examine the deistic view of god, god is outside time and space. If said deity is outside time and space, we would not be able to disprove it's existence, matter of fact, it would actually be the most 'logical' form of god. However, said god would not have given laws and revelations, so it's all moot anyway. With that being said: if you have a train starting in New York travelling west at 60 mph, and another train starting in Philadelphia travelling east at 75 mph, how long does it take them to crash?
Please don't take offense at this, but from the above statement I assume that you are not highly educated in the field of biology.
Do you think it is possible if you had more education in biology your assessment of the probabilities might change somewhat?
fantôme profane;3680382 said:
offense? surely not.
I engage in simple thinking, even borderline logic or common sense. I notice all "the big stuff" has already "evolved" before man ever took notice. In other words, I am not ready to assume some phrase called "natural selection" which allegedly has no mind or will or cleverness about it, just some primordial "urge" (shall we say?) can assemble the most marvelous machines. I mean, how many trials does one think it would really take before a lizard took flight or a spinal cord found its proper use or a eye ball came together, or a spleen emerged where once was none, before success was found? Where are all the failed experiments? And I also ask you not take any offense since none is intended.
Last edited:
Okay...I'm reading too much into it, that being the case.
Well...not really. Our difference in opinion is on the likelihood of God existing. Where I don't think we differ is that I would think we can agree you see God as likely, and I see God as unlikely. That being the case, either of us can talk to one another with an understanding of the other's starting point, even though we disagree with it.
Yep. No offence, but 'considering well known claims' doesn't have anything to do with you either. Not personally. My point wasn't about Christian claims in general.
So, to take this in order...
I would imagine there are a crapload of people who self-describe as atheists who are not completely sure of what they believe. Some of them, no doubt, believe in some sort of God, but are disillusioned with religion, or whatever else, and have fallen into the common dichotomy of Christianity vs Atheism, or at least Abrahamaic God versus atheism.
But to actually be an atheist, as opposed to merely describing oneself as an atheist, by definition you have to have a lack of belief in God.
I have seen you on here mentioning that people try convincing themselves that God doesn't exist in order to shun accountability. I can only answer based on my experience, but I've simply never see an actual atheist do that.
Christians who are not sure God exists but are going the believing route as a hedge falls into a different bucket, in some ways. From both a philosophical (Pascal's Wager) or sociological/cultural viewpoint, there are more compelling reasons for someone to 'fake it' and act in accordance with a religion despite their own innermost beliefs.
In truth, these people are not Christian in terms of their beliefs, but are acting Christian in terms of following the rituals and tenets of the various Christian denominations.
I have seen you on here mentioning that people try convincing themselves that God doesn't exist in order to shun accountability. I can only answer based on my experience, but I've simply never see an actual atheist do that.
Yes, I think you are right and its a good point. They along with other atheists may have just decided to live their lives as though there is no God and beyond that are not all that interested worrying about it one way or the other.
Sounds right to me. Atheists do not have to be sure of anything, but they would have to express they do not believe God exists as their best guess at a minimum, to fall into that category of a theological atheist --- in order to establish the two sides of a particular debate.
No doubt there are many who considers themselves Christians even though in their minds they are not sure God exists but just believe he does.
I am not exactly sure what you are saying? However, I would not say they are faking it, not at all. A lot people do fantastic good for God and for their souls and still remain in doubt about it on different levels. Even some saints fell into that darkness of the soul where they doubted for years and despaired, Mother Teresa for one.
For the record, the pascal wager thing always irritated me. Any 6th grader in catechism class could come up with the very same idea or piece of advice.
Disagree. Their faith and prayers may be weakened, but far from valueless. To be clear, we are not talking about hypocritical matters? Because on that I know there are many, I may be one.
I am not going to disagree with you on that (because I admit I cannot know for sure), at least as far as atheists may go.
But I will say I am pretty sure of this. There must be tens of millions of Christians who justify sins of convenience for themselves because they believe Jesus saved them and took away all their sins. And the moment they die, heaven awaits no matter what. Saved or not, it doesnt work like that. God is not one to be mocked. (Galations 6)
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Such as, the probabilities that dumb luck or mindless natural selection could come up with eyeballs and hearing and engage in producing a spleen or a pancreas when once there was none."
Except we have evidence for all of the above happening in the scientific theory of evolution.
"I notice all "the big stuff" has already "evolved" before man ever took notice."
What? Everything is still evolving including humans.
"lizard took flight" You do know the dinosaurs evolved into birds.
"NEIL SHUBIN: Darwin didn't even know about molecular biology and DNA, yet that's where some of the most profound evidence is being uncovered today. Think about that. That somebody in the 1800s made predictions that are being confirmed in molecular biology labs today. That's a very profound statement of a very successful theory.
KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
"For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin."
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Man took notice we are still evolving.
"Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever
Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss
"Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever
Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Pretty much. :yes:
Yep.
To be honest, I don't think I was particularly clear. I'm not suggesting most Christians are faking it. Far from it. But I know plenty of people who would probably describe themselves as Christian if push came to shove. They certainly wouldn't describe themselves as atheists, or even agnostic. Their understanding of the religion they purport to follow is extremely limited, and their adherence to anything related to it seems to be limited to weddings, funerals (especially!), Christenings, and the like.
Some even send their kids to religious schools. In a sense, they are hypocritical I suppose, but mostly they are just ignorant of the religion they 'follow', or (with some people I know) aware of the religion but more 'culturally religious' than 'theologically religious'.
It says nothing about Christianity as a whole. But my point was that there are real, tangible reasons for people to follow a religion even if they don't really FOLLOW the religion (if that makes sense?).
Family pressures or expectations, or some measure of Pascal's Wager (or Catholic guilt, or whatever other variety of 'it seems safer to follow than not follow' you want to raise) or whatever. These same factors generally (but certainly not always) count against one becoming an atheist. Not because atheists are any better, or whatever, but simply because the 'standard' choices seem to be between religion or apathy (or some culturally acceptable blending of the two).
Totally agree.
Yeah, you might have a point. It's a tricky one for an atheist to discuss, since some Christians would discount those who don't really attend to the tenets of faith. It an end up in some 'no true Scotsman' type argument. Suffice to say of the people I personally know who fall into this category, they all have some sort of belief in something. Whether that something falls into what I would describe as Christianity varies (mostly yes, a couple are almost Deistic to be honest) but there is a belief in something there.
Most of them don't examine that belief very closely though.
I sometimes wonder (both with atheists and Christians) whether there are people who act 'morally' (in a broad sense) and those who don't, and that if often this decision is made/born in them despite their faith of lack thereof?
I don't doubt that faith can influence behaviour, which would suggest lack of faith can also influence behaviour. But it seems that behaviour often occurs independently of faith (or lack thereof), despite the rational impact you would expect faith (or lack thereof) to have.