/sci/ - Science & Math

from being a real scientist who doesn't talk in absolutes and overstate the conclusions of science to the point of making them into a religion, like half the /sci/-tards here

Because there's no current evidence to believe that there is one, but he's not discounting the discovery of future evidence.

All available evidence says there is no god, but we can't know for certainty

>>2589803
>>2589803

your sensible opinion has no place on /sci/

BE GONE FROM THIS PLACE

>>2589806

>Because there's no current evidence
Yes, but why is he claiming that one choice is likelier?

>>2589808

>All available evidence says there is no god
We have evidence that a supreme being doesn't exist?

>>2589812
Because Dawkins is a controversy pimp that takes very public stances not in the interest of education but of self-gratification and fame. Even smart, capable scientists like him are human and are prone to stupid and egotistical behavior.

>>2589809
>>2589808
>>2589806
>>2589803

Except probably implies that, even taking into account future evidence, there being no God is more likely.

A more accurate, but less catchy slogan would be "There may or may not be a God, but there is no evidence to suggest that he exists."

You can't even say that evidence suggests God does not exist, since the only evidence that can support that something is not is for something to contradict it - which you could easily claim God is capable of creating apparent contradictions (even considering philosophical arguments that he could not truly be all completely omnipotent).

>>2589812
Just because you have two Probabilities doesn't mean they are equally likely.
Were dealing with a loaded die.

who is the girl

>>2589834
One of his controversy ho's.

>>2589833
>Just because you have two Probabilities doesn't mean they are equally likely.

Completely true.

But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that one probability is more likely than the other in this particular example.

>>2589828

i wonder when the last time any american worried about the accuracy of Walm-mart's or Mcdonald's or Nike's slogans?

why should evolution worry more than they do?

inb4 derp science. that is all.

what dawkins does has to compete in the real world, not in laboratories. if he doesn't get more successful, the average american is gonna keep being just as educated as the average citizen of an islamic republic

the probability comes from a statistical examination of how individuals define the word "god."

the word can be defined so that it demonstrably exists, probably exists, probably doesn't exist, or demonstrably isn't present.

Probably on any given day most people's definition of the word "god" describes something that probably doesn't exist or demonstrably isn't present.

>>2589853
I agree.

However, my post was merely in response to the people who believed that there was actual accuracy to the assertion that there is a higher probability of there not being a God, so your response is entirely relevant.

Here is a picture of Data opening his mouth to speak.

>>2589851
Nothing complex has ever spontaneously came into existence, everything works it's way up from the simplest of forms .
To propose god as an answer to the universe raises a bigger problem then the one it solves.
And the universe seems content enough to exist without a creator.

why is girl i the pic such a skanky fucking whore?

couldn't he at least afford a decent escort for this fucking photo op?

god damn it dawkins

>>2589864
probably his gf

>>2589791
>Where does the "probably" come from?
>Has he done some mathematical analysis?
Yes. He has. Very informal and not-rigorous analysis, but still some analysis.

Note that the sign likely refers to a theist, or interfering, god. That's what god means to most people, and they didn't want to detract from the message, confusing people with words like "theist".

>>2589862
But your basing that entirely off how the nature of the Universe you exist in works. If there were a designer, the nature of his existence would not have to be in anyway similar to our own.

Of course, that's merely a philosophical argument and is by no means enough to actually justify religion, but I think it is a strong enough point to bring any realistic person to say "OK, we simply just do not know." If you know nothing about the being, then you can't calculate the probability of that being existing the slightest.

the "probably" is there to appeal to his usual audience, it isn't an argument itself. it gives way to "well that's what faith is all about," and i don't think he gives a shit either way. the point is to enjoy life. if you need an imaginary friend or something to scare you into doing shit/dealing with shit then go for it, there will always be people who don't. no need for "mathematical analysis" to realize how many times science has contradicted the thousands of interpretations of hundreds of religions and their associated "gods." if you're going to argue about it one way or the other because you're insecure or are an asshole, best not to use your idea of what logic is, there is no logic when it comes to faith so you just look ridiculous on either side.

Also, to everyone in this thread, if you accept that the sign means "theist gods", which is rather obvious if you've read Dawkins's work and/or know how the standard atheist arguments go, then we do have evidence against all theist gods. Every time you wake up, every time you perform an observation, you find that the universe works perfectly well with just natural laws, and never a suspension of those natural laws. e.g. no miracles. No miracles => no interference from an interfering god => no interfering god.

bus company lawyers

>>2589871
Even if that were the case, why waste time speculating wether a sapient entity ignited the formation of our universe, if we can look back to almost a few seconds after the big bang, it's enough to discount his contribution to nothing more then a gentle push, the universe took over on it's own very soon after.
This isn't even thinking about how this entity came into existence itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1KUOksyYcA

It was the chicks idea, dawkins was just there for the publicity

>>2589875

this is fucking idiocy.

try telling that to a theoretical physicist.

the fringes of science(not the "gaps", but the actual edges) do allow for the existence of theist god.

>>2589920
Hence why it's "probably". Thus far, the evidence indicates that the natural world works just fine without miracles, and no miracles have yet been observed, so one can make a probabilistic, aka scientific, aka inductive, argument that there are no miracles.

>>2589899

i fucking knew it, chicks are always fucking shit up with their lack of ever being able to have a good idea and be good looking at the same time.

>>2589924

you're a christ fag

your trip fag has just been shitted on

>>2589931
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Why am I a christ-fag? Didn't I just deny the jesus god myth?

Chopping enough limbs off a lizard does not make it a snake.

We started off with the idea of a man in the clouds, when we dispelled that illusion, he became an entity within our universe and then we discovered physics. Now he conveniently resides outside our universe.

What good does that do to us?
The theory of a god is not only improbable it contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of our universe.

If he's talking about gods like the one from the bible, then there is definitely no god.

If he's talking about an extra-universal entity existing prior to the big bang that set the universe in motion but has had nothing further to do with it, then there is no data in any direction on it.

So out of all the gods described, 99.999% definitely don't exist, and 0.001% of them have no data on them in any direction.

But try fitting that on a bus, along with all the follow up questions you're sure to get. No, for the sake of parsimony, 'probably' is a good fit.

Why waste time and money telling people they are wrong?
Can't they just be happy with their life and what they do/don't believe in?

>>2589920
Somwhat right, however allowing for the existence of something does not mean that that something exists in our world.

An interventionist god (for which there's no evidence of existing) is possible, for example, he could live in some upper universe simulating our own universe and having the ability of altering it if that being so chooses, however think about the complexity of this being and the space within which it operates (and runs our universe in), you're now faced with the same problem you were faced when you postulated such a theistic god (the problem of its own existence and complexity).

What is more likely (and simpler)? Our universe being an instantiation of some mathematical structure OR our universe being created by some complex intelligent being whose own existence should be logical (non-contradictory), thus such an existence would have to be an instantiation of some mathematical rule or possibly merely a being in an universe such as that. The thing is that the second version is a lot less likely and a whole lot more complex. Possible? Yes. Likely? Very much no.

>>2589986

That is a fair question. And I think the secular among us, atheists and theists alike, would probably be better off spending our time opposing the introduction of, and lobbying for the removal of, religiously justified or biased laws from our respective nations.

>>2589986
>>2589995
Atheist copypasta ahoy.

I am an atheist.

First, why should we care? Why talk about it?
1- People tend to be moral, or at least moral enough for society to function, without delusions. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection.
2- Delusional people tend to make less moral decisions which affect the public because they base their decisions on falsehoods.
3- People who hold delusions, and even pride themselves on having faith, lack critical reasoning. This makes them easy to mislead and dangerous
4- While not all delusional people are incredibly dangerous, when the delusion is shared, they tend to prop up the real crazies by supporting their "faith" instead of calling shenanigans on it.
5- The harm caused by these delusions tends to outweigh the benefits.
6- Also, doesn't the truth have value unto itself?

Also, why are they delusions? Why are they wrong? Pick any popular theist religion. It contains equal parts truth, falsehood, and pizza. Let's take Christianity. Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false. The myth of Jesus's birth with the roman national census where everyone is forced to go to the hometown of their far removed ancient ancestor is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.

That leaves the unknown and unworshiped theist gods, and the deist gods. At best, we have no positive evidence for their existence, so positive belief in any particular one, is also delusion. The key part is that while a god may exist, it is a delusion to think that you know their mind, their intent. That leaves the inconsequential gods, like deist gods. That kind of god hypothesis is unnecessary at best.

>>2590007

I agree with broad strokes of this.


But I have decided lately not to treat religion as a special case. Instead I treat the ideology as I treat any ideology, and I treat the superstition as I treat any superstition. As for the rest of it, well, if you don't buy into either the ideology or the superstition of a religion, then you can't discuss all the theology or metaphysics of it.

>>2589972
Lizards are paraphyletic though, unless you include snakes as lizards. That is, lizards are defined as "All Squamates that aren't Serpentes"

>>2590042
So you have to be a Marxist to discuss whether Hegellian dialectic materialism is BS?

>>2590056
let's hear your opinion on "reptiles."

>>2590064
Peacocks are my favourite extant reptile, but then again I've always been a big dinosaur fan.

is it too much to ask for the people currently posting ITT to just kill themselves?

save us all the semantics, faggots

there is probably no god is a wrong statement it claims that he can with certainty say that the chances of >50% that there is no god. He can not.

>>2590082
Please go away and let us grownups talk about important public policy.

>>2590077
Me too. I mostly study theropods, but I have a decent collection of crocodiles and birds as well. Something about the angel-wings of archosaur paroccipital processes fascinates me... and that unpaired condyle below the foramen magnum. Like fine art.

I agree that the "probably" is absolutely unwarranted, because it's literally impossible to reliably calculate the probability of God's existence.

However, I also think that this is not a scientific statement, but just some bubbly, little slogan in pink, intended to poke fun at the rather grim ad campaigns by certain theist groups, and for that purpose, I guess I'll just let it slide.

>>2590086
Under one school of thought, probability refers to your subjective understanding of the universe. Think of it this way:
1) A man flips a fair coin. What is the probability it comes up heads?
2) The man catches it and slaps it onto the back of his other hand, without looking at the result. What is the probability the heads side is uppermost?
3) The man looks at it but doesn't tell you what the result is. What is the probability the coin came up heads? What is the probability the man saw it come up heads?

Probability doesn't exist out there in some platonic realm, man. The sign is just the opinion of that woman, who can't be absolutely 100% certain that God didn't lose his way, go into hiding, travel on a voyage, or emigrate, but it doesn't seem likely.

>>2590123
>Under one school of thought, probability refers to your subjective understanding of the universe.
That would be a rather unscientific school of thought, which is not what the OP was referring to.

The word 'Probably' is only there to avoid pissing too many people off

Some Christians did a reply with 'There definitely is a god...' and they got in the shit for it

guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/05/atheist-bus-christian-response

/thread, stop complexing things

>>2590141
So you're saying that probability has nothing to do with poker, since the other players already have their cards. There isn't a 1-(43/47*42/46*41/45*40/44*39/43) probability that they have an ace in their had assuming you don't. The probability is either one or zero but you just don't know which.

>>2590180
>The probability is either one or zero but you just don't know which.
>probability
You use that word, but you do not know what it means.

>"Yesterday I walked to work and saw two London buses with the question: 'When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?' (Luke 18:8) ...If I wanted to run a bus ad saying 'Beware, there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!' I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims."
Oh Aslan there's a Jesus Christ get in the Church!

>>2590194
So, what is it?

>>2590186
Yes I do, I was making fun of that Atwill guy for being a platonist who thinks probabilities exist in the Realm of Ideal Forms rather than just describing human uncertainty.

Now, it is true that under the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics this breaks down somewhat, but it works under the many worlds interpretation and for the copenhagen interpretation people who don't worry that the entire universe will become entirely wavelike if they stop looking at it.

>>2590199
Well, that guy said 2/3.

>>2590208
>I was making fun of that Atwill guy...
And what a success that was.

I pointed out that a school of thought, as described by you, that defines probability as a subjective understanding of the universe is *not* what the OP was referring to, nor does it have anything to do with a proper scientific approach. Your ridiculous "So you're saying that probability has nothing to do with poker" response to this was such a baffling non-sequitur, I figured it'd be healthier and less aggravating to just ignore you.

>>2590217
Guess that's settled then.

>>2590232
Yep, whenever a religion thread pops up on /sci/, you can just post that image and "<span class="math">P_{God} = 2/3[/spoiler], /thread."

>>2590208
That was never the case. The interpretation wasn't that you need an "intelligent" observer, just any observer will do.

Also, that was meant as a ludicrous jib at quantum theory, to demonstrate how insane it is (even though it's correct), rather than as a legitimate interpretation. People apparently missed the memo there.

>>2590217
Apparently he thinks that because one species on a blue-green planet in the Milky Way galaxy sometimes thinks things are good, God is ten times as likely to exist. He also claims that because this species, which is known to peceive the presence of nonexistant beings (see Sleep Paralysis, Schizophrenia, Paradoelia) sometimes "feels" like there's a God around, this God is twice as likely to exist as if said species did not have that particular neurological state on occasion.
Also, he thinks that miracles which could be just coincidences make God's existance twice as likely. I mean come on.

It's a matter of GIGO. Michael Shermer got a 2% probability of God existing when he used that equation.

>>2590229
So what do you think it means to say that there probably is or probably isn't a God? Do you think it means that God's sitting out there in a mostly wavelike state that's somewhere between his particle-like attributes either existing or not existing, or do you think that there either is a God out there or there is not a God out there but we are uncertain which is in fact the case?

>>2590237
Too bad most of the numbers are pulled out of thin air.
I can do the same really. You can't really quantify the probability of a God (and even then, you'll have to work a lot on the definition, of which there are too many).
Given a definition, one could quantify it from nonexistent (based on logical impossibilities) to unlikely (possible logically, but completly unsupported by evidence and likely too complex compared to alternatives) to likely (a fairly liberal definition, for example a more restricted pantheistic version or just all of "consciousness") to exists (something known to exist like the universe). While an exact probability estimation is likely impossible, a God's existence can be described in at least 2 degrees, one is if it's possible at all (consistency) and the other is likelyhood (do evidence point to it? are there better hypotheses?).

I've always been of the opinion that arguments in favor of either side are a waste of brainpower, and if half the people who tried arguing the question of whether there is or isn't a god focused on issues of importance, we would have already done a great many things.

/thread

>>2590275
see:
>>2590007

We would be doing a great many things if the religious minds weren't shitting up America and the rest of their world, including such things as holding back science education as "the work of satan". Fossils? Satan. Evolution? Satan. Astrophysics? Satan. Stem cell research? Murder.

>>2590262
>So what do you think it means to say that there probably is or probably isn't a God?
I hinted at this earlier, but I can make it more clear: I think that any such statement is complete and utter nonsense one way or the other, no matter what school of thought one may follow, because God is already such an abstract, effectively undefinable thing that *any* attempt at calculating/assessing/*guessing* His probability is bound to be in vain. Whatever conclusion one may reach when trying to evaluate God's probability, all it takes is for another to say, "Yeah, well, you know, He's actually just tricking you into coming to this conclusion!", and it's all been for nothing.

My problem in this whole debate isn't with the definition of probability or its appropriation, but with the definition of "God", which is so frustratingly vague, subjective and bendable, that it's scientifically (and to a degree, even philosophically) useless.

>>2590299
Eh, that's fairly reasonable. A lot of religious people do argue in bad faith like that. I'm fairly naive when it comes to theology, and see the abstract deities as being a little bit bullshit. When I hear "God" I think "Immortal guy with super powers" and since sacrifices to Mars and Athena in order to call them to battle on your side haven't remained a standard element of warfare I think it's pretty clear that superpowers don't really exist.

>>2590275
>if half the people who tried arguing the question of whether there is or isn't a god focused on issues of importance,

Christians are more concerned about preventing contraception than preventing AIDs, more concerned with teaching creationist lies to children than stopping child rape; and more concerned about preventing gay marriage than genocide, . This is a real inversion of priorities

> we would have already done a great many things.
on the contrary we would be worse off if we let them get away with it

this >>2589825
and this >>2589828


>>2589875

How is that evidence in any way, shape or form? Even if it was, evidence against the existence of God is likely to exist whether or not God exists, and therefore said evidence's strength is limited to the point that I probably wouldn't call it evidence.

If evidence is likely to exist regardless of whether or not the hypothesis it claims to support is true, then it is not really evodence.

>>2589791
Belief in a "god" is a failure is very basic logic. You can prove logically, that it is fucking retarded to believe in god.

>>2590472
>You can prove logically
lol no

It's just a disease these atheists have, they live life with one of their eyes closed lol!

>>2590509
1. I define God to be X.
2. Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

>>2590509
Yes you can. I suggest you take a basic logic course bro.

>>2590509
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Sure is basic logic in here

>>2590509
theists are fundamentally illogical, why you would want them to play any meaningful role in society makes absolutely no sense

>>2590517
I define God as something that defies your logic, therefore, my belief in him is perfectly logical.

>>2590521
I suggest you present an argument.

>>2590531
That doesn't prove (or even suggest) the belief in God to be illogical at all. It's about falsifiability. Sure is gross misunderstanding of simple Wikipedia articles in here.

>>2590540
>I define God as something that defies your logic, therefore, my belief in him is perfectly logical.
god of the gaps much

>>2590558
Call it whatever you want. Point remains that, contrary to your claim, you cannot prove my faith to be illogical, or "retarded".

1. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary is a contradiction.

2. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non existent.

3. Deductive arguments for the existence of God attempt to demonstrate the existence of God.

4. There is no contradiction in denying that God exists. This follows from 2.

5. Therefore, deductive arguments for the existence of God fail as demonstrations because if they were sound, they would necessarily follow and could not be denied without contradiction.

6. God’s existence is not necessary, this follows from 2, we can conceive God as not existing and 5, deductive arguments for the existence of God can be denied without contradiction.

7. Ontological arguments argue that if God exists, then God necessarily exists.

8. If God doesn’t necessarily exist, then God doesn’t exist. Contra positive of 7.9. God doesn’t exist. This follows from 6 and 8.

>>2590572
>5. Therefore, deductive arguments for the existence of God fail as demonstrations because if they were sound, they would necessarily follow and could not be denied without contradiction.
See
>>2590540
>I define God as something that defies your logic, therefore, my belief in him is perfectly logical.

>>2590572

Very good up to point 7.

>>2590572
What's the point of posting this as sage? Did you expect that nobody would want to respond to your post? Or was it a matter of LOL copy-paste and I'm having the last word period?

>>2590540
How can something defy logic? It's virtually impossible to believe this once you understand the true nature of logic and math. If you can claim this, you merely don't understand logic. A scientist may claim to be a scientist, but unless he thinks rationally and truly understands the philosophy of science, he is no scientist - following the scientific method dogmatically without truly understanding it is no better than being religious (well, possibly a bit better, but without its understanding, you'll be doomed to failure and dogmatic belief).

>>2590572
I don't know why it's so difficult for some to differentiate between argument and belief. The claim was that
>Belief in a "god" is a failure is very basic logic. You can prove logically, that it is fucking retarded to believe in god.
... and this is not demonstrated to be correct by your post at all. You're merely pointing out flaws in deductive argumentation for God, but not in the basic belief in him.

Again, there is no way to prove the belief in God to be illogical.

Let's put it this way,
If God never existed,
Then whence come 'the word'?

>>2590604
> Let's put it this way,
> If Unicorns never existed,
> Then whence come 'the word'?

> Let's put it this way,
> If fiction never existed,
> Then whence come 'the word'?

>>2590613
If fiction never existed,
Then whence come 'non-fiction'?

>>2590595
>It's virtually impossible to believe this once you understand the true nature of logic and math.
My idea of God is that of a supreme being so far away from our understanding of the world that this argument comes off as a bit ignorant. No, it's not impossible at all to believe in something above our models of logic and math, since they're all derived from actual human experience. They don't incorporate the divine, which we cannot experience.

>>2590595

First of all, you have to assume the validity of logic in order to assess anything. So, if you want to assess the validity of logic you must already assume that it is valid. Circular reasoning, no?

Anyway, if we are assuming that God is the creator of everything and is omnipotent, then logic is not a limit to Him. He created logic and is able to do anything.

Or perhaps when we say "omnipotent," we mean "anything that is logically possible." In which case we dispose of the many apparent "paradoxes" concerning the omnis.

>>2590618
If you don't suck cocks, why are there so many pictures of you sucking cocks?

Why do people think unicorns aren't real?
http://www.lair2000.net/Unicorn_Dreams/Unicorns_Man_Made/unicorns_man_made.html

>>2590674
>>2590674
>>2590674
You're just mad cause you're inferior.

>>2590620
>>2590664
The thing is that when you're trying to create axiomatic systems free from contradiction, you'll always end up with with something isomorphic to formal logic. It's almost fundamental and it's a very difficult challenge to do otherwise.

Anyways, what I meant to say is that no matter the being involved, if given a set of axioms which are consistent within themselves, you will have some valid statements within those axioms (they'll be called theorems). If you insist in your god's omnipotence and being "beyond logic", you are trying to claim that such a god could somehow make an obviously true theorem (which follows directly from the axioms) untrue merely by its existence. This is absurd. Given a fixed set of axioms, NOTHING can change wether a theorem follows from it or not. Well, of course, he could kill all beings which understand the theorems with his omnipotence, however he can never make a mathematical truth untrue.

>>2590664
> He created logic and is able to do anything.
Logic is not created. Logical systems are discovered and valid statements within them are found. Wether anything at all exists or not (our world or anything at all), it doesn't make a theorem within some axiomatic system any more true or false. It's completly independent of all other existence.

>>2590701
Not mad, just curious. Why do you suck so many cocks? Are you gonna major in engineering? Is it just a british thing?

>>2590706
>This is absurd.
It certainly is... according to our understanding of logic, which does not apply to my idea of God.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing your points as logical objections to *arguments* for God; I'm dismissing them as objections to *faith* in God.

>>2590726
>>2590726
I'm a priest. Get used to it

>>2590732
> he thinks faith is a positive trait

LMFAO
Unjustified Faith means you are gullible as fuck!

>>2590732
And by faith you mean "unconditional belief in something, regardless of what one's rational brain says or existing evidence/etc"?

>>2589791
Read The God Delusion.

Originally it was to say there is no god.
As a half serious jest they decided to say there is probably no god. This, as others before me iterate, is a nod to the scientific community as well as soft atheists and agnostics who do not believe it is proper to speak in absolutes concerning something that we may never actually have knowledge of.

In short: we cannot prove gods do not exist but we can and have shown that it is very unlikely. Hence probably.

>>2590736
Also a pedophile? You like young boys?

>>2590736

>>2590745
To an extent. I support the youths future, if that's what you're asking, Mr. Adult Ego.

>>2590750
Would you fuck this little failure?

>>2590755
That woman is a fucking whore!

>>2590755
No, but he looks an awful lot like the wisest man in the world.

>>2590767

>>2590774
You hear that?
It's the sound of people caring.

>>2589812
see: logic
most posited gods have properties which contradict each other.

additionally, most testable claims of religions about said gods have failed such tests.
Example: "prayer works" by christians

Even under the suggestion that a creator agent exists (the best arguments from religious groups only go this far) it does not follow that the agent is a god, or that the agent is one of the gods currently being propagated.

Finally, every argument for the existence of god has been or is being refuted. None so far have stood under scrutiny. One can re-assert the arguments all day, this does not constitute a debate. There are already perfectly logical refutations for each of the sensible god arguments.

These four together form the basis for the assertion that it is less likely that gods exist than that gods do exist.

>>2590784

Moot obviously cares. He put that image at the top of every board for a reason

>>2589889

This, the campaign wasn't allowed on buses without a probably.

>>2589812
see: logic
most posited gods have properties which contradict each other.

additionally, most testable claims of religions about said gods have failed such tests.
Example: "prayer works" by christians

Even under the suggestion that a creator agent exists (the best arguments from religious groups only go this far) it does not follow that the agent is a god, or that the agent is one of the gods currently being propagated.

Finally, every argument for the existence of god has been or is being refuted. None so far have stood under scrutiny. One can re-assert the arguments all day, this does not constitute a debate. There are already perfectly logical refutations for each of the sensible god arguments.

These four together form the basis for the assertion that it is more likely that gods do not exist than that gods do exist.

>expand thread
>see aether
>minimize thread

>>2590800
>sage in subject field
oops

>>2590720

Well if we're defining God as having created everything, then - by definition - He did create logic. If we are not, then you are arguing against a God that most theists do not believe in anyway.

>>2590803

Logic is a concept. One does not create logic, for the concept of logic will always exist.

>>2590798

The first three arguments there are valid when considering a specific God, but when we are talking about a God in general... they aren't relevant. And as for your fourth point - an irrefutable argument against the existence of a God has also yet to be found.

>>2590194
lol, it's a book that was necessary to present a "simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth".
>I find this irony humorous

>>2590807

Then maybe God created the concept of logic, whatever. How do you know that the concept of logic cannot be created? Just because it sounds absurd and beyond our understanding does not necessarily stop it being true - particularly when we are dealing with an allegedly transcendent being.

>My face when I'm a deist and atheists and theists were retarded near me

OP is probably a faggot

>>2590814
Deist as in "Hurp durp astrophysics is hard, I'll just explain the universe as god did it" or Deist as in "Like, what if the universe were a simulation? Whoa, man. Whoa."

>>2590767
Nope, this sad little kid was the result of a very loose HIV ridden slut, and 'homies running a train'. The woman (we will call her “whore”) did a shit-ton of drugs while pregnant, and actually tried to abort multiple times (hanger method). The baby survived, but was born severely retarded.

The child (call him “English major failure”) was abandoned in a trash compactor. He was later found and raped by priests (like you). He lived off a diet of cum and feces during childhood. He currently lives under a bridge, on a very strict diet of bird droppings.

Do you as a future priest condone these actions? Why must you take advantage of less fortunate retards like “English major failure”?

>>2590813

Plato's theory of forms.
Google it.

>>2590821

Deist as in I believe that God’s existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and through personal experience, but that God is abstract and generally incomprehensible concept.

>>2590823

>>2590808
>arguments against the existence of anything cannot be found therefore it is likely those things exist
no
>first 3 arguments apply to specific gods
yes, now iterate over the set of all gods previous postulated and/or currently imagined and you have a case against gods in general.

>>2590803
While >>2590807 illustrates the point perfectly. Let's assuem for a second that logic is part of this god, and according to one theistic definition, this god is omnipotent. How can an omnipotent being change something (again, "part of itself" as logic is "created" according to your definition) which is defined as immutable? When a system allows proving a proposition as both true and false (in which case this god) it is considered contradictory/trivial, and thus assuming such a system, it holds little or no value to use it to build any other logical or mathematical (or anything at all) on top of it.

To put it more simply, if god is omnipotent can he change the meaning of an immutable definition so it would point to anything he'd like? If he did that, he'd just be making another definition, the original definition cannot be changed.

This also reminds me of that paradox where it states that if a god is omnipotent, he should be able to create an unliftable stone, but if he is truly omnipotent, he should be able to lift the stone, however that means the stone is liftable, which contradicts the omnipotence, hence true omnipotence cannot exist.

>>2590827
>>I believe that God’s existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and through personal experience

Saaaame old shit

I'm polytheist because I know the ancient gods are aliens. I, for one welcome our superior beings who could vaporize our planet with the push of a button if they so desired.

>>2590827
So you believe in a sort of Logos or order in itself that you call god? Or is your god more active, being a creative mind outside the universe as we know it? I'm not a logos-realist, but it all depends on how you define the world real.

I'm not sure how you can believe in incomprehensible things. Surely if you have no idea what a thing might be you can't know if you believe in it or not?

>>2590824
I'm also very fond of this modern view of it: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:gr-qc/9704009 I'd recommend reading the paper in its entirety as it also has some interesting points about the nature of math.

>>2590837
Don't let the Gou'uld push you around! Those guys are jerks.

>>2590838

God is incomprehensible in the sense that his very existence is completely beyond the scope of understanding. If one could fully comprehend and understand God, then there would be nothing that separates God from Man.

>Or is your god more active, being a creative mind outside the universe as we know it?

I don't necessarily believe in a personal God, if that's what you're getting at. As far as being outside the universe, yes. God is inherently transcendent.

>>2590852
Why must God be uncomprehensible?
Humans have general intelligence, it should be possible to reason about ANYTHING.
However, I could most certainly accept that if God itself was the entirety of all possible logical systems, I couldn't possibly comprehend the entirety of it, merely just a fraction, however even with the right fraction, one might be able to meta-reason about the entirety of systems.

>>2590833

Now that is interesting, but firstly - why would I assume that logic is "part of" God? Secondly, whether I can "build" anything on top of it is, I think, more or less irrelevant - we are seeking the truth here, regardless of how inconvenient it might be.

And yes it is rather similar to a number of omnipotency "paradoxes". The immovable stone paradox is sometimes used to illustrate God's transcendent nature to believers. There are two main solutions to the problem (discounting the idea that omnipotency doesn't exist - which is indeed a possibility) - either a) God is omnipotent within the bounds of logic or b) God's omnipotence does not obey logic. In which case, the whole issue is more or less irrelevant because it is a logical paradox. The same idea can probably be applied to your first point.

Again, though, you have to assume the validity of logic in order to assess the validity of logic, making such an argument more or less circular i.e. if God is "above" logic, then trying to logically prove that he cannot be is a waste of time.

>>2590862
The thing though is that when you discard logic, a system becomes trivial and completly useless for talking about anything at all. Anyways, this really depends on one's definition of a God and what the God's function/nature is. If logic is discarded in the sense that in some system something is both true and false, the system loses all its value as a logical/mathematical/philosophical/... system (When a real logical paradox is encountered in a system, this means that something is wrong with the axioms). There are many things which are transcendental, self-contradictory systems are not one of them, but hey, I'm not going to argue with faith at that point...

a unknowable god is meaningless for human existance and it doesn't matter if it exists or not

>>2590862

To me, there is a difference between comprehending something and understanding something.

I can comprehend a entity called God, but I don't think there's anyone who could (truthfully) say that they can "understand" God or his/her/its attributes and qualities.

But, hey, maybe I'm wrong and there's no God at all. I can live with that.

Number of possibilities = large
God = 1 theory

1/a lot = low chance of there being a god

This is just a qualitative proof, but it gives the idea. Why is a human notion likely to be true?

If you take a random number generator with more than a few values, the probability of getting any value is low. We can observe that the number of possibilities in the universe is very high. Therefore, the stories of one insignificant, uneducated type of life being true are basically zero.

>>2590938

I could throw the argument from statistics at you now... although it doesn't show the probability of the existence of God, it gives a good reason to follow a religion, providing p(a God exists)=/=0.

>>2590954

This better not be Pascals wager.

>>2590954
>it gives a good reason to follow a religion, providing p(a God exists)=/=0.

That's quite redundant.

This is supposed to be the science and math forum yet most people in this very thread are so utterly ignorant of probability, it's astonishing.

Dawkins qualified his statement with "probably" to indicate that there is uncertainty, as there always is when inferences aren't deductive/premises aren't self-evident.

>>2590957

Googled 'Pascal's Wager' and yes, the idea I came up with is more or less that, except I actually calculated (if it can be called that) E[X] for each possibility. I also took into account the possibility of obtaining an infinite reward for being Christian or Jew or whatever if Islam is correct (People of the Book, mentioned a lot in the Koran).

Coincidentally, I also considered Dawkins' criticism on my own aswell. Trouble is, his criticism relies upon the assumption that one cannot be reasonable and follow a religion at the same time...

>>2591008

Yeah, the problem is that there's so many religions and most contradict each other, so following any is just as likely to doom you to oblivion as choosing none. The only selection process is generally where you're born/what you're raised to believe.

Theism is sort of logically viable, but organised religion following is idiotic.

If there was one religion that all followed, pascal's wager might hold some water.

>>2591008
I presume you've never heard of Pascals Mugging then? That is, the argument that unless you can prove that it's totally impossible that I'm an agent of the being running the simulation of our universe and unless you give me $100 I'll tell him to change the simulation so you suffer eternal torture, but if you give me at least $1000 I'll make sure you have the life you've always wanted.

Is there anything Pascal's Wager cannot validate?

>>2591008
What is the probability that the Greco-Roman gods exist, and the probability they condemn you to Tartatus for your hubris and lack of sacrifices? What is the probability that the Aesir exist and if you don't die in battle you'll be sent to Helheim? What is the probability that by not burning off your Karma you're dooming yourself to suffer in your next life?

>>2589791
There's probably no santa claus.

Do I have to do a mathematical analysis for that statement too?

>>2591068
I loled. Good one sir.

Mutiple religions are not really the issue with Pascal's Wager: if you select one religion, you are still more likely to receive an eternal reward (and less likely to receive an eternal punishment) then if you choose not to accept any.

>>2591094
But most religions make large demands of your time and money. I can offer all that for the low low price of $100, or 5 easy payments of $19.99.

>>2591094
That is not true. See you in a burning pit of eternal fire, Yhwh worshiping scumbag.

>>2591094
It isn't, because you can't even know if *any* religion is correct in the first place, or whether God would prefer you to follow the "wrong" religion over you having no religious faith at all.

You can't psychoanalyze God; you don't know what he wants, or what you could possibly do to please him, so any attempt at calculating the probability of Him getting mad at you and sending you to hell is fundamentally flawed.

>>2591094
>if you select one religion
Well, the god of my religion thinks it's a serious sacrilege to worship him or even acknowledge it's existence
Have fun in hell, heathen

God just appeared in front of me and told me that he does indeed exist, and that he's quite amazed at the sheer number of tremendous faggots in this thread, not that there's anything wrong with that, but you get the point, and also that King of Queens is one of the worst sitcoms ever. Make of this what you will, but I declare the case fucking closed.