But the principle is the same. We start with no evidence. Likelihood of God 50%

I think the big bang makes it 25% likely there is a God:

50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5% likely there is a God

And so on through the fine-tuning argument and the prime mover...

OK thanks, that seems a reasonable stance.

Did not know about this thread.

Hi everyone, I'm Dan from near London. I have no formal experience in Philosophy, but I have been reading up on it over the last few months and find it very interesting particularly metaphysics. Seems like a very pleasant and interesting forum...

Dan.

I stand corrected, I should of said 'believe in Jesus else no salvation'?

You seem to consider God from a naive standpoint, does He exist? — tim wood

I was not; if you recall, I considering the attributes of God (should he exist).

What are the possible kinds of existence such a being must have? — tim wood

I'm mostly a materialist so any God should be material (and finite... you lost that debate BTW). The only type of non-material God I'd allow is God as the root user of the the Matrix-Style simulation we are in. But then in that case, it would be we who are immaterial and God is still material (as I assert). I'm not big on spiritualism.

Powerful and intelligent but not omnipotent or omniscient. Unless of course we are in a simulation, in which case God's powers could approach on omnipotent/omniscient.

Timeless and permanent. Both dead and alive at the same time (from our perspective).

I certainly would not assign any probability — tim wood

But if you had to assign a probability for some reason, what would you? Say we toss the coin 100 times and the person who guesses how many heads gets a prize. Would you:
- Guess 0 heads
- Guess 50 heads
- Guess 100 heads
?

I have no evidence one way or t'other as to the presence of any nuclear attack submarines submerged in Cape Cod Bay. Do you mean to say that the chances of one being there are therefore 50-50? — tim wood

You have general experience to suggest that there is no good reason for a submarine to be in Cape Cod Bay. Its not like we are at war or anything. So you have evidence on this issue. You know the odds are very low. The point is if you knew nothing about submarines or Cape Cod Bay, you'd have to start with a 50%/50% assumption and then alter that assumption as you gather more evidence.

Lets try and make this simple for you. If you flip a coin, how likely is it to come up heads? Thats an example of a boolean question for which no evidence has been submitted. 50%/50% is your starting point and I going to refrain from going through elementary maths at this point...

There's only the now — Limitless Science

You might like to comment on this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1

Rather it is, how does it come to be knowledge? What makes it knowledge? — tim wood

It is knowledge of a hypothetical. I see no problem with that; aliens are hypothetical but we can still make deductions about their nature?

I noticed it when we discussed infinity that you could not take on board new ideas... I think you are having a similar issue with the possible existence of God? Do you believe God does not exist with 100% certainty? That would take an act of belief of staggering irrationality. People with an open mind don't close down the possibilities like that.

That's contradictory, isn't it? If it were divided, it would not be continuous — Metaphysician Undercover

What I mean is you can divide continuous time to an infinite degree, so it can represent an infinite number of states, which equates to infinite information content.

If you imagine a system evolving through an infinite number of states over a finite period of time; each state is information (from the 4d space time perspective) so the system over the finite time period is described by infinite states thus infinite information.

I'll try to put it another way:

The Continuum can be modelled by the real numbers between 0 and 1. So that means any moment in the Continuum is represented by a decimal with infinite precision = infinite bits of information.

The Continuum for 1 second of time is identical to the Continuum for 1 year of time in that they are both described by the reals between 0 and 1. So 1 second and 1 year have the same information content. Hence the contradiction. Hence time should be discrete.

In contrast, a discrete second of time can be modelled with the natural numbers between 0 and some finite N. Then 1 second contains N possible states, but 1 year contains N*60*60*24*365 possible states; hence no contraction for discrete time.

but this is not how time appears to us, it appears to be continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Any discreteness in time would manifest somewhere down near Planck Time so we'd probably never be able to tell. Matter seems discrete at sub-atomic level. I suspect space-time is too?

That's how it is when someone has a Belief about something — SteveKlinko

The traditional Christian view of God is that he is eternal and infinite. I wonder if some people are still religiously invested in infinity? I suspect some atheists might likewise be 'religiously' invested in infinity as a mechanism to explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe for life?

Every time you really work out a problem or analyze a little Deeper it is always found that Infinity is a big problem — SteveKlinko

Wikipedia lists a few (but there are more):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Infinity_and_infinitesimals

In cosmology they have this paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

The solution is a finite universe but cosmologists press on regardless...

There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism

It would be better if people would just give a percentage: 0%->100% Theist. Then we'd know exactly where everyone stands.

Try these two: what does it mean (for you) to have (believe in) a god? And, if it is possible in any sense whatsoever to know or reliably suppose anything about god, how do you account for that knowledge? — tim wood

I conjecture it is likely that God exists; that's not the same as belief.

I think there are different ways of learning about God:

- Through his works (the universe)
- Through ourselves (intelligent creatures share common traits).
- Through metaphysical deductions.

So we can conjecture, for example, he is an keen astronomer and he likes to do things on a grand scale. The universe seems to run like clockwork without his involvement so he's probably quite hands-off.

Mathematicians always say things only approach Infinity — SteveKlinko

Unfortunately this is far from universally the case; many mathematicians have made a substantial intellectual investment in Cantor's flavour of actual infinity and are quite hostile to anyone questioning set theory's approach. There are also Cosmologists with models based on actual infinity for time and/or space who are not very open minded when the existence of actual infinity is questioned.

The contradiction is in the assumption that the continuous is divisible. If you can really divide it, then it is not continuous, as per the divisions. If it is really continuous then you can't really divide it as that would make it discontinuous — Metaphysician Undercover

But the continuous is by definition infinitely divisible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_time_and_continuous_time

So infinitely divisible time gives an infinite number of states (and thus information) for any system over any finite time period. The same kind of infinity for all systems independent of their size. To me this contradiction points to discrete space and time.

as the passing of time is considered to be continuous — Metaphysician Undercover

I was wondering about that: If time is truly continuous then a 1 second interval is graduated as finely as a 1 hour interval (implicit from the definition of continuous). That seems contradictory by itself: suggests the short interval contains as many distinct states (therefore information) as the long interval...

you have to establish some ground for any assertion you make — tim wood

'God is not omniscience' is a good axiom IMO. A self-evident truth: Its not possible to know everything. For example all the digits of pi. So I think there was sufficient grounds for my argument.

But perhaps you mean that the existence of God is not well grounded? There is no hard evidence either way for/against existence of God, so people have degrees of belief:

- Some Christians claim with 100% certainty that God exists (rather irrational IMO).
- An agnostic might believe the existence of God is 50% likely
- A atheist might perhaps be only 5% convinced of God's existence
- An Uber-Atheist might claim a 0% chance of God's existence (rather irrational IMO).

Even with only a 5% chance of God's existence, discussions over the nature of God are still worthwhile and productive. There is quite a lot you can deduce about God especially if you drop the traditional definitions (3Os). For example: God is not male or female as God was not the product of bi-sexual reproduction. As a unisexual its possible he/it could jealous of humans as he can't have sex or masturbate.

It just doesn’t seem morally permissible for God to base someone’s eternal destiny on whether they believe in Jesus and accept His sacrifice for them — Empedocles

It was a mistake for Christianity to adopt the 'believe in Jesus else eternal damnation!' message. Not well thought through; they have left 2000 years of theologians wriggling uncomfortably around the defence of the indefensible: eternal damnation for ignorance.

I agree with your approach of modifying Christian belief rather than trying to wriggle out of an impossible logical hole. I wish more theists would take this approach; the holy scriptures of the various religions are percolated with factual and logical errors. Some theists seem to have this strange compunction to regard old information as more worthy of consideration that new information. Surely exactly the wrong way around?

Let's try this: see if you can articulate any proposition, or anything at all, whatsoever, about God, that itself is not arguable — tim wood

Are we allowed axioms? If yes:

Axiom: God is not omniscience

Then even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows:

- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded

The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

We can then look at the state of the world and additionally deduce God is not omnipotent...

- Assume space is continuous
- Then there is an actually infinite amount of information in a spacial volume of 10000 cubic units
- There is also an actually infinite amount of information in a spacial volume of 1 cubic unit
- Both infinities have the same cardinality so maths says they are the same size
- But this is a logical contradiction, there must be more information in the larger volume.
- So space must be discrete or maths treatment of infinity is wrong (or both probably)

Same argument for time...

'When did you start?' Puzzled look. 'How could I start. That would mean beginning with the last digit, and there is no such digit. I never started. I've been counting down from all eternity' — Craig Skinner

I think you might be over complicating things. Things without a start don't exist:

- X exists eternally within time
- So X has no temporal start
- So X does not exist

So nothing can be eternal within time. What about time itself, does that have a start? If you believe in Relativity/Eternalism then time is a real, persistent 'thing' so it has a start. So presumably you are a Presentist? That leads to other paradoxes; you might want to comment on this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1

Hilbert's Hotel and Shandy's Diary, for example, are peripherally related, known veridical paradoxes, and do not imply a contradiction, — jorndoe

"contradiction, noun, a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another."

A completely full hotel that can except infinity many new guests is definitely contradictory.

I think the only way to understand "eternal' in relation to God, is the second way, outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. For example, if God exists in time, who created time? (plus all the other problems list in the OP).

God is said to be immaterial, and therefore outside of time — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess thats the traditional view but an immaterial God is so hard to analyse. We can make more progress in analysing God if we assume he's constrained by materialistic rules.

Out of curiousity, what would a religion based around rationalism look like? — lupac

Eternal Life

The USP of most religions is eternal life. The closest concept to that in main stream science is Relativity which implies the past and future are real and permeant. So perhaps a rational religion would claim we could experience all or part of our lives again. Edited highlights would be nice. Perhaps low-lights for sinners (IE Hell). This is similar to the Eternal Return concept popularised by Nietzsche:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Alternatively, Quantum Immortality proposes that on death our consciousness transmigrates to a living you in another universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

Creation Story

We could adapt the Eternal Inflation theory from Cosmology:
- God started inflation.
- Inflation was designed by God as a means of generating as many life supporting universes as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

Scripture

The tenets of the religion would be alterable to reflect new scientific research. That way the (not so) sacred texts of the religion would evolve over time and so remain relevant to new generations.

l believe all Abrahamic faiths see God as eternal — BaldMenFighting

Apologies, I did not realise, but there are actually two different definitions of eternal:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eternal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_eternity

1. Eternal-Temporal. Existing within time but everlastingly. This is the meaning I've been using in this post.
2. Eternal-Timeless. Existing outside of time.

The bible says god is eternal but apparently does not clarify which meaning. For example Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" could be either meaning.

God is actual infinity. Implicit in that is: he is beyond time (he is everything, there is no change) — BaldMenFighting

I don't believe in Actual Infinity but lets not debate that on this thread...

I suspect god is timeless too but this presents difficulties; time seems to enable change; how did god create the universe without time? Must of been able to make changes without time. Instantaneous changes? What then was the purpose of time?

Your solution is (I think) to make god Actually Infinite so he is already 'everything', so there is never any need for change? Interesting idea. Maybe god could just encompass all possibilities rather than being actually infinite?

A counter argument for hell existing:

1 All good thinking beings would want corrective punishment for wrong doers
2 The creator(s) of the universe are good thinking being(s)
3 Hell is real

My only certainty is that god's of human invention are just that, inventions — Grey Vs Gray

Yes, it strikes me as strange no-one tries to formulate a more believable religion than the ones we have currently. A Religion with a creation story rooted in arguments from physics and metaphysics. A religion that would appeal to the rational thinker.

I personally think a non-created universe is more likely but not a certainty. — Grey Vs Gray

I mess with probability a lot trying to work out the likelihood of God. I'm coming out more positive than you but who knows...

We see the universe but we don't see god. The simplest deduction is the universe is and god is not. That does not mean there is no god, it's simply one of the methods I use to justify my opinion. — Grey Vs Gray

If we expect to see God, we will be disappointed; the universe is too large and too young for God to have had time to see us:

- 1 x 10^24 estimated stars in observable universe
- 5.1 x 10^12 days since start of universe
- God must visit 195,694,716,242 star systems a day for God to have visited all star systems in the observable universe by today.

Talk about a hectic schedule. Lack of communication from God can't be taken as strong evidence for his non-existence.

So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of God by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments — Purple Pond

Everyone can understand the prime mover; its simple.

Its easy to argue that god (if he exists) must be benevolent. So I think people argue for his existence because he is benevolent. A universe with a benevolent god is probably going to be better than a godless universe. By extension, humans seem happier if they think a benevolent god does/might exist, so the search for proof of god is a worthwhile human endeavour...

Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence? — Marchesk

Basic facts of life like the difference between right and wrong are shared by all logical entities. Its natural for Logical entities will tend to exhibit some empathy with each other. At the core, humans maybe just very simple versions of God...

I thought that Special Relativity implied Eternalism:

- Special Relativity asserts the existence of multiple 'nows'
- All 'nows' must exist concurrently
- Time must be persistent for the 'nows' to exist concurrently
- IE Eternalism

If you assert a 'now', then you are discarding the eternal view whose sole premise is non-reality of that very thing — noAxioms

I disagree; Eternalism is primarily about the existence of past and future. I have given many reasons why I feel past and future must exist, so I must claim to be an Eternalist.

At the same time, I assert (and its seems a self-evident fact) that we can tell the difference between past, now and future. How can we tell the difference? There must be some distinguishing fact about 'now'. So I still maintain we need time to have both the following characteristics:

- Past, present and future all real
- Present is distinguishable from past and future

The 2nd law is more than just a natural law; its just a common sense proposition that it applies everywhere and to everything.

But I agree with you, God could somehow dodge the 2nd law. Maybe he can create energy to re-organise himself somehow. So the 'god is dead' argument has holes.

The 2nd law is fundamental and it relates just to change. All change increase Entropy. Does not matter if you are timeless or in a different universe, the 2nd law still applies.

Therefore it is a fact that God is not — Rank Amateur

Well there is the god is dead argument:
- Entropy increases with time
- When entropy gets too high, you die
- Universe is 14 billion years old
- 14 billion years of entropy means god must be dead
- 'Therefore it is a fact that God is not'

A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans.

There is no flavor of eternalism that recognizes a 'now' — noAxioms

If both the following hold true:

- Einstein's Relativity is correct
- There is something that distinguishes 'now' from 'past' and 'future'

Then we need a flavour of eternalism that distinguishes 'now'. A cursor-like mechanism would work fine.

Logical contradiction. For it to be created, it must not have existed at some point, and later it existed. There is no 'and later' if time is not already there. Creation is a temporal verb. — noAxioms

Change and Time are not the same thing. Change maybe possible without time. If time does have a start, then it must of been created in a timeless environment (or perhaps a different 'time' to ours).

So I still think that Presentism implies time did not have a start:

1. Assume Presentism is true
2. Assume time had a start
3. Implies time was created
4. Implies time is something substantial and physical. Past, present, future all real
5. Implies Presentism is false. Reductio ad absurdum.
6. So 'Presentism is true' and 'time had a start' cannot both be true

I'm a lacto-vegetarian. I want to be vegan but I can't quite manage without the milk. Well done!

I think Christianity should be all about compassion for others, both human and animal. All Christians should aspire to veganism.

I'm not Christian myself but I don't discount the existence of a benevolent creator god. If such a god exists, he would no doubt hate the human race for the way we imprison, kill and eat the animals. Its just disgusting, we are savages...

I think if we drop time/causality and assume a timeless god with permanent existence outside time, the need for god's designer lessens: God just exists. Never created. Just is. Also, the universe is not perfect, so god cannot be perfect, so God may not have been designed.

That does leave the question of 'why does a timeless god exist?'. Similar to the question to 'why does anything exist?'. We have the Anthropic principle to provide a pseudo-answer to 'why does anything exist?': 'we are here so it must'. Could be argued that triggering the Big Bang required an intelligence, hence a god, so the Anthropic principle would apply also: 'we are here so there must be a god'.

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I will ask why he exists. If he does not know, I will throw my hands up in disgust at the meaningless nature of existence.

Yes, but only two of your 'nails' (5 & 6) talk about that, and one of them argues for it, not against it. — noAxioms

Point 6 asserts that time clearly passes. I'd argue this is true for both Presentism and Eternalism:

There is clearly some distinction between present, past and future, because we can tell the difference. So the world must be Presentist or it must be a flavour of Eternalism where there is some sort of 'now' cursor(s) that allow us to recognise the present. So either way, time passes.

Time is real either way — noAxioms

By 'time is real' I mean past, present, future all exist (time is a dimension).

I still think Presentism implies time had no start. I've expanded my argument so hopefully you can see the logic better:

1. Presentism means the past and future don't exist, only now.
2. Has 'now' existed always?
3. No. Implies a start of time.
4. Implies time was created.
5. Implies time is something substantial and physical
6. Implies Presentism does not hold

Do you know what presentism is — noAxioms

- Presentism means the past and future don't exist, only now.
- Has 'now' existed always?
- No. Implies a start of time. Implies time is real. Implies Presentism does not hold.
- Yes. Implies an infinite past.

So I think Presentism logically leads to an infinite past....

I find none of them valid — noAxioms

If you have a fault with my logic, please tell me what rather than just saying I'm wrong.

We have been discussing this here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite/p1

I think most people are in agreement with you.

I don't totally follow your argument, perhaps you expand...