Why atheism is almost certainly true.
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.
I don't know how else to reach you Dan; that isn't how probability is done. If I was to repeat your statements at my place of employment, I'd likely be out of a job by the end of the day. It is simply ludicrous and self contradictory.
@Dan: This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:
Yes. They're nonsense based on wishful thinking. With your 50% figure, you're assuming that the only possibilities are god or not-god. Where's you're evidence for that? You also haven't given any definition for a god or explanation of where that god supposedly came from.
I’m not claiming that any such God has magic powers like Omniscience, just that he created the universe.
Universe creation sounds pretty magical to me. And you preface that with "just".
[EDITED TO ADD THE CLOSE QUOTE MARK AND REVEAL THE FINAL SENTENCE]
I think you not read it properly. I'm not saying anything about god, just whether the universe was created or not. That question has to start at 50% before we take into account an evidence before/against the proposition because its a boolean sample space (yes/no) with no reason to suspect a non-normal distribution of probability.
So I'm saying that there is a 97% change the universe was created. Thats not saying anything directly about God. It could of been some other entity or entities that do not correspond to the traditional view of God that created the universe.
You just told us the sample space is Boolean (and yes the word Boolean is supposed to be capitalized). It can't be a normal distribution and have a Boolean space.
/e Furthermore, a while ago you told us it was a Boolean distribution (I assumed at the time you meant binomial distribution). Again, it can't be both.
I mean if we have not admitted any evidence, there is no reason to suspect anything other than a 50% / 50% yes / no distribution to the likely answer to the question 'was the universe created?'. IE a normal distribution.
Now here is further proof that you have no understanding of basic Boolean math as you are trying to use.
The Yes/No Boolean choice is NOT 50%/50%. It is 1/0. In other words to use percentage probability it is 100%/0%.
Again, go back and learn probability theory.
If you flip a coin it comes out heads 50% of the time.
The normal distribution (for those who don't know) is commonly known as the bell curve. It is a continuous distribution. That means it has an infinite number of possible outcomes. For example: if 1 and 2 are possible outcomes, then 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,... are possible outcomes. Or in other words it is a smooth graph.
Your question is binomial (or as you said Boolean). It only has 2 outcomes; it can't possibly have a normal (continuous) distribution, it must have a discrete distribution.
It seems that your 50/50 fallacy is only the tip of your crazy iceberg.
What I mean is if you rendered the bell curve using a boolean distribution, it would look like 50% yes 50% no. IE the bell curve is symmetric about the y-axis.
But Dan, you are using Boolean logic. Even with a coin flip, heads = 1, tails = 0, means when you flip the coin ONLY ONCE, your outcome is going to be a 1 or a 0. Or, using your percentage thing, 100% or 0%. Again, it is the claim that either your deity exists or does not exist. With the probability your are trying to calculate by using additive percentages, you always start at 0%. Only the first step would be additive, thereafter they are multiplicative.
Using your reasoning, it would be thus:
1) 0 + 0.5 = 0.5.
2) 0.5 × 0.75 = 0.375.
3) 0.375 × 0.5 = 0.1875.
4) 0.1875 × 0.25 = 0.046875.
5) 0.046875 × 0.25 = 0.01171875.
Again, a 1.17% chance.
That is how to calculate the probability you are trying to calculate. Look it up.
Look you multiply probabilities when you are trying to assess the chance than X and Y will both happen.
The calculation I am doing is evidence-based. For which you start at 50% and then add probabilities to for each piece of positive evidence you have.
If you look at your calculation above, it makes no sense. You start at 50% and then adjust it to allow for evidence IN GODS FAVOUR. 50% SHOULD GO UP NOT DOWN for evidence in favour.
Let's examine probability here a bit.
I assume you are of car driving age and have been driving a car for a while. Think back to an accident you had, even if it was minor, and if you been lucky enough so far to not have one, think back to a close call.
What was the odds of that accident (or close call happening?) You had to be, at that exact spot, in that exact second, moving at that exact speed, with your car's visibility exactly at that. The other driver had to be in that exact spot, in that exact second,etc etc etc
If you decided hey my coffee is hot, I am going to blow on it twice instead of just once to cool it down, you would not have been at that spot. If you decided to hit the snooze button 1 more time, if you dropped your keys on the way to the car. If the car battery was growing weak and did not start the car on the first try. If the guy in front of you 5 intersection away from the eventual accident decided to go for it on the yellow light instead of stopping. ETC ETC ETC
You get it, add up all the odds, the odds that you would be in the accident is literally 1 in trillions and trillions. The series of events that lead up to the event of the accidents are almost innumerable.
The point is: for real life, highly complex scenarios their really is no measuring the odds. Even a simple fair coin flip, yes 1 in 2 to get the heads or tails outcome, but what are the odds that you will flip that coin at that exact time? 1 in a very very large number. You can sometimes try to calculate odds to better future predict, but you most certainly CANNOT use odds to measure the likelihood of a past event happening, It happened, the odds are one in one.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
I don't see why we can't apply probability to past events with unknown outcomes? It's just the same as using probability for future events. I don't see a boolean proof or disprove of God on the horizon and I need to know what to believe now so I have no choice but to use probability to get an answer.
If there is a past event with unknown outcome, it is an event that has an unknown outcome, no odds can be placed. If you do know the results of a past outcome the odds of it happening were 100%
If you heard about someone flipping a coin but never got to find out about the outcome of that coin toss, then you simply know an event occured and do not know the outcome, you do not even know if the coin was a fair coin, or if there even was an actual result (perhaps someone caught the coin mid air after you stopped personally observing the event.)
It is not the same as using probability for future events, probability, odds etc, are taking known past results (preferably of signficant quantity to make it reliable) and using past results to predict likelihood of future events. It does not work in reverse, you cannot "predict" a past event outcome, especially a boolean "yes" "no" on god.
You do have a choice beyond "probability" to find an answer on "god." The same tools you use every day to make decisions, to survive, to excel, to help avoid negative outcomes.
What makes you decide when you cross a busy street? Is it because someone in a different time and place told you it was safe to cross? Or do you use your senses, your eyes, your ears to detect if it is safe to cross? You have powerful compelling evidence to back up the information you gather when you cross the street.
Do you decide without using your senses oh, I think it is roughly 9 in 10 odds that if I randomly cross the street blind and deaf, that people will avoid me and I will make it across to the other side unharmed? (Also remember if you cause an accident doing such a stupid stunt, even if you were not directly physically harmed, there is a good chance you will be caught and held accountable for your actions that could include jail time and monetary losses.)
If you are looking for "what is the purpose of life" what is the "first mover" the correct answer is: we do not know. We have no evidence of anything before the big bang, and zero conclusions can be drawn. The conclusion of "because god" is just as baseless conclusion as: "because 42" or because giant aliens were playing with marbles.
The "god answer" is a nice, comforting "blankie" fantasy made up by humans that fear the unknown and want to create answers for themselves even if they have nothing to back said answer.
The only correct answer is: we do not know. But the various "god" hypothesis are just as bad or good as any other theory based on zero evidence.
Just like even though a large portion of the more educated world at one time thought Zeus (Jupiter) is the cause of lightning, but now we laugh at that idea as we know where lightning really comes from and how it occurs. The hypothesis of "because zeus" is why lightning and thunder is silly to us, and it was silly then because once again it was based on zero actual testable proof.
If you want an answer to your question "what to believe"
The answer is: believe your own senses, believe the collected human knowledge based on real, repeatable testable evidence, just like you (hopefully!) use to cross a busy highway, do not believe what a few old men repeat over and over in a lecture while they pass around a money collection basket. Wean yourself off the addictive "god" drug that a few greedly maleovant men cooked up to better control the masses and consolidate their power.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
You are still looking at it wrong. Show where it calculates the chance of X and Y both happening. In my calculations, there only the chance for X happening.
You have shown NO EVIDENCE. Only presupposed assumptive assertions. You are making assumptions based on fantasy-based imaginative figments. I already said for you to try the Scientific Method.
No. You start at 0%. Then calculate from there. And the chances are MULTIPLICATIVE. So much for that Bachelor's in math. And again with the "evidence" thing which you have NEVER provided.
It does if you know math. Ask Nyarlathotep. I hardly use any math except when writing a script for ArcGIS Enterprise while at work at home. And even then, I already have the formula/equation to follow.
Confirmation Bias Fallacy. See bold text above. Seriously, download the Rhetorological Fallacies PDF I made. The probability you are proposing is MULTIPLICATIVE. Go bck and study probability theory. You are applying the wrong theorem. Hell, it has been so long I cannot even remember the name of the probability theorem you should be using. The one you are using is nothing but confirmation bias.
Again, confirmation bias.
The chances for something happening when considering all the factors will always go down.
I am afraid you are lost. Your theistic upbringing has completely brainwashed you. And you may be deistic by your own admittance, but that just came from your theistic background. Of course, you will deny this.
It would be helpful if you preface your replies with the name of the poster that you're replying to.
Dan, you wrote, “All stars have a habitable zone in which planets that fall in that zone are live supporting.”
How did you come up with that?
Sorry to disappoint you but the universe is not so fine-tuned. There are several combinations of the basic parameters that can produce a life-sustaining universe, so ours could have arisen by chance. No need for a creator.
Good Post Mr. Tin.... Keep on Dan and he will catch on eventually. Dan, you are simply talking about things in very strange ways. Perhaps you should begin a thread with what you think atheism is. You seem intelligent enough but you are asserting things in very strange ways. 1
God couldn't have existed in nothing and created something from nothing. If the universe always existed then God didn't create it. How would you define God?
"what always existed could be God"
It could be pixies if you try to define them into existence in this way.
" you can't prove atheism this way."
Atheism is the lack or absence of one single belief, it is irrational to try and prove it, or claim it requires proving?
I'm really sorry Dan, but everything in your post was nonsense.
"This sort of argument is not sufficient to prove a creator's existence at present but with time, I think science will get there."
This is not an argument. Its a jolly suppositional, feel good ramble without evidence.
Science will never "get there" because science deals only with reality, not the supernatural. How is science to measure or weigh the immaterial?
The atom is not a miracle, it's existence doesn't suspend natural laws, but is the basis for them and for reality.
"Fine tuning" is not science, it is a teleological farce of an idea.
Its impossible to contrast our reality to hypothetical universes. Just how do you know the physical properties of hypothetical universes?
By all means comfort yourself with faith, but don't suppose you can ever prove it with science. Its not what the scientific method was meant for.
We can look at the present universe, the forces and particles. We can make hypothetical alterations to them and find the resulting universes are not life supporting. We fine if we change almost anything the universe is not life supporting any more:
I think you are somewhat behind the times; science used to be dominated by atheists but that is no longer the case. I'm a deist; that means science AND god. It's the way of the future.
The teleological theory of 'fine tuning' proves nothing. It remains a comforting hope for deists and theists for their cherished beliefs. Its not science, its hope theology has built on tinkering with theories and facts that science alone has established.
It's been theoretically suggested that if there was an infintesimally small increase in the amount of nitrogen, or some other gas in the earth's atmosphere, the planet might just spontaneously combust and all life as we know it destroyed. If that happened, it wouldn't prove that the universe was purposely created or that god existed. It would only prove how hostile this universe is to life.
Behind the times, lol. Deists and theists started and for awhile dominated the long path to the scientific method in their search for their god and when, in the course of several hundred years, they found it could do so such thing, they sought to misrepresent or suppress it to shelter their precious faith.
Now in the shade of theoretical astronomical musings they continue to misconstrue meaning and speculation to that same end. Theological science is not the future; it has always been a feature of the past.
And the wikipedia post was not a defence for your position, just a statement of its existence. There were many objections and criticisms, and at best qualifications, of 'fine tuning' presented by scientists arguing that 'fine tuning' is not necessarily that 'fine' nor 'tuned' in any intentional way.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said "If you want to assert a truth, first make sure its not just an opinion that you desperately want to be true."
Your deist science and your god are only YOUR way of the future. Good luck.
The Fine Tuning Argument for God's existence easily debunked: A God with a brain, as I have shown, is more likely to exist than one without a brain. But brains didn't evolve on planets/on Earth until AFTER the fine tuning was already done. Naturalism probably did the fine tuning.
The only one behind the times my friend is ..... YOU. Change one little thing in the universe and you will have a different universe with different life if the universe is life permitting. With the discovery of extremeness the idea of "Life Permitting" has expanded incredibly. Life has been found in surfer pools, growing in acid, living in nuclear waste, in volcano vents under the sea, in meteorites that have fallen to earth, and more. There are life forms that survive without sunlight under the Arctic ice. New forms of bacteria have been discovered growing on NASA spacecraft. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. We came from, and grew into this world. If something were different, we would be different. If something did not support life, there would be no life. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
"We can look at the present universe, the forces and particles. We can make hypothetical alterations to them and find the resulting universes are not life supporting. We fine if we change almost anything the universe is not life supporting any more:"
Only life as we know it, and this is like claiming a puddle has to have been created because if you alter the shape even slightly the water won't fit.
"I think you are somewhat behind the times; science used to be dominated by atheists but that is no longer the case."
Actually this is irrelevant, but there re large bodies of research that show atheism if disproportionately high amongst elite scientists. Make of that what you will.
" I'm a deist; that means science AND god. It's the way of the future."
No it doesn't, and no it isn't. Hitchens's razor applied.
But nearly all possible configurations for hypothetical universes lack the complex forms of cohesion we find in this universe (atoms, molecules). And without these complex forms of matter, no life is possible of any kind whatsoever. So your puddle analogy is wide of the mark.
I'm not the only one making claims here. You are making a claim that the Big Bang had natural causes. You are making a claim that the obvious signs of design in the universe are coincidental. I've given evidence on my side, where exactly is your evidence?
You have given NO EVIDENCE, only asserted presupposed assumptions.
"without these complex forms of matter, no life is possible of any kind whatsoever."
How many different types of life forms have you used to test this assumption? Where did you sample these alternative life forms from? You are making sweeping unevidenced assertions based on pure assumption and appeal to ignorance fallacies.
" your puddle analogy is wide of the mark."
I disagree, I think it was spot on. See I can make sweeping assertions as well.
"You are making a claim that the Big Bang had natural causes"
No I haven't, why would you make up such an obvious lie? There is zero evidence for any supernatural causation is all I have said.
"You are making a claim that the obvious signs of design in the universe are coincidental."
Another whopper, show one post of mine where I have claimed or agreed with a claim that there are "signs of design" in the universe. That is a shameless lie, Dan.
"I've given evidence on my side, where exactly is your evidence?"
You've given unevidenced assertions and biased observations, and fallacious appeals to ignorance. Not one shred of objective empirical evidence have you demonstrated.
The claims you've assigned to me are shamelessly false Dan. However it is a demonstrable fact that the material universe exists and has organic life in it. Since nothing is being added for the false assertion you made on my behalf I will at least go so far as to point out that you and you alone are adding unevidenced supernatural causation. Occam's razor would seem to apply.
Arguments from incredulity and from ignorance are fallacies in informal logic and you're using both here.