Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Bravo.
Contrary to Scaff's comments, I doubted that everyone in this thread, was void of basic reasoning and comprehension skills.

Good to see the insults flowing freely again. Oh and I don't believe anyone in this thread has made a claim even close to that, a point that has already been explained and covered.

I think you mean scientific method, don't you?

A typo that had already be corrected (a while before you posted this) would you like me to list all of yours?

What I like even better is that in an attempt to try and belittle me (fine upstanding Christian values again) you can't even state what a scientific theory is correctly. This may help, feel free to print out out and stick in plain sight.

Oh yea, here it is:

Slight problem is that I was still asking you a question not stating it as my view. I'm quite frankly amazed that these basics are escaping you.

And I have answered both.
Although, one answer was a question.

I must have missed that, as I'm sure you haven;t direct answered either of those questions.

Careful now, remember the AUP.

If you feel I've broken it then head for the report button.

Well how about this quote you demanded I provide:


Now, I have clearly demonstrated and established the fact that the event is proven to exist, but no evidence is present to implicate you personally as being in the future statistical 2%. To the contrary, with regaurd to probability, you are most likely, by a huge margin to be in the 98% bracket.
In reality, you are buying insurance in this case, on risk possibility, rather than on across the board, improbable probability represented by the 2%.

What is it that you can't comprehend about that, in reference to your own statement, of why you take out insurance.

Now aside from being consistently wrong about how probability theory, possibility theory and scientific evidence work, what you have not done is show me stating that is a position I hold.

As such you assigning a position to me that I do not hold.

Simply because you are able to make up nonsense about subjects you have clearly shown you have no actual grasp of does not mean you can state that other people hold such a position.

Now, now, remember the AUP.
Likewise, you would'nt want to run afoul of it.
What alleged lie, are you referring to?

Which position is that?
This one?

And does that state that probability is a standard of evidence?

No.

Have you been able to provide one source that states that probability is a standard of evidence?

No.

Are you able to quote me saying that I consider probability to be a standard of evidence?

No.

Its a position you are applying to me that I do not hold. As such by stating that this is a position I hold you are bare-faced lying. Do so again and you will be taking a few days off to consider the fact that the AUP is not optional.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Out of interest what would be your reply to a Christian who claimed they could prove God existed?

I also don't understand at all why a claim that anything exists being questioned is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Its a perfectly valid and legitimate question to ask when a claim is made that anything previously unsubstantiated exists is made. As I said tell me Unicorns exist and I will ask exactly the same question.

I would reply to him "No you can't."

And I'm sure you do understand. You may not believe such an entity exists, but you are surely able to conceptualize God.

As you are able to conceptualize unicorns and aliens. There's a difference though, nobody claims unicorns are spiritual entities, so it's only fair you ask for proof of a mythical ... animal. Same with aliens or any other being or thing
that exists, or is claimed to exist, IN this Universe.

 

[DK]

Science constantly tries to break everything it knows to refine and improve our understanding of existence and how it works, religion on the other hand burns down schools because they are possessed by the devil.

Ireland has had its own religion-based problems - see The Troubles, abuse of children in Catholic Church-run institutions, imprisonment and abuse of women deemed by the Church to be "immoral" in "Magdalene Laundries" etc.

 

[Scaff]

I would reply to him "No you can't."

And I'm sure you do understand. You may not believe such an entity exists, but you are surely able to conceptualize God.

As you are able to conceptualize unicorns and aliens. There's a difference though, nobody claims unicorns are spiritual entities, so it's only fair you ask for proof of a mythical ... animal. Same with aliens or any other being or thing
that exists, or is claimed to exist, IN this Universe.

A position with which I have no problem at all, for the most part. I have to say I don't get the insulted side of it; unicorns may have been a bad example so maybe Thor or Odin would be a better example. If someone were to claim they existed I would ask exactly the same question and don't see how it would be insulting.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Well, I do feel it that way because I know that you know that I know God can't be proven. So ... why do you ask? There are more sensible things to ask about one's belief than the "prove it" one.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Of course, I am content to say that God cannot be proven to exist with current and accepted scientific methods. And on such a topic that has influenced man for such a long time, it would be wise not to entirely ignore it.

Something I would like to say about this. For the majority of our existence we didn't have the answers to question that science now has provided us with. We had no idea how or why there was thunder, or why there was disease, and we definitely had no idea how we (and the universe) came to be. We hadn't the tools to see far into space or deep into the atom or even know why it rained, but we strove for answers; we created gods to answer our questions, and until the recent advancements in science, those answers seemed reasonable. But now science we are able to get actual answers rather than just "God did it".

I wish I could word things better because that last sentence didn't come out anywhere near as eloquently as I had hoped. But essentially what I just said and the fact that there isn't any real evidence for any god, is the reason I am an atheist.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, I do feel it that way because I know that you know that I know God can't be proven. So ... why do you ask? There are more sensible things to ask about one's belief than the "prove it" one.

Because sadly, SCJ seems intent on proving it, even though that avenue is an impossible one. Curiously, every other believer in this thread seems to understand that, and every non-believer seems to accept that people are welcome to believe what they like. These people get along fine. Those who try and prove something unprovable seem to struggle.

 

[Scaff]

Well, I do feel it that way because I know that you know that I know God can't be proven. So ... why do you ask? There are more sensible things to ask about one's belief than the "prove it" one.

Oh on that I quite agree, but please keep in mind that the only reason why the question has come up is based around those who state they can prove it.

Based on my wife's upbringing (Catholic) its a strange one because she has always maintained that its based around 'faith' a belief in something that can't be proven.

Its not an approach I agree with but it is one I can respect.

However I do still reserve the right to ask (regardless of subject) for evidence if someone does claim something exists, that's the way I work. I'm also confident that you understand why that would be as well.

 

[niky]

I understand where you're coming from, but why would he need to dictate how the future pans out? What if he's conducting an experiment and he knows the possible outcomes and just wants to observe what the final outcome is?

He doesn't dictate. That's the point. An omniscient God already knows what will happen, so to run the experiment to confirm that this is what will happen is like dropping a bowling ball on your foot to confirm that... yes... it hurts.

An omniscient being has already observed the final outcome and all possible final outcomes for all possible beginnings to the Universe and doesn't need to run an experiment to confirm that this is what happens.

To this being and this being only is free will an illusion. To the rest of us, it's good enough so that we can pretend it is.

-

There is also the possibility of the illusion of existence. We could all be a thought experiment or simulation in the mind of God. The Hindus believe the Universe is but a dream of the God Brahma.

In the end, it doesn't really make a difference. If the illusion is just as good as reality, then it is real.

 

[homeforsummer]

In the end, it doesn't really make a difference. If the illusion is just as good as reality, then it is real.

Quite. It doesn't actually matter if we're all just brains in jars plugged into a big Matrix-like experiment, as alluded to on a recent Stephen Hawking documentary, because everything we experience is real to us, so it's reality one way or another.

I'd also suggest that whatever facade of reality we're being given pretty much negates questions about the meaning of life. We get a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the eternity of time in which to live, so questioning the meaning behind it is both time-wasting (when we could be doing something more fun... not slavishly following a god in the hope we get something even better afterwards, for example) and fairly egotistical.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Since there were no lasers involved in the process, I'm wondering what lasers you were talking about exactly...





All five of my concerns over the reporting of this experiment seem to have been fully justified.

I'm familiar with the WMAP CMB polarisation experiment. Might be worth pointing out that the shape of the universe described by it is for the observable universe, rather than the actual universe. There are still shapes that the entire universe could be that are not flat while retaining flat local characteristics - much as my driveway appears flat but is really slightly curved.

These shapes blow my mind, so please don't ask me to describe them - I don't understand them. Just look up "manifolds".

Then it would appear I was wrong as I was under the understanding that they had fired off lasers, not intending for them to actually make it back but simply to see if the show a curve as the curve with space-time, hence equating over 180-degree's.

For this I wholly apologise and take back all I said, however, I was right about the infinite part.

 

[JediRage]

He doesn't dictate. That's the point. An omniscient God already knows what will happen, so to run the experiment to confirm that this is what will happen is like dropping a bowling ball on your foot to confirm that... yes... it hurts.

An omniscient being has already observed the final outcome and all possible final outcomes for all possible beginnings to the Universe and doesn't need to run an experiment to confirm that this is what happens.

Fair enough, but what if someone shoots the bowling ball on its way down so it shatters?

I think the 'omniscient' thing is being taken too literally. He may know the possible outcomes but he may not know how they take place. Omniscient is a relative term. A modern day army general may seem omniscient to Caesar or Napoleon. But that is basically because of the technology available in modern warfare.

 

[Denur]

Fair enough, but what if someone shoots the bowling ball on its way down so it shatters?

I think the 'omniscient' thing is being taken too literally. He may know the possible outcomes but he may not know how they take place. Omniscient is a relative term. A modern day army general may seem omniscient to Caesar or Napoleon. But that is basically because of the technology available in modern warfare.

Omniscient cannot be a relative term. It literally means all-knowing, not knowing quite a lot or something like that.

 

[JediRage]

Omniscient cannot be a relative term. It literally means all-knowing, not knowing quite a lot or something like that.

Who gave god the title of omniscient? Man. Not god himself.

 

[ProjectVRD]

I often wonder if Christianity was born out of drug use. Think about the origins, before Christianity there was Polytheism and that predominantly Paganism. Paganism often involved the use hallucinogenic compounds from the flora. However, this idea would not go down to well with certain people and I accept it could be seen as being disrespectful and that is probably why it is not spoken about.

So perhaps alot of the stories are true but only from a certain point of view, that of somebody completely off their rockers and still influenced to some degree that these herbs puts them in touch with Gods (or in this case, a God who said he was the one and only). Tell somebody who is high on hallucinogens that there is a spider on the floor then they will see a spider on the floor. Likewise, tell somebody you fix their ear after it was cut off and those who are high around them would see him fix the ear, or turn water into wine.

 

[niky]

Who gave god the title of omniscient? Man. Not god himself.

Pretty hard for a hypothetical being to actually call himself anything.

Technically, if you're all-powerful, then you should be all-knowing, or have the abikity to make yourself all-knowing. If you don'ypt have the oower to make yourself all-knowing, you are not all-powerful.

But if God is not all knowing or all powerful, then is God truly God? Or is there another God the Creator of God beyond that? And another God the Creator of God the Creator of God before that? And...

Yup, it's pretty much turtles all the way down.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Pretty hard for a hypothetical being to actually call himself anything.

So if God is not all knowing or all powerful, then is God truly God? Or is there another God the Creator of God beyond that? And another God the Creator of God the Creator of God before that? And...

Yup, it's pretty much turtles all the way down.

I suppose Ockhams Razor would suggest one of those God's was created by random chance.

 

[niky]

God sprouting full-formed by random chance may be simple in concept, but not simple in practice.

And if you follow Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is that the Universe itself formed from nothing by random chance, without invoking a complicated, unprovable and extraneous God. Though obviously, any answer derived from pure logic without observation of what is outside the Universe will be extremely speculative.

 

[JediRage]

But if God is not all knowing or all powerful, then is God truly God? Or is there another God the Creator of God beyond that? And another God the Creator of God the Creator of God before that?

Now that does keep me up at night.

 

[ProjectVRD]

God sprouting full-formed by random chance may be simple in concept, but not simple in practice.

And if you follow Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is that the Universe itself formed from nothing by random chance, without invoking a complicated, unprovable and extraneous God. Though obviously, any answer derived from pure logic without observation of what is outside the Universe will be extremely speculative.

How about God forming by chance within an already present Universe? It might not necessarily be the same God as that in christianity, I grant that, but God appears to be a loose term and many religions use it for their deity.

 

[niky]

Even less simple. Because, as already noted elsewhere, the physical laws of the Universe prevent God from existing solely within it.

Any "God" that fully abides by the constraints of the physical Universe wouldn't be very Godlike.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Do you believe in God?

Nope.

Why?

Why should I?

Simple as that for me.

 

[phil_75]

What him upstairs said!

 

[XoravaX]

A little late response to Famine:

Sure, if you divide by zero on a calculator you'll get a tantrum, but that doesn't make it a mathematical problem.

There isn't yet a single comprehensive mathematical theory about how division by zero should be handled.

Think it with common sense: if you've got three apples, and divide them between zero men, how much each man gets? Three? But there is no man, he can't get three. Zero? How come, why would three apples disappear, makes no sense whatsoever. Because the whole operation makes no sense, there is no answer to it.

Also, if it is a legal operation, maths does this:

3/0=0

multiply by 0
(3/0)x0=0x0

multiplying something divided by the same number it is now being multiplied by results in the both operations being simplified out (similar to (3/10)x10=3)

3=0

As Scaff said, this is a well-known fallacy, by doing this under the assumption that divide by zero is a legal operation which gets an answer.
You don't call this a mathematical problem?
Then tell me how that above could be done, or what is its answer (exact, not just "infinity" or "approaches infinity").

It's the same answer.

No it isn't. No answer in mathematics is pretty far from an answer "nothing". Go ask any mathematician and you'll get that.

No answer is like a mail lost in the post office or a random amount of coins stuck in a slot machine (which doesn't tell how much you can get), something that never comes to the recipient and has its exact contents unknown, but zero is like an empty letter or "no win". As I said, there is a fundamental difference.

You could roll the die for the entire rest of time - infinity if you like - and never roll a seven. That's a zero in infinity. 0/∞ is... what now?

I could roll the dice for infinity and always get one. The practical occurrence is never the same as theoretic, mathematical probability.

The issue here is you've delimited the "chance of occurrence" (of chucking a seven) field from the "frequency of occurrence field" (the number of die rolls) - you've determined there's zero chance (of chucking a seven) in six occurrences (die rolls). There's zero chance (of chucking a seven) in an infinite number of occurrences (die rolls).

What you're now counting is the practical occurrence itself (as you base the occurrences on real happenings), not mathematical probability. Mathematical probability is counted by multiplying the probability in one try (so-called chance, eg. 1/6 of getting one from a roll) by itself by the number of the rolls. The probability of ever rolling seven would be the probability for it occurring in one roll multiplied by itself the times the dice is(/are) rolled; f(x)=(0/6)^x=0, x≥0 (whoops, was too tired, check edit below for how it's really counted), like the probability of always rolling one is g(x)=(1/6)^x=0.000..., lim(x→&#8734g(x)=0 (while x, the number of the rolls, goes towards infinity the value of the function goes closer and closer to 0, however never reaching it).

"you've determined there's zero chance (of chucking a seven) in six occurrences (die rolls)"

No, I've marked there is six possibilities (6 sides), of which none is fit for the event occurring. 0/6=0 probability in one roll. Doesn't make difference if there is more rolls, hence why I simplified it.
In six rolls the probability would be (0/6)^6=0. (No it wouldn't, it would be 1-(6/6)^6=0)
This is all basic high school level maths, probability in multiple tries is the "chance" (one attempt probability) multiplied by itself by the amount of tries (well, that's the probability of the event happening always over the multiple tries).


If we count God's probability in infinite tries, the chance ("one-roll" probability) is still 0/0 (zero in zero possibilities. Even if we take infinite "rolls", it still can't be counted, since divide by zero is an illegal operation in all maths.
d(x)=(0/0)^x, x→∞ (in exact maths infinity is not a term, x goes towards infinity) still has no answer, because of the problem of division by zero.

EDIT:
Yes, I noticed that I actually failed some of the maths, the probability of hitting one over multiple rolls is g(x)=1-(5/6)^x, lim(x→&#8734g(x)=1, what is 1-[the probability of always rolling the others, that being a complementary event to hitting one.]

God's probability is therefore
d(x)=1-(0/0)^x, x→∞, but it doesn't change the result.

 

[Exorcet]

Also, if it is a legal operation, maths does this:

3/0=0

multiply by 0
(3/0)x0=0x0

multiplying something divided by the same number it is now being multiplied by results in the both operations being simplified out (similar to (3/10)x10=3)

3=0

Slight change

3/1 = 3

(3/1)x0 = 0x0

Because anything times 0 is 0. That's what you're invoking there. Also, 3/0 is infinity, not 0. And yes, infinity is an exact answer. Diving 3 into segments 0 units long means you get infinite segments.

I could roll the dice for infinity and always get one. The practical occurrence is never the same as theoretic, mathematical probability.

After rolling the dice for infinite, you will get exactly one 1 for every six rolls. The chance of getting 1 for infinity is exactly zero.

If we count God's probability in infinite tries, the chance ("one-roll" probability) is still 0/0 (zero in zero possibilities. Even if we take infinite "rolls", it still can't be counted, since divide by zero is an illegal operation in all maths.
d(x)=(0/0)^x, x→∞ (in exact maths infinity is not a term, x goes towards infinity) still has no answer, because of the problem of division by zero.

No, we get 0/infinity, which is zero.

 

[TJC_69]

Bravo.
Contrary to Scaff's comments, I doubted that everyone in this thread, was void of basic reasoning and comprehension skills.

Scaff
Now aside from being consistently wrong about how probability theory, probability theory and scientific evidence work...

Simply because you are able to make up nonsense about subjects you have clearly shown you have no actual grasp of does not mean you can state that other people hold such a position.

I think Scaff has spoken for everyone posting and reading here in regards to your perceived lack of understanding that you claim everyone else suffers from ... Apart from you that is .

Thankfully , as an atheist I personally do not suffer with grand delusions , if this is what Christianity brings then i'd much rather believe in Santa 👍

 

[Dennisch]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Santa isn't real.

 

[TJC_69]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Santa isn't real.

Oh noes !!!!!!

 

[Hun200kmh]

Santa, as real as he ever was.

 

[dylansan]

Slight change

3/1 = 3

(3/1)x0 = 0x0

Because anything times 0 is 0. That's what you're invoking there. Also, 3/0 is infinity, not 0. And yes, infinity is an exact answer. Diving 3 into segments 0 units long means you get infinite segments.

Yeah, Xoravax's original equation doesn't work because 3/0 != 0.
I think maybe this is a better demonstration:

3 = 3

3*(0/0) = (3/0)*0

3 * 0 = infinity * 0

3 = infinity

After rolling the dice for infinite, you will get exactly one 1 for every six rolls. The chance of getting 1 for infinity is exactly zero.

Careful with this.

At any given roll, the probability of rolling a 1 is always 1/6, making it always possible, no matter what came before. For any number of rolls, it is possible to roll entirely 1s, but the probability of rolling only 1s approaches zero as the number approaches infinity

The problem is that doing something an infinite number of times is a tricky condition to begin with, as there is no way to know what the "end" result looks like, as there isn't one. See the infinite monkey problem.