Do Americans really believe in God, or do they just say they do?

[Bricker]

@Voyager

I just did a quick calculation. The odds of this happening are around 1 / 10**544.
Now, assuming that you can roll the die once a second, you would not expect to see this particular result if you started rolling at the time of the Big Bang. It would still be vanishingly unlikely if we waited until the proton death of the universe.

Since the location of our atoms are probabilistic, it is also “scientifically possible” under Bricker’s usage that we suddenly jump five feet to the right. I’m not sure if this is more or less expected than the die result.
Bricker is contending that something “scientifically” impossible is more possible than something simply impossible - a curious contention to be sure.

It’s not curious at all. Something simply impossible has a wide range of meaning. (Similar to Vizzini’s “inconceivable!”) In this case, you concede that the expected result could conceivably happen, but is highly unlikely to happen before the universe suffers heat death. That makes it fair to call impossible, but since it violates no laws other than probability, I don’t agree it’s scientifically impossible.

Question: is it “mathematically impossible?”

If it is not, then I’d say the curious contention is yours.

[Robert163]

@Bricker

I agree. This is why I don’t have any concern over the use of the phrase “fiscally impossible.”

No, they most likely realize that given our understanding of the universe’s physical laws, telekinesis is scientifically impossible, but they also realize that some heretofore unknown technology could make it appear as though telekinesis was being used. Moving an object solely by thought violates the inverse-square law relating to the propagation strength of electrical signals from the brain. We could imagine some technology which detects thought and then uses independent motive power to move objects, but it’s up to you whether that counts as “telekinesis.” I suspect, if someone were to say that telekinesis were scientifically impossible, they would be rejecting the assisted-technology definition, and if so, they’d be correct.

That’s true but irrelevant, since I don’t object to generically “declarative” statements. I object to your use of “scientifically impossible.” I have been very clear on this point for quite a few posts, and it’s interesting how often you seek to reframe the discussion to include broader, or different objections.

Why is that relevant, when the discussion in question arose here?

Why is that relevant, when the discussion in question arose here?

Here is what is relevant, posts 285 and 290

Robert163

6- Focusing on semantics, as opposed to content, real content, suggests to me that you are not able to come up with any better, more valid or insightful criticism.

Bricker
I don’t have any other criticism to offer. I don’t contest your basic idea.

So you don’t have any - real - objection to make. You are making a argument, that by definition, a matter of semantics. Since you have no - real - objection, by your own admission even, I have nothing else to say on the topic.

[wonky]

It’s scientifically impossible for this thread to get any more tedious and ridiculous.

[Robert163]

@jsgoddess

It’s scientifically impossible for this thread to get any more tedious and ridiculous.

n/m

[Asimovian]

I have not yet had the tremendous pleasure of wading through all of the posts in this thread. However, I have read the OP, and I’ve also read quite a few of the posts starting at #200 onward. And it’s difficult to see what, if anything, quite a few of the last 100+ posts have to do with the OP. I have seen at least one post within that even states it is a sidetrack from the main discussion.

If you’re not in here to discuss the answer to the OP’s question, take it elsewhere. Specifically, I’m instructing that there be no more discussion of semantics related to “scientific impossibility” by anyone in this thread, but I am reserving potential moderation of other hijacks as necessary.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

In hopes of getting this train back on the tracks:

Seems to me that all y’all who are arguing over talking donkeys and the sun standing still have forgotten the poll question that started all this: Do you believe in God?

That’s not a question about whether or not the respondent is a Christian or Jew or Muslim; it’s asking if the respondent believes in God. And God is a mighty polysemous word. Belief in “God” can cover anything from the most amorphous deism to fundamentalist Pentecostalism to radical Wahabiism. (And that’s just limiting the word to the Abrahamic deity.) I see no reason to doubt that 86% of Americans do in fact believe in “God”. I also don’t doubt that each one of those 86% means something different by the word.

[TonySinclair]

@Voyager

I just did a quick calculation. The odds of this happening are around 1 / 10**544.

No, you’re off by over 500 orders of magnitude. It’s about 1 in 2.58*10^1089, i.e. 1 in 36^700. Which is such a large number that we really can’t conceive it, even if you use the age of the universe in seconds as units.

Rather than further sidetrack this thread, I’ll refer anyone interested to this excellent article about how unbelievably big even a much smaller number is.

[aceplace57]

@SpoilerVirgin

In a recent political thread, the opinion was expressed that there are very few true theists – most are just lying to please others.

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 86% of Americans said that they believe in God. I’m curious to see how many people believe them, and how those opinions differ among atheists, theists and agnostics.

I personally believe in God, and have no reason to think that the rest of th 86% are lying about it.

Same for me. I believe in God and I think most of the 86% do too. Some perhaps more strongly than others, but a general belief that God exists (in some form) is there.