16 Oct 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitMoreover, those that use this arguments always fail to realize that it isn't a one-shot game, but repeated again and again over millions of years and across the globe.
Why don't theists ever crunch the numbers on the probability of God's existence? I mean, if you really want to do a fair comparison, be consistent in your methodology.
Their lack of understanding of statistics is also present in the fact that if I draw a random number out of a probability function, the ex-ante probability of having exactly that number was zero. And yet, there it is.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIt 's the ole Miracle vs Evolution match;
Moreover, those that use this arguments always fail to realize that it isn't a one-shot game, but repeated again and again over millions of years and across the globe.
Their lack of understanding of statistics is also present in the fact that if I draw a random number out of a probability function, the ex-ante probability of having exactly that number was zero. And yet, there it is.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs it?
...that it is well understood that humans definitely have a spiritual side. For example, we have a universal conscience in which we blah blah blah...
Do we?
The only spirtual side I seem to have is in the bottle in front of me and it's only in me for 45 minutes per measure...
As for my our universal conscience, it's sounds more like a universal relilgious con to undermine science, if you ask me.
Yes. I know. It was a great little play of words. Thank you.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by bbarrAnd don't forget that there are many theists (probably the vast majority of those with sufficient education) who accept the idea that evolution and abiogenesis did take place.
What does any of this have to do with atheism? Atheism does not entail materialism, nor is atheism committed to any particular abiogenetic theory.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCurious that you assume that all atheists are even capable of understanding such complex matters. What if there is an atheist who simply has never considered those arguments? Does he not exist?
, but probably the most damning piece of evidence against a purely material view of the universe is the mathematical probability of life having arisen by chance.
What is even more curious is that just not five minutes ago, I was replying to another poster in another thread who was making the exact same improbability argument though in a different form. What coincidence. How incredibly improbable. If I think about all the minutes that have gone past in my life and all the times I have answered such posts, the probability that I will do it twice in five minutes is so incredibly small that it cant possibly have happened by chance, so I am sure it was all planned by God. So clearly God wants you to listen to me!
Here is a repeat of what I said in the other thread:
jaywill is attempting to use the age old argument that if a result is improbable then it cannot occur by accident. On the face of it, it is an obviously fundamentally flawed argument, however people still seem to get taken in by it especially when it is hidden in a layer or two of decoration. One key factor is the dressing up of the result as a supposedly special or desired result.
Another key factor to note is that our brains are wired to look for causes. It is a part of the human mind. You will find this thread full of people who are absolutely convinced that an event must necessarily have a cause and that if a cause is not evident then it must be invented. So if I throw a dice, some rational people will say 'the result is random' but other people simply cannot accept that. They must find a reason why the result was what it was, and if they have to invoke 'good luck', karma, or God, they will do so, especially if the result of the die has a significant impact on their lives.
But once it is accepted that random (or uncaused) results do exist, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
16 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif the universe would have been any different we would be wondering how it came to be like that. or we wouldn't be around to ask at all. science cannot explain or prove god, you believe or not as a personal choice. you have faith.
this question has long plagued me, considering that it is well understood that humans definitely have a spiritual side. For example, we have a universal conscience in which we try to determine through our perceptions what is good and wrong, we are endowed for example with the capacity to love, which we need and thrive upon, we have a sense of justic he entire inhabited earth, for it is known every where to have been spoken against. Acts 28:22
16 Oct 08
Let us now consider the all important question, "Are Christians real?".
The majority of Christians believe that the was a man who was crucified on a cross, he died and his body was placed in a tomb and 3 days later he became alive again. Now, we know of no physical process by which a decomposing body can regain life. So what are the odds of it happening? Almost all of the molecules involved in the biology of a human being would have to reassemble themselves into their former shapes, without any known physical mechanism driving them. The odds are simply astronomical!
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadcommon, man, thats easy.
Let us now consider the all important question, "Are Christians real?".
The majority of Christians believe that the was a man who was crucified on a cross, he died and his body was placed in a tomb and 3 days later he became alive again. Now, we know of no physical process by which a decomposing body can regain life. So what are the odds of it happenin ...[text shortened]... r shapes, without any known physical mechanism driving them. The odds are simply astronomical!
jesus was granted root access to the universe
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectthe reason why it is a bad answer is because by simple SCIENTIFIC definition you cannot get something from nothing.
Why is "something finite somehow and unexplainably [sic] came into existence" a bad answer? I mean, explanations are great, but I'm pretty certain that I'll never get a real explanation as to why the US has to spend $700bn to bail out some bankers while real people are losing their homes.
I'd love to know *why* energy happened, but I'm fine with knowing that it just happened.
As for the bank thing, the value of the homes are crashing, and the banks own the homes. If the banks have to collect on the houses, they lose money. If they lose money, then the banks crash (think back to the great depression when people took out loans from the bank, using stock as a colateral, to buy more stock). If we used the money to help the people, then..yeah the people would be ok for awhile...until inflation and the devaluation of the dollar hit the money we gave them...then that nice sum we gave them is decently worthless...and we would have been better off giving it to the banks
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat is where the belief in God comes in...which is the premise of their belief....
Let us now consider the all important question, "Are Christians real?".
The majority of Christians believe that the was a man who was crucified on a cross, he died and his body was placed in a tomb and 3 days later he became alive again. Now, we know of no physical process by which a decomposing body can regain life. So what are the odds of it happenin ...[text shortened]... r shapes, without any known physical mechanism driving them. The odds are simply astronomical!
besides, arguing the christ story isn't very easy for a few reasons:
A) Jesus Christ of Nazareth historically existed...he did...
B) Jesus was historically killed on a cross
C) When the disciples of this Jesus claimed that their savior had risen, NOBODY could produce the body. (Provable by HISTORICLE records)
This means that:
C1) The pharasees or Romans had it. This explanation is bogus because they WANTED to shut them up. If they had the body, they could have instantly killed the christian movement
C2) They disciples stole it. Plausible, but then they KNOWINGLY went to their death for a blasphemous LIE...not so plausible
C3) He rose from the death
.....seems rather logical if you ask me....perhaps it is athiests who are in the way of logic and reason
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitok...fair question
Why don't theists ever crunch the numbers on the probability of God's existence? I mean, if you really want to do a fair comparison, be consistent in your methodology.
Options
A) a "God' exists
B) he doesn't
seeing how there are two possibilities, sounds rather 50-50 to me....and 50-50 is alot better than the odds most athiests throw at me
personally, I don't see any "proof" that says a god has to exist or not...there is no one thing in my opion that can difinitivly prove he does or does not...for me it is a collection of arguements that tip the debate (in my eyes) towards a creator....from their picking the right one is a matter of belief, experience, and faith
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by c guy1What do you mean by that? What does the word 'historically' entail?
A) Jesus Christ of Nazareth historically existed...he did...
B) Jesus was historically killed on a cross
C) When the disciples of this Jesus claimed that their savior had risen, NOBODY could produce the body. (Provable by HISTORICLE records)
Again, what are 'historical' records? And which ones are you referring too?
This means that:
C1) The pharasees or Romans had it. This explanation is bogus because they WANTED to shut them up. If they had the body, they could have instantly killed the christian movement
C2) They disciples stole it. Plausible, but then they KNOWINGLY went to their death for a blasphemous LIE...not so plausible
C3) He rose from the death
There a many other possible explanations that you conveniently overlook. The most obvious one being that he did not die on the cross.
What is most interesting though is that you sound really sure of yourself, but if I presented the same story to you with someone else as the person rising from the dead, with the same standards of proof, you would reject your own conclusion.
In other words you should know that your argument is unsound, but you pretend or cant see that it isn't.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by c guy1...seeing how there are two possibilities, sounds rather 50-50 to me...
ok...fair question
Options
A) a "God' exists
B) he doesn't
seeing how there are two possibilities, sounds rather 50-50 to me....and 50-50 is alot better than the odds most athiests throw at me
personally, I don't see any "proof" that says a god has to exist or not...there is no one thing in my opion that can difinitivly prove he does or does not...fo ...[text shortened]... a creator....from their picking the right one is a matter of belief, experience, and faith
This is clearly wrong.
Let's say I buy a lottery ticket. There are two possible results; I either win, or I don't win. Does that mean I have a 50/50 shot of winning?
Or let's say I roll a standard 6-sided die, and I want to know the probability of getting:
a) A roll of 5 or higher
b) A roll less than 5
Again, only two possible results, but is the probability 50/50?