21 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeOdds? Come back down to earth, man. As I said, probability has precious little to do with what "is". It doesn't matter if the "odds" are a billion billion to one. All you need to defy those odds is that "one". That we are living in that "one" demonstrates that your odds are meaningless.
Occam's Razor is formally proven by Bayes Theorem.
It means that simpler explanations are more probable a priori, and thus have a higher
burden of proof, or in other words require much more/stronger evidence.
There is no evidence what so ever for gods [of any kind] which you admit.
The evidence we do have is very probable in the case of a natu ...[text shortened]... is demonstrated beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the universe was not created by a god.
(And no, you haven't "demonstrated beyond any and all reasonable doubt" that God doesn't exist, or even that the universe was not created by God.)
You just want an anxiety-free way to justify your bias. To keep the "boogieman" away. Well, good luck with that.
21 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBeyond reasonable doubt certainly. Beyond any doubt? Dunno about that.
OK. Would you at least answer this question so I know what you disagree with:
Do you think it is beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the universe was not created by a flower fairy?
Originally posted by C HessSo you think you have an handle on reality and God isn't necessary? Seems like a very
It's not because he doesn't fit my "worldview", I'd happily change my mind about god's existence, it's that he seems so unlikely to exist, and unnecessary for understanding nature.
self contained point of view, accept what agrees with your current point of view and shine
on anything that does not fit.
We get into questions like the one this OP has and some people hate the question and/or
call it unnecessary. People claim to see the universe as is *very wise in their own eyes*,
there are processes going on around us, some people think they have a real handle on
these processes, but don't talk to much if at all about how they got started, instead they
want to turn the conversation around to the processes, those are easier.
You think you can understand nature and everything around, the trouble you have is when
you look at them you see them as you want them to be, if something is there that cannot
be explained like where did all of this come from, this is a spot where God could be very
necessary.
I share the same issue I also like how the universe seems to work like an old wind up
clock, all parts fit just in the right way to maintain life. I don't think you can really tackle
how life started without God, but typically that question is blown off to run back to the on
going processes around life.
Originally posted by C HessThe trouble with this isn't that God is undetectable, it is that He reveals Himself to those
They believe they have god in their lives. There's a difference between actually having an undetectable presence in your life, and simply believing that you do. I understand that it's to belittle your beliefs to say this, and I don't wish to offend, I truly don't, but I think it's important to understand that difference.
Or, if he truly exists and is a par ...[text shortened]... I prefer reality.
Sorry for being somewhat rude. Just ignore me if I'm too much of a bummer.
that seek Him with their whole hearts. Those that reject Him will not receive the gift of
faith, it is like people are walking in two directions some towards the Light of the world
and behold Him, and those with their backs to Him walking away never seeing Him,
because are not moving toward Him.
You claim to see reality yet you are missing the One who gave us reality.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by C Hess"Sorry for being somewhat rude. Just ignore me if I'm too much of a bummer."
They believe they have god in their lives. There's a difference between actually having an undetectable presence in your life, and simply believing that you do. I understand that it's to belittle your beliefs to say this, and I don't wish to offend, I truly don't, but I think it's important to understand that difference.
Or, if he truly exists and is a par ...[text shortened]... I prefer reality.
Sorry for being somewhat rude. Just ignore me if I'm too much of a bummer.
Expressing your opinion isn't being rude, personal attacks are and I really cannot recall
you ever doing that. I think you disagree as well as anyone I've read here without turning it
into a smear campaign.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by moonbusThat doesn't stop us from putting out there what we think occurred, which when you look
We no more understand how something can come from something, than we understand how something can come from nothing. We observe causes and we observe effects--that is to say, two separate events--but the actual the how of causality we never observe.
at all of our views it is no different with anything else. Where we excel is where we can see
the beginning and end of a process, where we are walking in faith is when we can look at
what is here now and project what we think occurred, because we have never really
observed them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOk. I will sit down over the weekend and go through the whole thing formally.
I think you claim too much here.
Bayes theorem is a mathematically proven deductive argument.
The premises are inductive statements of probability.
If you/we can agree that the premises I use are sound, and beyond reasonable dispute,
then the conclusion, whatever that is, MUST also be sound and beyond reasonable dispute.
21 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIs this the math that proves we can get everything from nothing, doing nothing, to nothing?
Ok. I will sit down over the weekend and go through the whole thing formally.
Bayes theorem is a mathematically proven deductive argument.
The premises are inductive statements of probability.
If you/we can agree that the premises I use are sound, and beyond reasonable dispute,
then the conclusion, whatever that is, MUST also be sound and beyond reasonable dispute.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayProjecting imaginary causes where you want to see them doesn't make it so.
That doesn't stop us from putting out there what we think occurred, which when you look
at all of our views it is no different with anything else. Where we excel is where we can see
the beginning and end of a process, where we are walking in faith is when we can look at
what is here now and project what we think occurred, because we have never really
observed them.