Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Leprechauns are not real because they are magic and magic is not real.
God is not magic; he is a real viable entity without the traditional Omnipotent, Omnipresent etc... attributes. So you can't use arguments involving Leprechauns."
What about omnipotent omniscient leprechauns?
You are funny Dan, fair play.
Dan "No-one has given a valid counter argument yet."
That's a lie Dan, your argument is based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but you never bothered to acknowledge this, and it has no scientific validity, and al you have offered in response to this is hand waving, and it disagrees with an accepted scientific fact, which you denied but then in the same post claimed the big bang theory required a supernatural cause, care to cite some accepted scientific evidence for that claim other than your own assumption?
That is a counter argument...
I also asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for any deity, and clearly the answer is none.
You don't know the "Big Bang" had a cause.
"Well I thought I'd collect some feedback first."
Why, any feedback from non scientific sources is meaningless if you're implying your superstitious beliefs are actually supported by scientific evidence.
You came HERE Dan, to make your claims to atheists, and for a very specific reason. What you've posted isn't remotely scientific or supported by any scientific evidence, and would be ridiculed by proper scientific scrutiny. What's more I find it very hard to believe you don't know this.
Your claims are riddled with known logical fallacies and assumptions. Your conclusion simply makes a leap from not knowing or understanding something to an unevidenced claim for a supernatural deity.
I'm sorry Dan but this claim is no different from your others, it's logically fallacious, scientifically fatuous, and your conclusion nothing more than pure and risible assumption. Can you really believe science goes abouts it's business in such a fashion?
Even a dictionary definition of science exposes your claims as fatuous nonsense.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Again this follows the pattern of all your replies; you refuse to engage on the specifics of my argument; its all vague generalities in your responses
There is quite a lot arguments that support a deity:
1) Non-causal cosmological argument (IE my new argument)
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...)
3) Fine tuning of the universe
4) The Big Bang
5) Why is there something rather than nothing
Be surprising if all these arguments turn out wrong. How surprising:
1) 50% + 50% = 75%
2) 75% + 50% x 25% = 87.5%
3) 87.5% + 75% x 12.5% = 96.9%
4) 96.9% + 3.1% x 50% = 98.5%
5) 98.5% + 25% x 1.5% = 98.9% probability of God
So who exactly is holding 'superstitious beliefs' here? Not me I'm 99% sure I'm right. It must be you.
@Dan
again, you are like the philosophical puddle who thinks that the hole it fills was designed for it.
Yea, but this puddle is in concrete...
None of the things you mention require a deity, and some of them are teleologically loaded and/or unprovable.
The distinction between an universe you think is meaningful and one that is not is completely arbitrary.
They require a creator which is my definition of God.
Not if reality is eternal.
Reality can't be eternal in time, see models 3 & 4 in my OP. Eternity in time does not hang together as a concept:
- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
If you can answer this paradox then you can believe in eternity in time. But its unanswerable; the only sort of eternity that is possible is outside time.
“What number is he on?”
42
Very funny. That would make the universe 42 seconds old IE time is finite and eternity in time is impossible.
@Dan Re: "Very funny. That would make the universe 42 seconds old..."
Hmmmmm.... Could that not depend on how it was counting?
1...
1.1...
1.12...
1.123....
1.1234....
1.12345.....
(and so on and so on)....
Now, I ain't no kind of math genius, but seems to me that depending on how many decimal places it decided to use, it could take a very long time to get to 42.... *scratching chin*.... (It's all relative, dude. Allllll relative... *shrugging shoulders*...)
Edit to add: OR... Maybe that being is an incredibly Sssss...Lllll...Ooooo....Wwwww... counter.
1..... (wait a few hundred thousand or billion years)...
2..... (wait a few hundred thousand or billion years)....
3..... (wait a few-...) Well, you get the idea....
Fair point. For the sake of argument, lets make it counting in integers, one increment per second.
@Dan Re: "For the sake of argument, lets make it counting in integers, one increment per second."
Tsk-tsk-tsk.... *shaking head in disapproval*... Shame on you, Danny Boy. You said this being was "Eternal", did you not? How dare you set such limits on an Eternal being. So rude. Besides, for all you know, a few billion years to us puny-minded humans may seem like nothing more than one second to your Eternal being. Therefore, to that Eternal being, it IS counting in one second intervals. Also, being Eternal, that being likely has no true concept of time, anyway. Not in the way WE understand it, at least. Simply put, when dealing with an Eternal being the possibilities are practically.... (wait for it).... infinite... *Big Grin*...
Dan, I suspect you missed the significance of "42".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
@David Re: "Dan, I suspect you missed the significance of "42"."
Now, David, poor little Danny cannot help it if has no knowledge of "42". After all, he has a lot on his plate right now just trying to wrap his tortured mind around infinity. I was actually going to suggest to him to find a couple of white mice to help him with his dilemma. No doubt they could guide him in the right direction. However, I was just a little concerned he would try to eat them.
@Dan
we've discussed this before.
If something has no beginning, it isn't possible to measure a length of time since it began.
@Sapporo
If something has no beginning, no coming into being, then it cannot exist.
The solution to the paradox is that counting is possible, so it must be that eternal (in time) is impossible.
There is no law of nature that says this.
@Sapporo
If you assume it's possible to exist without starting to exist, you get a logical contradiction as highlighted above. So I think it maybe a law of logic that you have to start to exist to exist.
Nature has to bow to Logic at some level, so I'd argue all laws of logic apply to nature too.
I've already explained why there is no logical contradiction there.
"you have to start to exist to exist.": that is not a falsifiable premise.
@Sapporo
'If something has no beginning, it isn't possible to measure a length of time since it began.'
No you have not. Not being able to measure it is a direct result of it not being possible to exist. If it had no temporal start point it could not exist.
No, not being able to measure is due to you not giving a starting point.
Your claims are not falsifiable.
But a being has to have a starting point in time. Would you exist without the moment of your birth? Any object has to have a starting point in time. How can you do something (exist) if you don't start doing it?
What you are proposing leads to the cyclical model of Big Bang / Big Crunch only with the interesting feature of having no first Big Bang. IE an impossibility.
There is no law of nature that says beings must have a starting point in time.
By "you", you mean a particular collection of matter that I identify as. This matter existed before my birth. Considering myself as existing only since my birth or conception is arbitrary.
Time does not exist independently of Spacetime. Spacetime does not necessarily need a beginning or a creator.
"If you assume it's possible to exist without starting to exist, you get a logical contradiction... it maybe a law of logic that you have to start to exist to exist."
So your deity started to exist then? Or are you going to use a special pleading fallacy to step around this contradiction?
@ Dan
Dan, Dan, Dan.
How many times do you have to be told, your method is completely, wholly, absolutely, totally, utterly, entirely, categorically, unquestionably, assuredly, doubtlessly W R O N G ! ! !
Are you postive you have earned a Baccalaureate in Mathematics? Because you are showing an understanding in Mathematics that is below 9th Grade High School level. The way probability works is multiplicative. NEVER additive. I learned this in 4th Grade (because I was “stealing” my dad's college math and science text books).
I just cannot understand your complete lack of intelligence. How can you have supposedly earned a Baccalaureate in Mathematics, yet cannot understand or comprehend or learn the SIMPLEST math?
Remember this?
######################################################################
Again, confirmation bias.
The chances for something happening when considering all the factors will always go down.
######################################################################
Dan, Dan, Dan.
This is not an ad hominem. Rather, it is a logical deduction going on all your previous posts. In my wholly, and completely honest, deduction, to me, you are nothing more than a child in Middle School who has been trolling for I do not know how long. Additionally, there are two profiles for you. One stating you are an atheist, the other stating you are a theist. Hmm…
Most (about 62%) of what you have posted about Mathematics has been copy|pasted from other sources and are not even your own original thoughts and words. Hmm… Not what I would expect from someone who has earned a Baccalaureate in Mathematics. Or, maybe, it was a Baccalaureate in Methamatics?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Be surprising if all these arguments turn out wrong. How surprising:
1) 50% + 50% = 75%
2) 75% + 50% x 25% = 87.5%
3) 87.5% + 75% x 12.5% = 96.9%
4) 96.9% + 3.1% x 50% = 98.5%
5) 98.5% + 25% x 1.5% = 98.9% probability of God
So who exactly is holding 'superstitious beliefs' here? Not me I'm 99% sure I'm right. It must be you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"Be surprising if all these arguments turn out wrong."
Not really since yours are completely, wholly, absolutely, totally, utterly, entirely, categorically, unquestionably, assuredly, doubtlessly W R O N G ! ! !
And again:
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Again, confirmation bias.
The chances for something happening when considering all the factors will always go down.
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) 50% + 50% = 75% (I always thought 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 (Empirical Evidence you know nothing about math))
2) 75% + 50% x 25% = 87.5%
3) 87.5% + 75% x 12.5% = 96.9%
4) 96.9% + 3.1% x 50% = 98.5%
5) 98.5% + 25% x 1.5% = 98.9% probability of God
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Despite your complete lack of mathematical understanding, your above postulate is so wrong. This is the C O R R E C T method. Converting your percentages into decimals.
0.00 + 0.5 = 0.50
0.50 × (0.5 × 0.25) = 0.0625
0.0625 × (0.75 × 0.125) = 0.005859375
0.005859375 × (0.031 × 0.5) = 0.0000908203125
0.0000908203125 × (0.25 × 0.015) = 0.000000340576171875 probability of God.
Correcting your confirmation bias (ask Nyarlathotep whether I did the math correctly), you have actually said there is a (converting back to a percentage), 0.0000340576171875% chance of a God existing. Still a little to high. My calculation, on a scale of 0 to 1 is:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135076.
And I ain't going to post the complicated equations and formulae because you would understand them.
Dan, Dan, Dan.
Please stay in school yungun. Quit skipping classes to troll forum boards. And quit studying those Methamatics.
rmfr
Your math sucks beyond belief. I'm afraid I do not have time to try educate you again.
Pages