The Improbability of God

[Scott Free]

Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion?

lol - sad.

 

[Spade]

Just a guess here: he's a biblical literalist with his own unique perspective on what it's all about, and he probably means a lot of people who don't expect to are going to end up in Hell. And he doesn't mean just atheists.

Thanks, I thought that might be it. Got to brush up on the "Final Curtain."

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...for me, the word 'god' is just is another name for your conscience...

Probably not a good idea to call it "god" then, nobody's going to understand what you mean unless you explain it every time, which must get a little tiresome for you. Most people routinely take "god" to mean, at the very least, an incorporeal intelligence that has some interest in us.

The details vary greatly from sect to sect, that's just the lowest common denominator I've been able to come up with. I consider such an entity to be so highly improbable as to be not worth wondering about, quite apart from the issue of how a mind can exist apart from a body. There's no way to definitively prove its nonexistence, but there are plenty of good reasons for strongly doubting it has any reality.

For instance, there's the statistical reason: there's a very clear inverse relationship between how much we know about something and the role we're willing to assign to god in it. The more we know, the less we assign to supernatural causes, and any logical person faced with such a consistent trend would readily conclude that the postulated god most likely doesn't exist.

There's the anthropological reason: religions are historical products of evolving human cultures, and belief in any particular god or gods appears to be almost entirely related to the culture one grows up in.

There's an astronomical reason: every religiously derived cosmology is wrong, and not just a little bit, but egregiously, hugely, wrong.

There's a geological reason: the earth is clearly and definitely much older than the relatively few thousand years permitted by strict adherence to the scriptures of any religion I've been able to investigate.

Most tellingly for me, there's a logical reason: prayers are simply not answered, despite multiple explicit promises in all the scriptures that they will be. People pray only for things that can readily happen in the absence of prayer, like the remission of cancers, and credit god when it happens. Nobody prays for an amputee to regrow a lost limb, we all know that doesn't happen in humans. People will pray for the amputee to find the strength and courage and so on to deal with the loss, but nobody's going to expect regeneration of the lost limb. Or suppose we could get every praying person on the planet to simultaneously entreat their version of the deity for the remission of all childhood cancers. Could there be a more selfless, tragedy-averting, grief-averting request, to relieve the suffering of the innocents? We all know what'd happen: nothing. The logical conclusion is that nobody's listening.

Also to the point, on the (very remote) possibility that some deity is listening but can't grant that request, there goes the usual claim of omnipotence. And if the deity can do it but chooses not to, so much for benevolence. In either case, such a being is not worthy of unconditional admiration.

 

[MHz]

Just a guess here: he's a biblical literalist with his own unique perspective on what it's all about, and he probably means a lot of people who don't expect to are going to end up in Hell. And he doesn't mean just atheists.

Very good Dexter.

 

[talloola]

Probably not a good idea to call it "god" then, nobody's going to understand what you mean unless you explain it every time, which must get a little tiresome for you. Most people routinely take "god" to mean, at the very least, an incorporeal intelligence that has some interest in us.

The details vary greatly from sect to sect, that's just the lowest common denominator I've been able to come up with. I consider such an entity to be so highly improbable as to be not worth wondering about, quite apart from the issue of how a mind can exist apart from a body. There's no way to definitively prove its nonexistence, but there are plenty of good reasons for strongly doubting it has any reality.

For instance, there's the statistical reason: there's a very clear inverse relationship between how much we know about something and the role we're willing to assign to god in it. The more we know, the less we assign to supernatural causes, and any logical person faced with such a consistent trend would readily conclude that the postulated god most likely doesn't exist.

There's the anthropological reason: religions are historical products of evolving human cultures, and belief in any particular god or gods appears to be almost entirely related to the culture one grows up in.

There's an astronomical reason: every religiously derived cosmology is wrong, and not just a little bit, but egregiously, hugely, wrong.

There's a geological reason: the earth is clearly and definitely much older than the relatively few thousand years permitted by strict adherence to the scriptures of any religion I've been able to investigate.

Most tellingly for me, there's a logical reason: prayers are simply not answered, despite multiple explicit promises in all the scriptures that they will be. People pray only for things that can readily happen in the absence of prayer, like the remission of cancers, and credit god when it happens. Nobody prays for an amputee to regrow a lost limb, we all know that doesn't happen in humans. People will pray for the amputee to find the strength and courage and so on to deal with the loss, but nobody's going to expect regeneration of the lost limb. Or suppose we could get every praying person on the planet to simultaneously entreat their version of the deity for the remission of all childhood cancers. Could there be a more selfless, tragedy-averting, grief-averting request, to relieve the suffering of the innocents? We all know what'd happen: nothing. The logical conclusion is that nobody's listening.

Also to the point, on the (very remote) possibility that some deity is listening but can't grant that request, there goes the usual claim of omnipotence. And if the deity can do it but chooses not to, so much for benevolence. In either case, such a being is not worthy of unconditional admiration.

That's right, and I don't call anything 'god', but as far as I am concerned, all
the information they think they are getting from 'their' god, they are giving
to themselves, and they don't know it, their own intelligence is guiding
their lives, and they pass it off as an outside force called 'god'.

 

[MHz]

There's an astronomical reason: every religiously derived cosmology is wrong, and not just a little bit, but egregiously, hugely, wrong.

There's a geological reason: the earth is clearly and definitely much older than the relatively few thousand years permitted by strict adherence to the scriptures of any religion I've been able to investigate.

Nice peaceful avatar, which came first the candle or the flame?
Maybe you are being a bit too constrictive in your reading of Ge:1. We already covered this so I'll just recap. At this age of the earth the Scientific history and the Biblical account can be made to align if you add a zero to each day of creation. The base number would be 4,500 (#of years since Adam). Simply showing some advanced math (for that time) would be indicative of 'more than meets the eye'. The appearance of time is out of place in Ge:1 because time only starts when Ge:2 is said to start. Adam's knowledge goes back as far as the first plants. How the Heavens were formed or how the very early earth was formed was before what Ge:2 covers. When mankind is the topic that was the beginning of time (Ge:2), the universe is on a different clock (Ge:1).

If you want strict adherence a shorter time can be arrived at by letting the whole earth 'blossom' except the place where Adam is made, rather than the whole world needing time to come into bloom there is just this one place (horizon to horizon) that need to 'blossom'.

I don't know where either violates scripture to any extent, it doesn't fit many current doctrines I agree.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

The god thingy, complete evidence that books of fiction sell much better than non-fiction. Facts you have to admit, usually ruin a good story.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Nice peaceful avatar, which came first the candle or the flame?

They were simultaneous. I recently acquired a fabulous new digital SLR camera, a Nikon D200, and the superb Nikon 18-200 mm lens with the VR (vibration reduction) feature, and I thought I'd try it out on a difficult subject, so I took a picture of a candle in the dark. And since I've recently re-read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, subtitled "Science as a candle in the dark," it suited my mood and what I try to do.

On the other matters you raise, the evidence I know about strongly suggests the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, our solar system is about 5 billion years old, and there's been some form of life on this planet for at least 3 billion years. The stuff in scripture I don't consider to be evidence, that was a pre-scientific and largely pre-literate culture groping towards some explanation of the way things seemed to be. It's not bad for a first effort, considering how little those people knew, but it's not right either. It is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, our first and worst attempt at figuring things out.

 

[talloola]

They were simultaneous. I recently acquired a fabulous new digital SLR camera, a Nikon D200, and the superb Nikon 18-200 mm lens with the VR (vibration reduction) feature, and I thought I'd try it out on a difficult subject, so I took a picture of a candle in the dark. And since I've recently re-read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, subtitled "Science as a candle in the dark," it suited my mood and what I try to do.

On the other matters you raise, the evidence I know about strongly suggests the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, our solar system is about 5 billion years old, and there's been some form of life on this planet for at least 3 billion years. The stuff in scripture I don't consider to be evidence, that was a pre-scientific and largely pre-literate culture groping towards some explanation of the way things seemed to be. It's not bad for a first effort, considering how little those people knew, but it's not right either. It is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, our first and worst attempt at figuring things out.

That's right, they knew very little, but what it does prove, is that as long as there has been human life, the 'imagination' was alive and healthy very early on.

 

[MHz]

So it was a sign of wisdom on His part (also)that led Him to keep a subject, that could be much longer short, despite the problems it has caused.
Ah yes the good old days of innocence, tell me, how much time has passed since revisions (of any kind)were no longer needed?

So in theory your camera could make the flame bigger than the candle, nice. I would suppose a digital can still be attached to a spotting scope or (even better) a sidewalk telescope.

 

[MHz]

The god thingy, complete evidence that books of fiction sell much better than non-fiction. Facts you have to admit, usually ruin a good story.

With Scripture it is recommended that you read the last two chapters before you read anything else. Otherwise the (seemingly) wanton violence might make you quite before you get to the good parts. Even then reading about how Holy Angels go about doing things is still rather un-nerving. The actual task is quite plain, the method of execution is the part that causes the 'concern for even your own safety' lol

 

[eanassir]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name......


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Richard Dawkins, from Free Inquiry, vol 18, number 3
[/FONT]

Gibberish.
Whatever this journalist and drunkard collects of atheistic words and puts all that in some language style ... all that is rubbish, and gibberish.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

So it was a sign of wisdom on His part (also)that led Him to keep a subject, that could be much longer short, despite the problems it has caused.
Ah yes the good old days of innocence, tell me, how much time has passed since revisions (of any kind)were no longer needed?

Now you've lost me, I have not a clue what you're talking about. What is the subject he kept short? Revisions to what?

So in theory your camera could make the flame bigger than the candle, nice. I would suppose a digital can still be attached to a spotting scope or (even better) a sidewalk telescope.

No, the camera can't do that, that's a job for software like Photoshop. And yes, a digital camera can be attached to a telescope, that's how #jaun gets the astronomical photos he posts here, though a spotting scope or a sidewalk telescope, whatever that is (one of those cheap, poorly mounted refractors available at Sears and London Drugs and places like that?) wouldn't be the best choices.

 

[MHz]

God was wise to keep a potentially long subject very brief, one page vs many,many pages because He knew that people would not believe His report no matter how He actually laid it out.

A side-walk telescope is pretty much built at home, you buy a kit that includes a mirror (12-17") was the largest the last time I read up on these things. The tube is a heavy cardboard tube that is normally used as a form to pour concrete. They are well designed and very powerful. Once you add remote control and automatic star tracking hardware I don't imagine they are not all that cheap either.
Back in the old-days the type of shot I asked about could have been done in-camera by doing a double-exposure. It may have taken a few tries and it wouldn't have been top-notch (produced in a dark-room) but it could have been done.

 

[eanassir]

An Outline of atheists​

If we see a general view of atheists in this thread and their replies, it is clear that they work in group work: they pass the ball to each other, agree with each other, and have a common program in general, and most of them cling to the teachings of the drunkard atheist.

Some of them has also two personalities or identities, and they write two views confirming himself with each identity. ​

Many of them know much knowledge about the different religions and know many things about God and His existence. This makes them worthy of their punishment by God which is up to Him alone.​

Generally, they demand proofs, and when such proofs and evidences may be given to them, they ignore all that, and go on saying: where is the proof? While concerning the convictions, no one may change any opinion unless the person himself is ready for it; i.e. they don't want to receive any guidance.

Atheists here make some comparative study of religions in general and decide their presumptive statements for all religions, including the original pure religion of God alone without associate, that all religions are inventions by man in different history stages, and that the religion in general gives man some advantages: psychological and social …etc; and therefore the religion in general is false according to their claims.​

This generally speaking is their program, attitude and purpose, and details may come later on.

This is in the Quran 88: 17​

أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ . وَإِلَى السَّمَاء كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ . وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ . وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ . فَذَكِّرْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُذَكِّرٌ . لَّسْتَ عَلَيْهِم بِمُصَيْطِرٍ .إِلَّا مَن تَوَلَّى وَكَفَرَ . فَيُعَذِّبُهُ اللَّهُ الْعَذَابَ الْأَكْبَرَ . إِنَّ إِلَيْنَا إِيَابَهُمْ . ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا حِسَابَهُمْ​

The explanation:
(Do they not consider how the camel is [wisely] created!?

How the sky is raised high [above the earth, without pillars, that they see],

How the mountains are set up [on the earth like pegs],

And how the earth is leveled [after its cooling and the formation of a crust suitable for dwelling and cultivation]?

So admonish [with the Quran]; for you are only an admonishing [warner.]

You [Mohammed] are not to control them [but God does so; for some of them, in the future, will convert then believe.]

But who turns away [in aversion from you, Mohammed,] and unbelieves [in the Quran.]

God will punish him with the greatest punishment [in Saqar: the greatest sun.]

Surely, their return [after death] will be to Us.

Then their punishment will be due to Us.)
​

 

[talloola]

You supposedly described an atheist above, but that is wrong because I am an atheist and you didn't describe me at all.

And you stated that you have proven the existence of god to atheists, and they still
don't believe, well that is wrong too, because no proof has been given, ever, just
belief, which is very different.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...most of them cling to the teachings of the drunkard atheist.

The drunkard atheist? And who would that be? From your other posts I would presume you mean Richard Dawkins; what evidence do you have that he's a drunkard? And even if he is, which I very much doubt, that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Many of them know much knowledge about the different religions and know many things about God and His existence. This makes them worthy of their punishment by God which is up to Him alone.

Ah, so knowledge by itself deserves punishment? I couldn't have invented a clearer statement myself of your intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[L Gilbert]

No they don't. They would only have to prove their case if they wish for a non-believer to accept that Santa or the Easter Bunny existed. There are many believers (such as myself) that really don't care if anybody accepts our belief so we have no need to prove anything to anybody.

You are right, believers don't HAVE to preove the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa or their god.

My whole point is that there really is no scientific basis for this discussion (despite some claims to the contrary). There is no way of proving or disproving or refuting the existence of God. All there is is opinion. Some like to call others fools and idiots for believing what they believe. This isn't really about Dawkins...and that's why Scott Free has his panties all twisted. He knows he is being exposed.

You are wrong, probability falls within the domain of mathematics, which, BTW, is a science.

The real question needs to be what are the end results or logical conclusions of following one particular belief set.

No, it doesn't.

 

[L Gilbert]

So it was a sign of wisdom on His part (also)that led Him to keep a subject, that could be much longer short, despite the problems it has caused .......

If the intent was to be lucid and concise, then the Bible should be about the size of a 2 page pamphlet.

 

[L Gilbert]

Gibberish.
Whatever this journalist and drunkard collects of atheistic words and puts all that in some language style ... all that is rubbish, and gibberish.

lmao Perhaps, but it is definitely more rational than your interpretation of the Quran.