This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Reverse Pascal's Wager
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
On a side note, it's worth pointing out that the argument being proposed suggests that there isn't simply a 50/50 chance that god exists / doesn't exist, and that in fact, it's more plausible to believe that some supernatural being exists, if only on the balance of possibilities.
How so? We've never observed anything supernatural, so how does one conclude that a supernatural being is the more likely cause of life?
I do not believe that belief in God can be measured by mathematical probability as simple as that. In, it's not 50-50, both are infinitely low. What if there's two Gods? Three Gods? Four Gods? So on, to infinity.
This explains it pretty well.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
As for "there is no evidence that God doesn't exist", perhaps not, but there is evidence that runs against the beliefs of most of the major religions. If X God cannot lie, and a statement that is supposedly made by him is proven false, then that God cannot exist.
I've been reading some of Darwin's Origin of Species, which is an extremely slow book, but he makes his points and lays out quite a bit of evidence for his claims to the point that if you did read it, and you were of a rational mind, it would be hard to refute his claims. Not to mention the fact that Darwin's theories have been improved upon further.
Still, that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about invisible undetectable Gods that haven't made any claims on the physical world except to somehow magically whisk away our "soul" upon death. Even if it is impossible to disprove their existence, we're better off just using our time as best we can and ignoring said invisible Gods since we don't know what actually would cause us to fall into favor with them.
Post by
Squishalot
On a side note, it's worth pointing out that the argument being proposed suggests that there isn't simply a 50/50 chance that god exists / doesn't exist, and that in fact, it's more plausible to believe that some supernatural being exists, if only
on the balance of possibilities
.
How so? We've never observed anything supernatural, so how does one conclude that a supernatural being is the more likely cause of life?
Key point bolded. Given the infinitely many possible supernatural things that could come to exist in a relatively infinite universe, it's more likely than not that a supernatural being exists.
(See what I did there?)
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Occam's razor says otherwise.
Occam's razor would argue that it's easier to explain human life through a creator too, than through a myriad of evolutionary paths that lead to billions of trillions of dead ends before it eventually leads to us discussing it here.
If people argue that human life was bound to happen as a result of an infinite universe, and doesn't need a creator, then likewise, it would be reasonable that supernatural life is bound to happen as a result also.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", i.e. the hypothesis with the fewest new assumptions is the most likely one". Or if you like, "the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question". Theistic explanations necessarily postulates more entities than the current model of existence.
A non-theistic explanation still fails to explain the existence of the universe in the first place, requiring a single assumption about the initial 'cause'. That's no different to a single assumption about a creator. The difference is the plausibility that said creator would also create humans, vs the cause and evolutionary effect creating humans.
Post by
TheMediator
How exactly do you even make a God? You need to make a huge leap in logic to equate the occurrence of the Big Bang with the occurrence of a sentient being who can manipulate reality at his whims appearing out of nothing.
Post by
Squishalot
You need to make a huge leap in logic to equate the occurrence of the Big Bang with the occurrence of a sentient being who can manipulate reality at his whims appearing out of nothing.
Why?
Besides which, you're making the fallacy of assuming that we're referring to the Christian God here, or any other specific omnipotent religious figure. I'm referring to a non-specific supernatural being.
Post by
TheMediator
You need to make a huge leap in logic to equate the occurrence of the Big Bang with the occurrence of a sentient being who can manipulate reality at his whims appearing out of nothing.
Why?
Besides which, you're making the fallacy of assuming that we're referring to the Christian God here, or any other specific omnipotent religious figure. I'm referring to a non-specific supernatural being.
No I'm not referring to any specific deity. If it is a God, then it needs to be sentient and manipulate reality at its whims. Otherwise it isn't a God. If it isn't sentient, it would just be a natural force... a natural force that created the universe is called the Big Bang. If it can't create the universe, it didn't create the universe.
In terms of complexity, a sentient omnipotent being appearing would much more improbable than just a single point of mass.
Post by
Squishalot
If it is a God, then it needs to be sentient and manipulate reality at its whims. Otherwise it isn't a God. If it isn't sentient, it would just be a natural force... a natural force that created the universe is called the Big Bang. If it can't create the universe, it didn't create the universe.
Yes and no. A god (in the context of this discussion) would need to be able to create the universe. A god doesn't need to be capable of manipulating reality at its whims, despite the fact that it's a common conception of a god in religion. In the context of this discussion, it only needs to be able to influence one's soul or after-life, which is something we can't determine, though I suppose that too is an assumption.
In terms of complexity, a sentient omnipotent being appearing would much more improbable than just a single point of mass.
The difference, from a practical perspective, is that with a god creating the universe (and thus people), presumably there are no dead-ends if there was a purpose driving said creation. Evolution is a tool, a recipe if you like. A creator could take some flour, some yeast, some water, mix it together, put it out in the sun to rise and an oven to bake, and it'll turn into bread. A non-theistic universe would require the flour to fall off the shelf into the bowl with the yeast in it, which happens to be out in the rain, then wait for the rain to break, have it rise in the sun, and let the elements form a layer of earth around the mix to act as a baking oven. And if any one of those things isn't done correctly, in the right proportions, then the bread won't be right, and the process has to start from scratch again.
That's what I mean about 'simple'. There are possibly two additional assumptions that a non-theistic universe requires over a theistic universe in relation to the creation of life (which was what I was referring to specifically, mind you) - it needs to be near-infinite in size and/or near-timeless, for there to be a sufficient enough likelihood that our lives are a random creation in the universe. Not to say that the assumptions are good or bad, but only to say that the assumptions exist.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.