Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[trickx]

Would it be arrogant of me to say that every theist that has posted on this thread has been pretty much destroyed?

 

[moll.]

Arrogance and reality aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[trickx]

Arrogance and reality aren't mutually exclusive.

Good point.

 

[hscsuccess.]

Guys I don't want to be eaten in this thread. I am agnostic leaning towards Atheism but there are a few issues I do not get. If you guys can help me that would be great

1. Issue about intelligent design - When I was studying statistics, my lecturer was talking about probability... If a you flip a coin 100 times and it turns out that the coin turns up head 75% of the time, it is most likely that the coin is rigged. I think the argument of intelligent design is the precise measurement of the universe in order for its survival, wouldn't this mean that the probability of the universe happening by chance be pretty low.

(That's all I can think about right now, I'll post more questions when I can think of some)

 

[Scorch]

1. Issue about intelligent design - When I was studying statistics, my lecturer was talking about probability... If a you flip a coin 100 times and it turns out that the coin turns up head 75% of the time, it is most likely that the coin is rigged. I think the argument of intelligent design is the precise measurement of the universe in order for its survival, wouldn't this mean that the probability of the universe happening by chance be pretty low.

Well improbable things happen all the time in the world, and it's an entirely natural thing. If you can explain something and how it happened in an entirely natural way, then showing that it was a rather improbable event doesn't really demonstrate anything apart from the fact that an improbable event happened in the universe, and improbably events happen all the time. There's no scientific or logically viable course that leads from "unlikely event x happened in an entirely explicable and natural way therefore God must have done it because it was improbable."

But your approach seems to be one that is genuinely inquisitive, and that's something I have respect for.

 

[hscsuccess.]

Well improbable things happen all the time in the world, and it's an entirely natural thing. If you can explain something and how it happened in an entirely natural way, then showing that it was a rather improbable event doesn't really demonstrate anything apart from the fact that an improbable event happened in the universe, and improbably events happen all the time. There's no scientific or logically viable course that leads from "unlikely event x happened in an entirely explicable and natural way therefore God must have done it because it was improbable."

But your approach seems to be one that is genuinely inquisitive, and that's something I have respect for.

Yeah see that is what I do not get, what I am saying is that you have to consider the probability of it happening by chance vs. the probability that it did not occur by chance and because the two options are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, if it is improbable that it did occur by chance then it must be probable that it did not occur by chance.

EDIT: Using science we are able to predict when a natural event is more probable to occur by examining the causes of the natural events.

 

[Scorch]

Yeah see that is what I do not get, what I am saying is that you have to consider the probability of it happening by chance vs. the probability that it did not occur by chance and because the two options are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, if it is improbable that it did occur by chance then it must be probable that it did not occur by chance.

Not at all. See this is semantic nonsense that Christianity, in particular, has injected into the factor. The options are not 'chance vs. not by chance' because that's a completely and utterly unscientific way to look at it. The options are naturally vs. divine intervention and nothing more. We can fully explain how many of the things that religion claims to be divine in totally natural terms, and the fact that they are improbable has no external significance, since they clearly happened naturally.

Like I said, it's unlikely that if I close my eyes and throw a dart, I'll hit a bullseye. However if I do so, it is just an unlikely event that happened. Just because there was a rather low probability that it would happen doesn't provide any evidence for any claim of divine intervention, it just means that something happened that was unlikely, and these things happen all the time.

So in terms of theistic arguments, the argument from probability is one of the most poorly constructed ones that a person can give.

I hope that clears some thing up, but feel free to ask if there's anything else I can explain better.

 

[hscsuccess.]

Not at all. See this is semantic nonsense that Christianity, in particular, has injected into the factor. The options are not 'chance vs. not by chance' because that's a completely and utterly unscientific way to look at it. The options are naturally vs. divine intervention and nothing more. We can fully explain how many of the things that religion claims to be divine in totally natural terms, and the fact that they are improbable has no external significance, since they clearly happened naturally.

Actually from my understanding of science, it is more scientific because you are able to measure chance quantitatively through probability and thus you are able to 'test' a given null hypothesis.

Like I said, it's unlikely that if I close my eyes and throw a dart, I'll hit a bullseye. However if I do so, it is just an unlikely event that happened. Just because there was a rather low probability that it would happen doesn't provide any evidence for any claim of divine intervention, it just means that something happened that was unlikely, and these things happen all the time.

So in terms of theistic arguments, the argument from probability is one of the most poorly constructed ones that a person can give.

I hope that clears some thing up, but feel free to ask if there's anything else I can explain better.

Yes, but we are talking about science here. Probability over possibility. Like my lecturer said - if heads does go over 75%, you should assume that the coin is rigged.

Btw thanks, science all the way. Anyways I better be getting back to my assignment due tomorrow but yeah if I do have questions I'll be sure to post it here.

 

[mirakon]

Actually from my understanding of science, it is more scientific because you are able to measure chance quantitatively through probability and thus you are able to 'test' a given null hypothesis.



Yes, but we are talking about science here. Probability over possibility. Like my lecturer said - if heads does go over 75%, you should assume that the coin is rigged.

Btw thanks, science all the way. Anyways I better be getting back to my assignment due tomorrow but yeah if I do have questions I'll be sure to post it here.

So you are trying to apply Okham's Razor, despite the fact that it has been shown numerous times, to be flawed, particularly in situations involving the existence/non-existence of God?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

i blieve in god alllrite?!
so fuk da evidence.

 

[hscsuccess.]

Dude wtf are you on about Okham's Razor is an argument against God as it suggest that the simplist answer is the best. Wouldn't having no God be simplier? I am applying things which I have learnt in stats and science not Okham's Razor.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

 

[Scorch]

Actually from my understanding of science, it is more scientific because you are able to measure chance quantitatively through probability and thus you are able to 'test' a given null hypothesis.

No, it's not. All the light that probability sheds onto any naturally explicable phenomenon is that it was improbable; that's all. It's not an issue of "happened by chance vs. didn't happen by chance", because those terms are so absurd, but rather the chances if someone would happen vs. wouldn't happen and since it clearly did happen (life exists, the universe exists, etc) then the only thing that probability is able to add to the debate is that it was improbable. This is really just an amusing fact, since it clearly did exist, and in no way makes the existence of God any more likely.

Yes, but we are talking about science here. Probability over possibility. Like my lecturer said - if heads does go over 75%, you should assume that the coin is rigged.

That really doesn't have much to do with anything. There may be million to one odds that a person wins the lottery, but should we assume that everyone that wins it has rigged the lottery? No. It's simply an improbable event taking place; it has to happen, that's the nature of the universe and randomness.

 

[Graney]

1. Issue about intelligent design - When I was studying statistics, my lecturer was talking about probability... If a you flip a coin 100 times and it turns out that the coin turns up head 75% of the time, it is most likely that the coin is rigged. I think the argument of intelligent design is the precise measurement of the universe in order for its survival, wouldn't this mean that the probability of the universe happening by chance be pretty low.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[travelinchick07]

I can't say for certain that he does or doesn't exist. If some rock hard evidence came out for a side, then it'd be easier.

If there is a god - who created him?
If there isn't - who created the world?

There are some things that we'll never know.

 

[Billy420]

i dont know nor care if god exist beacause honestly, it doesnt matter. think deep. you will understand...

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I can't say for certain that he does or doesn't exist. If some rock hard evidence came out for a side, then it'd be easier.

If there is a god - who created him?
If there isn't - who created the world?

There are some things that we'll never know.

who said it was a "he"

lol society used to be dominated by males, so it must be so convenient that god is a dude too.

 

[Titburger]

who said it was a "he"

lol society used to be dominated by males, so it must be so convenient that god is a dude too.

They believe that the term "it" isn't personal enough so "he" has been adapted although the concept of God is void of gender. Same goes with the whole "father" metaphor.

 

[mirakon]

Dude wtf are you on about Okham's Razor is an argument against God as it suggest that the simplist answer is the best. Wouldn't having no God be simplier? I am applying things which I have learnt in stats and science not Okham's Razor.

Okham's razor is not about simplicity only, it's about probability as well, which is precisely what you are talking about. Probability is not proof. Just because you may argue something is more probable it doesn't mean it's fact. It's like saying that if you were to take out a coin out of a bag with 15 red coins and 5 blue, that it would always be red.

 

[moll.]

who said it was a "he"

lol society used to be dominated by males, so it must be so convenient that god is a dude too.

Cos all the best people in the world have wangs (including Baronness Thatcher), so therefore the best person in the world must also have one. Duh.
Besides, Jesus was a dude, and although the Trinity crap confuses me, I believe that the common belief is that Jesus was indeed some part God. And hence God must have a wang.