Also I can't pretend as if I know — Andrew4Handel
Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse
Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability,
— PoeticUniverse
He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely. — Coben
They cannot, unless one goes off on some extremely skeptical tangent in relation to the make up of mundane earthly reality as we know it, the dice scenario we have a lot of knowledge of the factors. How many universes have we studied to see how much they need or do not need deities? What branch of science does the testing for such things? And so on.Feel free to educate me if both statements can be appreciated with a comparable use of the word 'probability'. — JosephS
I agree, though I see this is somewhere on the spectrum closer to the dice scenario then the question of the deity.Another statement that falls into the former category would be the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. — JosephS
Sure. I find it really odd that in such discussions the experiences of the people involved are considered to not play a role. If person X has a wide variety of experiences that lead them to believe X is likely or true, and person Y does not, this can mean that each person reaches different conclusions about probability and BOTH can be being quite rational.I can believe that you believe that God is likely/unlikely, but I'm not sure why I ought to believe it as well. — JosephS
I disagree. For a couple of reasons. First it is as if one is not already in a belief system and looking at some options. And then one notes that one does not have an explanation for X, and then decide that God would provide one. I think that is an extremely rare situation. It is more likely that one has grown up influenced by religion, directly or not, and experiences of that religion or that notion of God either seem to 'work' or work, so there is no real reason to move away from them, or one reaches to the religion (at all or more deeply) or to God (as one thinks of it) and this helps, or out of curiosity or yearning one engages in the practice (more or in a real way for the first time) and the practices lead to experiences which seem to fit and/or the process makes one feel better and one's intuition is it is correct, in the main, in part, to some important degree. This is much clearer in, say, some versions of Hinduism where practice is central and experience is central and talked about constantly as part of getting feedback on practices. It is a decidedly empirical process - which of course does not mean it is corrent is some, all or any of the conclusions or explanations.I don't know if gods are an important unknown. It would probably depend on your notion of a god.
Certain's notions of gods would be less plausible or clearly non existent. I think the most valid reason to invoke a god is due to gaps in explanation such as a first cause. — Andrew4Handel
For example I cannot know how many grains of sand are on a beach or how many stars are in the universe — Andrew4Handel
However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns — Andrew4Handel
Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, which is all we can do if we want to choose, which often we must, such as to go or not to church. Tough to sit on a fence, but it seems that's what has to be done, as agnostic. — PoeticUniverse
I think the only things that are impossible are logical contradictions.
There are things that will probably never happen but are not ruled out by the current laws of physics.
A square circle is definitionally impossible. But a a massive square is not impossible but may be physically implausible — Andrew4Handel
Sure, but I was focusing on the reasons people believe.There are reasons not to believe in mainstream religions because of problems with their scriptures such as contradiction, incoherence etc. — Andrew4Handel
That doesn't contradict my points. I am not saying that all people who are raised in the church or in a religion will have those experiences, seek them, engage in practices with any particular interest, etc. I was describing what I hear from people who believe. That even in the states, where practice is often toned down, people will refer to experiences they have, in church, socially in the religion, in experiences that fit the more traditional religious experience - not necessarily visions of angels or such dramatic things, but a sense of peace or connection after prayer, etc. IOW they are not believers because they decided to fill in the gaps, say, around what set the Big Bang in motion or why is the universe seemingly so fine tuned, but rather out of their experiential lives. This is even truer of people who turn to religion out of despair, catastropy, addiction, powerful experiences. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is religious or a theist because God filled in the gaps in knowledge. Yes, theists will often argue in online discussions and elsewhere, but it's not what made them or kept them theists. And if you investigate how they became theists you will hear experience based answers.I am not devaluing experience. I have personally never had a religious experience or encountered God and I spent my whole childhood in a religious environment. — Andrew4Handel
If I personal encountered God tomorrow I wouldn't be able to prove this to anyone probably, so I could not use this to convince anyone else of God's existence. — Andrew4Handel
Also I can't pretend as if I know. Some people try and argue with you such as saying gods are really implausible or there is no afterlife etc. I don't think you can entirely prove something by argument but only evidence resolves things. (I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling) — Andrew4Handel
Knowing something doesn't imply that you know it with certainty or that it's provable. — Terrapin Station
The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery. — T Clark
I don't think I have ever met anyone who is religious or a theist because God filled in the gaps in knowledge — Coben
I think if you know something then it has to be certain. — Andrew4Handel
a Universe from Nothing like Lawrence Krauss. — Andrew4Handel
Then we wouldn't be able to make any empirical claim, including things as simple as "I know where I parked my car," — Terrapin Station
I don't see how this follows. You can be certain about where you parked you car. You don't know of your car has been stolen but that is statistically unlikely. You can know where you parked your car without knowing if it is still there. — Andrew4Handel
So what definition of certainty are you using? — Terrapin Station
Having no good reason to doubt something. — Andrew4Handel
Then why wouldn't you accept that for some people, there's no good reason to doubt the nature of consciousness, whether Gods exist, whether there's an afterlife, etc.? — Terrapin Station
I think other peoples reasons can be considered false. I don't think reason is subjective. This is why I differentiate between belief and knowledge. — Andrew4Handel
Somethings are internally contradictory or refuted by further evidence. — Andrew4Handel
What kind of success do you believe consciousness studies have had? — Andrew4Handel
Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse
He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely. — Coben
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.