if a man or woman had extremely advanced technology and some how managed to pass into higher dimensions (there is a youtube video called "10 dimensions explained"). I believe this would be a logical reason to say there is a god. — James Statter
I am left to conclude that any AND ALL assertions that “at least one god exists”; “no gods exist”; “it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist; or “it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists”…
…are nothing more than blind guesses. — Frank Apisa
If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa
TheMadFool
6k
If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa
For God:
1. The ontological argument for god
2. The argument from design
3. The Kalam cosmolgical argument
4. The prime mover argument
5. The fine-tuning argument
Against God:
1. The problem of evil — TheMadFool
I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science. — Frank Apisa
TheMadFool
6k
↪Frank Apisa All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence. — TheMadFool
A person tells you there are blue pigs everywhere in Australia and another tells you that, if you're lucky, you might spot an orange echidna. You spend a year travelling in Australia and see no blue pigs and no orange echidnas. The quote above is equivalent to saying that blue pigs and orange echidnas are still equally likely, i.e. if you did not see a blue pig, there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia, and if you did not see an orange echidna there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia.
This is neither logical, reasonable, mathematical or scientific. If blue pigs are supposed to be abundant and orange echidnas rare, the probability of encountering a blue pig is much higher than encountering an orange echidna, thus the probability of not encountering a blue pig much lower than the probability of not encountering an orange echidna.
Neither actually exist, to my knowledge and experience (I was lucky enough to spot a few normal echidnas), and neither have been disproven by my experience (it's still possible that Australia is teeming with blue pigs and I was just unlucky), however: the claim that Australia is teeming with blue pigs is now less likely than the claim about the rare orange echidna.
This is, in fact, how science works. We calculate the probability of a null hypothesis being true given the experimental data. Probability theory being a logical, reasonable field of logical, reasonable mathematics.
If God A is omnipresent, eternal, and interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, it has a much higher probability of being detected scientifically than God B who was very tiny, billions of light years away, lived only for one second, and had the scattering cross-section of a neutrino. That is, the probability of not detecting God A ever is much lower than the probability of not detecting God B. Given that neither God A nor God B have been detected ever, God A is a less likely proposition than God B.
And the notion that God A is omnipresent, eternal, interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, but is not detectable unless He so chooses is non-scientific, and can be dismissed by scientists on those grounds.
If God A can be said to be less likely than God B, then it cannot be said that, unless proven or disproven, God cannot be said to be more likely to exist or not exist on scientific grounds (or indeed mathematical grounds), whatever characteristics God might have.
As an extra: any monotheistic God has a vanishingly small probability of existence if undetected, since there are an infinite number of possible monotheistic Gods and, by definition, at most one can exist, making the monotheistic God's probability of existence infinitesimal on mathematical grounds, again, no matter His characteristics beyond His monotheism. — Kenosha Kid
A Seagull
489
↪TheMadFool Frank Apisa
All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence.
It might help to look at the history. 'God' or more specifically the concept of god was invented by man. No question. Hence only the concept of god exists. End of story. — A Seagull
So I believe we are in a constant evolving transition through history from "how reality is" when we do not have knowledge and thus control to "how reality does" when we do have knowledge and control. Going from that which is subject to the all knowing all powerful to that which is the all knowing/powerful. — Benj96
They ARE blind guesses.
And there is PLENTY of evidence that at least one god exists...just as there is PLENTY of evidence that no gods exist.
We humans simply cannot tell which it is.
EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, the stuff we humans know about and the stuff we do not know about is evidence of "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."
We just cannot figure out which it is.
That does not stop some people from blindly guessing that at least one does exist that none exist; that it is more likely that one exists than that none exist; or that no gods exist than that at least one does.
All of them are blind guesses.
TMF,,,think this over carefully. It is important. — Frank Apisa
Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."
Please deal with that. — Frank Apisa
In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.god(s) exists — Frank Apisa
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.