We’re getting somewhere!
We’ve got the answer. Now just like your freshman alegbra techer required, show us your work. Show us how you got to .0000000000000000000000000001%.
We’re still in perfect agreement, you and me.
My interest lies in the process that broght us from the fog of agnosticism to the clarity of atheism. So please clarify for the cretins the scientific process that yields "the likely answer. "
Oh gosh, you called me on it. Oopsie. Embarassing as it is to admit, I pulled that number out of my ass. Shocking, I know.
There are a number of situations in which we can’t ascribe completely accurate numerical scores to but which there is a very real difference. For instance, I know that I like ice cream more than I like candy, but I couldn’t tell you precisely how much.
In much this same way, we can treat the absolute probabilities of the observed universe. My argument is that there are an infinite number of beliefs which can be hold without or in contradiiction to known evidence, each of them on an equal playing ground, logically–thus, the likelihood that an unsupported belief is correct is one in infinity.
The number of beliefs which can be hold but are not contradicted by evidence or logical coherency is finite. Thus, no matter the size of this finite number, the chances that it is correct are higher than one in infinity.
Although I don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, I don’t deny that a god of some sort may exist. I do not know everything, so although I don’t see any evidence of any gods existing, I also don’t see evidence that gods cannot exist.
This, of course, leaves me swimming in the lake of fire if the Christian God exists, but I think that the odds of a god matching that description is about as close to 0% as it can go.
Bingo.
However, I don’t see it as “blind” faith. It isn’t a foregone conclusion that the atheist (any more than the theist) has come to his atheism by caprice.
And while the “faith” part is already an established part of the lexicon of those who have chosen to believe (and therefore should be avoided so as to not confuse or incite) atheism does in fact have more in common with faith than science.
I prefer to simply say, “I choose to believe no God exists.”
You had me until, “the odds of a god matching that description is about as close to 0%.”
Is there a scientific basis to support, that, or is it creative license in describing what you believe?
It’s OK ForumBot. It really is.
The crime would be calling it a Tootsie Roll.
If it’s a belief (because the best efforts it can’t find a home in science), call it a belief. We’re OK with that. Really.
It’s pretty clear you have no command of this discipline. I suspect you’re either confusing or frustrating Indistinguishable, who does appear to have command of the process in which one might scientifically establish the probability of God’s existence.
I’ve already noted that I don’t believe your atheism is born of caprice. Don’t dress up in science what is essentially a simple belief.
IOW, if it’s a turd, call it a turd; not a tootsie roll.
Nope, no scientific basis at all… just common sense.
I think that as the species developed and our brains grew, we went beyond “where?” “when?” “who?” “what?” “how?” and floated into the dangerous waters of “…why?”
As all of our energy was consumed by the trivialities of survival, we could only come up with rudimentary answers. With only ourselves for comparison, the only answers we could come up with were things we could relate to. “When I’m angry, I throw things; surely lightning is being thrown by something far larger than I; this thing is like me, but much larger in every way.” It’s not a horribly logical thought process because there was no mental power to spare refining it - too busy running to mate or eat, and from danger.
The brain decided, “Eh, good enough for me!” and slowly wired in the ability to believe in a thing not only not YET seen, but NEVER seen. We could believe in the prey we had not yet sighted - now we could ALSO believe in the being never seen at all. It was necessary so that them growin’ brains could keep up the low-level “why?” without short-circuiting on The Big Question: “Why are we here?”
As we’ve gotten smart enough to manipulate our environment to suit us, rather than vice-versa, we’ve had to concentrate less on survival and our brains have been given a little bit of breathing room. Over the last 4000+ years or so, there have been people who finally have the sheer luxury of thinking about whatever they want to think about. They’ve been able think think about HOW they think, which is how we got the scientific method as opposed to philosophy as opposed to theology as opposed to sheer flights of fancy.
I think as we’ve gotten them bigger brains, “Because” has become an inadequate answer, which is why around 2000 years ago there were several messianic stories. I think we got smart enough to require something like proof. Second-, third-, and fourth-hand stories were enough; at least SOMEONE had seen all of this happen, right?
Our brains keep growing and we keep getting better at thinking … but they’re still wired to believe in the never-seen because they’ve been hard-wired for the most part at this point. To a great number of people, belief in a deity feels completely right and perfect because it sits comfortably in their brains, which have wired themselves that way. Like the puddle thinking how amazing it is that its pothole is exactly the perfect size and shape to contain it.
Anyhow, that’s my wild guess.
Ahem brother!
Uh…I mean…
Right on!
Well, the actual number is kind of hard to figure out, but there’s good reason to believe that the odds are pretty damn low:
Number all the gods that man has imagined over the years, all the gods we have yet to imagine, the gods we couldn’t possibly imagine, add in the lack of hard evidence so far for any of them. What odds would you calculate?
I forgot to add a thank you for reminding us of what I brought up in post #100.
I don’t believe atheists utterly reject God, they can find no evidence of Him so they are atheists, same thing with agnostics. Now when some kind of catalyst happens to those who have not found evidence, and evidence is presented as in a spiritual experience of some kind they change their beliefs.
God is not in the business of torturing his children for their lack of knowledge. God welcomes all of His children with open arms, and unconditional love, as the father of the prodigal son did in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught the right stuff, but not every Christian understands and follows His path.
“Change the qualities of god”? Could you explain this further?
Seems like a good one to me. But alas, it too depends on belief; belief that the universe does indeed work as we see it. Belief, in this particular instance, that when agent X chooses a box, he won’t turn into an elephant. There’s no conclusive proof that he won’t, after all. My problem really is that nothing can be proven conclusively. Perhaps i’m too cynical, but I think it’s accurate.
Huh? By any stretch of the imagination, I would be considered an agnostic… although by my rejection of the Christian God, I’ve been called an atheist by Christians. Big deal. I doubt that I’ll be receiving any spiritual experiences that’ll be changing anything here.
No, the Christian God is in the business of torturing anyone who doesn’t believe in him. Since I don’t believe in him, I’m not really worried about it.
Except that He isn’t.
Great post.
Thanks for sharing.
So that we’re clear, it’s not just “hard to figure out”, but as a practical matter, impossible, right? And that leaves us with simply a “good reason to believe”?
Isn’t that right?
I have chosen to not believe that God exists, and so I do not need to appeal to either science or mathematics, in part because I know that neither is able to answer the question.
In fairness, however, I would note that the presence of counterfeit gods could only alter what I believe, not whether a “real God” exists or not.
People reject God for various reasons- some rational, some out of a misplaced nobility, some emotional, some out of hatred. When I talk about those who utterly reject God going into the Fire (and those terms come from the Hebrew prophets, Jesus & His apostles), I am talking about those few have had a real
experience of God & still reject Him. And I don’t view that Fire as much punishing
as I do refining.
Well, if you accept that the concept of omniscience is fundamentally illogical, then you have to either change your premise to accepting that god is illogical or that he isn’t omniscient. That’s what I mean.
If that were true of the “Christian God,” I wouldn’t believe in him either.
Being in a state of grace doesn’t mean that one is “worthy” at all. Grace is a gift despite one’s unworthiness.
Yeah. Those religionists. They’re all alike.
Where do you get your idea of a “Christian heaven”? There really isn’t much description in the New Testament; what there is may be largely symbolic. And Christians vary in their ideas of what heaven means.
Welcome home, Poly!
There, there, **marshmallow. ** I can understand why you might have a phobia of this sort of thing.
Wait a minute, do you now not believe in a God? I thought that you were that rarest of Dopers- a SDMB JW.
Or are you playing devil’s advocate?