Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 33839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +507/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #406 on: August 29, 2013, 11:02:42 AM »
I ask one question. without claiming any absolutes such as god doesnt exist. What sciencetific proof does anyone that God didnt "program" the reality we know to work how it does. if you allow to say that god as the level of power we believe him to have what does it hurt to say a intelligent being was ale to program a world to operate on a simple set of laes.u
Your approach here is bad.  You have to show that there's something to your idea that God 'programmed' reality before it's worth considering.  For example, if you claim that you have a small volcano in your backyard that spews out lava on command, I might say, "cool, can I see it?"  At which point you'd show me your pet volcano.

But we're not at that point yet.  We're still at the point where you're talking about how neat it is to have a volcano that spews lava on command.  Until you show it to someone, that's all you can do - and you leave yourself open to people accusing you of making the whole thing up.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2928
  • Darwins +235/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #407 on: August 29, 2013, 12:50:18 PM »
Godisacoder, in the context of your god-as-programmer hypothesis, would that make humans variables in this alleged program?

As I see it, humans wouldn't have a lot of leeway in this situation:  Either they too have been programmed into the system to help achieve whatever purpose the programmer had in mind from the start, or they are outsiders at the mercy of the program's output.

Perhaps I should get together with My dear, sweet uncle Loki and hack the system.   ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1843
  • Darwins +317/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #408 on: August 29, 2013, 01:01:02 PM »
Godisacoder, in the context of your god-as-programmer hypothesis, would that make humans variables in this alleged program?

As I see it, humans wouldn't have a lot of leeway in this situation:  Either they too have been programmed into the system to help achieve whatever purpose the programmer had in mind from the start, or they are outsiders at the mercy of the program's output.

Perhaps I should get together with My dear, sweet uncle Loki and hack the system.   ;D
If you're going to try to hack the system, you will probably need to consult with whatever god programmer-god worships - you know, the dude who built the underlying architecture to run the code that programmer-god made.

What's that?  There isn't a god that programmer-god worships, venerates, or answers to?  Can't prove that he doesn't exist...guess there is a god that programmer-god worships...
...and that god was created by comic-god.  What's that?  There isn't a comic-god that god worships, venerates, or answers to?  Can't prove that he doesn't exist...guess there is a comic-god that god worships...
(and so on and so forth)
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #409 on: August 29, 2013, 01:04:46 PM »
I'm going to assume some things in your grammatical syntax. Like punctuation. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no. god. you disprove him. the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Sure, we can't disprove your god. But, please tell me how anyone could disprove ANYTHING that doesn't exist. You can start with anything you like, be it leprechauns, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or whatever. Prove something imaginary doesn't exist. Go ahead, we'll wait.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 01:07:44 PM by Dante »
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6197
  • Darwins +781/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #410 on: August 29, 2013, 01:40:07 PM »
A lot of cultures have flood myths because a lot of cultures developed near rivers, lakes or oceans, ie near bodies of water. Seems that human beings need water to survive and sometimes there is too much water and there is a flood. Amazing, that.  &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #411 on: August 30, 2013, 03:54:25 AM »
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Tell you what, godisacoder - why don't you help us out?  Show us how you disprove Ganesh, then we'll know what sort of thing you want from us to disprove the god YOU'VE picked.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #412 on: August 30, 2013, 05:47:28 AM »
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

  • The bible has quite a lot of things in that don't match what science has discovered. Let's just take the creation myths - read the texts carefully and they describe a flat earth with a solid dome over the top with heaven above the dome. Job 39 even refers to hatches in the dome through which god throws out rain and snow! This 3,000 year old book gets an awful lot wrong.
  • To disprove god, why not describe what the world would be like if god really existed and controlled things and then how the world would look if there was no god at all. I'd be interested in how you think such worlds would differ.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6197
  • Darwins +781/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #413 on: August 30, 2013, 03:21:45 PM »
The problem (one of the many, many problems) with arguments about god's existence is that all the rules that people normally use in their lives just go out the window.

I have a car to sell (actually true). It is a 1996 Dodge Neon (true). I will take your best offer (true). Now then, what do you have to know before you would even consider giving me a single dollar? Minimally?

Normal Car Buying Conditions:

a) The car does exist-- you will want to come to my house and see the car, or at least see a photo of it online.
b) The car runs okay-- you will want to do a test drive to prove this.
c) The car has no major problems-- you will want a mechanic inspect the car and tell you about any problems that I have not told you about.
d) The car belongs to me and I have the right to sell it-- you will want to see the title.
e) The price I want is fair for the age and condition of the car-- you will want to consult the blue book and consumer reports.

And maybe even more--do you like the color, has it been in any accidents, does it get good gas mileage, is it comfortable to sit in, does your spouse like it, can your college kid drive it across the state, is it a stick or automatic, can it pass emission, is there a dead body in the trunk.

Now treat the car the way many religious people generally treat god.

God conditions: I tell you a car exists. I am very persuasive about that. You believe that the car is real and send me $1500.  That's it.

You never see the car or test drive it. No mechanic can look at it. I can't answer any specific questions about make, model, year or even color. You have to trust that I have the right to sell it. I show you some papers hand written by a friend that say I own a car. 

You have to take all this on faith. If you got pictures or any other specifics before you sent the money, it would cheapen our interaction. I feel that it runs well in my heart. So will you. Of course, if you decide not to buy the car under the God Conditions, someone might come to your house someday and set it on fire.

Nobody would buy a car under these God Conditions. And even with this nebulous car sale, you at least know that cars in general do exist, you have seen them and driven them before. And if I take your money under false pretenses, and don't give you a car, you have the right to take me to court.

Not so with any gods. You pays your money, time, energy, etc. and you takes your chances.

If anyone wants to send me 1500 bucks for my car under the god conditions, I will also throw in a prayer candle and magic crystal-- free of charge. 8)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1732
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #414 on: August 30, 2013, 04:19:42 PM »
^^^A great analogy. DarkMatter2525 did a great video exploration of it...

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline BillyM67

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #415 on: September 04, 2013, 10:54:01 AM »
I believe there is no "creator" and that if there were, and it still existed, it would make sure that we all understood what it wants at all times, if that was its intention. I also believe that if it decided to create a book, though I don't understand why something so powerfull would create a book to get its message across, that book would be clearly written so that anyone who read it, no matter their level of intelligence, could understand exactly what was written. No current religious book meets that standard, therefore I believe that they are all just works of primitive men and are incorrect.

Offline 1makesitwrong

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #416 on: September 24, 2013, 10:11:36 PM »
This is my first post. I have been reading through a lot of the threads. One thing I have not seen from the theists is how god does it. Does he snap his fingers, blink his eyes and nod his head. When you say he wills it into existence how did he know what to will into existence. Why did he chose to make such a complicated system, why not make it simple. I guess I am having a hard time understanding the theists position because there not showing me processes used by their god. If I have missed that post, where they should the link or explained it. then by all means direct me to it
The bible was pronounced dead at the scene

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1732
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #417 on: September 24, 2013, 10:19:13 PM »
Welcome to the forum, 1makesitwrong.

Good luck getting the specifics you ask for. The excuses / apologetics I've seen so far on that subject amount to "mysterious ways beyond human understanding" or "magic" or similar.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1257
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #418 on: September 25, 2013, 01:45:39 AM »
There are thousands of gods, 1makesitwrong and for each and every one of them, there are loads of different views of what that particular god is and how he/she/it/penguin acts. Essentially making them different gods still. Christianity alone worships close to 40000 different more or less incompatible gods.[1]
And all of that is based on guesswork and/or deliberate fraud in turn based on more or less ancient text that are more or less complete and have been translated any number of times, with each translator either going "oh crap, there's no word in my language for that" or "Meh, I don't quite like it this way, I'll just twiddle this section a bit".
In short, they don't give us any specifics because they haven't got the foggiest themselves. And since every claim they pluck out of thin air is yet another thing that can (easily) be debunked by us pesky Atheists. It's better to make as few claims as possible. And that's when, as wright said, the mysterious ways come out.

A: So, how did this god of yours ...
T: Mysterious ways!
A: What?
T: God's ways are mysterious.
A: I didn't even finish the question!
T: Look there are ways and they are mysterious, ok?
A: But ...
T: These are not the ways you are looking for.
 1. Christianity, the ultimate polytheism
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline cynicalviking

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #419 on: December 18, 2013, 02:49:33 AM »
The way you pose God is not as an independent thinking being and more along the lines as a character and shouting at the author "your character can't do that, it lacks logical consistency!"

Tell me, if you were to document an event [or even events (gasp)] spanning hundreds possibly even thousands of years, over the development of thought and civilizations, how would you go about achieving perfect logical consistency? Consider that reporting of events by news networks is highly inaccurate, varying of course by the persons reporting. Reality as reported by the written word would appear to be relative. So there goes that problem.

I am relatively fresh to this group so forgive me if I am blunt.

You need some form of logic to say that you can mathematically or scientifically disprove that there is a God (which is not to say I am defending that position). Here, let me lend you a good one.

This is not mine, it's Epicurus' Trilemma,
"
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?"

Which leads directly through the door I have read multiple times here. Which comes down to a saying basically "If God is good (insert as you like:
Loves me
wants good things for me
is kind)
then why does this particular terrible thing happen?"

Or alternatively, "Why doesn't he do things the way I think he should"

Well, bluntly, because while I can't conclusively prove or disprove God, I'm relatively certain that you aren't him/her/penguin

How can I be so sure? Because no one can create something with greater powers than that person or being has. A human being cannot give birth to a person with superior genes than they have to work with. Barring adventitious mutations, but those aren't planned. The same applies to machines. Now sometimes as gestalt humans can do some pretty cool things, but not to a point that it disproves the previous point. So since you lack the power to solve whatever it is you are struggling with, no God that you create and who would act precisely as you wanted him to would have any more luck.

To admit that there is a higher power that can solve a problem that you can't is to almost say that there might very well be a God. It's almost as if (and I am shooting in the dark) you are very nervous about the hypothetical possibility that there is a God, and you have expended an abnormally large amount of energy trying to disprove something that you claim not to believe in.

If you were interested in general ridiculous things, any religion would do. In fact anything lacking solid evidence would do. Atlantis, the Bermuda triangle, and Bigfoot all are poorly sourced and have plenty of people who believe in them that you could have plenty of fun disproving. In fact why don't you disprove that I have a genie living in my shoe. He's an invisible genie, he only answers questions I ask him, and if someone else tells me to ask him something he won't answer, because he doesn't like being taunted. You know how he is. Well, you don't. You don't have a shoe genie.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #420 on: December 18, 2013, 03:35:49 AM »
Hi there Cynical Viking!

We have rolled out Epicurius a few times for theists but somehow they can't see it as apply to them!

So far as disproving god - why do we need to? Proving a negative is pretty much logically impossible anyway. What is possible is to show that, given the powers claimed by a theist, a god is so unlikely that for ordinary purposes we can ignore it. For example, if their god says he will answer prayers and then fails to do so for 2,000 years (apart from co-incidences) then, for practical purposes we can say that there is no point pursuing that god with worship.

As I say, we don't engage in proving the negative - the burden of proof is on the side claiming the god to exist. For the most part, we are atheists because we don't see any evidence that points to there being a god. I would gladly become a believer but for that to happen I would need some pretty good evidence and the point of religion is, apparently, to believe where the evidence level is zero.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline cynicalviking

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #421 on: December 18, 2013, 02:34:29 PM »
Hi there Cynical Viking!

We have rolled out Epicurius a few times for theists but somehow they can't see it as apply to them!

So far as disproving god - why do we need to? Proving a negative is pretty much logically impossible anyway. What is possible is to show that, given the powers claimed by a theist, a god is so unlikely that for ordinary purposes we can ignore it. For example, if their god says he will answer prayers and then fails to do so for 2,000 years (apart from co-incidences) then, for practical purposes we can say that there is no point pursuing that god with worship.

As I say, we don't engage in proving the negative - the burden of proof is on the side claiming the god to exist. For the most part, we are atheists because we don't see any evidence that points to there being a god. I would gladly become a believer but for that to happen I would need some pretty good evidence and the point of religion is, apparently, to believe where the evidence level is zero.
At what point is it decided that the burden of proof is on the believer to convert the non believer? I can see how some poor theologians could argue that point, but given the general results I cannot see how the future of one's own beliefs in anything are burdened upon anyone other than the one that believes those things. Society on the whole appears to have no vested interest unless those beliefs cause either a proven benefit (which most religion seems not to, statistically speaking) or a proven harm to that society. The reason polytheism is growing is more to do with apathy than acceptance. Perhaps they are the same thing, a thought to explore more another day.
Coming back to the main gist of what I was saying, I have read a number of arguments that seem to hinge on the idea that the belief in a God is damaging to the individual.

 In your own response you argue that God does not answer prayer as an absolute. Which is to say that his inaction and providing you hope that he doesn't follow through on would have a damaging effect on you. If you need it to be an absolute to rest your unbelief on, then go on believing it. As far as my personal stance it would be best that you believe in a way that provides you the best chance to live a happy and healthy life. It would be morally presumptuous for me to tell you what beliefs would achieve that result for you. However I seek the truth and so I must press on with reason and attempting to grasp for understanding.
To say personally that someone does not do something is to say you have evidence. You could not say that someone never utters a curse word unless you had personal dealings with such being, or accurate data with people who had conversed with said being. This is not to argue for the existence, it is to say that the data is at best pretty well clouded. I have met people who claim answered prayers. I have known them before and after their claimed interaction and from time to time their lives do get better.
Which really has come down to an analysis of what prayer is, or more accurately what it is not. It is not going to the grocery store and getting exactly what you want and coming home, a simple transaction. If you are stating that prayers to the effect of "I want this precise thing this precise way", I'll agree with you that I am yet to hear of such a prayer answered to the satisfaction of the asker. I do know of people who pray for help and help arrives. I have worked with the sick and have known from time to time for them to suddenly see a turn around after praying.
Take these things for what they are. A blind to any alternative or intellectual discussion theist would say that every time God answered their prayer. I cannot say for sure, as for one I am not them, and two I know that you could provide me an example of someone you know who something horrible happened, and they prayed and prayed and no help arrived. I can't tell you why these things happen, I lack the data, but the fact that such instances occur does not close the door in my mind to the existence of God or other supernatural activity. It might exist. You might be right as well, given that just because I find the piece of evidence that you give insufficient does not mean sufficient evidence does not exist.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #422 on: December 18, 2013, 03:08:01 PM »
Thanks for the replay, Cynicalviking.

I don't think I rest any non-belief on just prayer but the general lack of anything pointing towards the existence of a god and, more importantly, how the stories which are intended to convince one in religious texts are very much legendary type texts so that Thor of Zeus might just as well substitute for any other god. Of course, who is to know that Zeus might be the true and only god and all the rest human ideas...

Now as to the lack of response to prayer, it has to be said that prayers over the ages for the relief of terrible things, like black death for example, have been very notable.Yet I think we need to look at the whole topic a little more deeply. Prayer is either a person talking to the deity (whichever one chooses I suppose) on the basis that this deity actually exists and thus can be talked to, or it is an exercise in meditation in which the subconscious brain can work its way to help solve problems. Now if people claim to have had prayers answered then we have to consider which was the likely thing that happened. For example, prayer as meditation could, over a period, lead to an improvement in a person's health or the reduction of disease as this has been shown to affect the immune system. On the other hand, praying for a person in hospital is not even vaguely likely to be the result of meditation. In those circumstances there is something to examine.

However, the fact remains that Jesus told his disciples to ask for what they wanted and that god would grant it to them. Even though I can see god would not want to grant someone million of pounds in the bank, I can't see how god could not grant a prayer that asked for everyone in the world who had cancer to be healed but you and I know that it wouldn't happen. Now there's no getting around the promise Jesus made by excusing god on the basis of anything. A selfless prayer, on the basis of the one I mention, ought to be granted. If this never, and as far as I know it never has, what does it say about the god who was supposed to be listening? This is no shopping list but as request to god to honour the promise Jesus made for the good of cancer sufferers, yet nothing happens. You tell me what conclusion you can draw from that.

Incidentally, I do not believe in any god. Anyone who says they do and who comes on a forum like this one has the burden of proof because they are proposing something and the atheists here are not.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6107
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #423 on: December 18, 2013, 07:22:04 PM »
cynicalviking (added: Forgot. Welcome to the forum!)

What are your standards for plausibility? You and I draw the line in different places, and I'm interested in where yours is at.

Leprechans? Loch Ness monster? Bigfoot?

And how about the many gods claimed by hundreds of different cultures? Is it okay to dismiss any of them outright, or should I play a safe hand and accept that each and every one is possible.  Am I supposed to keep an open mind about these things too? And not just Zeus and Odin and Lord Vishnu, but Alusi and Anaisa Pye and Triglav too. Plus all the rest. What do you suggest?

I'm trying to figure out if we actually differ in our points of view. I am open minded in the sense that if anything I don't think exists is proven to be real, I'll just adjust my POV accordingly. But if I am supposed to accept everything as possible, on autopilot, and ignore my various standards, I've no idea how I'll make a decision about anything. Not if I have to take into consideration the possibility of everything, with or without evidence.

Knowing how we differ on this issue will help me adjust, as needed.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1843
  • Darwins +317/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #424 on: December 18, 2013, 07:28:59 PM »
The reason polytheism is growing is more to do with apathy than acceptance. Perhaps they are the same thing, a thought to explore more another day.
I know it's not the point of your post (or this thread), but I just had a 'wha...?' moment.

I didn't realize polytheism was growing.  Are there figures to back this up, or is this a typo?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #425 on: December 19, 2013, 03:36:35 AM »
I can't tell you why these things happen, I lack the data, but the fact that such instances occur does not close the door in my mind to the existence of God or other supernatural activity. It might exist. You might be right as well, given that just because I find the piece of evidence that you give insufficient does not mean sufficient evidence does not exist.

Hiya CV, and welcome to the forum!

I'll just pick up on this little bit.  My imaginary friend John, believes that he has a pair of Magic Socks, and when he asks them for help, good things happen to him.

Would you regard his Socks as exactly equivalent in evidential support as "God" (which I note you capitalise)?  Would you hold for them the same "maybe its true, who can say" position?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #426 on: December 19, 2013, 03:18:16 PM »
Or alternatively, "Why doesn't he do things the way I think he should"

Interesting.  You are well informed enough to know the Epicurean Trilemma and even the name of it.  Yet, you paraphrase it that way, which indicates a profound misunderstanding of it. 

 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ilovemygod

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #427 on: December 20, 2013, 06:47:57 PM »
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #428 on: December 21, 2013, 06:54:24 AM »
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #429 on: December 23, 2013, 12:21:52 PM »
wheels, I would opine that ilovemygod has simply posted in the wrong area.  New memeber, seems to be answering the main site...

ilovemygod, you would be well-advised to familiarize yourself with the site's structure (and rules!) if you are to have an enjoyable and lengthy stay here--which we all hope you do, I'm sure.

Welcome to our happy home!
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline atheists are scum

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Darwins +0/-4
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #430 on: December 23, 2013, 07:56:29 PM »
I'm going to assume some things in your grammatical syntax. Like punctuation. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no. god. you disprove him. the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Sure, we can't disprove your god. But, please tell me how anyone could disprove ANYTHING that doesn't exist. You can start with anything you like, be it leprechauns, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or whatever. Prove something imaginary doesn't exist. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Looks like then you are wasting your time on this forum since you claim to know God does not exist.  Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.

Offline atheists are scum

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Darwins +0/-4
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #431 on: December 23, 2013, 08:01:06 PM »
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism. 

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10533
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #432 on: December 23, 2013, 08:07:58 PM »
<snip>

I wanted to post this in a smite, but the character limit won't let me. Here's the message:
Such anger... Young Skywalker. Who are you really angry with? Us? Or that face in the mirror?
Supernatural fans will get it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1143
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #433 on: December 23, 2013, 08:08:20 PM »
Looks like then you are wasting your time on this forum since you claim to know God does not exist.  Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.

Are you too stupid to understand Love thy neighbour? See you in Hell.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #434 on: December 23, 2013, 08:21:35 PM »
This guy is just some troll. I doubt he is serious. But, on the off set chance he is serious,
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism. 

So, what do you have to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your god is real. Like, you know, nothing from the bible, no testimonial about how god healed your grandmother from cancer, etc.

So, whatcha got, atheists are scum? Anything worthy of discussion? Prove everyone wrong that you have something serious to say here. If not how can anyone take you so seriously with such a user name you have chosen.

Are you here for serious discussion? Just to bash atheists? Anything userful like trying to prove that your god is the one True GodTM.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.