Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Likewise, neither is your continued drift, from intellectual integrity.

You owe every aspect of your physical existence to the validity of the scientific method. Its 100% success rate is what enables you to misrepresent it on the internet.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not assuming anything, that is your standard of evidence(scientific proof of existence), in comparison with one example of the historical record.

As clearly shown, your standard is completely useless, as to validation, prior to existence.

As a matter of fact, when compared to any group, or all of the examples of the historical record,
it's failure rate is 100%. Thats a bonifide fact.

Now, using that standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?


At this juncture, your other questions, have been rendered somewhat irrelevant.

Once again the only person who is stating this is you and once again you have failed to provide a single independent source that can validate it, which to be honest does make it feel like you are simply making it up to try and dig your way out of a hole of your own making.

Probability theory has been explained to you (and sources provided), Possibility theory has been explained to you (and sources provided), the scientific standard of evidence has been explained to you (and sources provided). The difference between them has been clearly explained to you (and sources provided).

The sole dissenting voice is yours, now either you are wrong or every one else (including every cited source) is wrong? Which is it?


Oh and this....

OK, you have claimed repeatedly, you buy insurance based on evidence of probability.

I said quote me saying that I consider probability to be a form of evidence or tool used for evidentiary purposes.

You are taking your bastardized version of probability and stating that I share the same view, which I quite clearly have not done.

Do not attribute statements to me that I have not made, doing so is incredibly underhand and misleading.

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Now either quote me directly saying it or retract the claim.

...I expect to be replied to one way or the other.

 

[XoravaX]

There is more than one way to do probability. But basically, God boils down to this. There has been a large number of attempts to communicate with/invoke/find/etc God. Zero have succeeded. It's 0/finite number not 0/0. And 0/finite number = 0, meaning probability of 0.

Name anything that is waterproof and proves there is no God/a god/gods.

If zero have succeeded, its 0 in the group of different, conflicting possibilities. Of which none are proven (being the second 0), so it remains 0/0. Or please tell me what that finite number is, and how you acquired it - that looks like desperately trying to fight the windmills by trying to do the impossible (prove there can't be God or then alternatively that maths is fundamentally erroneous).

Also, there is just one way to "do" probability. Which is maths. All other is bogus (in the terms of science).

If you didn't understand my post, try to read through the ones above. Basically there is nothing to count the probability from, since no alternative has been proven either.

If we assume each belief and view is as credible as it can be, we result in having a 1/2800 chance each. If we go by the number of followers of each religion, that their number tells the possibility, then there is 2/7 chance for Chistianity, and if by the number of followers of a certain god/set of gods (like the Abrahamic, Hindu, Roman/Greek or German/Scandinavian), there is 1/2 possibility for the Abrahamic God. However, none of these numbers are scientifically valid as probabilities (due to the lack of proof in the scientific sense, and actually misinterpretation of the whole question; the number of followers or beliefs doesn't tell anything about its or theirs credibility) - but this shows how probability can be counted unscientifically, similar to how you did come up with that 0 as an algebraic answer.

 

[Famine]

Name anything that is waterproof and proves there is no God/a god/gods.

Any gods are non-falsifiable - they cannot be disproven.

What does that have to do with probability? I mean, pretty much the last two weeks of posts in this thread have been someone trying to show that God exists because of a misapplication of probability.

 

[dylansan]

I think it reads more like an attempt to call Scaff stupid in an attempt to avoid actually providing evidence for God, or even talking about him, for that matter.

I must say, this talk of probability is interesting, but only the parts that have made sense, which unfortunately isn't much.

 

[XoravaX]

Any gods are non-falsifiable - they cannot be disproven.

That are they. Thus why everyone's view is based on faith/belief or disbelief only (or that on how you explained that the whole question of anything outside science is a stupid concept to begin with, which quite isn't even disbelief).

What does that have to do with probability? I mean, pretty much the last two weeks of posts in this thread have been someone trying to show that God exists because of a misapplication of probability.

It has to do with people claiming zero (algebraic, non-0/0) possibility of God's existence. Claiming something like this is as stupid as giving no reasoning to why one believes in God/a god/gods (eg. SCJ has quite clearly told why he believes in God (all what he gave as evidence, for example), which tells that he has at least given a thought about it, unlike Exorcet who simply says there can't be God/a god/gods, sorry if this is offensive, just my two cents).

I know, we don't get anywhere with this discussion because, as you said, all gods are non-falsifiable, and they can't (as of now) be proven either (in raw scientific sense).

 

[Famine]

It has to do with people claiming zero (algebraic, non-0/0) possibility of God's existence.

No, that's probability - we've just had two weeks of this discussion.

Probability is an expression of the chance of a known event. The probability of an event occurring requires two things - an instance of the event occurring and the commonality (how many occurences there have been in how much time) of that event.

The commonality of any god providing evidence he exists is zero (0 occurrences in recorded time). The instances of these events occurring are zero (0). The probability of any god existing, with all available evidence, is zero.


Furthermore, something non-falsifiable cannot be disproven - thus cannot be held to the scientific method that is the only 100% accurate tool for describing all of existence and thus does not exist.

This entirely describes all of the evidence for or against God. You can reject the evidence if you wish, but you'd be wrong to do so. This is why certain people seek to redefine what qualifies as evidence to exclude all that we can detect and know to exist - though they are also wrong to do so.


If you wish to believe that God exists outside of existence, that's fine. We have no evidence that there is anything beyond existence, so you can take that on faith if you desire. Trying to redefine known terms, quantities and processes within existence for something without existence is not fine. This pretty forms the crux of every attempt by those who have faith to prove their flavour of deity is the right one - and the majority of points made in this thread.

 

[XoravaX]

No, that's probability - we've just had two weeks of this discussion.

Probability is an expression of the chance of a known event. The probability of an event occurring requires two things - an instance of the event occurring and the commonality (how many occurences there have been in how much time) of that event.

The commonality of any god providing evidence he exists is zero (0 occurrences in recorded time). The instances of these events occurring are zero (0). The probability of any god existing, with all available evidence, is zero.

Ah, I just made a typing error, I meant to say probability.
Yes, any divine intervention in given amount of time has a probability of zero hence no previous occurrences.

But a probability of existence of God can't just be counted like that. (Divine intervention is not needed for God to exist.) Granted, there are no proven occurences of God existing, but neither is anything proven in the group the probability is counted from (all the possible divine occurrences and their non-occurrence). We result in having a 0 in 0 probability, 0/0, which has algebraically no answer. The reason why it's marked with zero is because divide by zero is an illegal operation, and this zero doesn't mean algebraic zero (as in 1-1=0 or 0/1=0), but the lack of an answer.

Similar in a way the probability to get 6 from a dice is 1 in 6 (one occurrence in six possible occurrences), the probability of God's existence (given no proven occasions) is 0 in (no proven occasions in the possible occasions' group either) 0.

And you surely know the problem of division by zero.

My point was that such a probability value doesn't exist; it can be marked with zero but it doesn't mean zero as in the probability of getting seven from a six-sided dice with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 - that's 0 in 6, 0/6=0, but 0 in 0 (0/0) is an illegal operation and therefore has no answer, no probability value (that is mathematically, algebraically correct).

 

[Famine]

And you surely know the problem of division by zero.

You made this point earlier and it didn't make sense then.

Sure, if you divide by zero on a calculator you'll get a tantrum, but that doesn't make it a mathematical problem.

My point was that such a probability value doesn't exist; it can be marked with zero but it doesn't mean zero as in the probability of getting seven from a six-sided dice with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 - that's 0 in 6, 0/6=0, but 0 in 0 (0/0) is an illegal operation and therefore has no answer

It's the same answer.

You could roll the die for the entire rest of time - infinity if you like - and never roll a seven. That's a zero in infinity. 0/∞ is... what now?

The issue here is you've delimited the "chance of occurrence" (of chucking a seven) field from the "frequency of occurrence field" (the number of die rolls) - you've determined there's zero chance (of chucking a seven) in six occurrences (die rolls). There's zero chance (of chucking a seven) in an infinite number of occurrences (die rolls).

In any case, there is no difference between dividing up no cake six ways and dividing up no cake no ways - or an infinite number of ways. There is no cake.

 

[Bobalob]

I cant argue definitions but its clear probability gets more acurate with more evidence, you have none for god so just how accurate is it in this case?

 

[Exorcet]

Name anything that is waterproof and proves there is no God/a god/gods.

Huh? Why? They can't be disproven it would be a waste of time.

I don't agree that the number of trials regarding God is not countable. The exact number is unknown, but it's definitely above zero. Every prayer that has not been definitely proven to have been answered by God is another failure to prove his existence. That's the objective way to look at it. The religious way is often to come up with an excuse (as say, the Franks did when the Vikings sacked their churches, or most of Europe when the plague hit). Everything attributed to God by religious proponents has not been deemed conclusive. They are 0 for N, which equates to 0%.

It has to do with people claiming zero (algebraic, non-0/0) possibility of God's existence. Claiming something like this is as stupid as giving no reasoning to why one believes in God/a god/gods (eg. SCJ has quite clearly told why he believes in God (all what he gave as evidence, for example), which tells that he has at least given a thought about it, unlike Exorcet who simply says there can't be God/a god/gods, sorry if this is offensive, just my two cents).

Just for the record I've explains my views on God a number of times in this thread. The basic answer being popular gods are bunk because their religions make no sense while a generic god may be real but probably isn't all powerful or all good because we don't live perfect lives.

The probability tangent came from SCJ not understanding probability.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You owe every aspect of your physical existence to the validity of the scientific method. Its 100% success rate is what enables you to misrepresent it on the internet.

Thanks for the info, skewed as it may be.

If I'm not mistaken people existed before science, but I'm sure in the deep recesses of Atheistic reasoning, thats somehow a misrepresentation.

Once again the only person who is stating this is you and once again you have failed to provide a single independent source that can validate it, which to be honest does make it feel like you are simply making it up to try and dig your way out of a hole of your own making.

My source is all of the historical record, to date.
There is nothing to validate.
Your standard of evidence for prior unknown events, clearly shown by that record, could never validate a single one of them.
BTW, you've done a good job digging the only hole thats been dug.

Probability theory has been explained to you (and sources provided), Possibility theory has been explained to you (and sources provided), the scientific standard of evidence has been explained to you (and sources provided). The difference between them has been clearly explained to you (and sources provided).

The sole dissenting voice is yours, now either you are wrong or every one else (including every cited source) is wrong? Which is it?.

Aren't you the one that said "peoples belief is not evidence for validation".
I'd say, it's pretty "scientifically evident", which it is.

Oh and this.....

I take out insurance based on the statistically calculated probability of an event happening to me, an event that has already been proven to exist.

...I expect to be replied to one way or the other.

I expected to get an answer to this question, with at least some semblance of intellectual integrity,

Now, using that(your) standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?

but you did not respond in kind.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for the info, skewed as it may be.

If I'm not mistaken people existed before science, but I'm sure in the deep recesses of Atheistic reasoning, thats somehow a misrepresentation.

Ignoring for a second the fact that "science" = "knowledge", I said "existence" not "life".

 

[Azuremen]

Aren't you the one that said "peoples belief is not evidence for validation".
I'd say, it's pretty "scientifically evident", which it is.

Words are created and managed by people to convey certain meanings. Generally speaking, the meaning of a word is determined by the masses belief to the meaning of the words or terms. In short, the meaning is given by people, and when you communicate with people it is often accepted to use the standard definitions of words; instead, you continue to stand by your personal definitions of these words in some vain effort to defend an argument you've not really supported.

Which, if I recall, was that we should believe in God as some form of insurance, as people obtain insurance against natural disasters and the probability of other real world events. But the issue is there is no evidence that is creditable to validate a need to "invest" in God insurance, while numerous cases and readily available and verified evidence exist to validate the need for, say, flood insurance.

Honestly, you've just been talking in circles for pages now.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Now, using that(your) standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?

If there is no evidence either way for an upcoming unknown event there is no probability that can be calculated. (If I'm wrong someone correct me please. )

This doesn't work for your God, btw (if you were planning to use it to say "ha see God could exist!"). Every failed prayer and every other failed attempt to make contact of your God is evidence against him and as such a probability of zero can be calculated for his existence. Unless you would like to finally provide your evidence for your God.

 

[JediRage]

The fact that the atom wasn't discovered until recently doesn't mean that it didn't exist before its discovery.

Atheists/scientists should tone down the hardline rhetoric a little and be more open-minded. Open-mindedness is what brought the Renaissance and the age of science. Let's not try to become rigid like the clergy of yore.

 

[Exorcet]

Open-mindedness is what brought the Renaissance and the age of science. Let's not try to become rigid like the clergy of yore.

That's what most atheists have been trying to get across in this thread. No one's said that atoms didn't exist before they were discovered. Scaff has spent how long now trying to get SCJ to understand probability =/= evidence?

The evidence for God is zero. And it will remain that way until it's not zero. That's the only open minded option.

 

[JediRage]

The evidence for God is zero. And it will remain that way until it's not zero. That's the only open minded option.

The evidence for it may already be there but with no tools invented to confirm it.

Like I said, the evidence for the atom was there the whole time but no one had the means to find that evidence.

When I mentioned open-mindedness, I was thinking about how atheists/scientists have taken over the mantle of the old clergy by ridiculing every theory that doesn't conform to present scientific standards.

The hypothesis that there is no god is just that, a hypothesis. It is not an axiom, just yet. Until it is proved or disproved definitively, there will continue to be an ambiguity about it.

I think the main problem that atheists/scientists have with theism is the tendency of people to integrate it with public/state policy and the whole mess that entails.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

The thing is, atoms are falsifiable, God is not (at least those specified by religions).

If someone were to say there are tiny particles inside of everything that we can't see, we can go look for them (atoms and sub atomic particles), if someone says something exists outside of existence, we can't (god).

 

[JediRage]

The thing is, atoms are falsifiable, God is not (at least those specified by religions).

What do you mean by falsifiable?

And its too easy to disprove stuff like 'the world was created in 7 days' and some such. But if it was allegorical then you were addressing the wrong 'problem' by taking it too literally.

That's why I absolutely hate allegory. With a passion.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I edited my post to be more specific.

Yes you can disprove things from the Bible, but you can't disprove something outside of existence (though really, anything that is outside of existence, by definition, can't exist).

 

[JediRage]

I edited my post to be more specific.

Yes you can disprove things from the Bible, but you can't disprove something outside of existence (though really, anything that is outside of existence, by definition, can't exist).

Why does 'it' have to be outside existence?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I just used that as an example because it's a common argument for God and why there isn't evidence or something or other.

(I can't remember other reasons atm as to why God is non falsifiable too, though I'm sure others can easily post why )

 

[Exorcet]

Like I said, the evidence for the atom was there the whole time but no one had the means to find that evidence.

If that was the case, no one should have bothered with atomic theory. Without evidence, there is no point. Though in the case of atoms, people didn't just look into a microscope and find them, they were hypothesized to explain observations and as time went on, they became the only way to explain these observations. The opposite has happened with God. Way back when, you could answer "God did it" to everything. It doesn't work today.

When I mentioned open-mindedness, I was thinking about how atheists/scientists have taken over the mantle of the old clergy by ridiculing every theory that doesn't conform to present scientific standards.

There are no present scientific standards. There are only scientific standards. Namely the scientific method. What scientists do is ignore what does not conform to the scientific method, and they must do this if they care about knowing anything. Modern science would very gladly trade atoms, mass conservation, and the Big Bang for magic putty, a reverse vacuum cleaner in the center of the universe spewing out matter, and God as long as there was evidence behind it. I don't know how you could be more open minded.

The hypothesis that there is no god is just that, a hypothesis. It is not an axiom, just yet. Until it is proved or disproved definitively, there will continue to be an ambiguity about it.

Actually it isn't because God can't be proven to not exist so it's not much of a hypothesis. Like you said, without proof there isn't an answer. Hence atheism. No evidence, no belief.

The thing is, atoms are falsifiable, God is not (at least those specified by religions).

If someone were to say there are tiny particles inside of everything that we can't see, we can go look for them (atoms and sub atomic particles), if someone says something exists outside of existence, we can't (god).

Exactly.

 

[JediRage]

If that was the case, no one should have bothered with atomic theory. Without evidence, there is no point. Though in the case of atoms, people didn't just look into a microscope and find them, they were hypothesized to explain observations and as time went on, they became the only way to explain these observations. The opposite has happened with God. Way back when, you could answer "God did it" to everything. It doesn't work today.
...
Actually it isn't because God can't be proven to not exist so it's not much of a hypothesis. Like you said, without proof there isn't an answer. Hence atheism. No evidence, no belief.
...

Personally, the long history of religious dogmatism and the present strife caused in the world by religious extremism is what hardens scientists' stand against the concept of God. But that's a slightly different topic.

I don't believe that 'God can't be proven to not exist'. On what basis is this claim made?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

You can't prove non-existence, only existence. How exactly would you prove that there isn't a 40 foot tall purple elephant beside me?

 

[niky]

Why does 'it' have to be outside existence?

Because it's physically impossible for "God" to exist within the Universe.

"God the Creator" is reckoned to be all-powerful (not possible if he is part of the Universe and bound by the laws of entropy) andall-knowing (again, not possible within the laws of the Universe, as complete knowledge is unattainable from within the system due to the basic nature of it).

Thus, 'he/she/it' must reside outside the Universe, and as we have no way of observing the outside of the Universe or even making half-coherent inferences as to its nature, then his/her/its existence is non-testable.

 

[JediRage]

You can't prove non-existence, only existence. How exactly would you prove that there isn't a 40 foot tall purple elephant beside me?

Well, interesting argument, so allow me to come up with my own. What if there's a laser show (depicting an elephant) going on next to you in a wavelength your eyes can't see? Now what wavelength is that light? How to detect it? What technology is required to build a device that would detect it?

If you take a statement from a religious book (and I suspect that is where this 'Cant be proven to not exist' thing comes from) and disprove it, it doesn't mean that you've disproved the existence of God. You've just disproved that statement. Have you made your case against the existence of God stronger? Yes. Is it definitive? No.

Just saying there is no evidence of God is a little too earnest. You may have disproved a few theories, but not all possible ones.

Designing experiments is all about what questions you are asking and what kind of answers may be expected. If your questions are based on religious texts only, then you need to be a little more adventurous than that.

 

[niky]

Is man omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? No? Then man is not God.

The long and short of it:

1. If there is a "God the Creator", then he existed before the Universe.

2. There is no way for us to observe what existed before the Universe or what exists outside the Universe, as "natural laws" do not apply to whatever existed before the Universe, and whatever is outside it is outside of Time and Space.

3. If God exists, and enters the Universe, he is then bound by the laws of the Universe, and ceases to be Godlike. Thus, he ages and dies.... or goes kablooey in the Big Bang. Not very Godlike.

4. If God exists, and still exists, then God exists outside of Time and Space.

Thus:

There is no way for us to observe God, if he exists.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Well, interesting argument, so allow me to come up with my own. What if there's a laser show (depicting an elephant) going on next to you in a wavelength your eyes can't see? Now what wavelength is that light? How to detect it? What technology is required to build a device that would detect it?

That which can detect wavelengths that my eyes cannot.

If you take a statement from a religious book (and I suspect that is where this 'Cant be proven to not exist' thing comes from) and disprove it, it doesn't mean that you've disproved the existence of God. You've just disproved that statement. Have you made your case against the existence of God stronger? Yes. Is it definitive? No.

I said something along those lines earlier. We can disprove things from the Bible, yes, because they either are testable or there is evidence that contradicts them,but we cannot disprove God himself.

Just saying there is no evidence of God is a little too earnest. You may have disproved a few theories, but not all possible ones.

Designing experiments is all about what questions you are asking and what kind of answers may be expected. If your questions are based on religious texts only, then you need to be a little more adventurous than that.

I'm sure there are people who would design experiments to try to detect God, however, as Niky just said, we have no way of detecting him. So designing experiments to test what religious texts is really all we can do.