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.
@ Cognostic
I agree that I have misused the word proof when I meant evidence.
I also agree that evidence of absence can be good scientific evidence.
Would your experiment have detected God if he was there? I believe that is how it works in science.
You test for the presence of lead in the water, finding none, you conclude there is no lead in the water. If the test can detect the presence of lead.
But if there is no test run, just the absence of evidence, than it is not a valid argument and is a fallacy. Is that right?
You mentioned the plethora of evidence supporting the non-existence of God. Can you provide me with some of that evidence?
Yes. Absence of evidence is a fallacy and one can not draw conclusions based on it. Evidence of absence is different. You test the water a hundred times with tests known to find led and you discover nothing there. We have real tests that we can apply to God. The Eucharist wafers have been tested - THEY DO NOT CHANGE. Holy water has been tested - NOTHING DIFFERENT. Blessings have been tested - NO CHANGE. Prayer has been tested - it works no better than chance and in some studies it has done worse than chancel. Miracles have been tested, Many explained, Some unknown but still one can not jump to Miraculous without evidence such a thing exists. If God interacts with this world, he leaves footprints in the forms of answered prayers, miracles, healing, and other bullshit attributed to him. NOTHING IN ANY OF THIS IS FOUND TO BE SUPPORTED WITH FACTS OR EVIDENCE. It all counts as evidence of absence. Again we have 8000 years of this crap and hundreds of thousands of failed gods. The Christian / Muslim god is just one more in a long long long line of failed gods. This is all "EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE."
@ Cog
And there it is. 10,000 agrees.
@ Cognostic
I don't think the tests that you apply to God, really do test for God. They just test some claims about God, or some way you think God should work. If I say God gave me a million dollars and you have a video tape of me stealing it. It doesn't mean God does not exists, it just means I am a liar and a thief. I think the fundamental questions is how does one know when God has interacted with the world? Because it could be that you are misunderstanding how it works.
I agree with you that we should be able to see the footprints of God as he interacts with the world. However, I think you are wrong in your conclusion of what those footprints should look like.
Illustration - There are Identical twin brothers, one named Arthur and the other Christopher. Art is very sure there is no God and considers himself and atheist. Chris is sure there is a God and that he is Jesus. Chris prays everyday to Jesus. They live next door to each other. Art the atheist and Chris the Christian.
There lives take very different courses. Art has a bad marriage, horrible and sickly children. A storm comes through and destroys Art's house but Chris's house just gets a gentle rain. Chris has a wonderful marriage and completely health kids. Chris gets whatever he wants from God, all he has to do is ask. Years later Art is dying from some horrible disease. Art is finally forced to admit, to the amazingly young looking Chris, that his God must be the right one.
Christian sometimes think they have some obvious advantage because of their belief. Atheist sometimes use the lack of an obvious advantage as evidence against the existence of God. I think they are both looking at it wrong. If God did answer ever prayer of every christian, there would be no atheists, you would not really not have a choice. And how many would "believe" just for the perks. It would ruin the whole thing.
delete
@Jo
NO ONE IS APPLYING TESTS TO GOD.... READ IT AGAIN.
NO ONE IS MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT GOD BUT THE THEISTS - READ IT AGAIN.
NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA AT ALL ABOUT HOW GOD SHOULD WORK BUT THE THEISTS - READ IT AGAIN.
" If I say God gave me a million dollars and you have a video tape of me stealing it. " BUT IT DOES MEAN YOU WERE LYING. - NOW THINK ABOUT ACTUAL RELIGIOUS CLAIMS MADE THROUGHOUT THE PAST 8000 YEARS THAT WE CAN PROVE ARE LIES. THEN LETS LOOK AT YOUR BIBLE - FULL OF LIES.
IT DOES NOT EVEN GET THE STORY OF CREATION RIGHT. BATS ARE BIRDS? RABBITS CHEW THEIR CUD? A MAN CAN LIVE INSIDE A FISH?
IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR BULLSHIT IS REAL.
WE UNDERSTAND HOW GOD INTERACTS WITH THE WORLD BECAUSE THEISTS TELL US HOW GOD INTERACTS WITH THE WORLD. EVERY EXAMPLE I GAVE YOU COMES FROM THE THEIST HANDBOOK OF GOD INTERACTING WITH THE WORLD - READ THE FUCKING POST AGAIN.
I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE FOOTPRINTS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. ONLY THEISTS KNOW THAT. AND WHEN WE LOOK FOR THEM "RESULTS OF PRAYER FOR EXAMPLE" **THEY FAIL**
ART AND ARTHUR - EXCELLENT ANALOGY. What do we find when we look at facts and statistics. There is no case in which a Christian life style outperforms an Atheist lifestyle in the real world. You can switch the characters positions and retell the story with the exact opposite results. Chris says "Fuck this God idea." and becomes an atheist. REALLY STUPID STORY.
ATHEISTS DO NOT USE "the lack of an obvious advantage " AS EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? READ THE POST AGAIN. I SAID NO SUCH THING. I GAVE EXACT FACTS AND EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF EXISTENCE.
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT - " If God did answer ever prayer of every christian, there would be no atheists," HOW IN THE HELL DID YOU GET TO HERE "you would have no choice." OF COURSE I WOULD HAVE A CHOICE. SATAN HAD A CHOICE AND HE KNEW FULL WELL GOD EXISTED. SATAN TOLD GOD TO FUCK OFF. HE TOOK 1/3 OF THE ANGELS, WHO ALSO KNEW GOD, WITH HIM. OF COURSE I WOULD HAVE A CHOICE.
HOW MANY WOULD BELIEVE FOR PERKS - Who gives a shit. Go ask the Christians - They are the ones that assert PASCAL'S WAGER - believing for the perks, is a sure way to get you into heaven.
STEP BY STEP YOU SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT DEBUNKED OR EVEN CONTRADICTED ANY POINT I MADE. MY ORIGINAL POST STANDS. Have you heard the expression. "It is better to let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it?" Your post is absurd from beginning to end. Obviously you did not read my previous post or you are just incapable of understanding it.
"I don't recall making a claim. What claim is it you want me to provide proof for?"
Your claim the christian deity exists, it's in your profile.
No - Supernatural things are disproven by the fact that they contravign reality as being in conflict with immutable physical laws, like the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravitation, electromagnetism and many others. When you apply these laws to supernatural things, they disprove them. This does not disprove god however, because there is no metric to disprove god, we just don't know if he is a physical being, or a myth perpetuated by stupidity. Now this is where my belief is...because of a gods supernatural nature, I find it highly unlikely that he/it exists. It is truly more measurably likely that a giant interstellar jellyfish named nathan, that survives off of antimatter, is roaming the universe farting out interdimensional bubbles, than it is likely that an abrahamic god is real...because there is evidence for the possibility of nathan, but zero evidence for your god.
As with all atheists, when sufficient evidence presents itself that your or a god exists...I will except him/it.
Until then...not so much.
Now tell me why you believe a god exists please. Its only fair...your up.
Just a shot in the dark, but is this you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbg
doG
I am not following your line of reasoning because it seems to be contradictory.
You made these statements, that I agree with.
"Neither position can be absolutely proven."
"There is no metric, to measure supernatural things."
But then you concluded "That present knowledge we have, tells us that the likeliness of a god, is near infinitely unlikely." If neither position can be proven and there is no metric to measure supernatural things, how can you conclude that god is infinitely unlikely?
You also made these seemingly contradictory statements. "Supernatural things are disproven by the fact that they contravign reality as being in conflict with immutable physical laws. When you apply these laws to supernatural things, they disprove them. This does not disprove god however, because there is no metric to disprove god." If supernatural things can be disproven, how does that square with that it does not disprove god?
doG
Sorry, in my last post I forgot to answer your question about why I believe in God. The point of this blog I started wasn't to say why I believe, but to point out how arguments can seem to be won for other reasons than someone being right. But it is fair to ask so I will briefly answer.
I believe in God because of science, logic, reasoning, my life experiences, my studying and testing of the Bible, my spiritual experiences, and my observations. When I ask the tuff questions, consider everything, reason everything out, I come to the conclusion that there must be a God. Then I reason out what God or belief makes the most sense.
Thank you for finally responding to my question. That is part of truth seeking, is it not, decent recourse which brings forth new information, and in some situations, enlightenment. Thank you for stating your beliefs, so we can get back to discussing more in depth your reasons for your belief...if that would be acceptable to you. Right now, I will attempt to answer your other question just prior. :)
doG
You said you would answer my prior question. I don't see that answer, did I miss it?
Sorry, got very busy...see below.
What is the one subjective evidenced thing that convinces you of a god?
@ doG
It is not one thing, but the weight of all the evidence. More like solving a crime than testing one thing. It is also the lack of evidence to the contrary, and the lack of convincing arguments to the contrary. It is more like seeing the forest for the trees. It is the complete answer that encompasses everything and not just a narrow examination of some of the evidence. Natural laws, fine tuning, reasoning, nature and humans reflecting God. The improbability of all the extremely unlikely events occurring that has led us to this point, just to mention a few. When I use all my faculties I can sense God, or at least recognize him in some small way. It is through the testing of God, the Bible and contrary views, such as Atheism, that I have arrived at this belief.
Atheism to me seems like a position of weakness because it doesn't say what is, only what is not. It is a denial or non acceptance of a belief, but is reluctant to, or refuses to say what is the right belief. It says theists are wrong, or have not proven their point, but then stops.
Kind of like saying to a friend that Donald is the best candidate for a political office. Your friend tears you up one side and down the other for your "crazy" belief. Your friend goes to great lengths to show how stupid, illogical and wrong you are about Donald. So I ask my friend the reasonable, obvious and fair question. So are you saying Donald is not the right candidate, and then who is the right candidate. My friend defensively says, hey I am apolitical, and you have not proven to me that Donald is the best candidate. My friend has really not answered the big question of who I should vote for.
I want to know as best I can what is right, what is truth, and what is a lie. Knowing who or what is wrong is nice, but that is not what I am after. That is not even half an answer. I want to know reality. I don't want to make someone else do all the work, I want to find out for myself. It is my responsibility to figure it out.
Atheist seem to fundamentally misunderstand how life works. Not in the technical scientific sense but in the big questions sense. They want proven answers provided to them. As if life is just a mathematical formula or as simple as figuring out some aspect of nature. None of the big and important questions of life work that way. I see their "lack of faith" and unwillingness to say what is, as weakness and indicative that they do not have the answer.
These are some of the reasons why I am a theist and not an atheist.
That is admirable jo. Please keep in mind that truth is based on factual or valid evidence. You are going to have to put aside bias and think critically to obtain truths. This is near impossible for the religious as almost all, suffer from significant cognitive dissonance, that skews their ability to reach truth. You have a belief based on pathways that do not define truth. I posted a helpful youtube video that defines these traits that will hinder your search. I hope you watched it. If not, here it is again...keep this in mind when you are critically assessing the knowledge to find your truths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbg&t=5s
LOL sounds like you have been perusing facebook for answers. Again, valid information is where you will find truths...logic and reason should be applied to all the knowledge you look at. This is why atheists look toward the scientific method for knowledge, as that type knowledge is easy to detect bias, and when performed correctly, is completely unbiased, and closer to truth than other types of information. Atheists mostly use critical thinking...it is important for our species to objectively evaluate and analyze everything to make good decisions and avoid bad ones. Remaining unbiased and understanding all viewpoints of a topic is imperative for truth seeking. Why I am harping on this, is your comment is biased..."I see their "lack of faith" and unwillingness to say what is, as weakness and indicative that they do not have the answer." That is judgement in a bias framework...if you really want to find truths, you will have to rewerk your framework of assessment to exclude your bias.
Truthfully I can say "I do not think a god exists because of the complete lack of objective evidence." yet you effectively say "Despite the lack of objective evidence, I believe my god exists. That is not seeking truth.
@doG
"Please keep in mind that truth is based on factual or valid evidence. You are going to have to put aside bias and think critically to obtain truths. This is near impossible for the religious as almost all, suffer from significant cognitive dissonance, that skews their ability to reach truth. You have a belief based on pathways that do not define truth."
doG, what is "valid" evidence?
I have made observations, ask questions based on those observations, done research and experiments to test my hypothesis. I explained what I believe, why I believe it and how I arrived at my conclusions. Is this not the scientific method?
What is the bias I need to put aside? In what ways are my thoughts or beliefs inconsistence (cognitive dissonance)?
What pathways am I using that do not define truth?
I do not effectively say that despite lack of evidence I believe in God. That is misrepresenting what I said. I believe in God because of all the evidence.
Is not the evidence I provide objective? Do you mean I must provide scientific evidence?
How is my seeing atheists as not having the answers biased? Don't atheist make no claims? No claims = no answers.
Evidence without some form of presupposition, or based on an invalid preposition.
No that is not the scientific method. You do not understand the scientific method. I now doubt the veracity of any research you have done, and and conclusions you have reached.
Your present belief system of your god, is your bias. You have shown that you can not let go of you beliefs when assessing information. eg. partial quote from you..."if a soul existed..." is evidence you can not separate from your beliefs. You can not look at the evidence alone, without injecting your assessment with your belief bias.
As you have previously mentioned, you are using faith as a determinant of your belief system...Faith is not a pathway to truth.
- google definition- "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." You can literally believe in anything, if you have faith in it...and that is your pathway to truth? Huh. Also, Any sort of subjective measure you use is suspect as this opens up invalid evidence to your basis for belief. As mentioned previously, because of your lack of understanding of the scientific method, any sort of objective evidence you obtain through your research process, are invalid as well.
Really? You have come on this site saying you are a christian, that alone brings doubt initially based on the fact that there is no objective evidence that christ existed. To me you are one of thousands of deluded christians who I have encountered with the same unsubstantiated beliefs...however, because of your incredulity, you hold your beliefs to yourself...what you have said thus far, is vague and sounds like the other christians I have encountered...but without more information, I don't know that.
Well this shows your clear misunderstanding of what I am even talking about...cripes...No it is not objective, as what you have eluded to thus far is not evidence. Also, you don't even know what scientific evidence is, so even if you provided it, it would be invalid and useless.
Ok...that's it for me...after reading this last bit, I am done. You are now putting your lack of knowledge and your clear misunderstanding squarely on the shoulders of atheists. I now do not believe you are here to gain knowledge for yourself....nor do I believe you are anything else, other than the christians I have previously encountered. Good luck with that.
@ DoG
And another 10,000 agrees to you sir...if only I could find that button....
@ doG
I was not trying to be insulting or uncooperative when I made my no claims = no answers statement. You have been helpful to me and patient with me, and I appreciate it. I said that out of frustration. Understanding atheism and the arguments behind has been a frustrating experience to me.
Thank you for the recourse...
Well, I would add the word "yet" to the end of each quote...As I personally believe humanity has the ability at some point to have all knowledge...many would disagree.
Well, I wish you would have read closer or understood my original post on this topic. Ugh.
To answer your question...that is correct. God resides in the supernatural, and his actions are supernatural...his whole nature is supernatural. Which, we both agree, is not measurable. Right? How do you measure heaven? Well, you don't, without a measurable metric. However, gods actions are perpetrated in a physical world, which we know a awful lot about, not everything, yet...but a lot. So by measuring the effects of these supernatural events against physicality, we can come up with a p-value or probability/likeliness of these events occurring in our physical reality. This in no way is absolute, as propabilities do not measure absolutes. With our present knowledge we do not know everything, which leaves possibility of your beliefs...but we can measure likeliness, as I will expand on in a sec.
Again, just as I mentioned above, we can measure physical things to see if the physical interaction defined by your supernatural god, can actually occur. Because there are no absolutes in this dichotomy, we can only calculate p-value. We can not say your supernatural god absolutely does not exist, but we can say that his supernatural concepts are unlikely. Example: We know an awful lot about the human body, including everything about its physical makeup...right down to how each physical particle works and interacts with our physical world. You are christian right...you believe in the supernatural concept of the soul correct? I am assuming. None the less, it is widely believed that when you die, you go to heaven, or go for a long bath in a sulphur lake, in hell. (sounds like a spa) These are supernatural places which can't be evidenced or proven or conversely, disproven. However, the soul can be, as your doctrine asserts this in our physical world. Now you can understand where I am going. Now, hopefully you can understand, that there is no particle observed at cern that is not part of the standard model of particle physics...to believe a soul occurs in reality we would have to evidence a pattern that carries information about our living cells to continue after death...then we need to precisely define what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made of. More simply, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. Which is impossible at the energy levels typical of the particle interactions in our bodies.
On a personal note, I have electroencephalographically recorded many people dying, and never recorded any burst of energy as a so called soul heads to the pearly gates, just a gradual decrease in electrical activity...let alone the 13 teV needed to separate particles at cern. A soul, as described by your doctrine, is not possible with a human body.
Now, as mentioned initially, these facts do not disprove the existence of god, but do drastically reduce his likelliness.
I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Moo
@doG
"As I personally believe humanity has the ability at some point to have all knowledge."
doG, that sounds like a belief to me or maybe even faith. When or if that happens I will consider it.
Are you saying that if a person has a soul, that a soul would have to be made of matter or energy that exists in the natural world? That the soul would be detectable by a scientific instrument?
I could say the same thing about probabilities as supporting the existence of God. The answer probably largely depends on who writes the program. What is the probability of a universe creating itself, time, energy and matter? What is the probability of a universe existing instead of nothing existing? What is the probability of there being a habitable planet in the universe. That the very complex proteins and DNA somehow form life? What is the probability of that life evolving to have the ability to ask profound questions and be able to comprehend God? You could go either way with it but it sure seems more probable to me that is supports the notion of God.
Ummm yes, a belief, as I said originally, "i believe", however this is a belief based on rational observation of the advancement of humanity within such a short period of time...and not in the realm of faith at all...or god forbid, anywhere near the lunacy of blind biblical faith without evidence.
No that's not what I said. You are either misunderstanding or purposefully misquoting. I am noticing hints of dishonest debate tactics jo, Don't please. I'll assume it was a misunderstanding, i'll continue...No, I am not saying IF at all, those are your words...I am saying people do not have a soul at all, as there is zero evidence, and that our knowledge of our physical reality and its limitations prove a soul, and prayer for that matter, flat out can not exist. We know particle physics very well and we know the makeup of the human body very well, and we know the interaction between both, and we know what the energy needed is to maintain our physical attributes, and we know that nothing has appeared beyond the standard model of particle physics, as evidenced by decades of cern collisions that would evidence a soul, and we know the energy needed to separate the information from our physical brain that a biblical soul would need to carry away from our physical body, far exceeds the energy the body can produce, and we know that supernatural things/events have never been validated ever, and that our reality is based on physicality and physical laws...(takes a breath)...Knowing these things as fact, disproves our bodies can transmit information in any form in reality, away from our body. A soul can not exist in our reality...Prayer can not work in our reality...and that is above and beyond the fact that zero evidence of either exists.
Well again jo, you are missing it conveniently, there are things that we can measure, and things we can't. Mostly because no evidence exists for them in our reality. The big bang as an event is measurable...it occured, however, how the singularity formed in the universe and what occurred prior to, can only be hypothesized. This is where measuring probability comes in handy, probability about the singularity is very high, because we know the big bang occurred, and we can measure precisely from that point till now via background radiation, real physical evidence. The singularity itself is very near true even though its p-value is all that can be measured about it, but because its probability density is the highest, it is very likely. Where as the universe created by god, is very unlikely, as there is no evidence or metric to measure that claim...so that probability density for your god, is nearest improbability.
PS. BTW it's RNA not DNA that is the original catalyst of life on this planet. Search "RNA world" for the latest, including the resolution of cellular membrane paradox via very simple compounds and reactions which produce the three major biomolecules needed for abiogenesis.
doG,
I am not conveniently missing your point, purposely misquoting, or using dishonest debate tactics. I simply think you are being illogical, inconsistent, and hard to understand.
What I understand you to say, in my own words, is that God cannot be measured, but the natural world can be measured. I agree. But then you say that by measuring the natural world we can show that God does not exists. Again, my words and my understanding.
You seem to by saying that if a soul existed it would be measurable by scientific instruments, such as at the cern. That science has disproven a soul and prayer. These seem like claims to me. The only evidence you have presented is the cern and medical equipment has not detected a soul, or the mind leaving the body at death. Are you saying that our thoughts are just biochemical or some sort of energy?
Last question - What do you mean by "no evidence of them exists in our reality"? What do you mean by "our reality"? Do you mean the natural world?
I can't help your inability to understand...and yes you are misquoting, you are doing it in this vary response.
This is your misquote..."But then you say that by measuring the natural world we can show that God does not exists" I never said that. I am thinking you either don't have the capacity, have a reading/comprehension disability or are deceitfully misquoting. Let me correct your words, to represent what I mean..."But then you say that by measuring the natural world we can show that a soul does not exists" This is the third time you have done this...you have struck out.
You do not know what a LHC is, or what and how they research there. You do not know particle physics for sufficient understanding. You do not know what the standard model of particle physics defines and how it relates to the physicality of us and everything in our universe. You do not know human biology sufficiently to relate how its makeup relates to physics. You need to learn. I will not continue this thread, as I refuse to educate you to ease your lack of knowledge while you simultaneously use our recourse for dishonest debate tactics.
When you learn about the aforementioned, I hope you will be able to reason why a soul can't exist...above and beyond the fact that there is no evidence for it.
@ Jo..
What is the probability of a deity creating itself? Or are you going to use the usual special pleading fallacy theists employ to insist their completely unevidenced deity has properties an objectively evidenced universe cannot?
Come to that, what's the probability you were "lucky" enough to be born into a culture that has picked the real deity from all the tens of thousands of fictional ones humans have created?
"What is the probability of a universe existing instead of nothing existing? "
Nothing can't "exist", by definition. How are you testing all these unevidenced assertions you're making about nothing btw? Where did you find some "nothing" to test?
"What is the probability of there being a habitable planet in the universe. "
Given its incomprehensibly vast size and age, pretty high I'd imagine.
"That the very complex proteins and DNA somehow form life? "
As opposed to the probability a completely unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition did it using unexplained magic and clay you mean? Dear oh dear...
"What is the probability of that life evolving to have the ability to ask profound questions and be able to comprehend God? "
Nil I'd imagine as the concept of a deity is never ever accurately defined, merely assumed with unevidenced characteristics. So no one can really claim to comprehend a deity, just believe it exists. Nor do I find superstition particularly profound from the context of the 21st century. Though it probably seemed so once in our distant archaic ignorant past, to bronze age Bedouins.
" it sure seems more probable to me that is supports the notion of God."
It sure seems you have the theists usual penchant for making completely unevidenced assumptions with a grandiose flourish as if you've uttered something profound and esoteric. Any chance you will share the peer reviewed maths behind these probabilities you're tossing around?
Try this fact for size, the natural phenomena you keep claiming are less likely to have achieved the reality we are experiencing exist as an objective fact. Unlike deities and magic, which you seem to imagine are more probable sources of life, despite neither being objectively evidenced, ever...
You're also using yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We don't yet know how life formed, so your assumptions and speculation about how probable the cause is are fallacious. We do know natural phenomena are possible however, but we have no such evidence to indicate deities and magic are even possible, so whilst this doesn't falsify that superstitious belief, it puts your assumption it's more probable to have happened than natural phenomena neatly into perspective as errant nonsense.
How can something never objectively evidenced even once, be a more probable cause for anything than something that we know exists as an objective fact?
"If neither position can be proven and there is no metric to measure supernatural things, how can you conclude that god is infinitely unlikely?"
@ Jo
Well how likel is it that leprechauns exist, but become invisible in the presence of humans?
Now can you prove they aren't real?
Why are you giving your deity a free pass from proper scrutiny, a free pass you don't give anything else?
@jo
"Are you saying that neither can be proven so it ultimately comes down to which side you believe?"
No, because it still comes down to the person making the assertion to provide proof or a sound argument.
If I made the assertion "I believe there are invisible farting pixies", and I can not prove that, then I failed in my proof. There would not be a tie, I would lose my position.
There are people who firmly believe in Nordic gods. There are people who firmly believe in the gods of the indigenous native Americans. Belief is not a true pathway to the truth. Anyone can believe anything.
David,
I agree that belief is not the true path to truth.
I hope you have time to address the positive assertion you have made in previous posts. I have identified them on some previous posts.
Sorry, but I am not clear on whether you think god can be proven or disproven? You seemed to say yes on previous posts, and no on this post.
Pages