what is more likely?

[George-ananda]

How do you know? How is it possible to know that something can't be known?

The rational mind can't really grasp that something is uncaused or has an infinite regression of causes. The rational mind evolved for thinking about finite things (for survival in its environment). The infinite or uncaused blows minds.

 

[Thief]

The rational mind can't really grasp that something is uncaused or has an infinite regression of causes. The rational mind evolved for thinking about finite things (for survival in its environment). The infinite or uncaused blows minds.

On the mark...and yet.

To abandon rational thinking as we move to the infinite....

Go insane...to get there?

 

[hornsby]

No math?
How does one calculate the odds/likelihood/etc. with no math?

do you need math to calculate the odds/likelihood of that giant invisible monkey over san francisco? or can you, like the vast majority of humans, safely dismiss this claim as less likely/less probable than the inexistence of said invisible monkey over san francisco?

 

[Thief]

More likely....no numbers needed to know the flight path of a dandelion seed.
It will land and you get more dandelions.

No number system at the 'point' of singularity.
A secondary point cannot be allowed.
At the occurrence of a secondary....infinity is then immediate.

The singularity can only exist without numbers.

 

[hornsby]

What are the probabilities then? Good luck with that. SPROING!



Both of those options are equally likely, yes. Depending on your subjective view of 'floating', anyway. As you say, you can't know either way. Believe what you like. All options are equally likely. Whichever one makes you feel the best about yourself ought to do just fine. I assume we'll all do the same. SINCE WE CAN'T KNOW EITHER WAY. Funny how it works both ways.



With reason instead of blustering. Whichever you like, though. I enjoy it either way.

both are equally likely? really?

if your life depended on choosing the option that represents reality, you would honestly assign the existence of this giant invisible monkey the same probability/likelihood as its inexistence???????.....

 

[Breathe]

From a Pantheists perspective wouldn't even the tiniest particle having always existed be essentially the same as God having always existed?

I'm a panentheist, not a pantheist, but it still applies.

What exactly is it about my comparison that doesn't mesh with your philosophy?

The duality between the two, and the "always existing" part; we don't know if either "always" existed. And, "your" comparison?

I mean until you find a better comparison isn't it okay to use the best we have? (not saying mine is the best, but any others I can think of fit the same bill)

If I think it's inaccurate, not really.

 

[savagewind]

yes sir, our eyes are simply too complex not to have been designed/created, but the infinitely more complex eyeball designer is not too complex right? makes perfect sense....

How is Love complex? It would be easier to understand you hornsby if you would please stop talking in sarcasm.

 

[savagewind]

do you need math to calculate the odds/likelihood of that giant invisible monkey over san francisco? or can you, like the vast majority of humans, safely dismiss this claim as less likely/less probable than the inexistence of said invisible monkey over san francisco?

What is the monkey doing for evidence that the monkey is there? Nothing.

Believers can SEE God is accomplishing many things.

So....what is the monkey doing?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I base my belief on complexity. In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.

Maybe. However, as
1) The universe isn't just space. There's a lot of matter, and method to it.
2) Complexity has formal definitions. By formal, I mean mathematical. A super-computer, for example, is far, far, far less complex that "simple" organisms.
3) Likelihood has formal definitions (probability functions). If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10, you know what the likelihood of your answer being correct is. If I ask you to pick a number, whether it is pi or googol or 42, you have no idea what the probability is. More specifically, in order to know what the probability that one "thing" is more likely/probable, you need to know about the probability space

it seems that comparing the probability of the proposed scenerios is a bit like apples and iPhones.

 

[McBell]

do you need math to calculate the odds/likelihood of that giant invisible monkey over san francisco? or can you, like the vast majority of humans, safely dismiss this claim as less likely/less probable than the inexistence of said invisible monkey over san francisco?

So you are saying that you have no math, never had any math, and have no intentions of supporting your math problem with math?

 

[McBell]

Believers can SEE God is accomplishing many things.

Since the only things attributed to god are done so through the one doing the contributing wanting god to have done it...

So....what is the monkey doing?

The exact same things God does.
With the exact same amount of supporting evidence.

 

[hornsby]

How is Love complex? It would be easier to understand you hornsby if you would please stop talking in sarcasm.

Is god more complex than his creation? YES or NO?

 

[hornsby]

What is the monkey doing for evidence that the monkey is there? Nothing.

Believers can SEE God is accomplishing many things.

So....what is the monkey doing?

What is the god doing for evidence that god is there? Nothing.

Believers can SEE monkey is accomplishing many things.

So.... what is the god doing?

 

[hornsby]

Maybe. However, as
1) The universe isn't just space. There's a lot of matter, and method to it.
2) Complexity has formal definitions. By formal, I mean mathematical. A super-computer, for example, is far, far, far less complex that "simple" organisms.
3) Likelihood has formal definitions (probability functions). If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10, you know what the likelihood of your answer being correct is. If I ask you to pick a number, whether it is pi or googol or 42, you have no idea what the probability is. More specifically, in order to know what the probability that one "thing" is more likely/probable, you need to know about the probability space

it seems that comparing the probability of the proposed scenerios is a bit like apples and iPhones.

if god is described as the most complex thing in existence(as he is by most theists today) then by definition anything and everything is LESS complex. this eliminates the need to identify any other variables in the equation because we are not looking for specifics. the question is what is more likely, not EXACTLY HOW MUCH MORE LIKELY IS THIS THAN THAT....

 

[hornsby]

So you are saying that you have no math, never had any math, and have no intentions of supporting your math problem with math?

do you need math to calculate the odds/likelihood of that giant invisible monkey over san francisco? or can you, like the vast majority of humans, safely dismiss this claim as less likely/less probable than the inexistence of said invisible monkey over san francisco?

 

[savagewind]

Is god more complex than his creation? YES or NO?

It is obvious God is NOT more complex than what has been made. What has been made is millions of billions of things, most of them with many parts and functions. God is ONE. God does one thing.
God creates (one function) always with love (one way).
The monkey floats. Big deal.
Oh, by the way, how did the monkey get there?

 

[freethinker44]

The rational mind can't really grasp that something is uncaused or has an infinite regression of causes. The rational mind evolved for thinking about finite things (for survival in its environment). The infinite or uncaused blows minds.

How do you know something is uncaused if you can't grasp the concept of uncaused?

 

[Musty]

I go with what most closely matches observations of the natural world and can be demonstrated experimentally. My bet is that scientists will eventually manage to work out a plausible mechanism by which life can arise.

The ID explanation doesn't really explain anything so it's not something I have much time with. It offers no mechanism for how the ID created life and doesn't explain where the ID came from either.

 

[Sir Doom]

both are equally likely? really?

if your life depended on choosing the option that represents reality, you would honestly assign the existence of this giant invisible monkey the same probability/likelihood as its inexistence???????.....

Now you are changing the options. The options presented were invisible monkey floating above San Fran or nothing floating above San Fran.

To your new question, though...

Why does my life depend on it? This will be very informative as to how I answer. For example, if it is just some jerk threatening me, I may decide to call their bluff and answer incorrectly. Additionally, I may simply attempt to discern the answer they are looking for as opposed to the answer I consider correct. Also, if someone else's life is additionally threatened and saving my own would kill them, I might consider answering incorrectly to sacrifice myself in their place. Or I might answer correctly to ensure that they die instead of me. Of course, I don't actually know what the right answer is and any consideration of probability of one event or another is pretty much a complete waste of time without any data to go on.

Then again... we DO have data for what is floating above San Fran as opposed to the origin of the universe which has NO DATA. That sort of makes the question irrelevant anyway.

 

[McBell]

do you need math to calculate the odds/likelihood of that giant invisible monkey over san francisco? or can you, like the vast majority of humans, safely dismiss this claim as less likely/less probable than the inexistence of said invisible monkey over san francisco?

You have merely taken the age old "the odds are so high against the universe existing by chance that God has to exist" argument and turned it around.

Now since that argument can be dismissed for failure of the claimant to provide the math, why shouldn't yours be the same?

Or are you going to continue your feeble attempts of avoiding the math?