[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 169 KB, 500x334, 1316702452990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848809 No.3848809 [Reply] [Original]

So this question came to me talking with an atheist dude. he said that it "was improbable" the existence of God. my question is: How the fuck did he calculated this?

inb4 OP is a christ-fag. im actualy atheist. but that answer shocked me.

>> No.3848814

>>3848809
This isn't science or maths. saged

>> No.3848819
File: 32 KB, 500x500, faithlogic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848819

obviously the question of god's probability isnt something you can put a number on, which is why i lol'd heartily when fucking jewy ben stein pressured dawkins to put a figure on it.

the reason it is presumed improbable is because and supernatural being can be sposed, there are an infinite number, and you can make up anything you like about them, define their characteristics in any way you like, but the chance of them being real will be extremely unlikely because you've just made them up, and there is no physical evidence to hint that they might be real at all.

that why thigs like FSM and IPU have been dreamt up, that are as equally improbable as god, but no1 in their right mind would possibly believe.

>> No.3848827

>>3848819

seem legit, actually. thnx anon

>> No.3848842

He meant improbable following Occam's razor not improbable because I took into account all the factors and crunched the numbers.

>> No.3848846

>>3848819
*the reason it is presumed improbable is because any supernatural being can be supposed...

>> No.3848866

>>3848846
I still want to face fuck you.

>> No.3848896
File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1317567786657s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848896

>>3848866
nigga what

>> No.3848897
File: 52 KB, 646x536, Slutmaster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848897

>>3848819
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others — for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein — considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

Well EK, can you disprove the physical laws? Can your best friend Richard Dawkins disprove the physical laws?

>> No.3848905

>>3848897
lol, looks like we have to define what 'god' is first, before we start trying to argue probabilities on the subject.

>> No.3848912

>>3848905

then you need to know the entire universe to make a good probabilistic calculus.

>> No.3848913

>>3848905
Omnipotence and Omnipresence, isn't it obvious?

Are you arguing against the physical laws? Or are you just another militant atheist who hates christianity and christianity alone.

>> No.3848915

>>3848897
Why do we have to call physical laws god we already have a name for physical laws. This is just religious people or for some reason irrational people wanting to let everyone be right by naming something abstract god.
God is the sun because the sun gives life (quite literally) okay so god does exist but we already call it sun so who cares about calling it god?

>> No.3848917

>>3848905
Can I eat your ass please?

>> No.3848920

>>3848915
>>3848915
We don't have to call them god, just acknowledge them as possibly godlike.

God isn't just a sky wizard, we sometimes act really small minded.

>> No.3848922

>>3848912
if i knew the entire universe, probability would have nothing to do with it; i'd KNOW the answer.

>>3848913
i'm not arguing against physical laws. the god i think is improbable is the living, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent being that is supposed to have created the universe, made all life, and watches and judges humans.

>>3848917
stop posting retarded shit all over my fukken /sci/

>> No.3848924

>>3848922
Is that a maybe?

>> No.3848927

>>3848922
Don't forget omnibenevolent (most of the time. Allah doesnt fit into this).

>> No.3848928

>>3848922
>my fukken /sci/
>my /sci/

You see there is where people really dislike you, EK, that and you are a dumbass.

>> No.3848931

>>3848922

then, atheist cant say something like god its "improbable", since they are saying it with a limited knowledge of the system they are talking about, and without the brain capacity to calculate, and measure that thing.

>> No.3848932

>>3848809

Your friend hasn't thought about it very much. Obviously, he can necessarily have no idea about the probabilitiy. But - of course - nor can you.

>the difficulties of transcendency

>> No.3848935

>>3848931

and by that thing im talking of probabilities.

>> No.3848936

>>3848927
neither does yahweh/jehovah.
it's the same god anyway; the same petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully.

>> No.3848937

>>3848920
Physical laws aren't godlike they're physically law... like..?
Heres the thing, calling physical laws god is ridiculous on so many levels especially if it's only being called god to counter an argument of whether there is a god or not it's semantics at best it's intellectually dishonest and insulting your own intelligence when you think about it.

>> No.3848938

>>3848927

>Allah isn't omnibenevolent

why d'you think that? (not even muslim)

>> No.3848939

>>3848897

Physical laws operate in a consistent manner. By their very nature they never change. This means that 'god' does not intervene in any way. Therefore, in this case his existence is irrelevant.

Also it's a stupid idea. You can't just change the definition of 'god' to whatever suits you. This is the problem with trying to prove a negative. It's impossible to rule out all possible scenarios, especially when they're considered supernatural. This is why atheists constantly insist that the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Because it is.

>> No.3848947

>>3848931
they understand that supernatural creatures can be imagined by human minds, and they understand that no physical evidence of god's existence has ever been found.
they are eligible to comment on probability, but they'd just be foolish to state that they KNOW of god's none-existence.

>> No.3848958
File: 14 KB, 292x314, 1316026315351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848958

>>3848809
I think you are having trouble identifying the difference between saying something without evidence and saying something with evidence.

Now im atheist i do not blindly believe the baseless assumptions of religion, therefore when im posed the question "do you believe god exists?" i say no.

Some people dont have the balls to say thats something you read out of a 2000 year old book you retard, a book thats 2000 years old, 2000 years, do you know how dumb people were 2000 years ago? when people probably chiefly thought the reason for back pain was an invisible gremlin hanging off your back its literally fucking stupid.

So they use improbable as too not completely step on everyones toes.

Its not a question of probability though its a question of evidence, its always a question of evidence, there is no evidence for god, there is no god.

Actually I can make it a question of probability though, whats more probable, people 2000 years ago knew what they were talking about or present day scientists know what they are talking about.

>> No.3848959

>>3848947
Which is ofcourse why the majority of atheists claim agnostic atheism, Willing to change their minds if evidence presents itself but not believing in any god till evidence is shown.

>> No.3848960

>>3848936
>>3848947

confirmed for dawkinsfag

>> No.3848963

>>3848939
>Deduces that physical laws are irrelevant.

If you cannot prove without a doubt of your mind that god does not exist, then you are not gnostic Atheist, you are Agnostic Atheist.

Deal with it already.

>> No.3848964

>>3848959

Except that there is absolutely nothing that could exist that most would accept as evidence for a god, even if a god were to exist.

>> No.3848969

>>3848938
The muslim reaction to the problem of evil that i've observed is that allah does evil to test humans, or at least lets muslim satan do it.
Then again this is from a couple of years ago on some #islam irc channel.
[shrug]

>>3848931
Yep, because atheists don't tend to claim absolute knowledge of the universe.
Atheists can't rule outthe possibility that god exists the same way that they can't rule out the universe wasn't created by a giant ham sandwich.

>> No.3848978

>>3848964
How about a burning bush that talks or any kind of fucking miracle?
Deistic gods can't be proven or disproven so it's not even worth talking about because it's completely irrelevant if one exists.

>> No.3848985
File: 121 KB, 254x273, 1242765478520.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3848985

You can't prove the existence of god, hypothetically if he did and it was somehow proven, religion would be dead since it is all about the faith in a god, when it becomes proven its no longer faith, it becomes scientific fact, no matter what, science always wins

>> No.3848992

>>3848978
>>3848964
Well I guess if an omnipotent god existed, it would have the power to convince me of its existence.

Nevertheless I appear to remain unmoved

>> No.3848993

>>3848969

We know so little in our current state that I think it would be impossible to claim that no god or Godlike entities exist. Entities or organisms that are not only far superior in thinking patterns but also probably have a far better understanding about the cosmos then we do. Just the other week we discovered that neutrinos can go faster than light. I have for don't know. But the probability that there are "God-like" entities out there is probably fairly high considering the vastness of our Universe.

>> No.3848997

>>3848993

*I have to say I don't know*

>> No.3849004

>>3848978

It would be dismissed as hallucinations or given some other explantion, or it would be left for further interpretation/testing/speculation. Noone except those already religious would accept that as evidence for the existence of a god.

>> No.3849006

>>3848993
What is your norm you're measuring that against? honestly that was a silly notion its not probable nor improbable.

Just because we can imagine it and like it doesn't make it so, that was reason for many logical fallacies throughout history in the understanding of the cosmos.

Such as god.

>> No.3849008

>>3848992

It would have the power to do so- yes. But would it want to? You can't assume that. And must a god be omnipotent to qualify as a god? God is not biblically all-powerful.

>> No.3849009

>>3848993
Oh sure, but until we find some evidence for one there's no more reason to believe in any particular god than in an all-powerful ham-sandwich.

Strictly speaking, most atheists don't make the claim to know absolutely there is no god, they just make the claim that since we haven't found any evidence pointing to one, there's no reason to believe in one.

>> No.3849010

>>3848809
God is the law of probability, probability has the ultimate say in whether something occurs or doesnt occur. In the same instance it is impossible for something to never occur considering it is given the time needed to occur.

>> No.3849012

>>3848809

Simple.

Assuming God means the Christian God, lets consider the huge amount of religions and Gods that there ever was conceived on this planet. We are also going with the fact that most religions negate one another we can only have one true answer.

Now I don't have the number of definitions of Gods and religions, but it's safe to assume that it's in the thousands or above that. Considering all of them have an equal chance of existing since we have no way of giving a religion more credit over the other, the probability of Christian God being real is bellow 0.1%.

Is that improbable enough for you?

>> No.3849013

>>3849004
bull shit cop out answer.

>> No.3849017

>>3849010
No the law of probability is the law of probability stop giving abstract ideas names that aren't theres.

>> No.3849019

>>3849009
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly. In dictionaries it just straight up says "someone who doesnt believe in god" which is right but its also misunderstood most of the time.

Its correctly defined as not believeing in the assumptions of religion - like you said no evidence, no reason.

>> No.3849020

>>3849006

All I'm saying is there is a possibility for higher more intelligent life. You can't begin to claim to know the vastness and entirety of the Universe when we're still learning about it. Your acting like a religious person now. Admit it we barely know anything right now. Does that mean we should stop? Of course not...but we do not know how our Universe works and are still discovering new and intriguing things about it every day...hence why I say I don't know.

>> No.3849023

>>3849013
Hypothetically.
Christianity never existed.
What if jesus lived in our time, how quickly would he be shoved in a mental home.

>> No.3849030

>>3849013

I didn't say it wasn't.. but that's exactly how it would be treated if it happened, no?

>> No.3849036

>>3849017
Im not trying to confuse anyone im just saying that the law of probability has control over everything, which is basically supposed to be the power god has over the universe. What im trying to say is that what I think governs this universe is not some kind of being but just a simple law. But who knows I could be wrong

>> No.3849038

>>3849023
As soon as he started telling people to stone children and kill apostates hopefully, and to live by the laws of the old testament. If he could preform any miracle that he was supposedly capable of then it would be obvious.

>> No.3849041

>>3849030
It would be scientifically scrutinized but if it truly were a miracle it would withstand scientific scrutiny and science would have no claim on it.

>> No.3849040

>>3849020
No, thats not what you said, you said god like, i completely believe there is other intelligent life more/less advanced, but not races of god like beings.

>> No.3849052

Imagine a race of sentient beings looking down on us wondering what our potential is, and then they come down, see our politics, see religion rampant in a semi technological society, why would they even bother making contact?

>> No.3849054

>>3849013
Thats right I can't assume anything about the nature of a god, but what's the point believing in a crippled god?

>>3849012
Incorrect, there's another thread about this kind of thing on /sci/ at the moment, I highly recommend you go and look at it.
The upshot is that if you have an infinitely small chance of something occurring and an infinite time frame for it to occur in, you cannot guarantee that it will occur (it is however "almost sure" to occur)

>> No.3849058

I mean any non-zero chance of something occurring, not infinitely small

>> No.3849063

>>3849030

I'm not the guy you were arguing with but I reckon it depends on the number of people who actually seen it. If I came up to you and said "dude, I seen this burning bush and it started talking to me and it told me it was GOD!", you'd probably assume I was a lunatic. If a handful of people seen it, they'd probably be regarded in the same light. But if hundreds of thousands of people seen it, it'd be harder to label it as lunacy or hallucination. And if billions seen it, then we'd really need to consider the possibility that this wasn't just mass hysteria and that it actually happened. But even then, I think that just because the burning bush said it was God, there'd still be no real reason to assume it was telling the truth.

>> No.3849070

>>3849052
I would instantly be wary of an advanced species making contact with us like you said majority of humans are selfish, stupid, judgemental, hateful, violent.

What would they have to learn? If an alien species made contact its almost surely to steal our planet.

>> No.3849078

>>3849070
I think the most intriguing thing thats very rarely brought up with contacting alien life is look at what happened to the native americans, the spanish wiped out millions by diseases look what happened when Europeans tried to invade further into Africa we got wiped out by their diseases, extra terrestrial diseases would be a huge concern of mine.

>> No.3849106

>>3849063
Nah, remember, it would have to be repeatable too.

>> No.3849104

>>3849070
They are jealous of us, we have the potential to do anything, the reason they view us and judge us, is because they do not.

>> No.3849143

>>3849078
Would diseases fit for infecting lifeforms with absolutely zero genetic similarity to us even be compitable, though?

>> No.3849148

>>3849012
>incorrect application

>>3849054
>inappropriate response

>> No.3849152

>>3849143
Not sure, we'd have to know more about the life form. but I wouldnt even really risk it.

>> No.3849157

>>3849148
Yep, I meant to reply to >>3848993

>> No.3849164

>>3849063

Yeah I agree with that, BUT.. how would such an instance support the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omniscient being? how could it support the absolute truth of scripture?

How could any evidence ever support these hypotheses?

>> No.3849263

>>3849012

you are bad because:

1.- you assume god is the christian god.

2.-the fact that most religion negate each other is false. some religion consider other ones as a complement or a alternate explanation in other words.

3.- you dont know the exact number of definitions of god.

4.-you consider them to have equal chances of existance, without a good reason to say this.

5.- you dont consider that you dont know the entire universe.

>> No.3849276

http://www.google.com/search?q=subjective+bayesian+probability

>> No.3849342

>>3849263 not the guy you're responding to, but;

>1.- you assume god is the christian god.
Not really the atheist assumption. We just take that one god as an example because most people we talk to do assume it the only one that actually exists.

>2.-the fact that most religion negate each other is false. some religion consider other ones as a complement or a alternate explanation in other words.
Most religions do negate each other, to a greater or lesser extent. The various sects of Islam and Christianity and Hinduism cannot all be true, and that's almost everyone right there. Within each one, they demonstrate their inability to discover anything about god by their disagreement over what god actually says and wants. Even assuming one of them must be right, that means almost everyone must be wrong about it. And not about minor things, but major things. One of those three say Jesus is explicitly not the son of god. One of them says Jesus is the son of god. And one of them says nothing about Jesus whatsoever. This is not just a different perspective.

>3.- you dont know the exact number of definitions of god.
Uncountable.

>4.-you consider them to have equal chances of existance, without a good reason to say this.
Until one of them has more than the word of a particular prophet or preacher to go on, they are all of equal weight.

>5.- you dont consider that you dont know the entire universe.
We only need to know which part the religious say they know, which makes them know god exists. Just like if I have a golden lion in the trunk of my car. I don't need to show you the whole universe to demonstrate this, just the trunk of my car.