16 Apr 07
Just because people believe it's true doesn't make it true. Sure, its going to spark your interests, but it isn't evidence/proof that it is true. For instance, a lot of people believed the sun revolved around the earth back in the day. Well, that was wrong.
"...fine tuning the universe so as to allow life to exist as well as the very existence of life itself" I would not call this evidence in support of God. This statement also supports evolution.
I'm not familiar with abiogenesis or whatever. Anyways, it isn't necessary to have all the answers now. Science is about seeking the truth. I presume abiogenesis isn't a law or theory if there hasn't been any evidence in support of it. So I don't think anybody 100% believes it is truth. Religion, on the other hand, is absolute. There is no seeking for answers, it is simply believed to be true without any evidence.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerI have explained this to you before but it seems you didn't understand it. You don't have to know everything in order to be sure of something. For example most people are sure the sun exists even thought they do not have proof that it does. I am sure that God does not exist even though I do not know everything.
No true atheist ever would ... deny knowing everything.
A weak atheist would, but not a true atheist.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think i've explained this to you before too.
I have explained this to you before but it seems you didn't understand it. You don't have to know everything in order to be sure of something. For example most people are sure the sun exists even thought they do not have proof that it does. I am sure that God does not exist even though I do not know everything.
You're sure .. but you don't know FOR sure.
You, and many others here, have a problem saying "I don't know.", I guess it's just too painful to admit.
So you dance around it with semantics. You don't "know", yet somehow you're "sure" God does not exist.
It can never be .. "It's a 1% chance that God might exist.", it has to be "I'm sure God doesn't exist." The door must be completely closed.
That requires faith IMO .. faith that your own mind knows everything.
Is this really the new scientific method?... " You don't have to know everything in order to be sure of something."
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerSo are you saying that you do not know for sure that the sun exists?
I think i've explained this to you before too.
You're sure .. but you don't know FOR sure.
You, and many others here, have a problem saying "I don't know.", I guess it's just too painful to admit.
So you dance around it with semantics. You don't "know", yet somehow you're "sure" God does not exist.
It can never be .. "It's a 1% chance that God might e ...[text shortened]... .. " You don't have to know everything in order to be sure of something."
I do "know" that God does not exist. That is what being sure means. It does not mean that I know everything. I never said that it was the scientific method either.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by rwingettI agree with your logical stance. I have doubts too. I believe God exists, but being limited in first hand knowledge, I have my doubts.
My point is that the only logical stance would be to doubt the existence of god. You seem to be granting an unknowable proposition a 50% likelihood of being true. Because it is either true or not true does not mean the chances are 50%. It does not follow that god is just as likely to exist as to not. While we are unable to quantify god's likelihood of being true, we can logically assume it to be unlikely.
50/50 sounds about right to me .. either He exists or He doesn't .. simple, 50/50
I'm a gambler by trade, mostly poker. I've lived this way for over 35 yrs., I live by chance, intuition, people reading .. and luck. Lots of educated guesses. People ask my advice all the time on odds in certain situations. I have two answers for that .. 1. Simple, it's 50/50 .. either you win or you lose., or 2. It depends ..
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's probably the sun alright, but it might be God with a flashlight for all I know.
So are you saying that you do not know for sure that the sun exists?
I do "know" that God does not exist. That is what being sure means. It does not mean that I know everything. I never said that it was the scientific method either.
"Know?", "sure?" and "certain?", pretty close to the same thing IMO, maybe an escape hole for you in there somewhere, because if you're "sure", if you "know", or if you're "certain" than what you assert is a universal negative. To claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.
Just a tad arrogant.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerAs I have said, I have explained this before and you seem to have missed it. The definition of God requires him to be within the limits of my knowledge and not outside them. If you have chosen to define God as a little green man on Pluto then say so because that is a non-standard definition not catered for in the definition of an atheist.
To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.
Just a tad arrogant.
Also, I can be certain of something without having direct knowledge of it.
16 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Zander 88You are correct in that just because people believe something does not make it true as you point out. However, it is an indication that it may be true and thus evidence nontheless. You must ask yourself why people believe certain things and then weigh the evidences as to why they believe what they believe.
Just because people believe it's true doesn't make it true. Sure, its going to spark your interests, but it isn't evidence/proof that it is true. For instance, a lot of people believed the sun revolved around the earth back in the day. Well, that was wrong.
"...fine tuning the universe so as to allow life to exist as well as the very existence of life i here is no seeking for answers, it is simply believed to be true without any evidence.
Your second statement sounds jumbled. First you say that fine tuning the universe and the very existence of life is not evidence for God and then say it ALSO is evidence for evolution. First of all evolution deals with life that already exists and does not concern itself with out origins. Secondly by your own admission fine tuning the universe is ALSO evidence for the creationists. You simply do not weigh such evidence as heavily as I do in favor of a Creator.
I think you should familiarize yourself with abiogenesis or whatever. Especially if you are going to attempt to defend certain belief systems such as yours. You say that science is all about uncovering the truth as if this were exclusive to science and not religion or any other discipline. Also if you think that people of religion have ALL the truth you are fooling yourself or they are fooling you. The pursuit of truth is a process just as it is in the laboratory. In fact, Christ said that we should seek the truth rather than just saying accept. Where does the seeking part fall if we are merely to accept such truths?
Science is merely about the business of proving things via the scientific method. Is science the only way to go about uncovering truth in the universe? If so, you may want to tell this to your philosophy instructor. Granted, his response may reflect itself on your grade so be wary in doing so.
16 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyNo it's not. If everyone believed that the Earth was flat that wouldn't be evidence that it is. Appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy for a reason.
You are correct in that just because people believe something does not make it true as you point out. However, it is an indication that it may be true and thus evidence nontheless.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerThis is false. Because there are two possible outcomes, it does not follow that each is equally likely. If you buy a lottery ticket, for example, the two possible outcomes are that you will either win or you will lose, but the odds are not 50/50. As a gambler, this should seem obvious.
I agree with your logical stance. I have doubts too. I believe God exists, but being limited in first hand knowledge, I have my doubts.
50/50 sounds about right to me .. either He exists or He doesn't .. simple, 50/50
I'm a gambler by trade, mostly poker. I've lived this way for over 35 yrs., I live by chance, intuition, people reading .. and luck. Lots ...[text shortened]... nswers for that .. 1. Simple, it's 50/50 .. either you win or you lose., or 2. It depends ..
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyI don't believe it is literally true. But I think it is the most likely explanation.
I think there is a difference in saying there is no proof for something than saying that there is no evidence for something. For example, if everyone around me or a large percentage of people around me believed that gooses layed golden eggs it would be evidence that the possibility exists. I might even look into the matter just to chase any doubts they had ...[text shortened]... g you don't know, and cannot know, then how can you justify believing it to be literally true?
16 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWe had a whole thread on this previously. Basically if absolutely no information is available about the two possible outcomes then the odds are 50/50. As soon as some information becomes available then the odds change significantly, for example if one possible out come is that a random entity exists and the other outcome is that it doesn't then we can immediately downgrade the odds that it exists to infinitesimally small as there is an infinite number of possible non-existent entities and only a finite number of existing entities. As more information is added the odds will change. In the case of God, it is really quite meaningless to talk about odds as the information available does not lend itself well to the calculation of odds whilst simultaneously the information available to each individual on the subject is different - meaning that the odds from my perspective is different than the odds from your perspective and both would be based on assumptions that are effectively arbitrary.
This is false. Because there are two possible outcomes, it does not follow that each is equally likely. If you buy a lottery ticket, for example, the two possible outcomes are that you will either win or you will lose, but the odds are not 50/50. As a gambler, this should seem obvious.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is absolutely and utterly false. If absolutely no information is available about the two possible outcomes then the odds are absolutely unknowable. You cannot randomly assign a 50/50 probability. Perhaps you should re-read the previous thread in question since its finer points have obviously escaped you.
We had a whole thread on this previously. Basically if absolutely no information is available about the two possible outcomes then the odds are 50/50. As soon as some information becomes available then the odds change significantly, for example if one possible out come is that a random entity exists and the other outcome is that it doesn't then we can imm ...[text shortened]... ds from your perspective and both would be based on assumptions that are effectively arbitrary.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerThis sounds amazing. You're a gambler by trade, presumably a reasonably successful one to earn a living through it. As such, you must understand probability and chance. If this were a horse race, would you really say that every horse has a fifty/fifty chance of winning? After all, each horse either will win or won't win.
50/50 sounds about right to me .. either He exists or He doesn't .. simple, 50/50
I'm a gambler by trade, mostly poker. I've lived this way for over 35 yrs., I live by chance, intuition, people reading .. and luck. Lots of educated guesses. People ask my advice all the time on odds in certain situations. I have two answers for that .. 1. Simple, it's 50/50 .. either you win or you lose., or 2. It depends ..
It's not Your God or No God, it's Your God or My God or His God or Her God or somebody elses God or No God. It could be the God who sends to hell all those who believe in the Roman Catholic God and spares those who drink Guiness on a Saturday afternoon.
--- Penguin.