↪Frank Apisa
Well you are a true agnostic then. — Devans99

My position is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

On the other hand, I personally have an urge to try to answer all questions even if the answer is only a probability. — Devans

Yeah. Even if the "probability" is nothing more than confirmation bias.

Why is there something rather than nothing is particularly troublesome. They say even God might not know the answer. — Devans

I very, very, very seldom listen to "they."

I would be interested in seeing any evidence against the proposition 'the universe was created'... I can't find any. — Devans

No problem.

It is the same "evidence" that goes into "'the universe' was created."

The question of whether or not "the universe" is a "creation" or not...may simply not be answerable — Frank Apisa


I believe the question it is probably not answerable deductively. It might be answered through inductive or empirical routes though. But both of these forms of knowledge are inherently uncertain. In fact there is an argument that most/all of human knowledge is inherently uncertain: we assume we are not brains in vats; we know this inductively only; we cannot prove anything deductively.

So we have to live with the fact that most of our knowledge is of an inductive nature. We base our lives on the principle of induction. So I see no problem with extending its use to address questions like whether the universe was created.

I think I am only doing explicitly what our minds do when we process multiple pieces of inductive evidence for the same proposition... what you call blind guessing is probably a sub-conscious probability analysis. — Devans99

I've been at this for a very, very long time, Devans.

I know that I have seen dozens (tens of dozens) of probability estimates that show conclusively that it is more likely that "the universe" is a "creation" (necessitating a creator)...

...and tens of dozens of probability estimates that show conclusively that it is more likely that "the universe" is NOT a creation (that there is no need for a creator).

They all used the same "evidence" and the same intellectual approaches...the same logic!

People find what they want to find.

I am willing to live with the truth. I DO NOT KNOW...and neither side of the issue actually seems more likely than the other.

I suspect everyone else is in that same position...although there are many who refuse to acknowledge it.

Yup. Much better atmosphere here.

The entire of society around the world seems to be toxic these days. Glad to be away from it for a while.

Your one liners will go a lot further here than you suppose. — Frank Apisa


He'll have stiff competition. And no, I'm not referring to Banno. :strong: :grin: — S

;)

We are in agreement there, Devans. Of course, that makes me wonder why you titled this discussion, "God exists, I'll tell you why." — Frank Apisa


It's not my OP. — Devans99

Oops!

I lost track of that. I was wrong, Devans,.you are correct. I apologize.

Damn...and it is only March. I usually do not make my first mistake until after June! ;)

For the record, I would (and have) said the same thing to people who purport to have made probability estimates that show "no gods" or "more likely no gods than gods." — Frank Apisa


So how then do you solve problems that require a meta-analysis? — Devans

WE DON'T.

The question of whether or not "the universe" is a "creation" or not...may simply not be answerable.

The question, "Is it more likely that the universe is a creation than that it is not"...may simply not be answerable.

You seem to be ruling that out.

For example, we have a proposition for which we have multiple inductive pieces of evidence for and against. How would you go about judging the worthiness of the proposition if it is not using a probability meta-analysis? — Devans

It is permissible to "judge" the worthiness of a particular proposition and determine that the evidence is so ambiguous that it is better to simply acknowledge "we do not know"...than to hazard a blind guess.

But if a blind guess is what you prefer...fine. No law against it.

It would be more ethical, however, to acknowledge it as a blind guess than to pretend the "evidence" leads to it.

Hey, Iolo.

Yeah, I had to get away from that other place. Way too much hatred.

Soldier on, my friend. Your one liners will go a lot further here than you suppose.

You are kidding yourself, Devans. The fact that you are supposing you have solved a problem that the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have not been able to solve. — Frank Apisa


I have not solved the problem of whether there is a God or not... — Devans99

We are in agreement there, Devans. Of course, that makes me wonder why you titled this discussion, "God exists, I'll tell you why."

I've just done a probability analysis of whether there is a creator of the universe. — Devans

No, Devans...you have not. You have put together some numbers and words...and are pretending that it is a probability analysis. It is nothing more than confirmation bias gone ape-shit.

For the record, I would (and have) said the same thing to people who purport to have made probability estimates that show "no gods" or "more likely no gods than gods."

I can see of no way to come to "there is at least one god" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none"...using logic, reason, math or science.

And you are not pointing out any problems with my analysis so what am I to think? — Devans

Well, since I cannot point out any problems, the ONLY think you can think is that for certain YOU have solved the most baffling problem every to face any human; that no human (no matter how intelligent) has ever done it before; and that you have managed to do it in only one paragraph.

Right??????

↪Frank Apisa
Probability that a creator of the universe exists (I’ve plugged in very conservative estimates this time):

1. Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
2. The start of time/Big Bang: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Fine tuning of the universe for life: 75% + 25% * 50% = 87.5%
4. Why is there something rather than nothing 87.5% + 12.5% * 25% = 90.6%

So a 91% chance of the existence of a creator of the universe.

What exactly am I ‘pretending’ about? Why is it fiction? It looks like a perfectly valid probability analysis to me. It could be more detailed I grant and the actual numbers used are guesstimates but it is still a more refined approach to the problem than just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99

You are kidding yourself, Devans. The fact that you are supposing you have solved a problem that the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have not been able to solve...

...should give you a clue that you are kidding yourself.

But apparently it is not.

Okay...continue to think YOU have solved the most difficult problem ever...and that you were able to do it in only one paragraph...and that all the rest of humanity has not been able to accomplish what you have done here.

Doesn't sound delusional at all...

...RIGHT?

Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god." — Frank Apisa


The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:

(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))
Is true.

One seems to be true. — Devans99

There seems to be no way to tell which is true...but some people like you will continue to insist your side is true (or more likely true)...and those on the other side of the equation will continue to insist their side is true (or more likely true.)

Both sides are being absurd.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY...and any estimates are nothing but gratuitous nonsense.

So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley. — devans

There is a HEAVY inclination towards AGOSTICISM in science.

And that is as it should be.

Give it a try, Devans.

You'll see why I say that.

↪Frank Apisa
I don't need God. For example, I am very much a humanist, I think that humans should help themselves rather than rely on the possibility of God helping them (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company/p1 for example).

But humanist or not, I am still interested in whether there is a God or not and probability is a more enlightening approach that just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT PRETENDING TO HAVE A PROBABILITY ESTIMATE IS ANY MORE "ENLIGHTENED" THAN SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

Your probability estimate is total fiction, Devans.

Hey James.

I'm new here also.

Good place. Stick around.

↪Frank Apisa
IMO I'm trying to be scientific about it. Also IMO, I don't think science takes a very 'scientific' approach to God:

We don’t know if there is a God or not. No-one can prove anything 100% either way.

So why do (the relevant, mainly cosmology theories) scientific theories always assume that there is no god? Surely if they don’t know, they would be better off assuming both cases (there is no God / there is a God) and developing theories to match both possibilities.

So I think my probabilistic approach that keeps an open mind on the question as to whether there is a God is appropriate. — Devans99

Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god."

Both schools should get off their nonsense.

Your "probabilistic approach" is all self-serving, gratuitous nonsense. You can see that in your opposites...but you are blind to it in yourself.

This "god" thing is something you need...and will defend no matter what.

I hope at some point you get to "we really do not know...and any blind guesses I make about what is more probable than its opposite...is self-serving."

In the meantime, I'll comment from time to time.

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating. — Frank Apisa


I'm sorry if it came over as pontificating; I am definitely not insisting my argument is correct; it goes against intuitiveness on the nature of time for one thing. I'm not sure if my argument is correct or not; all I can do is assign a probability that my argument is correct (having taken into account all the other related evidence). — Devans99

Only you know for sure.

I SUSPECT most of what you are concluding as logical and intuitive is the result of confirmation bias.

I SUSPECT you want to end up at "a GOD exists"...and the only stuff that makes sense and is logical to you...is stuff that ends up there.

Yes. I think we can conclude if there was a creator, then he would have the following characteristics:

- Timeless
- Powerful
- Benevolent — Devans99

Respectfully as possible, Devans...I do not think we can conclude any of those things.

If there is a "creator"...the creator may not even realize it is a creator.

If you make toast this morning...and it happens that one molecule of the toast you make "creates" a universe that is much like the thing we humans call "the universe"...you would be the creator of a universe...and not even know it.

We ALL may be creating new universes every minute of every day.

A "creator" does not have to be "timeless" "powerful" or "benevolent."

Those are gratuitous characteristics you want for a creator.

But there is a gulf between the above and the traditional religious view of God. Thinking of God as the creator of the natural laws partially bridges the gap in terms of omnipresence and omnipotence. It does not cover omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm not sure that the traditional religious view of God is amenable to being tackled with a logical proof. The very idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence seems to fly in the face of logical thinking, — Devans

One thing it shares with "the traditional religious view"...is that it is nothing but a blind guess about what MIGHT BE.

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set. — Frank Apisa


It is an interesting point. When discussing the universe, it is sometimes helpful to use the term 'base reality' to refer to the entirety of everything. Then we can look at creation arguments and say whether they apply to our reality or 'base reality' or both.

Arguments that relate to our universe and our time generally recast as arguments relating to base reality and base reality time with no problem I find. — Devans

I'm not sure where you are going with that line of thinking...but if it helps get your away from what seems to be certainty of a "god"...good for you.

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be — Frank Apisa


It's a hotly debated subject. Personally I think both the weak and strong Anthropic principle arguments can be countered. My conclusion is the universe is probably fine-tuned for life. — Devans

Okay...that is your "conclusion."

But it is so inappropriate as a "conclusion" you might want to re-consider it.

The only reasonable "conclusion" would be: "It may be fine tuned for life...and life may not be the result of any fine-tuning."

Any conclusion you make is nothing more than a blind guess.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT — Frank Apisa


I am not insisting that my arguments are correct; I think there is a reasonable probability that my arguments are correct and I'm arguing for them. I maybe wrong. Further debate may bring that out. — Devans99

If what you said it true (no way I can know if it is or not)...

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating.

Not trying to give you a tough time here...just pointing out something that is probably obvious to lots of people here besides me.

↪Frank Apisa
I think a logical argument can be made for a similar but distinct question 'Is there a creator of the universe?'. — Devans99

Perhaps.

But what we humans call "the universe" may actually have had a "creator"...and that creator may not be a god.

Keep in mind that what we humans call "the universe" may be only an insignificant part of what exists.

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set.

For example, the fine-tuning argument: The universe is fine-tuned for life; there must be a fine tuner. But who fine-tuned the fine-tuner's environment for life? There must be another fine-tuner. This infinite regress terminates with a timeless fine-tuner (IE timeless so beyond cause and effect so does not in itself need creating). — Devans

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be.

All of what we humans consider "the universe" may be an accidental amalgam of things we cannot even imagine, Devans.

As to the question of 'Is there a God?'; if the definition of God includes the 3O's then framing a logical argument is more difficult. People sometimes say that the laws of nature possess some or all of the 3O's and then associate the laws of nature with God... — Devans

The ONLY "logical argument" that can be made about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is:

I do not know.

Try that one out for a bit...and when you finally grok it...you can move on to:

But here are my guesses about what it might be.

The only thing that EXISTS...is what exists. It is a tautology.

What existed yesterday may exist today...but it may not (at least not in the form it was in yesterday.)

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.

That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it.

There is no way to establish that any gods exist...or to establish that none do, Tim.

In fairness, I think Devans is just sharing his blind guesses about these things.

I figure eventually he will acknowledge that.

Well...earlier you mentioned, "They definitely are (worthy)! But if God exists, than heaven is a way better place than earth could ever be, so why wouldn't they want to live there? It would be a place without pain or sickness. A true paradise! Wanting them to stay healthy or at least alive on earth would be selfish, would it not? I think God takes them to heaven where they can be eternally happy and healthy,"

So...if the aborted fetuses were "living"...they would go to Heaven and live in that "true paradise" with your god...and be "eternally happy and healthy."

Your god may know that if allowed to live here on Earth for a relatively few years, they will do something that stops them from attaining Heaven...and the god may want to give them a pass. Your god may know that if allowed to live...they would live in excruciating pain from disease...and the god may want to give them a pass from that.

So you would deny your god that?

You would deny that fetus the chance to attain Heaven with a free pass...or to be freed from a life of pain and anguish?

Why would you do that?

Will you share your opinion on abortion, OM?

Most of it was guessing...informed guessing.

Poker is informed guessing...probability analysis.

Asserting there exists at least one god in the REALITY of existence...is also a guess...but IT IS A BLIND GUESS.

Asserting there are no gods in the REALITY of existence...is also a guess...and also a BLIND GUESS.

I used to play Hold 'em 4 - 5 hours a day on-line. Don't do that anymore. Love the game. And I loved your "example."

I do not talk about "a" god...and I did not do so in my comments.

I am saying that the assertion, "There are no gods"...is a guess.

I am saying that the assertion, "There exists at least one god"...is a guess.

If you disagree, tell me why and we can discuss THAT.

As I said...you seem to have a black or white position on this.

I think you are way off base on the issue...but you've got to live with your take on it.

I can think of no way that the question of whether any gods exist (or not) can be answered in any reasonable way except for: I do not know.

One can certainly make a guess in either direction...and almost anyone can come up with rationalizations for a guess in either direction.

But no meaningful conclusion can be drawn.

One cannot even make a meaningful conclusion about whether either position is more likely.

That will never stop people from making absolute assertions that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist.

Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence) — Andrew4Handel

Take another look at the question to which I am responding. (I notice there is no question mark...but it obviously is a question...and it is THE question to which I have been responding.)

YES, Andrew, there are times harming other humans can be justified...and it does not have to be a self-defense situation.

You may not agree with the justification...BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

Several posters here have offered reasonable scenarios of the position I have taken...and you are rejecting them because you seem determined to come up with "There NEVER is a justification for harming others."

If you had written, "It is my opinion that harming others is NEVER justified"...that would have been fine. You certainly are entitled to that position.

But you did not...you went further and asked for what you are getting...and then rejecting it.

For the record, my opinion is that it is possible for one human to harm another (non-defense harm)...and for it to be justified.

Thank you.

And I agree with what you were suggesting in your subsequent post. Nothing wrong with havng rich people at all.

But it makes no sense for a nation with as much as we have...to have people who are poor. Fact is, in a world with as much wealth as we now have on planet Earth...is makes no sense for ANYONE to be poor.

Everyone should have sufficient for a reasonable, comfortable life.

Please tell me your thought on this website:http://godisimaginary.com This does not necessarily represent my opinion or that of anyone else's. However I would love to hear you feedback! I would like to debate on this so if you could reply that would be best. Don't bite off more than you can chew though! — OpinionsMatter

The person writing that commentary apparently has a particular god in mind.

If he/she does have a particular god in mind...the commentator has set him/herself up for a demand for proof.

Saying a particular god is imaginary is a positive assertion...and the burden of proof for the assertion falls on the person making the assertion.

No problem! I had it formatted to green for you as well, but unfortunately when I copied and pasted it didn't stay green. — OpinionsMatter

Thanks. (With a big smile on my face.)

If you come from the position that harm is unacceptable then that would undermine any justification for harm. — Andrew4Handel

Okay...then I'd better not come from that position...which I do not.

I'd prefer it not happen...but I am not of the opinion that it is unacceptable.

I think once you have reasoned that some harm is acceptable then you undermine the grounds for saying any harm is unacceptable. — Andrew

Thank you for sharing what you think on this issue. I'll stick with what I think, though.

I think a lot of superstitions are not evidence based anyway. — Andrew

Okay. But so what?

Requiring "evidence based" was not a part of your question.

If someone was sacrificed to The Rain God to create rain and that did not create rain that would undermine the justification for the killing — Andrew

If one hopes to win a lottery...and one does not win...does that undermine the hope?

You are being WAY too black and white on this issue, Andrew.

There are justifications. You may not agree with them...but that does not make them non-justifications.

Or at least, that apparently is what the Trump administration thinks.

Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos certainly feels okay with that sentiment…even though she was not able to estimate the number of kids who would be impacted by the $18,000,000 in cuts. (272,000 is the number.)

Hey…it was a worthwhile trade-off for the Trump people. The very wealthy got large tax cuts…and the kids, who don't even vote, got screwed.

Sounds like par for the course to me.

I understand that green fonts denote sarcasm in Internet postings.

Don't have font colors here...so, if it is not too much trouble, color this post GREEN!

- Frank Apisa
What does anyone else think of this? — OpinionsMatter

I like it!

But that figures.

Thanks for posting it here, OM. I did not realize there was a single place for these kinds of posts.

Consent mitigates this situation somewhat. You could argue that desired pain is actually pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

Yup...you are right on the button here, Andrew.

BUT...harming others IS harming others...and that is what you asked about.

And the people doing the hurting are saying it is justified.

So are you.

Should we choose culture over reason? — Andrew4Handel

Maybe WE shouldn't...but the Aztecs might differ. And your question was: "Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence)"

The answer, as I see it...is YES.

I am thinking more of a reason based assessment. — Andrew

Okay...but keep in mind that an Aztec chief or shaman might consider "being essential to human existence and welfare" to be a very reason-based assessment.

Utilitarian has an issue here. A utilitarian could justify killing one totally innocent healthy person to save a thousand lives. But would you want to be that person? — Andrew

Not if I could help it...but people sacrifice their lives for all sorts of reason. So there may be some who would answer YES.

On the other hand if you do accept the death of one person like this what logical grounds do you then have for condemning arbitrary violence. — Andrew

I just do not want to see it happen...so I condemn it. But that does not mean I cannot answer your question the way I did.

You might contrast this with a boxing match however where there is consensual harm. Someone might accept harm and allow themselves to commit it. But I see that as an endorsement of harm per se. — Andrew

Some people get off on being hurt. Masochists do...and derive sexual pleasure from it.

I don't think that was where you were going with your question, though.

Cultural influences of a society plays a part in the answer to your question, Andrew.

The Aztecs considered human sacrifice to be an essential to human existence and welfare. Getting one's still-beating heart ripped from one's body certainly qualifies as "harming"...the perceived necessity for propitiating gods by ripping a still-beating heart qualifies as "justified."

The Aztecs were not alone in thinking and acting this way.

↪Isaac
↪Frank Apisa
I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment. — Devans99

Good man.

Best of luck with it.

Hope it gets published...and you get some decent reviews.

Let us know.

I don't know. I don't understand infinity either. It's just a logical inference. You think that your calculations using infinity are correct. The greatest mathematical minds in the world have not reached the same conclusion as you. You probably haven't understood infinity properly.

I mean... If you have reached a truly world-shattering conclusion like this, then I strongly recommend you publish, and subject it to peer review, an Internet forum is not going to do it justice. — Isaac

AMEN!

ANYONE who comes up with a definitive explanation of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...or to any facet of it...owes it to the world to submit their findings to an appropriate journal so that it can be subjected to review.

And "peer review" should not be interpreted to mean those of us who enjoy discussions in Internet fora...people often of limited learning in essentials to true "peer review."

I am not a god, if that is what you're asking. :smile: Seriously, of course this is a hopefully engaging theory and not a perfect proven truth.

I wouldn't call it an untestable hypothesis as anyone who is serious enough can test it for themselves by experimenting with managing the volume of thought.

This has already been done many times by many people over many centuries leading to many different flavored explanations. I'm not claiming the wording I choose is somehow superior to anyone else's explanations, it's just the best I can personally do at the moment. My hope is that my choice of words might occasionally succeed at engaging some number of readers who can't connect with other explanations of these phenomena, such as for example, those of a religious flavor. Whether that ever works is debatable, but this is what I know how to do, so I do it.

Getting back on point, I wouldn't suggest anyone simply accept what I'm saying. Even if one did agree completely, that would just be another pile of thought. Instead, if one is interested in any of this conduct your investigation, have your own experience, and if like me you simply have to explain what you find, explain it however you can.

In my view, the rational approach to this is to focus mostly on the experience itself. As example, if one is hungry the rational approach is to eat the food on the table. Explaining the food might come later, if ever. — Jake

I engage in lots of introspection...have for a very long time.

I noticed the qualified wording, Jake, and then the tack change. Just was wondering.

Frankly, I am not sure I understand your thesis. I'll keep listening in and see if I catch on.

Do you mean:

Bolding #1: From my point of view good wording.

Bolding #2: As I understand it, good wording.

Bolding #3: In my personal opinion, oh, my. — T Clark

Yes.

My question holds.

From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. At the psychological level, almost everything we're thinking, feeling and saying is just content that is absorbed from our cultural surroundings and then regurgitated with our names attached.

As I understand it, the illusion that we are separate is part of the life/death cycle, giving us the will to live etc. It's not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it's just the nature of reality, like it or not.

The illusion that we are separate does lead to a great deal of suffering however, so it might be wise for us to try to learn how to manage that illusion to some degree. — Jake

Bolding #1: Good wording.

Bolding #2: Good wording.

Bolding #3: Oh, my.

Are you saying that "the illusion" is for certain...or are you acknowledging that it is a supposition...an untestable hypothesis...a guess, if you will, about the REALITY?

Not argument, just explanation. A tenet of Ignatian spirituality is to see God in all things. When one goes through the Spiritual Exercises, a large part of that process is the ability to become more aware of the presence of God in our every day lives. To those with a predisposition to feel so, this will sound very hokey. But to hundreds of thousands of jesuits that have done the exercises it is very real. They would say all of life is a spiritual experience if you train yourself to be aware of it. Who is to say that they are wrong, or deluded, or anything else, simply because though a different frame a reference one can not understand how such a thing could be. — Rank Amateur

If a person is willing "to see Zeus in all things"...Zeus will start to have meaning and become more and more a part of the individuals perceptions of the REALITY.

That is, in essence, aiding and abetting what may well be deception of self.

I was a practicing Catholic during earlier years...and I "saw" this god in all things. But I was kidding myself. A god may well exist, but I was putting my thumb on the scale big time.

Nothing wrong with guessing at least one god exists...and nothing wrong with guessing that you know the nature of that god because of "revelation" you deem accurate...

...but the bottom line is that it is all guessing. You are guessing the the "revelation" is accurate...and you are guessing that at least one god exists.