• 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!

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

B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
And what should we infer from this and why?
Click to expand...
I'll defer to robin1 to answer that one, if he so desires. I believe his response will be something about the "insanely improbable" and the "hyperbolically absurd". If you didn't understand that the first time he said it, I don't think you'll understand if you hear it again. There's really nothing more I can add.
 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

Unbound
1robin said:
You interesting if nothing else. Is there some theological probabilistic math I am unaware of. I have never used such a thing and deny the question is even coherent. I have heard several PhD's prove Jesus' historicity to a high level of probability using probabilistic calculus I have never even heard of and I have a math degree. I would never argue anything using it and I doubt if your question is even meaningful. What probability is there that nothing explodes and creates everything - 0, but concerning God it is beyond my capacity to even think of a way to begin. He is no less probable than probable and that is about as far as I would go. What was the probability of black holes to a 1st dynasty Egyptian?

You have some God math in mind. I suppose you could do some historical probalistic analysis given the type of effect and frequency of cause or something but I am too lazy to even think about it. By the time you got through the additive error margins would make any result meaningless. Tell you what do the probability analysis for the existence Quantum fields given what was known 500 years ago first.



Probability can be applied when some idea of frequency is known. You know what the frequency of God's existence is? I will bet you answer and bet you have no idea.

There is a very good chance I will ignore your posts but this one was not simply commentary. This was demands to provide what is not even coherent or possible. I did not make any probability claim about the supernatural but about the natural because the natural is subject to law and the supernatural is not. You tell me what the speed limit of a hypothetical ghost is first.




I did not give a probability for God. Are you asking me to show the work for what I never did. Hope your not a teacher.

1. I have no burden to provide what you asked, nor need. Nor does the Bible or any Christian.
2. I doubt the question is mathematically coherent.
3. I doubt that any math that could be done would be precise enough to be meaningful.
4. I doubt that if 1000% precise and perfectly reliable and gave God a 100% probability it would matter to you.

Why in the world did you ask me this? This is like asking the ghosts taste like (no I do not believe in ghosts).

This is not serious but let me give an equation.

The probability the universe exists is 100%.
The probability the universe has a cause is 100%.
100% - the percentage a natural cause produced nature = the probability God exists.
100% - 0% = 100% chance God exists.
Did not even need calculus.
As stupid as that was it isn't all that stupid. Actually there is nothing known that is wrong with it. Still silly though. Of course so was the question.

Let me turn your misplaced claims on you. Prove that God does not exist. Unlike Christianity, atheism is not faith. It is the positive statement that not only does one God not exist but no God's do. That carries the burden you falsely tried to pin on faith and I bet you don not even have a silly equation. No matter how many atheists are asked not one knows what they claim to know.
Click to expand...

I see.
So basically, in a nut shell, you claim that it is a statistical impossibility that the universe did not come to be without a god doing it, but feel no need to support your claim with anything other than the claim itself being retold by other people?

You refuse to show any of the math used to support any of your math claims, and as a last ditch effort to get the lime light off your serious lack of anything but empty unsubstantiated claims, you want me to prove god does not exist?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
adi2d

adi2d

Active Member
philbo said:
Why is saying that the maths is in error because it's assuming that humanity is a planned endpoint circular reasoning?

..have to say that on reading that yahoo answer, there's so much left out and ignored that the numbers are totally and utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything wrong with questioning Blands math skills. After all this is the man that proclaimed something was impossible and something else was MORE impossible than the first impossible.


:run:
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Mestemia said:
I see.
So basically, in a nut shell, you claim that it is a statistical impossibility that the universe did not come to be without a god doing it, but feel no need to support your claim with anything other than the claim itself being retold by other people?

You refuse to show any of the math used to support any of your math claims, and as a last ditch effort to get the lime light off your serious lack of anything but empty unsubstantiated claims, you want me to prove god does not exist?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to have read his post
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
1robin said:
This is not serious but let me give an equation.

The probability the universe exists is 100%.
The probability the universe has a cause is 100%.
100% - the percentage a natural cause produced nature = the probability God exists.
100% - 0% = 100% chance God exists.
Did not even need calculus.
As stupid as that was it isn't all that stupid. Actually there is nothing known that is wrong with it. Still silly though. Of course so was the question.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen this good an example of special pleading in a very long time.
 
A

Athan

Member
Philomath said:
As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?
Click to expand...
There is no need on my part. I've always found the notion of mortals trying to produce God, without His direction of course, as egotistical.
 
Satan's Right Hand Man

Satan's Right Hand Man

Member
Theists can't admit that there is no evidence for God because nobody likes being wrong, and nobody wants to look like a fool.

But conversely, atheists play the same game in that they have no evidence that God does not exist. They point to the "fact" that no evidence exists that God exists. A lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything. It is simply a lack in evidence.
 
adi2d

adi2d

Active Member
Satan's Right Hand Man said:
Theists can't admit that there is no evidence for God because nobody likes being wrong, and nobody wants to look like a fool.

But conversely, atheists play the same game in that they have no evidence that God does not exist. They point to the "fact" that no evidence exists that God exists. A lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything. It is simply a lack in evidence.
Click to expand...


So are you saying we should believe in everything until we have evidence showing it doesn't exist?
Seems like we would have to believe in lot of things without evidence. A certain teapot comes to mind
 
Satan's Right Hand Man

Satan's Right Hand Man

Member
adi2d said:
So are you saying we should believe in everything until we have evidence showing it doesn't exist?
Seems like we would have to believe in lot of things without evidence. A certain teapot comes to mind
Click to expand...

If science made facts out of things without evidence to support or used the lack of evidence as support for a theory, would it still be science?

I theorize that somewhere in this universe is a gas planet 10,000 times bigger than the mass of our sun. Since there is no evidence of such, this theory is true.
 
adi2d

adi2d

Active Member
Satan's Right Hand Man said:
If science made facts out of things without evidence to support or used the lack of evidence as support for a theory, would it still be science?

I theorize that somewhere in this universe is a gas planet 10,000 times bigger than the mass of our sun. Since there is no evidence of such, this theory is true.
Click to expand...


????? That's not a theory. That's a statement. If there is no evidence for it why do you believe it

I'm not sure if you read my post but I didn't say what you should believe. I just asked a question. A question you didn't answer by the way
 
Call_of_the_Wild

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
I see.
So basically, in a nut shell, you claim that it is a statistical impossibility that the universe did not come to be without a god doing it, but feel no need to support your claim with anything other than the claim itself being retold by other people?

You refuse to show any of the math used to support any of your math claims, and as a last ditch effort to get the lime light off your serious lack of anything but empty unsubstantiated claims, you want me to prove god does not exist?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

This is the longest post I've seen from you in over a year.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Satan's Right Hand Man said:
Theists can't admit that there is no evidence for God because nobody likes being wrong, and nobody wants to look like a fool.

But conversely, atheists play the same game in that they have no evidence that God does not exist. They point to the "fact" that no evidence exists that God exists. A lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything. It is simply a lack in evidence.
Click to expand...

And you cannot believe in something if you haven't got evidence to back it up, so atheist are doing what should be done, simply not having a belief in a god, it would be a wast of time for an intelligent person to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top