A 100% possibility that a God may exist!

Now I hope you members are not going to disrespect peoples faith.

I have seen a new light and now I believe there is a 100% possibility there may be a God.

A box within a box shows this to be true .

Can anyone in the world see beyond a finite Universe?

I rest my case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is also a 100% possibility that there may be 100 gods, and a 100% possibility that there may be no gods at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So are you saying that religion has equal premise for argument and is valid the same as science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, not at all. Simply that almost _any_ claim has a 100% chance of maybe being right.

Might you explode into flame before the next post? Probably not. But you have a 100% chance of it maybe happening. Perhaps a .00001% chance of it actually happening.
Will the Earth end tomorrow as a massive asteroid annihilates it? Probably not. But there is a 100% chance of it maybe happening. And an infinitesimal chance of it actually happening.

 

I would argue that it is not a claim but a fact that there is a 100% possibility there is a god, science can only see an infinite Universe and at present has no way to clarify that outside of our Universe there is not an heavenly realm.

Can you clarify that there is no realm outside our visual Universe?

 

Right! And there is a 100% possibility that there is no God.

 

What do you mean "100% possibility"?
Do you mean it's 100% probable?
If so you're likely incorrect.

No it doesn't.

What?

You don't have case.

I thought you were leaving.

 

His great trampling exit lasted about 5 minutes or so. If you want the precise time, look no further than his 'ban me' thread.

Guess he decided to join team God after team Science told him he was wrong.

 

Was it white or clear?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That deserves liking at least twice!

 

That makes no sense. Lack of knowledge isn't an excuse to believe things without evidence.

 

God:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wtf is this 'box within a box' nonsense?

 

Is God a cat? That's the kind of God I could get behind.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Torments small animals before eating them, pretends to love you in exchange for food and warmth, a nice looking animal which appeals to both our sense of beauty and our animal instinct...
Does all sorts of things at night while you're asleep and can't keep an eye on it.

Team America!

 

I'm inclined to respect other people's beliefs if they are intellectually plausible and emotionally humane. But I'm not convinced that faith is worthy of respect, in and of itself.

'100% possibility' suggests absolute certainty. Is that what you are trying to suggest?

What do your boxes have to do with God? You need to provide some explanation of what you think that your analogy shows, and why.

If you are suggesting that there might conceivably be more to reality than we can know, I agree with you.

I still fail to see how this kind of intuition is supposed to make God's existence "a 100% possibility".

At best, your analogy seems to suggest the possibility (not the certainty) of some kind of transcendence. We still need an account of why this transcendence is something worthy of religious passion, some account of why we should believe that it plays the role that God supposedly plays in human life.

 

Meh. An arbitrary sign like "dolthuccaneeb" might just as much be the case when it comes to anything hierarchically prior to the regularities / forces of nature. [IOW: that which putatively allows them to be possible or provides a sufficient explanation / origin which could satisfactorily terminate that philosophical investigation]. Since -- by virtue of the "transcendent" being thus so hierarchically prior to spatiotemporal affairs and cause/effect relations grounded in such -- it would lack phenomenal characteristics for empirically validating what it is.

Reason has been historically touted to be the only available connection to the supersensible, and centuries of attempts to use it have only produced a multitude of rival intellectual descriptions -- which, again, lack empirical content to validate or cull-out the "speculations" in latter manner. [I.e., you can't use methodological naturalism to confirm what hierarchically precedes nature; it's purely a systematic approach for explaining the universe in terms of its own components -- the mechanistic and nomological interdependence of material phenomena.] The excess proliferation of doctrines and hypotheses concerning the transcendent is much like the legion of interpretations that try to make sense of quantum physics (or bridle it into some ontological conception).

As for the universe being "finite" -- well, t'would probably be better to say it is bounded by or to what it is -- given the current, favored status about that among cosmologists. [How "endless" as a completed state would avoid the contradiction of thereby also being finite, no matter how fantastically great the magnitude espoused, is another matter.]

 

Already in this one short thread TC has referred to the universe as both finite and infinite...which is it?

 

Can't it be both?

 

An MIT physicist wrote a book in an attempt to prove the existence of God. It's titled, "The Omega Point". If you are interested in the subject I suggest you read it.