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
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
I've just done a probability analysis of whether there is a creator of the universe. — Devans
And you are not pointing out any problems with my analysis so what am I to think? — Devans
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
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
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
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
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
The question of whether or not "the universe" is a "creation" or not...may simply not be answerable — Frank Apisa
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
↪Frank Apisa
Well you are a true agnostic then. — Devans99
On the other hand, I personally have an urge to try to answer all questions even if the answer is only a probability. — Devans
Why is there something rather than nothing is particularly troublesome. They say even God might not know the answer. — Devans
I would be interested in seeing any evidence against the proposition 'the universe was created'... I can't find any. — Devans
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
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
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
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
But you have been resurfacing here repeatedly with the same busted argument. Why? — tim wood
Ex.:It is not a multiplicative process as for when you are calculating the probability of two events occurring simultaneously, — Devans99
Because you associate these things without indicating how they an be associated.How exactly for example am I 'confusing being with existence'? — Devans99
Overall chances that X is a goose, instead of something else: ((.5)^4) * .8 = .05, or 1 in 20. — tim wood
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
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. — Devans99
- 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
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
↪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
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
Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist? — coolguy8472
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
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
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
I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives. — SethRy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.