• 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!

Let's Present Some Evidence ...

PureX

Veteran Member
Not so. Take his number analogy. There is an infinite amount of numbers you can choose between 1 and 10. The probability of choosing one number is 1 over infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero. This means that the greater the value of x, the smaller the probability. As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero.

Infinity is not a number, it is only a symbol to represent something. Thus we cannot actually mathematically calculate the probability of 1/infinity. But we say the limit is zero. Thus we say the probability of an event being 1/infinity is zero.
I find this both interesting and entertaining, but it's still wrong.

They are in direct ratio with each other, so as infinity can never reach zero, neither can probability. "As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero." ... and it likewise goes on indefinitely. Infinity is not a number, it is a condition. And logically, the condition must apply to both sides of the ratio, or it could not be a stable (illogical) ratio.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
In the context of this discussion, I think that Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis is very relevant. Stenger argues that one can take the question of God's existence as a scientific hypothesis that can and has been tested. Normally, people assume that one cannot prove or disprove God's existence from a scientific perspective--that science has nothing to say about the matter. Stenger demurs in an interesting way. He argues that the empirical evidence weighs against the existence of God.
So he in essence is arguing that no evidence is evidence of no God. Most scientists, AND philosophers will disagree with that.
 

Commoner

Headache
I find this both interesting and entertaining, but it's still wrong.

They are in direct ratio with each other, so as infinity can never reach zero, neither can probability. "As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero." ... and it likewise goes on indefinitely. Infinity is not a number, it is a condition. And logically, the condition must apply to both sides of the ratio, or it could not be a stable (illogical) ratio.

I'm sorry, this is not correct.

The number of choices are infinite, not "close to infinite", not "infinite minus one". The probability is zero. Not "close to zero", not "very very close to zero, but not quite zero".

In fact, you explained it yourself - infinty is not a (real) number. The number of choices are infinite, not "some very big number we call infinity minus one". The probability is zero. If it were a real number, you would have "something close to zero". But it's not. Period.

You can find it funny all day long, I think this conversation is actually pretty redundant in a religious education forum. :D
 
Last edited:

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
So he in essence is arguing that no evidence is evidence of no God. Most scientists, AND philosophers will disagree with that.

Read the book before you speculate.

What Stenger does is he creates a bunch of models of God commonly stated by theists that are empirically testable and he applies the scientific process to them. He pokes holes in them. But he acknowledges there are some models of God which cannot be tested and if they are not testable, it's a useless concept (basically).

He says nothing of the sort in "God: The Failed Hypothesis".
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
I find this both interesting and entertaining, but it's still wrong.

They are in direct ratio with each other, so as infinity can never reach zero, neither can probability. "As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero." ... and it likewise goes on indefinitely. Infinity is not a number, it is a condition. And logically, the condition must apply to both sides of the ratio, or it could not be a stable (illogical) ratio.

How is it wrong?

The probability of picking one number from a set is 1/x, where x is the quantity of numbers in the set. If there are an infinite number of choices, the probability of such is 1/infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero. The probability of 1/infinity is zero.

What's in direct ratio with each other? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Here's basically what I'm saying.
 

Commoner

Headache
I think the biggest problem is going to be that we're going to come down to subjective experience, and subjective reasoning. I would contend that collective experience, subjective or otherwise, must stand as evidence of something. The rest of that aspect of the discussion will likely fall to what that something is, exactly. For example, millions of people "experience God" in some way. So the questions become, what are these ways? Can we categorize them somehow? And then can we ascertain how these experiences effect the plausibility of there being an actual God?

Must I really give you the alien example again? I don't care how many people think they saw little gray men in their backyard. And I care even less how many people believe the people that have seen the little gray men in their backyard. And I don't care that 41% of Americans believe that people can be possessed by the devil (Gallup, 2001).

Well, that's not true - I do care, because it makes me sick how much superstition is still around. But that doesn't lend any credence to these ideas.

The same difficulty arises with subjective reasoning. Some people look at the universe and see 'cause/effect' everywhere, and so naturally are led to ask about the first cause. Then we have the "God of the gaps" proposal. I personally tend to steer away from that, but on the other hand, it has some legitimacy in that the question is reasonable. So is the answer if the definition of the term "God" is left mostly undefined. (I realize that strictly speaking, this becomes a pointless point.) And as you know, I have a little bit different take on the 'first cause' question. And my take will lead us into questions like: does the nature and character of the universe tell us anything about the nature and character of it's source? And this will naturally lead to subjective definition of the nature and character of the universe. Nevertheless, I believe these should stand as evidence, regardless of their subjectivity, just as we use 12 jurors to resolve evidence of a criminal trial. We know those jurors MAY be wrong, but we don't have any better way to deal with unverifiable evidence.

What do you think?
:thud:
What is this "god" you keep talking about? With your flavor of evidence, we could discuss any mythological "invention" on the same level as "god" (as we should). If you want to explore the nature of the universe, go ask a physicist. There is not even one question that "god" actually helps to answer. :no:
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
How is it wrong?

The probability of picking one number from a set is 1/x, where x is the quantity of numbers in the set. If there are an infinite number of choices, the probability of such is 1/infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero. The probability of 1/infinity is zero.

What's in direct ratio with each other? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Here's basically what I'm saying.
C'mon, use your head. The answer is that there is no answer. If 'x' represents infinity, then to solve the ratio you have to multiply the 1 times infinity as well, which is either irrational, or will also result in infinity.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Read the book before you speculate.

What Stenger does is he creates a bunch of models of God commonly stated by theists that are empirically testable and he applies the scientific process to them. He pokes holes in them. But he acknowledges there are some models of God which cannot be tested and if they are not testable, it's a useless concept (basically).
And you see no bias, here???

He sets up a bunch of straw gods, and them mows them all down using science. Then he declares that any he couldn't mow down with science are irrelevant. Is this guy an idiot, or what? No one in their right mind would take such an exercise seriously.

I don't doubt that there are some god-concepts out there that can easily be shown to be highly implausible. And some of them could even be shown to be destructive to the holder, and to those around them. But these are easy pickins. Exposing them proves mostly nothing. And dismissing the rest out of hand is just the act of an intellectual coward.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
I personally do not think that scientists can test God. First it would require them to understand what God is so that they can know what to test and how to test it. I personally see God as the source, the thing before the Big Bang, so to speak. That is a place that science has not ventured.
The aspects of God that scientists can test is all around us. It is the very air we breath, the life that surrounds us, the energy that pervades the universe. All of that is God. And it's testable.

So my point is, if we want to know if the Source has a mind/intelligence and purpose we can't really know through scientific testing. We can only rely on our own subjective perception (as far as I know), which is flawed. We all have reasons for believing what we do. But when it comes to science, it doesn't answer anything about the existence or non-existence of God. But scientific understanding is flawed too. They are even considering now that the big bang model is incorrect.

Sometimes I come to this conclusion: What can we believe if we cannot trust our own judgement? In the end, reality is independent of our specific beliefs. We can only interpret and follow our feelings/intelligence. We believe what we need to believe in, or what we want to believe in and what makes sense to us individually. I do not trust 100% anything. But I have to trust myself or I will probably go mad.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Must I really give you the alien example again? I don't care how many people think they saw little gray men in their backyard. And I care even less how many people believe the people that have seen the little gray men in their backyard. And I don't care that 41% of Americans believe that people can be possessed by the devil (Gallup, 2001).

Well, that's not true - I do care, because it makes me sick how much superstition is still around. But that doesn't lend any credence to these ideas.
That's not why you should care. You should care because you CAN ALWAYS BE THE ONE WHO'S WRONG. Any healthy and reasonable human being knows that they could be the one who is wrong, especially when confronted with a large number of people who see things differently than they do.

Keep in mind that the only truth you possess exists as a theory in your own mind. YOU made it up. YOU accepted it as the truth. The very same skepticism you apply to everyone else, also applies to YOU. So when millions of people spanning thousands of years bear witness to their personal experiences with "God", you'd be a damn fool not to pay attention, and to do so with both respect and an open mind.
There is not even one question that "god" actually helps to answer.
You don't get to make that call for everyone else. I have found that the idea of God helps answer a number of unanswerable questions. Or if not answer them directly, to give the questions an image that makes them easier to live with.

If you want to discuss evidence, we can, but I'm not going to listen to another litany of unsubstantiated proclamations about how this or that is not evidence from a bunch of pimple-faced 'atheists' who have nothing whatever to offer in return. I'm interested in a real discussion, with ideas and counter-ideas. Not silly snipes and insults. (I'm not accusing you of this, it's just the result I got earlier in this thread that I'm hoping to avoid getting again.)
 

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
"You don't get to make that call for everyone else. I have found that the idea of God helps answer a number of unanswerable questions. Or if not answer them directly, to give the questions an image that makes them easier to live with."

And why do you assume the universe is concerned with making your life easier? This is nothing but a childish desire to believe what you'd rather than what facts and reason show to be most likely.

Millions of people have believed all kinds of false and silly things. They believed in Thor, Athena, a flat earth and James Jones. Nothing was gained thereby but some self satisfaction. Of the sort you are showing now.

WHY is so-o-o-o hard to accept that you we this planet is simply NOT very important. That we are NOT the purpose of Creation and whatever we make of this life is OUR doing and nobody anywhere gives a F*F* about us but us.

We get here free to do with our lives what we will. No promises made no punishments threatened no questions asked. Put as much - or as little - into your life as you like. No one cares but you. Nor should they.:yes:

Why is THAT not both a necessary and sufficient answer?:shrug:
 

Commoner

Headache
That's not why you should care. You should care because you CAN ALWAYS BE THE ONE WHO'S WRONG. Any healthy and reasonable human being knows that they could be the one who is wrong, especially when confronted with a large number of people who see things differently than they do.

Keep in mind that the only truth you possess exists as a theory in your own mind. YOU made it up. YOU accepted it as the truth. The very same skepticism you apply to everyone else, also applies to YOU. So when millions of people spanning thousands of years bear witness to their personal experiences with "God", you'd be a damn fool not to pay attention, and to do so with both respect and an open mind.

You always seem to regress to the same ad populum argument.

I have no problem being wrong and I understand that my beliefs and decisions are based on imperfect information. What you're asking me to do is to lower my standards in order for you to sell me your story.

If you can demonstrate to me an objective reason for not applying the same principles in this situation that I would apply in any other, I might consider it. The only thing I must insist on is that you do not use the idea itself for its own justification. You can't say "this thing I'm telling you about, it requires you to take it on faith - therefore you must lower your standards". That is circular logic and I will not accept it.

You don't get to make that call for everyone else. I have found that the idea of God helps answer a number of unanswerable questions. Or if not answer them directly, to give the questions an image that makes them easier to live with.

I worded that a bit akwardly. Religion gives you answers - even very comforting answers, they just don't answer the questions. It tells you god did it, but it doesn't tell you how it was done. I don't care what/who did it and why, I want to know how it got done. I have yet to find a religion that explains that.

If you want to discuss evidence, we can, but I'm not going to listen to another litany of unsubstantiated proclamations about how this or that is not evidence from abunch of pimple-faced 'atheists'who have nothing whatever to offer in return. I'm interested in a real discussion, with ideas and counter-ideas. Not silly snipes and insults. (I'm not accusing you of this, it's just the result I got earlier in this thread that I'm hoping to avoid getting again.)

If you have any new points to make, I'll be glad to listen to them. But I can tell you right now, I'll not take it on faith.
 
Last edited:

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
I don't care what/who did it and why, I want to know how it got done. I have yet to find a religion that explains that.

I believe that all the answers we seek to life's greatest mysteries are already there inside each and every one of us. I don't believe there is a God that will show us the answers or the way either. This we must find and realize for ourselves. Perhaps you are already further along on that journey to understanding the real nature of existence than some who think they are so "spiritually enlightened". The only way to find answers is to ask questions and find them for oneself.
 
Last edited:

Commoner

Headache
C'mon, use your head. The answer is that there is no answer. If 'x' represents infinity, then to solve the ratio you have to multiply the 1 times infinity as well, which is either irrational, or will also result in infinity.

You seem to be getting stuck on the 1/inf expression. That is only a simpflication, you can't actually divide the number with infinity.

The actual expression would be: P= lim(x->inf)f(x)=lim(x->inf) (1/x)=0

But in such a trivial example, P=1/inf=0 is just easier. In either case the probability of the event is 0, no getting around that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
"You don't get to make that call for everyone else. I have found that the idea of God helps answer a number of unanswerable questions. Or if not answer them directly, to give the questions an image that makes them easier to live with."

And why do you assume the universe is concerned with making your life easier? This is nothing but a childish desire to believe what you'd rather than what facts and reason show to be most likely.

Millions of people have believed all kinds of false and silly things. They believed in Thor, Athena, a flat earth and James Jones. Nothing was gained thereby but some self satisfaction. Of the sort you are showing now.

WHY is so-o-o-o hard to accept that you we this planet is simply NOT very important. That we are NOT the purpose of Creation and whatever we make of this life is OUR doing and nobody anywhere gives a F*F* about us but us.

We get here free to do with our lives what we will. No promises made no punishments threatened no questions asked. Put as much - or as little - into your life as you like. No one cares but you. Nor should they.:yes:

Why is THAT not both a necessary and sufficient answer?:shrug:
Who are you addressing, here? You don't know me. And you have no idea what I believe. Yet you seem to have this whole concoction made up in your head that you think is me.

I find that amazing.

I don't assume that the universe exists to serve me, or that I am any more significant an energy form here than the pear tree out in the yard. And I sadly understand that a lot of the time, a lot of people don't care about the well-being of their fellow humans because they're too busy worrying about their own.
 
Last edited:

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
If you want to discuss evidence, we can, but I'm not going to listen to another litany of unsubstantiated proclamations about how this or that is not evidence from abunch of pimple-faced 'atheists'who have nothing whatever to offer in return.

I'm interested in a real discussion, with ideas and counter-ideas. Not silly snipes and insults. (I'm not accusing you of this, it's just the result I got earlier in this thread that I'm hoping to avoid getting again.)

O rly!?

Perhaps you should start the discussion with a real idea, then, instead of insults.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You always seem to regress to the same ad populum argument.
It's a legitimate argument.
I have no problem being wrong and I understand that my beliefs and decisions are based on imperfect information. What you're asking me to do is to lower my standards in order for you to sell me your story.
I'm not trying to sell you anything. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking for an intelligent discussion with some who's open-minded enough to respond with real ideas, instead of misperceived platitudes from their Philosophy 101 class.
If you can demonstrate to me an objective reason for not applying the same principles in this situation that I would apply in any other, I might consider it.
Because it's GOOD for you. It's healthy. And it's fun. And because you really might see some things that you were not able to see before.
The only thing I must insist on is that you do not use the idea itself for its own justification. You can't say "this thing I'm telling you about, it requires you to take it on faith - therefore you must lower your standards". That is circular logic and I will not accept it.
I would only say that to someone who wishes to actually try the idea out for themselves.

If you can, please try to set aside your preconceptions, though. Just because they said circular logic was bad in Philosophy 101, doesn't mean it's true. Circular logic, like most things, has both it's advantages and disadvantages. Same goes for all those other forms of thought that they poo-poo'd in that beginner philosophy class. Appeals to popularity, circular reasoning, tautologies, paradoxes, these are all good and valuable tools that we can use to try and further our understanding, as long as we understand them, and avoid their obvious pitfalls.

Also, keep in mind that ultimately, objectivity is an illusion.
Religion gives you answers - even very comforting answers, they just don't answer the questions. It tells you god did it, but it doesn't tell you how it was done.
Science is or telling us how it was done.
I don't care what/who did it and why, I want to know how it got done. I have yet to find a religion that explains that.
But all these questions are part of the same mystery. The answer to one is likely the same answer as another. The who, how, and why are all tied together.
If you have any new points to make, I'll be glad to listen to them. But I can tell you right now, I'll not take it on faith.
I'm not expecting you to "take" anything. Just respond well.
 
Last edited:

Commoner

Headache
It's a legitimate argument.

Only you seem to think so, so keep it to yourself.

I'm not trying to sell you anything. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking for an intelligent discussion with some who's open-minded enough to respond with real ideas, instead of misperceived platitudes from their Philosophy 101 class.

The best way to have an intelligent discussion is to actually propose something intelligent.

Because it's GOOD for you. It's healthy. And it's fun. And because you really might see some things that you were not able to see before.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my other hobbies.

I would only say that to someone who wishes to actually try the idea out for themselves.

If you can, please try to set aside your preconceptions, though. Just because they said circular logic was bad in Philosophy 101, doesn't mean it's true. Circular logic, like most things, has both it's advantages and disadvantages. Same goes for all those other forms of thought that they poo-poo'd in that beginner philosophy class. Appeals to popularity, circular reasoning, tautologies, paradoxes, these are all good and valuable tools that we can use to try and further our understanding, as long as we understand them, and avoid their obvious pitfalls.

Must have been one hell of an interesting Philosophy 101 class you took.

Also, keep in mind that ultimately, objectivity is an illusion.

It seems that to you illusion is objectivity.

Science is or telling us how it was done.

That was my point.

But all these questions are part of the same mystery. The answer to one is likely the same answer as another. The who, how, and why are all tied together.
I'm not expecting you to "take" anything. Just respond well.

Start making good arguments and I'll respond to the best of my abilities.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
If you can, please try to set aside your preconceptions, though. Just because they said circular logic was bad in Philosophy 101, doesn't mean it's true. Circular logic, like most things, has both it's advantages and disadvantages. Same goes for all those other forms of thought that they poo-poo'd in that beginner philosophy class. Appeals to popularity, circular reasoning, tautologies, paradoxes, these are all good and valuable tools that we can use to try and further our understanding, as long as we understand them, and avoid their obvious pitfalls.

I lol'd.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Throughout the centuries, various religions have come up with various prescriptions that were designed specifically to be a response to God's will for mankind, and for the spiritual healing of mankind as it's reward. These prescriptions tend to be direct reflections of the image of God the various religions profess and promote, and the promised results tend to exemplify an idealization of mankind's proper condition in "God's eyes".

It's important to understand that these kinds of prescriptions are the direct result of a specific God-concept, being acted upon as one believes God wishes, in hopes of achieving the results that God has promised, and which mankind rightfully deserves.

A classic example of such a prescription might look something like this:

1. To pray for humility.
2. To reflect upon one's "sins".
3. To confess these sins to a priest or minister.
4. To make some act of contrition or restitution for the damage these sins have done to others.
5. Repeat previous steps for all future "sins".

This and similar prescriptions have been practiced over the centuries by countless humans beings from various religious traditions and ideologies, and most found that through this prescription they achieved pretty much exactly what was promised. It's a simple but effective way of learning to alter one's own behavior in favor of an ideal based on the concept of "God".

A concept of God, when acted upon according to that idea, produces the results that the idea itself promises. I believe this is evidence in the same way any other idea is ratified by testing it through action.

A similar idea might be something like: Carol claims she loves Bill, and wants to marry Bill and live with Bill as his wife. But BIll is skeptical, so he proposes that they live together unmarried for a time, to see how it goes. But as they live together, Bill discovers that Carol does not behave as a woman who loves her husband, but as a woman who wants to possess him, and control him, and punish him when he does not oblige her needs. She says she loves him, and wants to be his wife, but she doesn't act as if she loves him, nor does she treat him like a husband. Bill was presented with an idea. And he wanted to find out if that idea had correspondence in reality (the measure of truth). So he lived as if the idea was "real" for whatever length of time it took for him to satisfy himself that it either was or was not actually true. In this case, Bill discovered that the idea was false. It did not have correspondence in actuality.

The religious prescription I posted, above, has been tried and tested by millions of human beings, throughout centuries, and found to work for them as claimed.
 
Last edited:
Top