A question to liberals and athiests

That prayer does not work, and that everything we have observed can be explained by nature.

First, we start with the possibilities: intent and nature. Then we ask "does one seem more likely or more logical than the other"? Likeliness, as determined by evidence, is moot, since neither have evidence for or against.

Therefore we move to logics. After eliminating the silly specifics and details of religion, we are left with the core concept: an intelligent entity. I do not see anything illogical with this.

Therefore, both nature and intent/willpower are equally probable as the cause of our universe, based on the lack of evidence for both and neither are more logical than the other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? The prayer that you might have an intelligent answer? We already know that doesn't work...

Meanwhile,

Cite this evidence, please...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you even understand the definition of 'probability'? Have you ever been exposed to a class teaching statistics? What is the probability of me flipping a coin on heads twice in a row?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, that prayer does not work and the the universe operates naturally, we can assume God, if He exists, does not have direct control of the operation of the universe. More likely than not, "God" is simply an intelligent and natural entity whereas we are an experiment, assuming there is a Creator. "Natural" in his world of course.

1/4
Yes I understand probability.
The probability of there being a God is 1/2, or 1/3 if you include the concept of everything always "just being there"

 

OMG, you gotta f**kin love it...

 

What are you talking about?

 

You will find out, here in a minute...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Look at history and apply some reasoning to what you are saying. Humans used to think that the land they walked on was a god or was created by one. We no longer think that. We no longer think a creator is needed to create the earth, our solar system or our galaxy. So why would a creator be just as likely when talking about the universe? If your answer is 'because we don't know yet' then you are just using the dated god of the gaps argument with some probabilities thrown in.

By definition, the natural explanation occurs without intervention and requires no creator.

 

Presupposition.

 

Shaman what you are saying is "there doesn't need to be a god" not "there isn't a god"

There's equally a probable chance of there being and not being a god. So yes, there doesn't NEED to be one, but that's irrelevant.

 

I would just let my children try to find their own way and not oppose them. I expect that they would eventually come around.

 

You still haven't proven that. I don't think you understand the concept of probability very well.

 

Agreed.

That is an assertion that you are making. You aren't able to convincingly explain why the chance that our universe was created was 50%.

Just because we don't know how something happened that doesn't mean there is a 50/50 chance that an intelligence did it for us.

 

That's not what I am suggesting.

Let's go through this logically. OK think: what are the two forces of creation/change in the universe

I come up with nature and intelligence, or willpower/intent

Now we logically ask ourselves if both of these are even possible; I say, yes, both are possible as an explanation.

Next again we look for signs or evidence to support, or discredit, either. There is no such evidence.

Therefore, in them being the only two possibilities, and in being equally logical or illogical, I give them equal probability.

 

I don’t think applying logic in this way is appropriate. In a situation like this where something is unknown it is evidence we should look to not logic. I say this because it may have seemed logical to the Egyptians that the sun was Ra. It may have seemed logical that the earth was flat because the landscape looked like it was. So I don’t think saying that they are equally logical is correct or relevant here.

The answer is unknown, so you are considering all the possible answers that we can currently think of and dividing the probability equally between them. Possible answers aren't automatically equally probable. You also aren’t including the possibility that the universe had no beginning or perhaps something that we haven’t even thought of yet. Don’t ask me what this may be but there may be options that our limited human mind hasn’t even been able to grasp yet.

As a agnostic it would make more sense for you to say it is unknown without assigning probabilities. Warning bells should be going off when one of the possibilities you are considering has been wrong every time it was used in the past.

What reason is there to think it is going to be correct this time? If your answer is 'because we don't know that it isn't', then you are just falling back on the god of the gaps argument.

 

That's not what I'm doing though; we have basically proven that the universe operates naturally, or at least if it doesn't, it sure seems like it.


However now we are dealing with an entirely new problem: not how the universe operates, but why it is here. These are new waters. And therefore again I use logic; what is it that causes change? Nature, and intent. These are the only two things we know of. Therefore because of a lack of evidence for either, in terms of the beginning of our universe, I give them equal probability in that those are TWO choices that are EQUALLY probable with no such evidence to tip the scale either way.

Now, of course, there are other possibilities, some we can't even hope to comprehend. Regardless, however, I find "deism" (which is what I am arguing more than theism) and atheism as equal in percentage of probability, regardless of whether or not it's necessarily 50/50

 

Fundamentally you are just stepping up from ‘how did the earth get here’ and ‘how did this galaxy get here’. It is a new question but not all that different from the previous ones.

*Edit. The question 'why' presupposes that there is a reason or purpose.

You are asserting that they are equally probable. Putting it in caps doesn’t make it any less a baseless assertion.

I will repeat my example from the previous page. I am rolling a die. It is either going to be a 1 or it isn’t therefore I give them equal probability in that those are the two choices. Correct? Obviously not.

Just because you are breaking it down to what you see as the only options that doesn’t mean they are automatically equally probable.

 

Tell me why it isn't equally probable.

 

There's nothing to preclude another Universe, with non-overlapping dimensions existing. Problem is, if the dimensions do not overlap, we can't detect it, so cannot prove it exists, and it remains a theory.

If one or more dimensions do overlap however, like I said the Universes are linked, and therefore, technically different regions of the same Universe.

So we either have one Universe, or an unproveable theory about multiples.

Either way, it's not a bolt hole for a creator god to hide out in, that was rather more my point.

 

I could say 'The Universe came into existence when Cthulhu sneezed', you going to make that equal as a possibility too?

Or that the Universe is a chip from the spout of the Celestial teapot. All square on 25% probability for each 'theory' now?

See why your 50/50 argument fails yet?