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, I've just done a probability analysis of whether there is a creator of the universe. And you are not pointing out any problems with my analysis so what am I to think?

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??????

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.

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? 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?

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.

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.

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.

Well you are a true agnostic then. On the other hand, I personally have an urge to try to answer all questions even if the answer is only a probability. Why is there something rather than nothing is particularly troublesome. They say even God might not know the answer.

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

↪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."

God is difficult to grasp for some people, but I can tell you that assuming there is a God, specifically the one in the Bible — OpinionsMatter

There is no one God of the Bible. There is not even one Bible. Christians have relegated the Hebrew Bible to an old testament. Not only did they attempt to usurp the authority of the Hebrew Bible, they displaced the God of that Bible in favor of a pagan god and his progeny. In addition, the Christian Bible does not end with the words found in the books. There is, for example, no trinity in the Bible yet many Christians conceive of God as a trinity. The divine status of Jesus is not something that was determined by the Bible, but by the Council of Nicaea, based on some questionable interpretative claims.

The interpretation of Genesis 1 as creatio ex nihilo is dubious. The use of the plural "our image" and in the second and different story of the beginning "like one of us", raises questions about monotheism. In Exodus there is the problem of the name of God. However else one might interpret it, it is clear that there is an attempt at unification, whatever your ancestors may have called their god it is the same god. The commandment that you shall have no other god before me is not a claim of monotheism but of henotheism - this god and no others is to be your God. Monotheism is a later development, one that can be found in Isaiah but not earlier.

I realized that for the Bible to be used and interpreted correctly you need to read quite a lot of it, because other wise you won't understand the context. — OpinionsMatter

The Bible is a patchwork collection of books and stories. Consider, for example, the story of the Flood. It is not a single story but two different stories or versions with different and conflicting details woven together. For example, we are told both that there was one pair of each kind of animal (7:15) and seven of each kind (7:2). There are two diametrically opposed stories of the beginning, one in which everything is fluid and nothing separate or distinct from anything else, and a second in which everything is static and distinct until the rains come.

There have been different interpretations that are as old as the stories themselves. The idea that there is a correct interpretation is incorrect. One more interesting story that occurs in the beginning. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.

Nice post. I too find it hard to fathom faith in ancient religious texts. On a simplistic level, the older a source is, the less reliable it is making all religious tombs deeply suspect.

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% — Devans99

Care to explain this math? It looks like a Markov chain to me, which I think means you have to multiply the fractions, not add them.

And as well it appears to me you're confusing being with existence, existence with creation, and creation with creator. The only way to chain these together is with hypotheticals: if this, then that.

The trouble with hypotheticals is that in addition to hypothesizing you also have to affirm - prove - the antecedent, the this. You neglect this step. Lacking the affirmation, you cannot get to the that, and the entire argument is an unsupported supposition.

But you have been resurfacing here repeatedly with the same busted argument. Why?

It is not a multiplicative process as for when you are calculating the probability of two events occurring simultaneously, but an additive process to reflect the combination of several inductive statements into an overall likelihood that a proposition is true (IE incorporate all the evidence).

And as well it appears to me you're confusing being with existence, existence with creation, and creation with creator. The only way to chain these together is with hypotheticals: if this, then that. — tim wood

How exactly for example am I 'confusing being with existence'?

But you have been resurfacing here repeatedly with the same busted argument. Why? — tim wood

It came up in a conversation with someone who had not seen it before. And it is not a busted argument. I do not see a valid counter argument in your last post.

It is not a multiplicative process as for when you are calculating the probability of two events occurring simultaneously, — Devans99

Ex.:
1) The chances that something=X has two legs (as opposed to some other number of legs): .5 (i.e., 50-50)
2) The chances, given two legs, that the something has feathers: .5
3) The chances, given two legs and feathers, that it can fly: .5
4) The chances, given two legs, feathers, and flies, that it honks: .5
5) The chances, given two legs, feathers, flies, and honks, that it=X=a goose, .8

Overall chances that X is a goose, instead of something else: ((.5)^4) * .8 = .05, or 1 in 20.

I do not guarantee the accuracy of the odds, but I claim the arithmetic is correct.

How exactly for example am I 'confusing being with existence'? — Devans99

Because you associate these things without indicating how they an be associated.

Lets take the Himalayan mountains as an example. From their being, i.e., our mental construct, you infer their existence. Clearly the two are not the same. From their inferred existence you further infer a) that they are now, but at one time they weren't, and b) with no justification at all, that they were created. From the inference that they were created, you infer a creator. Ergo, a creator. QED.

Arguments are like critical knots, as in a rope. With respect to its purpose, and supposing the knot as correctly tied is adequate for its purpose, then such a knot as tied (i.e., perhaps not correctly) with respect to how it is tied, is either all right or all wrong.

So with your argument. It is all wrong. As has been pointed out to you by many, on many occasions. Had you really wished to share it with some individual, you might have considered a private sharing, with the caveat that the reasoning it's built on is wrong.

Overall chances that X is a goose, instead of something else: ((.5)^4) * .8 = .05, or 1 in 20. — tim wood

You are so confused. You have done a completely different kind of calculation. You have calculated the chances of simultaneous events which is a multiplicative process.

That is not what I'm doing. I have a proposition X for which I have inductive statements A, B, and C which tell me about the truth of X. How do you combine such statements? It is an additive process as demonstrated above. You assign probabilities for each individual inductive statement and then combine the results with addition:

- Start at 50% for proposition 'is there a creator?'
- Say that the Big Bang is on its own regarded as evidence 25% certain that there is a creator
- Then the revised calculation is 50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5%
- And so on for the other pieces of evidence...

Lets take the Himalayan mountains as an example. From their being, i.e., our mental construct, you infer their existence. Clearly the two are not the same. From their inferred existence you further infer a) that they are now, but at one time they weren't, and b) with no justification at all, that they were created. From the inference that they were created, you infer a creator. Ergo, a creator. QED. — tim wood

No I am not. For each piece of evidence I am assigning a probability that it implies a creator (like 50% for the Big Bang). Then I am combining the probabilities together for multiple pieces of evidence as explained above.

So with your argument. It is all wrong. As has been pointed out to you by many, on many occasions. Had you really wished to share it with some individual, you might have considered a private sharing, with the caveat that the reasoning it's built on is wrong. — tim wood

You are just plain wrong. I would not be standing by my arguments if anyone had come up with any valid counter arguments. As you have demonstrated clearly above with the probability example, you yourself do not even understand my arguments... you should at least understand them first before offering up your usual vague and wishy-washy criticisms.

You are just plain wrong. I would not be standing by my arguments if anyone had come up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

Devans...let me ask you directly something I have asked you directly (albeit, sarcastically) previously.

Make one of your probability estimates on this issue:

The greatest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have devoted themselves to consideration of the question of whether or not a CREATOR of what we humans call "the universe"...exists.

And they have come up short.

Now here you are in an Internet forum...claiming YOU can show (in a short paragraph) that what we humans call "the universe" not only was created, but that logic and reason dictate that OF NECESSITY it had to have been created. (All of which makes a CREATOR a given.)

Would you just apply that formula you just applied to a MUCH more difficult problem to this one...

...and tell us what you see the probability estimate to be for this being so.

I think you are making rather too much of it; it is just a probability estimate not an actual answer to the question of whether there was a creator.

As to probability of new philosophical discoveries coming up in a philosophical forum, I would say it is non-zero. I would not bother doing this if I did not think there was a chance we could get somewhere.

- Start at 50% for proposition 'is there a creator?'
- Say that the Big Bang is on its own regarded as evidence 25% certain that there is a creator
- Then the revised calculation is 50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5% — Devans99

Ok.

1. Start at 50% / 50% for an 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% — Devans99

1) I assume this means you have assigned a 50/50 probability to there being a creator. Yes?

2) Half the time there is no creator (1). I assume 2 means there either was a start/big bang, or not - 50/50. It would appear there was a start/big bang (although "start" is not well-defined). So. 1/4 the time there is no creator and a start, 1/4 creator and start; 1/4 no creator and no start; 1/4 creator and no start. We're at creator and start, 1/4.

3) Fine tuning. I assume you mean that if there is fine-tuning, that is evidence for a creator with a 75/25 possibility. So. .75 times .25 = .0625, or 3/16th.

4) Something v. nothing. I assume you mean that the existence of something is evidence of a creator at odds of .875 to .125. Lessee, .875 * .0625 = .0546875.

And this goes against the grain of the original assumption (as I understand it) that a creator is at 50/50, if that assumption is accurate. If accurate, then the rest is incoherent (you assumed 50/50) and all you have done is make an unsupported claim.

This just the arithmetic. As to all of the assumptions, they are all just assumptions without justification; that is, any other assumption would be as good.

You called me vague and wishy-washy. Do you want me to not be vague and wisy-washy?

↪Frank Apisa
I think you are making rather too much of it; it is just a probability estimate not an actual answer to the question of whether there was a creator. — Devans99

Well...since my position is 180 degrees out of synch with yours, I don't think discussing it is making too much of it.

But if you would prefer not to attempt a probability estimate on what I asked, I understand and accept.

As to probability of new philosophical discoveries coming up in a philosophical forum, I would say it is non-zero. I would not bother doing this if I did not think there was a chance we could get somewhere. — Devans

I would say it is non-zero also.

BUT of this magnitude? Of a discovery that goes beyond what the best of the best have been able to produce...and so easily "shown?"

Really!

Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist? — coolguy8472

No, but it's hard for some people to come to terms with "God can say no". Apparently he knows what's best for us, even when we don't. If the prayer isn't answered I would suspect that the prayer isn't what's best even though it seems that it's best for the one who is praying.

2) Half the time there is no creator (1). I assume 2 means there either was a start/big bang, or not - 50/50. It would appear there was a start/big bang (although "start" is not well-defined). So. 1/4 the time there is no creator and a start, 1/4 creator and start; 1/4 no creator and no start; 1/4 creator and no start. We're at creator and start, 1/4. — tim wood

No, 2 means on its own, what is the probability that the Big Bang was caused by a creator? So I assign 50% to that probability.

We already have a 50% probability of yes, so within the 'no' probability space, I take 50% of it an add it to the 'yes' probability space:

50% + 50% * 50% = 75%

Can't you see the way you are calculating it every piece of evidence 'for God' is reducing the probability 'of God' - clearly you must be doing something wrong - evidence for should increase the probability.

Sorry, doesn't work that way; and in this, there ain't no "should."

But you have not answered my other question. If my memory serves, this is at least your fourth thread with exactly the same arguments. You have received correction, instruction, guidance, both with good will and without. Why does none of it take? Why have you returned with the same wrong and wrong-headed arguments?

So far as I am concerned you may believe what you like. Why not leave it at that?

You are criticising my argument without understanding it.

It's hard to come to conclusions quickly, but I'll see what I can do about that.
One statement people usually use to argue against God is :"He never answers my prayer." They believe that a perfect being will give them what they want, when they want it, which is kind of weird. The Bible tells us God made us for companionship, which is more of a friend to friend approach, right? Would you expect your best friend to do whatever you want because you want it? Not really. Than why should you expect that from God? Because he's perfect? That would be silly, seen as he knows exactly what you really need, not what you want.
Another thing as that we can't see, hear, smell, touch, or whatever else to prove he's around. However, we can see his creation, but most people would argue that's not enough. The only thing I can say on this is that God would explain the things science can't. Remember when that cancer patient lived when they were deemed dead by a trained doctor? Those things can easily be explained when you consider God.
Also, I've been asked why God would let people get sick if he loves us so much. There was a time where we disobeyed God, and he told us that if we did disobey, we'd get sickness, disease, death and pain. We brought this upon ourselves, it was not God's fault. Consider this, if you get yourself 1 million dollars of debt, would you walk up to your best friend and demand they pay off your debt? No, because you were to blame and what did they have to do with it? Same with God, why should we expect him to pay of our debt when we are to blame, and likely we'll all into debt again.
I may have swerved off topic, so let's continue with the big subject. To be honest, it's incredibly difficult to show that God does exist, but it's super easy to disprove why he doesn't, in fact I can pull apart every single argument against God, but to straight out prove his existence is hard when we can't observe God. I have brought two atheists (Both professors in philosophy) to believe in the existence of God, and to this day they continue to explain to other professors and doctors of philosophy the proof for God. All I can say is that I am not religious, I never will be. But I certainly am convinced of late that God exists.

But you have not answered my other question. If my memory serves, this is at least your fourth thread with exactly the same arguments. You have received correction, instruction, guidance, both with good will and without. — tim wood

If you include other forums the number of threads is much more.

To be honest, it's incredibly difficult to show that God does exist, but it's super easy to disprove why he doesn't — OpinionsMatter

Karl Popper's theory of falsificationism

If a theory cannot be disproved or falsified - It is not scientific. This is true as the existence of God is not by the validity of observations but by faith. Philosophically, faith relies on believing something without conclusive evidence, so it is not much valuable in the table of Philosophy.

What I do believe; is that it takes more faith to attempt to disprove the existence of God than believing in him. The concept really, is that faith does not require arguments, the philosophy of religion should rely on faith and faith alone. Obviously, that was not the case for free-thinkers, and thus, the constant argument for the existence of a god was born.

So is it fair to assume that this all began because of questions from atheism? If so disproving the existence of a god requires more faith. More ideology.

I do not have faith in God, neither do I worship him or anything ridiculous like that, but I am convinced of his existence. I can falsify only the claims that are against his existence, although I'm sure I could convince somebody that God does not exist as well. I'm not all that great at sharing my proof with so many people, it seems to always come out differently than the way I want it too, but I can discuss this one-on-one with anybody who has the time and/or the mind set to converse with me. If this makes sense, let me know. If you'd like to hear more, PM me or DM me or whatever-you-call-it-now me. I will be available for about an hour tonight.

I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives.

I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives. — SethRy

Here we go with the "what do you mean by that" question. (The "believe in" construct is unfathomable to me.)

When you say, "I believe in God" (with a capital 'G' and without the use of the indefinite article)...

...are you actually saying, "It is my guess (or assumption/supposition) that at least one god exists...and that another guess (assumption/supposition) is that the nature of that god has been revealed to me via some scripture or another?"

Are you saying you know what pleases or offends the god you guess/assume/suppose exists?

I believe in God; the christian god specifically in the roman catholic belief that's monotheistic. I believe in God solely by faith. The god named God. I couldn't simplify it further.

Okay, you cannot simplify it further. (I'd just like to discuss this a bit. I mean no insult. Just attempting to understand YOUR position a bit better.)

Obviously you suppose a god exists. (I think we can agree on that.)

And equally obviously you suppose you know the nature of the god...via scripture and the traditions of the Catholic Church. (I think we can agree on that, also.)

Do you acknowledge that your suppositions could be wrong...or is that something that you are unable, for one reason or another, to acknowledge?