Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Sleeppy]

What if I laid out three choices. 1,2,3. Which do you choose? Is it random which one you chose? Or was it pre-determined?

How can it be random? It would originate from a brain. From matter. When you look at the elements, they have certain characteristics. Don't they?

If you can prove randomness, you've proven that existence can originate from nonexistence, which is not the case.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How can it be random? It would originate from a brain. From matter. When you look at the elements, they have certain characteristics. Don't they?

If you can prove randomness, you've proven that existence can originate from nonexistence, which is not the case.

no one is arguing that something just "happens" without a course of action which is what you seem to assume. Randomness means there are several distinct possibilities that are all possible. Chaos theory for example runs on some of this. But let me explain this. If I give you three choices you will have three choices. You can choose any of them. Do you understand that it is not pre-determined which choice you will make? It is possible or you to choose any of them but only one of them.

What actually happens doesn't mean it can't have causality. Randomness doesn't require a lack of causality. It just means that several options are available and only one path can be taken.

 

[Sleeppy]

no one is arguing that something just "happens" without a course of action which is what you seem to assume. Randomness means there are several distinct possibilities that are all possible. Chaos theory for example runs on some of this. But let me explain this. If I give you three choices you will have three choices. You can choose any of them. Do you understand that it is not pre-determined which choice you will make? It is possible or you to choose any of them but only one of them.

What actually happens doesn't mean it can't have causality. Randomness doesn't require a lack of causality. It just means that several options are available and only one path can be taken.

All possible? Equally? Then how does only one outcome happen? By what force? What instruction? What reason?

Now you're saying that a 'random' choice has a cause?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All possible? Equally? Then how does only one outcome happen? By what force? What instruction? What reason?

Now you're saying that a 'random' choice has a cause?

I'm not going to play your word twisting game. So I shall repeate just in case you didn't understand before.

There are choices you can make. You have the ability to choose. Unless you are advocating zero free will then you must admit that there are several possibilities. A very solid example is you right now. You can choose to throw your computer out the nearest window. Or you can walk naked outside. Or you can simply respond. There are an infinite number of possibilities that you can choose to do. Which one you ultimately do is considered random.

I choose this example to expose your misunderstanding of causality. Causality is simple and hopefully you already have knowledge of it. But more or less in this purpose it means that you will follow along a set of choices and you "choose" based on past events. This is a form of causality.

However the possibility exists that you choose to divert from this path and do something crazy. Now the possibilities are not equal in this light. It is far more likely that you won't throw out your computer or walk outside naked.

But what about specific wording? What are the chances of you using any specific sentence? Those are more equal.

onward to the coinflip analogy. What are the chances of it having heads or tails? Do you know what the true test is? Its not the coin itself but your choices at the time. How hard you flip it, timing ect. Without pre-determination there will always be randomness.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If you can prove randomness, you've proven that existence can originate from nonexistence, which is not the case.

And you've proven that this isn't the case? If so, how did God come to be?

 

[Sleeppy]

And you've proven that this isn't the case? If so, how did God come to be?

Who says God came to be? The universe came to be.. We know that much.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not going to play your word twisting game. So I shall repeate just in case you didn't understand before.

There are choices you can make. You have the ability to choose. Unless you are advocating zero free will then you must admit that there are several possibilities. A very solid example is you right now. You can choose to throw your computer out the nearest window. Or you can walk naked outside. Or you can simply respond. There are an infinite number of possibilities that you can choose to do. Which one you ultimately do is considered random.

I choose this example to expose your misunderstanding of causality. Causality is simple and hopefully you already have knowledge of it. But more or less in this purpose it means that you will follow along a set of choices and you "choose" based on past events. This is a form of causality.

However the possibility exists that you choose to divert from this path and do something crazy. Now the possibilities are not equal in this light. It is far more likely that you won't throw out your computer or walk outside naked.

But what about specific wording? What are the chances of you using any specific sentence? Those are more equal.

onward to the coinflip analogy. What are the chances of it having heads or tails? Do you know what the true test is? Its not the coin itself but your choices at the time. How hard you flip it, timing ect. Without pre-determination there will always be randomness.

I actually don't believe in free will. I believe everything that occurs or will occur has cause- an origin. And theses causes extend all the way back into the singularity.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Who says God came to be? The universe came to be.. We know that much.

We actually don't know that much. We have no idea whether or not the universe was created. If God doesn't have need of an original source, why must the universe?

 

[chinu]

Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

But why to give any evidence ? agree with it, or not. theist don't care.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you are saying the laws of physics can cease? Please tell me when this has happened

The laws of physics, under the standard interpretation, are inherently indeterministic (or indeterminate), as QM and every extension of it is not only the physics of all matter/energy/everything that exists, but is not deterministic. Current relativistic theories that are not field theories remain deterministic, but this a huge problem in physics and the unification of relativistic physics and quantum mechanics remains perhaps the single greatest problem in modern physics. There are numerous proposed solutions, and quantum field theory itself is the "basic" one, but there is no agreed solution nor evidence that physicists agree supports one of the various unified theories.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How can it be random? It would originate from a brain. From matter.

Well, I don't know much about the brain, being in neuroscience and all, but I'm pretty sure consciousness remains an unsolved problem and that the over 2 years I spent (thinking it would be easy at first) focusing on quantum physics rather than neuroscience to show quantum theories of mind (like those of Stapp or Penrose), not to mention "quantum-like" consciousness, were wrong remain unfulfilled. Mostly, this is because quantum physics is mathematically precise and an ontological mess, and neuroscience isn't much better (at least when it comes to consciousness).

If you can prove randomness, you've proven that existence can originate from nonexistence, which is not the case.

1) There are both multiple definitions of randomness and multiple proofs it exists
2) Every cosmology theory in the sciences (e.g., in astrophysics, cosmology, quantum field theory, etc.) holds that existence can originate from nonexistence. The big bang theory requires it, multiverse theories just require more of it, and basic modern physics itself seems to require it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't realize I was refuting the very thing you are?

You aren't. You made an ontological claim:

It's not about containing knowledge but obtaining it? That's not possible, friend.

The

Hence, 'not possible.' You can't obtain knowledge and not contain it.

part of your claim is refuted by your own statement. You cannot have either contained or obtained the ontological properties of knowledge itself. That entails infinite regress. You are making a claim about all knowledge that requires knowledge, and thus your statement is a member of the set it defines (this is where Frege failed as Russell demonstrated). You cannot make a claim about the properties of knowledge itself without the use of knowledge, and therefore you are using knowledge itself to define what properties of knowledge itself. If you don't like Russell's answer to this, just google the barber's paradox.

Pay attention to the conversation, if you're going to quote from it.

The great thing about logic is that even were I not paying attention, logical fallacies often need no context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

>Why don't theists admit that there's no evidence for God?

What are you talking about???!!!!!

I'm a theist, and I've been saying for years that:

The existence and non-existence of God are both equally unproveable in any objectcive fashion!

So you protest too much, methinks!


Bruce

If you really believe this, then why are you a theist? You've effectively relegated God to the status of Russell's Teapot.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Except that this is mistaken, or at best highly misleading.

So sorry, but YOU'RE clearly guilty of assertion without evidence here!

Perhaps if you were to explain, . . .

 

[BruceDLimber]

If you really believe this, then why are you a theist?

Because you ignored the fact that I specifically said "in any objective fashion."

Religion is a subjective decision, which is precisely why religions are called "faiths."

Peace,

Bruce

 

[garrydons]

shalom. the unseen Creator is seen by the things He has made. nothing could explain clearer the origin of things than to believe in a
Creator of all things.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

shalom. the unseen Creator is seen by the things He has made. nothing could explain clearer the origin of things than to believe in a
Creator of all things.

If it was that clear it would be proven.

 

[McBell]

I actually don't believe in free will. I believe everything that occurs or will occur has cause- an origin. And theses causes extend all the way back into the singularity.

Ah, so then it is completely unfair for humans to punish each other for doing wrong because the one doing the wrong had absolutely no choice in the matter, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because you ignored the fact that I specifically said "in any objective fashion."

Religion is a subjective decision, which is precisely why religions are called "faiths."

Peace,

Bruce

Religion is a personal decision about objective factual matters. It's not a subjective judgement like aesthetics: something could be beautiful for me but not for you, but the idea that a god created the universe and appointed prophets is either true or false, and is the sort of thing for which objective evidence would be expected, IMO.

 

[Willamena]

Religion is a personal decision about objective factual matters. It's not a subjective judgement like aesthetics: something could be beautiful for me but not for you, but the idea that a god created the universe and appointed prophets is either true or false, and is the sort of thing for which objective evidence would be expected, IMO.

Not everyone holds religion to be about an ontological model.

From what I've seen, more often its about a relation.