Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Possibility of God

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Interesting. But from a objective perspective, are you willing to consider that there is a 50-50 chance?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:24:48 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Interesting. But from a objective perspective, are you willing to consider that there is a 50-50 chance? My perspective is an objective one so of course it's 100%. To someone else's subjective perspective, it may be 50-50 but that's only because they don't know God. Anyone who knows God is 100% sure that he exists but I doubt that very many people know him.
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:24:48 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Interesting. But from a objective perspective, are you willing to consider that there is a 50-50 chance? : :

My first reply to this didn't come through so here's another attempt at it.

My perspective is objective, not subjective like most religious people have from reading their holy books. I believe there are many others like me who know God so that would make it 100 % sure he exists. Anyone who doesn't know him would have a much less percentage of saying that God exists from their subjective perspectives.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:53:47 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 9:24:48 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Interesting. But from a objective perspective, are you willing to consider that there is a 50-50 chance? : :

My first reply to this didn't come through so here's another attempt at it.

My perspective is objective, not subjective like most religious people have from reading their holy books. I believe there are many others like me who know God so that would make it 100 % sure he exists. Anyone who doesn't know him would have a much less percentage of saying that God exists from their subjective perspectives.

I know my sister, but I'm still not 100% sure she exists. I could be plugged into the Matrix, and what I think is my sister is really just a computer program.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I see that my first reply did make it through so now you have two different answers from the same objective perspective.
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:55:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/11/2015 9:53:47 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 9:24:48 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Interesting. But from a objective perspective, are you willing to consider that there is a 50-50 chance? : :

My first reply to this didn't come through so here's another attempt at it.

My perspective is objective, not subjective like most religious people have from reading their holy books. I believe there are many others like me who know God so that would make it 100 % sure he exists. Anyone who doesn't know him would have a much less percentage of saying that God exists from their subjective perspectives.

I know my sister, but I'm still not 100% sure she exists. I could be plugged into the Matrix, and what I think is my sister is really just a computer program. : :

If you knew God, he would have taught you that as a fact.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:14:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

Well, first you should define "God". If you can't even define what it is you're talking about then I think there is 100% chance your question is incoherent.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:43:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

There is always a remote possibility a deity exists somewhere, but I very much doubt any human is in touch with it. If one does exist I sincerely hope it is nothing like the very unpleasant one depicted in the Bible!
AndyHood
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:21:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

No, 50% is not a "default position". Consider the following:

I propose that there are magic pink faeries; I can't *prove* them to exist, but you can't *prove* them not to exist. Shall we assign 50%? If we do then consider:

magic blue faeries; magic green faeries; magic yellow faeries; magic orange faeries; magic brown faeiries; magic purple faeries; magic black faeries; magic white faeries; magic khaki faeries.

Now, there are 10 50-50s... so there's over a 99.9% chance that *some* faeries exist, but that's nonsensical! So... existential claims with no support must gain precisely 0% likelihood UNTIL there is some sort of EVIDENCE!
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:17:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:14:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

Well, first you should define "God". If you can't even define what it is you're talking about then I think there is 100% chance your question is incoherent.

I leave it open so people won't be tied to the definition I give, but instead give a response based on their own views, which I'm sure my definition wouldn't cover. But here, for me, a basic, broad version of God is that of a first cause. It's just me though.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:53:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:14:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

Well, first you should define "God". If you can't even define what it is you're talking about then I think there is 100% chance your question is incoherent.

This, a million times this.
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:01:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con. : :

I can tell you have won many debates on whether or not God exists. The profile name I selected for this forum should tell you that I'm not a trained debater like you have been. You would have to teach me how to debate before we debated. Then I might stand a chance to show others that I know how to debate.

I could never figure out the importance of winning a debate other than causing more pride among the winners. Do you believe pride is a good thing or do you think it can keep some winners from understanding what it's like to be a loser, which is needed to gain wisdom?

Remember, wisdom doesn't come from experiencing this world. It comes from understanding that this world isn't the only experience we can have.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:11:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:01:47 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con. : :

I can tell you have won many debates on whether or not God exists. The profile name I selected for this forum should tell you that I'm not a trained debater like you have been. You would have to teach me how to debate before we debated. Then I might stand a chance to show others that I know how to debate.

I could never figure out the importance of winning a debate other than causing more pride among the winners. Do you believe pride is a good thing or do you think it can keep some winners from understanding what it's like to be a loser, which is needed to gain wisdom?

Remember, wisdom doesn't come from experiencing this world. It comes from understanding that this world isn't the only experience we can have.

I'm hardly a trained debater lol ... I don't debate IRL
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:38:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:11:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:01:47 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con. : :

I can tell you have won many debates on whether or not God exists. The profile name I selected for this forum should tell you that I'm not a trained debater like you have been. You would have to teach me how to debate before we debated. Then I might stand a chance to show others that I know how to debate.

I could never figure out the importance of winning a debate other than causing more pride among the winners. Do you believe pride is a good thing or do you think it can keep some winners from understanding what it's like to be a loser, which is needed to gain wisdom?

Remember, wisdom doesn't come from experiencing this world. It comes from understanding that this world isn't the only experience we can have.

I'm hardly a trained debater lol ... I don't debate IRL : :

I know that life is a virtual reality so it makes no difference to me how we connect and share our stories. I have an ongoing relationship with a person on the internet after experiencing living with that person for many years. When I see that person's face and body on a video screen, I can only imagine what it was like touching, smelling and tasting that person like I did several years ago.

Our conversations have drawn us much closer today because we're not distracted with touching, smelling and tasting each other. All we have are the senses of hearing and seeing each other, which on some days, are totally distorted. Our love for each other has grown significantly because we're both understanding that our senses are nothing but illusions anyway. The only valuable part of us today are the thoughts we share with each other.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:38:08 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:11:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:01:47 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con. : :

I can tell you have won many debates on whether or not God exists. The profile name I selected for this forum should tell you that I'm not a trained debater like you have been. You would have to teach me how to debate before we debated. Then I might stand a chance to show others that I know how to debate.

I could never figure out the importance of winning a debate other than causing more pride among the winners. Do you believe pride is a good thing or do you think it can keep some winners from understanding what it's like to be a loser, which is needed to gain wisdom?

Remember, wisdom doesn't come from experiencing this world. It comes from understanding that this world isn't the only experience we can have.

I'm hardly a trained debater lol ... I don't debate IRL : :

I know that life is a virtual reality so it makes no difference to me how we connect and share our stories. I have an ongoing relationship with a person on the internet after experiencing living with that person for many years. When I see that person's face and body on a video screen, I can only imagine what it was like touching, smelling and tasting that person like I did several years ago.

Our conversations have drawn us much closer today because we're not distracted with touching, smelling and tasting each other. All we have are the senses of hearing and seeing each other, which on some days, are totally distorted. Our love for each other has grown significantly because we're both understanding that our senses are nothing but illusions anyway. The only valuable part of us today are the thoughts we share with each other.

What you have is called a platonic relationship with this other person. You could also be a eunuch and not have any need for physical contact.
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:31:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:55:05 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:38:08 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:11:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:01:47 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:52:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:49:45 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:41:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 8:36:25 PM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion? : :

No. From my perspective, it's 100% that God exists.

Would you be willing to debate that? God Likely Exists, shared BoP, 4 rounds, 10,000 characters? Me Con you Pro. : :

Since there's no proof that God speaks to me or anyone else, it is a bad idea to debate the existence of God. It's actually a waste of time to do so. But I will debate you on whether or not we're living in a virtual universe planned and designed by a creator of some sort. I know how those waves ( string theory ) came into being and how the visible universe was formed from them according to a program.

That assumes the M-variation of string theory. Otherwise the universe could have come up via. vacuum fluctuations assuming the expansion rate of the universe is constantly lessening due to gravitational attractive energy "cancelling" out negative energy.


I don't mind if you set up the debate but I will be Pro on the fact that we're living in a simulation and not something that is real.

We could debate God Likely Exists, me Con. : :

I can tell you have won many debates on whether or not God exists. The profile name I selected for this forum should tell you that I'm not a trained debater like you have been. You would have to teach me how to debate before we debated. Then I might stand a chance to show others that I know how to debate.

I could never figure out the importance of winning a debate other than causing more pride among the winners. Do you believe pride is a good thing or do you think it can keep some winners from understanding what it's like to be a loser, which is needed to gain wisdom?

Remember, wisdom doesn't come from experiencing this world. It comes from understanding that this world isn't the only experience we can have.

I'm hardly a trained debater lol ... I don't debate IRL : :

I know that life is a virtual reality so it makes no difference to me how we connect and share our stories. I have an ongoing relationship with a person on the internet after experiencing living with that person for many years. When I see that person's face and body on a video screen, I can only imagine what it was like touching, smelling and tasting that person like I did several years ago.

Our conversations have drawn us much closer today because we're not distracted with touching, smelling and tasting each other. All we have are the senses of hearing and seeing each other, which on some days, are totally distorted. Our love for each other has grown significantly because we're both understanding that our senses are nothing but illusions anyway. The only valuable part of us today are the thoughts we share with each other.

What you have is called a platonic relationship with this other person. You could also be a eunuch and not have any need for physical contact. : :

Our relationship is quite rare in this virtual universe we're experiencing. Once you understand that we're not real, your perspective changes and all the physical attributes become meaningless.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

Pase, what you're calling a 'god' seems a bundle of two disparate claims:

1) a metaphysical agency capable of original creation, against whose agency our existence can be attributed; and
2) that a metaphysical agency is sending messages indicating that it has a relationship with you.

The first is a physical question. You can test it physically, to the extent that most humans in the developed world no longer believe (for example), that the earth was specifically created and shaped by a metaphysical agency. So claims about that creative, metaphysical agency have retreated over time, and now mostly dwell around the origin of the universe rather than the origin of the earth and its species.

We might think of that as saying that the probability of a creative metaphysical agency active in our universe has been revised downward over time.

Key to answering the second question accountably is to think about how information regarding a supposed relationship would get to you, and how much you can trust the quality of any information supposedly received. Again, over time, the likelihood of 'messages' in existence is being revised downward, while the likelihood of intuitions (or 'revelations' as some call them) being accurate is also diminishing. Essentially, any perception we might have of divine messages is more readily attributable to psychosocial effects than to the existence of a credible message.

So no -- not 50-50 in either sense.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/11/2015 7:22:18 PM, Pase66 wrote:
If the possibility of a God existing vs. not existing 50-50 percent? Keep in mind I'm not referencing any particular God of a religion, but a "God" (yes, I leave that word open). Hope we can start an interesting discussion?

Pase, what you're calling a 'god' seems a bundle of two disparate claims:

1) a metaphysical agency capable of original creation, against whose agency our existence can be attributed; and
2) that a metaphysical agency is sending messages indicating that it has a relationship with you.

The first is a physical question. You can test it physically, to the extent that most humans in the developed world no longer believe (for example), that the earth was specifically created and shaped by a metaphysical agency. So claims about that creative, metaphysical agency have retreated over time, and now mostly dwell around the origin of the universe rather than the origin of the earth and its species.

We might think of that as saying that the probability of a creative metaphysical agency active in our universe has been revised downward over time.

Key to answering the second question accountably is to think about how information regarding a supposed relationship would get to you, and how much you can trust the quality of any information supposedly received. Again, over time, the likelihood of 'messages' in existence is being revised downward, while the likelihood of intuitions (or 'revelations' as some call them) being accurate is also diminishing. Essentially, any perception we might have of divine messages is more readily attributable to psychosocial effects than to the existence of a credible message.

So no -- not 50-50 in either sense.

Interesting. For me, a basic description of "God" is that of a first cause, so basically any event that can be considered as a first cause. Is the possibility of there being a first cause vs. a first cause 50-50? Also, I believe that the more traits one attaches to "God" (such as any omni trait) the less likely it is possible for that "God" to exist. Also, there is Einsteins God, which (for me) is a 100 percent probability of existing.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:27:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 4:41:39 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Pase, what you're calling a 'god' seems a bundle of two disparate claims:
1) a metaphysical agency capable of original creation, against whose agency our existence can be attributed; and
2) that a metaphysical agency is sending messages indicating that it has a relationship with you.
The probability of a creative metaphysical agency active in our universe has been revised downward over time [and] any perception we might have of divine messages is more readily attributable to psychosocial effects than to the existence of a credible message.
Interesting. For me, a basic description of "God" is that of a first cause,
We need to be careful about language here, Pase. Using an personal noun like 'God' immediately injects anthropomorphic ideas into a first cause, and can attach theistic associations in the minds of listeners that may not be intended, or even relevant.

I know people do it figuratively, but it creates a great deal of confusion -- not to mention, priming one's intuitions and imagination.

I believe that the more traits one attaches to "God" (such as any omni trait) the less likely it is possible for that "God" to exist.
You're right:the more claims one bundles on weak or missing evidence, the greater the opportunity for a claim to be incorrect. Moreover, the more claims one adds, the greater the risk of creating a category error (e.g. conflating a cause with a person or physical object), and introducing ideas that may not be logically sound, or even meaningful. So one doesn't introduce greater risk of falsity, but also risk error in semantics and reason.

Also, there is Einsteins God, which (for me) is a 100 percent probability of existing.
Einstein's God was just an organising principle -- or rather, his intuitive apprehension of the same. In keeping with the language of the day, he'd just anthropomorphised it for figurative purposes, only to create confusion among many theists, who took him literally.

And saying the organising principle 'exists' might be putting it strongly. It exists as an idea, just as numbers do. But one can't attach a number to a physical object; neither can the symmetries identified in Physics be so embodied.

The question of whether the number three exists is semantically meaningless -- three is an abstract pattern. So whether organising physical principles exist has the same semantic problem.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:10:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:27:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/12/2015 4:41:39 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:58:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Pase, what you're calling a 'god' seems a bundle of two disparate claims:
1) a metaphysical agency capable of original creation, against whose agency our existence can be attributed; and
2) that a metaphysical agency is sending messages indicating that it has a relationship with you.
The probability of a creative metaphysical agency active in our universe has been revised downward over time [and] any perception we might have of divine messages is more readily attributable to psychosocial effects than to the existence of a credible message.
Interesting. For me, a basic description of "God" is that of a first cause,
We need to be careful about language here, Pase. Using an personal noun like 'God' immediately injects anthropomorphic ideas into a first cause, and can attach theistic associations in the minds of listeners that may not be intended, or even relevant.

I know people do it figuratively, but it creates a great deal of confusion -- not to mention, priming one's intuitions and imagination.


Sadly, yes. People can take the most basic and innocent of notions and twist it into an improbable image they see fit.

I believe that the more traits one attaches to "God" (such as any omni trait) the less likely it is possible for that "God" to exist.
You're right:the more claims one bundles on weak or missing evidence, the greater the opportunity for a claim to be incorrect. Moreover, the more claims one adds, the greater the risk of creating a category error (e.g. conflating a cause with a person or physical object), and introducing ideas that may not be logically sound, or even meaningful. So one doesn't introduce greater risk of falsity, but also risk error in semantics and reason.

Also, there is Einsteins God, which (for me) is a 100 percent probability of existing.
Einstein's God was just an organising principle -- or rather, his intuitive apprehension of the same. In keeping with the language of the day, he'd just anthropomorphised it for figurative purposes, only to create confusion among many theists, who took him literally.

And saying the organising principle 'exists' might be putting it strongly. It exists as an idea, just as numbers do. But one can't attach a number to a physical object; neither can the symmetries identified in Physics be so embodied.

The question of whether the number three exists is semantically meaningless -- three is an abstract pattern. So whether organising physical principles exist has the same semantic problem.

I meant that, Einsteins God being the laws of physics, the laws that govern the universe. At least to me, those can be shown to exist.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:10:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 5:27:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We need to be careful about language here, Pase. Using an personal noun like 'God' immediately injects anthropomorphic ideas into a first cause, and can attach theistic associations in the minds of listeners that may not be intended, or even relevant.
Sadly, yes. People can take the most basic and innocent of notions and twist it into an improbable image they see fit.
Personalising existence helps to politicise it -- make it more accountable to us, and thus force others into the same accountability. Physics -- and Science in general -- focuses on the 'how', and doesn't much entertain 'why'. For some reason though, people think 'why' questions are legitimate: that being able to ask the question means one is entitled to an answer.

I've yet to hear a good reason that one should have an answer, much less why one should be content with vague and badly-conceived answers offered by people without accountability or transparency, and obviously lacking both rigour and expertise. :)

The question of whether the number three exists is semantically meaningless -- three is an abstract pattern. So whether organising physical principles exist has the same semantic problem.
I meant that, Einsteins God being the laws of physics, the laws that govern the universe. At least to me, those can be shown to exist.
But laws aren't really laws -- they're actually the product of observable symmetries.

The insights here come from the much-overlooked and brilliant mathematician and physicist, Emmy Noether [http://en.wikipedia.org...] -- a woman whose work should be ranked with that of Newton and Einstein, but seldom rate a mention. Noether's theorem of 1915 points out that conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum arise from the fact that reality is symmetrical with respect to time, translation and rotation respectively. Image: [http://www.newscientist.com...] Article: [http://www.newscientist.com...]

These symmetries are observable and seem ubiquitous, but I'm not sure that's the same as saying they exist. Our intuitions about existence itself are governed by these symmetries: we expect things that exist to continue existing, or to have come about from other things that existed, and to remain unchanged except when acted upon, because that's all we've ever experienced. Can we even talk about metaphysical symmetries in this way? If we can't, what can we say about them beyond the fact that we can observe their influences?

It seems that the moment we start talking about metaphysical things existing, it raises a slew of natural but confused questions based on our experience of other things existing. We see this happen when people ask who created God.

I feel as though we need a separate verb to distinguish metaphysical principles whose influences we can observe, from objects governed by those principles. Perhaps we'd anthropomorphise less if we did so; certainly, some teleological arguments could only improve from it.

Hope that helps. :)
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:47:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:58:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:10:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 5:27:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We need to be careful about language here, Pase. Using an personal noun like 'God' immediately injects anthropomorphic ideas into a first cause, and can attach theistic associations in the minds of listeners that may not be intended, or even relevant.
Sadly, yes. People can take the most basic and innocent of notions and twist it into an improbable image they see fit.
Personalising existence helps to politicise it -- make it more accountable to us, and thus force others into the same accountability. Physics -- and Science in general -- focuses on the 'how', and doesn't much entertain 'why'. For some reason though, people think 'why' questions are legitimate: that being able to ask the question means one is entitled to an answer.

I've yet to hear a good reason that one should have an answer, much less why one should be content with vague and badly-conceived answers offered by people without accountability or transparency, and obviously lacking both rigour and expertise. :)

The question of whether the number three exists is semantically meaningless -- three is an abstract pattern. So whether organising physical principles exist has the same semantic problem.
I meant that, Einsteins God being the laws of physics, the laws that govern the universe. At least to me, those can be shown to exist.
But laws aren't really laws -- they're actually the product of observable symmetries.

The insights here come from the much-overlooked and brilliant mathematician and physicist, Emmy Noether [http://en.wikipedia.org...] -- a woman whose work should be ranked with that of Newton and Einstein, but seldom rate a mention. Noether's theorem of 1915 points out that conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum arise from the fact that reality is symmetrical with respect to time, translation and rotation respectively. Image: [http://www.newscientist.com...] Article: [http://www.newscientist.com...]

These symmetries are observable and seem ubiquitous, but I'm not sure that's the same as saying they exist. Our intuitions about existence itself are governed by these symmetries: we expect things that exist to continue existing, or to have come about from other things that existed, and to remain unchanged except when acted upon, because that's all we've ever experienced. Can we even talk about metaphysical symmetries in this way? If we can't, what can we say about them beyond the fact that we can observe their influences?

It seems that the moment we start talking about metaphysical things existing, it raises a slew of natural but confused questions based on our experience of other things existing. We see this happen when people ask who created God.

I feel as though we need a separate verb to distinguish metaphysical principles whose influences we can observe, from objects governed by those principles. Perhaps we'd anthropomorphise less if we did so; certainly, some teleological arguments could only improve from it.

Hope that helps. :)

Actually, I would love to learn more about science, theoretical physics in particualar. I've studies a lot of philosophy, but would love to learn about science more in depth.You seem to have immense knowledge about science. Have any suggestions on where to start?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:47:20 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:58:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:10:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I meant that, Einsteins God being the laws of physics, the laws that govern the universe. At least to me, those can be shown to exist.
But laws aren't really laws -- they're actually the product of observable symmetries.

The insights here come from the much-overlooked and brilliant mathematician and physicist, Emmy Noether [http://en.wikipedia.org...] -- a woman whose work should be ranked with that of Newton and Einstein, but seldom rate a mention. Noether's theorem of 1915 points out that conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum arise from the fact that reality is symmetrical with respect to time, translation and rotation respectively. Image: [http://www.newscientist.com...] Article: [http://www.newscientist.com...]
Hope that helps. :)
Actually, I would love to learn more about science, theoretical physics in particualar. I've studies a lot of philosophy, but would love to learn about science more in depth.You seem to have immense knowledge about science. Have any suggestions on where to start?

I used to work as a research scientist, Pase, but I've always been interested in the history of science and empirical thought. Although my math is (or used to be) pretty strong, I have to say: theoretical physics seems a bit of a mess to me at the moment.

At the beginning of last century the math and our physical intuitions were largely in alignment. The very large and the very small seemed to work much like the scale we operate on, so we could imagine how things should act before applying the math to them -- so our intuitions helped guide our math, while the math helped direct experiments to validate our intuitions. But the more we've dug and experimented, the less our physical intuitions apply, so now there's just the math, some rather contorted diagrams, and experiments producing numbers on a page but not always commensurate intuitive insights.

This is a problem, because math alone can be prone to non-standard interpretations. By way of illustration, imagine putting five dots on a page from left to right at any height you like, and then trying to draw a curve connecting them. You can always draw a curve that way, and while it's easy to fit a simple one, you can produce a great many other curves too -- some quite bizarre. So connecting theoretically what we observe physically can work a bit like that.

I'm concerned that we need a lot more practical, empirical experiment to keep theoretical physics grounded -- so we don't produce a lot more ideas like String Theory that are more philosophical than predictive or testable. But I think we also need more experiment for social reasons, to help the public make sense of what physicists are saying. Else, the likes of Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra and others -- pseudoscientists and esoteric philosophers -- will grab it and run.

So with that said, I'm not sure what angle to recommend to you, as each can take you somewhere different. Are you more interested in Science history? Philosophy of science? Science and society? Or Speculative science? All are fascinating, but none gives the complete picture on its own.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:18:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:47:20 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:58:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:10:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I meant that, Einsteins God being the laws of physics, the laws that govern the universe. At least to me, those can be shown to exist.
But laws aren't really laws -- they're actually the product of observable symmetries.

The insights here come from the much-overlooked and brilliant mathematician and physicist, Emmy Noether [http://en.wikipedia.org...] -- a woman whose work should be ranked with that of Newton and Einstein, but seldom rate a mention. Noether's theorem of 1915 points out that conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum arise from the fact that reality is symmetrical with respect to time, translation and rotation respectively. Image: [http://www.newscientist.com...] Article: [http://www.newscientist.com...]
Hope that helps. :)
Actually, I would love to learn more about science, theoretical physics in particualar. I've studies a lot of philosophy, but would love to learn about science more in depth.You seem to have immense knowledge about science. Have any suggestions on where to start?

I used to work as a research scientist, Pase, but I've always been interested in the history of science and empirical thought. Although my math is (or used to be) pretty strong, I have to say: theoretical physics seems a bit of a mess to me at the moment.

At the beginning of last century the math and our physical intuitions were largely in alignment. The very large and the very small seemed to work much like the scale we operate on, so we could imagine how things should act before applying the math to them -- so our intuitions helped guide our math, while the math helped direct experiments to validate our intuitions. But the more we've dug and experimented, the less our physical intuitions apply, so now there's just the math, some rather contorted diagrams, and experiments producing numbers on a page but not always commensurate intuitive insights.

This is a problem, because math alone can be prone to non-standard interpretations. By way of illustration, imagine putting five dots on a page from left to right at any height you like, and then trying to draw a curve connecting them. You can always draw a curve that way, and while it's easy to fit a simple one, you can produce a great many other curves too -- some quite bizarre. So connecting theoretically what we observe physically can work a bit like that.

I'm concerned that we need a lot more practical, empirical experiment to keep theoretical physics grounded -- so we don't produce a lot more ideas like String Theory that are more philosophical than predictive or testable. But I think we also need more experiment for social reasons, to help the public make sense of what physicists are saying. Else, the likes of Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra and others -- pseudoscientists and esoteric philosophers -- will grab it and run.

So with that said, I'm not sure what angle to recommend to you, as each can take you somewhere different. Are you more interested in Science history? Philosophy of science? Science and society? Or Speculative science? All are fascinating, but none gives the complete picture on its own.

Well, I've always been fascinated by the universe, so there's a start. Also, speculative science seems interesting.....
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:49:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:21:50 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:18:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I would love to learn more about science, theoretical physics in particualar. I've studies a lot of philosophy, but would love to learn about science more in depth.You seem to have immense knowledge about science. Have any suggestions on where to start?
I'm not sure what angle to recommend to you, as each can take you somewhere different. Are you more interested in Science history? Philosophy of science? Science and society? Or Speculative science? All are fascinating, but none gives the complete picture on its own.
Well, I've always been fascinated by the universe, so there's a start. Also, speculative science seems interesting.....

Okay. So you need a good foundational book in cosmology that'll step you through the history, key observations and experiments and key ideas, integrated with the scientific method and exploring implications while keeping the math relatively tame. I haven't read this one in full, but I'd suggest taking a look at Hawley and Holcomb's Foundations of Modern Cosmology [http://www.amazon.com...]

An Oxford University Press undergraduate text presently in Second Edition (2005), it's well laid out with a nice chronology addressing foundational ideas and history of the science, very accessible language, nice diagrams and photos, and (as far as I've read) light on math -- it seems to need a bit of basic algebra, but not much more. There's a brilliant supplemental website for it at: [http://www.astro.virginia.edu...] and if I were teaching again and thinking of running an introductory cosmology course (not that I'm especially qualified to do so), I'd probably consider using it.

There's a hardcover and an ebook version, and unfortunately, both are at University textbook prices. I'm not sure whether you could pick up a second-hand copy or find one in a library. I'll poke around and if I find a text of similar angle and quality cheaper, will let you know. But other members might have suggestions too.

Hope it helps. :)