jorndoe
873
The most common use of the term "God" (by far) is in reference to whatever religious scriptures.
Not sure how to calculate the probability of those old, sumptuous stories being literal history, but I'd say rather unlikely.
As (mere) characters in stories, a whole lot of fantastic, fictional beings exist, that come to life in the heads of people. — jorndoe
Since this is a philosophy forum, there are other special uses of the term "god" (or in plural), though they'd have to be related to the most common use in some way or other, yes?
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference; otherwise we're asked to calculate the plausibility of the independent existence of whatever vague, nebulous entities that come to mind when invoking the words.
Or, are we just talking (ontologized) abstract objects (Platonia style)? — Jorndoe
TheMadFool
6k
Not that I'm a mathematician or a logician or anything worth its salt but Baye's Theorem seems to come up with the goods insofar as the OP's query is concerned:
H = Hypothesis (that god exists)
E = Evidence observed
P(X) = probability that X is true
P(X/Y) = probability that X is true given thaf Y is true
P(H/E) = [P(H) × P(E/H)]/{[P(H) × P(E/H)] × [P(~H) × P(E/~H)]} — TheMadFool
Pinprick
234
@Frank Apisa
In my opinion, science has determined facts about the universe. This isn’t to say we know everything about the universe, but some things we can be certain of. Of these facts, all are physical in nature. If asserting that at least one God exists violates any of these facts, it is very unlikely to be true, because experience has shown us that these facts have never been violated. To say that the existence of at least one God is just as plausible or likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is to deny the effectiveness of science. IOWs, asking me to accept that the existence of at least one God is just as likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is also asking me to discard all that is known about the universe. And you’re asking me to do this without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it seems to me that it is more likely that our scientific facts are in fact factual, and that the God hypothesis is highly unlikely to be true. — Pinprick
Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us. — Frank Apisa
And just as pre-history people made guesses about the nature of things that we find laughable today...perhaps all that science stuff you are touting will be laughable to humans of a couple hundred years from now. — Frank Apisa
Pinprick
235
Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us.
— Frank Apisa
All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not. — Pinprick
Some of it may be, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we’re right about? Electromagnetism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is inertia or thermodynamics. We understand/know some fundamental things about the world we live in. — Pinprick
Spot-on. :up: Frank's something of a radical relativist, or dogmatic skeptic like the proto-p0m0 Gorgias, (which, of course, is self-refuting), for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves.All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not. — Pinprick
180 Proof
1.3k
All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not.
— Pinprick
Spot-on. :up: Frank's something of a radical relativist, or dogmatic skeptic like the proto-p0m0 Gorgias, (which, of course, is self-refuting), for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves.
Frank's obstinately incorrigible on this point: every (theistic) g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains.
So until he acquaints himself with e.g. Sextus Empiricus, or Hume, or Popper/Feyerabend or Haack, Frank's bound to keep on mistaking 'equipollence' where there isn't any and unfortunately drawing epistemic or logical 'false equivalences' that mislead him into disbelieving "seeing faces" in clouds and the clouds themselves and/or just missing the forest fire for unburnt trees, etc.) — 180 Proof
Again, making my point. :smirk:"... for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves."
— 180 Proof
BALONEY! — Frank Apisa
:up:"... g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains."
— 180 Proof
Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue ... You cannot do it. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.3k
"... for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves."
— 180 Proof
BALONEY!
— Frank Apisa
Again, making my point. :wink:
"... g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains."
— 180 Proof
Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue ... You cannot do it.
— Frank Apisa
:up:
Thanks, Pinprick! — 180 Proof
Well, sir, Onan's got nothing on you. Carry on ...... will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.3k
... will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years.
— Frank Apisa
Well, sir, Onan's got nothing on you. Carry on ... — 180 Proof
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrums. I've not ever tried to persuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up:If you could defeat the argument... — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.3k
If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof
180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Trolling and projecting again. Please, Frank, don't be a bore too. :shade: — 180 Proof
If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof
So accurate, except Ive come to realise Frank is mentally ill, dementia, delusions of grandeur or Bi-polar (though its uncommon for episodes to last so long and consistently so maybe not.).
Its obviously very difficult to pin point his actual problem by his posts, but I think its equally obvious that he has some kind of mental illness. To that end, he deserves our pity rather than our derision. You should just let him be dude, I really dont think he can help himself. Engagement usually feeds the fantasy.
Apologies for being preachy...I just feel a bit bad for him, hopefully he has family or friends who help him through the worst of it. If he needs to act like he does to cope, the behaviour is easy to ignore and might be a needed mechanism for him. — DingoJones
Okay — Frank Apisa
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference — jorndoe
Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.” — Frank Apisa
jorndoe
876
Okay
— Frank Apisa
You didn't really address anything (just took a guess at what's in my head instead).
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference
— jorndoe
... say, a definition.
Thus, your definition is exactly what any calculation (and much else) depends on, it's all we have to go on in the first place.
Define so that no calculation is feasible, then so be it. Define so that a calculation is feasible, then calculation it is. Define so that this-and-that, then deal with the implications thereof.
Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
— Frank Apisa
Vagueness aside, can you include something that admits calculation?
Better still, some implications that we can go out and check tomorrow (verifications-falsifications)?
Otherwise you've just set things up so that calculation-verification-falsification can't be done in the first place. — jorndoe
agency [...] that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe — Frank Apisa
On the other hand, atemporal mind ("outside it all") is incoherent nonsense, so that's one out anyway. — jorndoe
You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD. — Frank Apisa
Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math. — Frank Apisa
BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist. — Frank Apisa
Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it. — Frank Apisa
Pinprick
237
You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD.
— Frank Apisa
Ok. If you want to argue that God’s existence would not violate physics, then you would need to provide a definition of God that shows that to be true. Good luck. — Pinprick
Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math.
— Frank Apisa
How do you define faith? To me it’s believing something without evidence/reason to do so. It must mean something different for you, unless you think we have no reason/evidence to believe in gravity, etc. — Pinprick
BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist.
— Frank Apisa
Irrelevant. All things we have, or ever will, discover are physical. There’s no way we could ever discover God, if that’s what you’re implying. — Pinprick
Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it.
— Frank Apisa
P1: Science has discovered physical facts about the universe that are up to this point inviolable.
P2: The existence of God would violate these facts, namely the fact that all real objects and forces are explainable in physical terms, but also causality/determinism.
C: Therefore it is more likely that no Gods exist. — Pinprick
I also have a question for you. If I drop a ball, which is more likely to happen? That it falls towards the Earth, or that it floats up towards the sky?
I would also like you to explain your answer. — Pinprick
Ok, finally we agree! :clap: "Pre-exist ... the universe" is synonymous with "supernatural (... outside of what exists)" which, as you say, "MAKES NO SENSE". So you've come around to what I've claimed all along: the so-called "gods" you keep saying you're "agnostic" about "MAKES NO SENSE" (&÷#@$% as pointed out here) and, therefore, you're not even "agnostic", just inadvertantly GODLESS (i.e. atheos).Great work! :up:I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.
Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way. — Frank Apisa
I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank. :sweat:People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics... — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.3k
I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) [i[makes no sense[/i] to me.
Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
— Frank Apisa
Ok, finally we agree! :clap: "Pre-exist ... the universe" is synonymous with "supernatural (... outside of what exists)" which, as you say, "MAKES NO SENSE". So you've come around to what I've claimed all along: the so-called "gods" you keep saying you're "agnostic" about "MAKES NO SENSE" (&÷#@$% as pointed out here) and, therefore, you're not even "agnostic", just inadvertantly GODLESS (i.e. atheos).Great work! :up: — 180 Proof
People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics...
— Frank Apisa
I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank. :sweat:
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.