Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Arguments for God

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:00:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Are you asking for absolute proof? And are you asking for "God" as defined by a religious organization, or simply a "creator" which may or may not be what individual religions worship?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:00:00 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Are you asking for absolute proof?

Naaah. Just any form of logical evidence.

And are you asking for "God" as defined by a religious organization, or simply a "creator" which may or may not be what individual religions worship?

I'll that down to the discretion of the person posting the argument.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

Why ask that question? What's the point?
GrabYoSocks
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:40:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
God is just a psychological projetion invented for our emotional protection. A comfort for the masses if you will.

God is just an idea. nothing more.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:06:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:00:00 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Are you asking for absolute proof?

Naaah. Just any form of logical evidence.

Let's say, I made a video showing me holding 20 6-sided die and dropping them all onto a table and all 20 of them landed with the 6 side up.

The statistical probability of that really happening is only 1 in 3.656*10^15 (or 1 in 3,656,000,000,000,000, for those that really like to see the zeros). To give an idea of how rare that is, if I were to be rolling those 20 die every 10 seconds since the earth was born (about 4.5 billion years ago), all 6's would only come up 4 times (on average).

Would you believe that I actually rolled 20 6's? Or would you believe that the video was doctored? Even though you have no evidence at all that it was doctored?

Many "logical" people believe that aliens exist (not the hollywood kind, but complex life forms on other planets) simply because the probability is that they do, even though there is no hard evidence.

Many people look at what we have here. How all the elements allign to form various chemicals, how sub-atomic particles all interact in harmony with each other so that they are an invisible part of a larger object. Everything "fits" together so nicely and so perfectly, and I do mean eaverything. There are no quarks just wondering around, they are all (meaning the very very very vast majority) forming larger pieces, which fit with others, to form even larger pieces (and so on and so forth). The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

For statistical reasons, one could suggest that maybe there were countless big bangs which did form nothing but randomness and ours just happened to be the one where everything lined up. If we accept that, we have 2 logical choices to consider, that 1) a big bang happens once every 20 billion years or so, and this have been going on for God knows how many years (no evidence for or against) or 2) Big bangs were happening extremely frequently and when one made everything fit together, all other big bangs stopped (for whatever reason).

But then, it is all about odds. And as we cannot compare the physical laws of our universe with any others that may have been randomness, we cannot really know what those odds are, we can only guess. But that does not mean that it is illogical to believe one or the other. What is illogical, is to say, I know I'm right and you are wrong.

Another example, winning Powerball. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 : 200,000,000 so it may be logical to assume that I will never win (unless you disagree that this is logical, if so, please say so). But people do win, all the time, so it would also be logically to assume that I could win. Both sides have their merit.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

It figures that you'd ignore a perfectly sound argument from OreEle and instead, say something weepy and childish to someone who was fundamentally agreeing with you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:06:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:00:00 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Are you asking for absolute proof?

Naaah. Just any form of logical evidence.

Let's say, I made a video showing me holding 20 6-sided die and dropping them all onto a table and all 20 of them landed with the 6 side up.

The statistical probability of that really happening is only 1 in 3.656*10^15 (or 1 in 3,656,000,000,000,000, for those that really like to see the zeros). To give an idea of how rare that is, if I were to be rolling those 20 die every 10 seconds since the earth was born (about 4.5 billion years ago), all 6's would only come up 4 times (on average).

Would you believe that I actually rolled 20 6's? Or would you believe that the video was doctored? Even though you have no evidence at all that it was doctored?


I would probably argue that the video was doctored, that would seem more likely than you having rolled all those sixes.

Many "logical" people believe that aliens exist (not the hollywood kind, but complex life forms on other planets) simply because the probability is that they do, even though there is no hard evidence.

I do as well.


Many people look at what we have here. How all the elements allign to form various chemicals, how sub-atomic particles all interact in harmony with each other so that they are an invisible part of a larger object. Everything "fits" together so nicely and so perfectly, and I do mean eaverything. There are no quarks just wondering around, they are all (meaning the very very very vast majority) forming larger pieces, which fit with others, to form even larger pieces (and so on and so forth). The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

For statistical reasons, one could suggest that maybe there were countless big bangs which did form nothing but randomness and ours just happened to be the one where everything lined up. If we accept that, we have 2 logical choices to consider, that 1) a big bang happens once every 20 billion years or so, and this have been going on for God knows how many years (no evidence for or against) or 2) Big bangs were happening extremely frequently and when one made everything fit together, all other big bangs stopped (for whatever reason).


Exactly, this does not provide a convincing case for a designer does it?

But then, it is all about odds. And as we cannot compare the physical laws of our universe with any others that may have been randomness, we cannot really know what those odds are, we can only guess. But that does not mean that it is illogical to believe one or the other. What is illogical, is to say, I know I'm right and you are wrong.

True and in addition it may be the universe can only have formed in the way it did. That the variables are not variables at all.

Another example, winning Powerball. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 : 200,000,000 so it may be logical to assume that I will never win (unless you disagree that this is logical, if so, please say so). But people do win, all the time, so it would also be logically to assume that I could win. Both sides have their merit.

I see what you are saying. But at the same you could present a far stronger case that you won't win, than that you will.

So what I am really asking for is a logical argument which seems more likely than it's alternative. Not for a definitive, "this is 100% proof of God".
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:10:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

Actually I think I misread your post. You have taken a negative stance against me recently and I thought you were continuing it here.

I still don't get your question, in any case I am looking for one because the subject fascinates me and atheism gives me nothing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:18:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


If reality isn't arbitrary, then it has a design.

If it has a design, then it was volitional.

If it was volitional, then there is a creator.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:20:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:10:22 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

Actually I think I misread your post. You have taken a negative stance against me recently and I thought you were continuing it here.

I still don't get your question, in any case I am looking for one because the subject fascinates me and atheism gives me nothing.

Progress.

The gods of maturity commend you.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:27:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:18:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


If reality isn't arbitrary, then it has a design.

If it has a design, then it was volitional.

If it was volitional, then there is a creator.

You didn't address the quote, you are just restating your false dichotomy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:31:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:27:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:18:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


If reality isn't arbitrary, then it has a design.

If it has a design, then it was volitional.

If it was volitional, then there is a creator.

You didn't address the quote, you are just restating your false dichotomy.

Please don't feed the troll, please for once can people have an intelligent discussion about religion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:32:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:57:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

It figures that you'd ignore a perfectly sound argument from OreEle and instead, say something weepy and childish to someone who was fundamentally agreeing with you.

Yes, because six seconds is completely enough time to read and ignore OreEle's post.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:34:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:32:22 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:57:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

It figures that you'd ignore a perfectly sound argument from OreEle and instead, say something weepy and childish to someone who was fundamentally agreeing with you.

Yes, because six seconds is completely enough time to read and ignore OreEle's post.

Yea... not to mention the fact that Kleptin's post came first...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:27:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:18:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


If reality isn't arbitrary, then it has a design.

If it has a design, then it was volitional.

If it was volitional, then there is a creator.

You didn't address the quote, you are just restating your false dichotomy.

How is it false rather than logical?

Tell me something--would you consider bible verses sound proof of your point?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:43:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:32:22 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:57:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:55:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:23:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Why are you even looking for one? What's the point?

I don't know what I have done to offend you but I have tried to explain myself to you several times only to be ignored. If you are not interested in this thread you don't have to acknowledge it.

It figures that you'd ignore a perfectly sound argument from OreEle and instead, say something weepy and childish to someone who was fundamentally agreeing with you.

Yes, because six seconds is completely enough time to read and ignore OreEle's post.

???

What's your interest in proving me wrong?

Anyway, that would be a sound argument, but unfortunately, Narc casted doubt on this when he detracted his statement to Kleptin, as well.

Anyway, why didn't he simply respond to OreEle, since that actually provided what he claimed he was interested in?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:49:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:27:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:18:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


If reality isn't arbitrary, then it has a design.

If it has a design, then it was volitional.

If it was volitional, then there is a creator.

You didn't address the quote, you are just restating your false dichotomy.

Oh, and since I have your attention:

I was discussing Buddhism with someone and found out that there are various versions. Apparently, the one I was familiar with is something of a Hindu offshoot and other latter versions, rather than the initial version that considers a single god-like entity fallacious.

Instead, from what I've read, it appears that god is everything, or in everything, rather than a separate being.

...which is something that appears in the Bible.

Curious, that.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:07:21 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:06:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:00:00 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

Are you asking for absolute proof?

Naaah. Just any form of logical evidence.

Let's say, I made a video showing me holding 20 6-sided die and dropping them all onto a table and all 20 of them landed with the 6 side up.

The statistical probability of that really happening is only 1 in 3.656*10^15 (or 1 in 3,656,000,000,000,000, for those that really like to see the zeros). To give an idea of how rare that is, if I were to be rolling those 20 die every 10 seconds since the earth was born (about 4.5 billion years ago), all 6's would only come up 4 times (on average).

Would you believe that I actually rolled 20 6's? Or would you believe that the video was doctored? Even though you have no evidence at all that it was doctored?


I would probably argue that the video was doctored, that would seem more likely than you having rolled all those sixes.

If I knew how to doctor videos, I would make one just for an example. I imagine it would be easy. Just get a bunch of blank die, and computer generate the digits on them to get it to work for you.


Many "logical" people believe that aliens exist (not the hollywood kind, but complex life forms on other planets) simply because the probability is that they do, even though there is no hard evidence.

I do as well.

That is based purely on statistics and not on any real evidence. By accepting that, you must accept that real evidence is not required for something to be logical.



Many people look at what we have here. How all the elements allign to form various chemicals, how sub-atomic particles all interact in harmony with each other so that they are an invisible part of a larger object. Everything "fits" together so nicely and so perfectly, and I do mean eaverything. There are no quarks just wondering around, they are all (meaning the very very very vast majority) forming larger pieces, which fit with others, to form even larger pieces (and so on and so forth). The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

For statistical reasons, one could suggest that maybe there were countless big bangs which did form nothing but randomness and ours just happened to be the one where everything lined up. If we accept that, we have 2 logical choices to consider, that 1) a big bang happens once every 20 billion years or so, and this have been going on for God knows how many years (no evidence for or against) or 2) Big bangs were happening extremely frequently and when one made everything fit together, all other big bangs stopped (for whatever reason).


Exactly, this does not provide a convincing case for a designer does it?

No, (unless one argues that it was a "designer" that was causing the big bangs, and once he got one he liked, he stopped making more), but this all just continues on to speculation.


But then, it is all about odds. And as we cannot compare the physical laws of our universe with any others that may have been randomness, we cannot really know what those odds are, we can only guess. But that does not mean that it is illogical to believe one or the other. What is illogical, is to say, I know I'm right and you are wrong.

True and in addition it may be the universe can only have formed in the way it did. That the variables are not variables at all.

But we can never know. Are these laws of physics present in all universes? Based on the flucuation of the gravitational "constant" I'm inclined to believe that these are variables.

You could also imagine that there are hundreds of bags of marbles (of which you cannot see into them), and you are given a single bag. You can open it up and "explore" it to your heart's content. You may see that their are 7 green marbles, and 5 blue marbles, and 2 red marbles. And that the red marbles are larger then the green, which are larger then the blue, and come up with various things that you learn about it. But does that bag of marbles tell you anything at all about any of the other bags of marbles? Just because the red ones are bigger in your bag, does that mean that they are bigger in other bags too?

Now we replace "marble" with "laws of physics." Just because something is a law of physics on our universe does not mean that it is a law of physics in another, but that also does not mean that it isn't, we simply don't know, nor do we have access to find out. We are impotent.


Another example, winning Powerball. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 : 200,000,000 so it may be logical to assume that I will never win (unless you disagree that this is logical, if so, please say so). But people do win, all the time, so it would also be logically to assume that I could win. Both sides have their merit.

I see what you are saying. But at the same you could present a far stronger case that you won't win, than that you will.

You most definately could. But you can still win and people do still win. So should we believe that we will never win? Should we always believe with the 51% and against the 49%.

What are the odds that I'll get in a car crash today? Very minimal, but does that mean I shouldn't both putting on my seat belt?


So what I am really asking for is a logical argument which seems more likely than it's alternative. Not for a definitive, "this is 100% proof of God".

Can't be done, nor can one make an argument that a creator is less likely. To be able to do so, would require applying numerical values, which we simply do not have.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 3:10:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."

ignore this of mine, I'm not even gonna feed it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 4:32:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:10:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."

ignore this of mine, I'm not even gonna feed it.

You're not feeding a fire. This can still be an intelligent discussion.

Your dichotomy was not creator or no creator

but was stated as,

Either there is was Creator or this universe came about by chance despite the extreme unlikeliness of it.

False dichotomy.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 4:52:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 4:32:15 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:10:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 1:54:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
The statistical probability of everything randomly just fitting together is somewhat laughable, considering there was only 1 known big bang, and since atoms were being created only minutes after the big bang.

Ok, great, you've shown that random chance isn't the answer, now what? If you think that God is the only other alternative, that's a false dichotomy.

the Buddha: "Neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."


It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."

ignore this of mine, I'm not even gonna feed it.

You're not feeding a fire. This can still be an intelligent discussion.

Your dichotomy was not creator or no creator

but was stated as,

Either there is was Creator or this universe came about by chance despite the extreme unlikeliness of it.

False dichotomy.

That's not a false dichotomy. Either it was created by a creator (something that either intentionally created it or created it through action with accidental consequences), or it was created by chance and just happened.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:00:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."

Let me show you why your dichotomy is false.

Reasons for orderly Universe:

1. God designed the Universe.
2. The Universe is a product of random chance.
3. The Universe is intelligent.

There doesn't need to be a separate creator to design the Universe, it is possible that the Universe is intelligent and the processes that act are not random.

Did you not read the Buddha quote? "...the causes that act are not un-mental for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:21:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 5:00:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:08:47 PM, OreEle wrote:
It isa dichotomy, but not a false one.

It either has a creator, or it doesn't. There is a reason my first post was about a "creator" not nessicarily "god."

Let me show you why your dichotomy is false.

Reasons for orderly Universe:

1. God designed the Universe.
2. The Universe is a product of random chance.
3. The Universe is intelligent.

There doesn't need to be a separate creator to design the Universe, it is possible that the Universe is intelligent and the processes that act are not random.

Did you not read the Buddha quote? "...the causes that act are not un-mental for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."

Definition of intellegence - "having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree."

The universe does not have the capasity for "thought" or "reason". It is literally, a bunch of stuff. Some of the things within it, can have thoughts (humans, and maybe some other aliens if they exist), but the universe itself does not.

As for Buddha, his argument points to accepting ignorance, which is unscientific.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:25:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 12:57:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am flogging a dead horse, but anyway does anyone have what they regard to be a decent, robust, logical argument for God.

------> http://philofreligion.homestead.com...

------> http://www.debate.org...
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:37:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 5:21:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/16/2010 5:00:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me show you why your dichotomy is false.

Reasons for orderly Universe:

1. God designed the Universe.
2. The Universe is a product of random chance.
3. The Universe is intelligent.

There doesn't need to be a separate creator to design the Universe, it is possible that the Universe is intelligent and the processes that act are not random.

Did you not read the Buddha quote? "...the causes that act are not un-mental for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout."

Definition of intellegence - "having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree."

I mean "intelligent" in a looser sense of the word. Perhaps "mind-substance" would be more suiting.

The universe does not have the capasity for "thought" or "reason". It is literally, a bunch of stuff.

Really? You know everything there is to know about the Universe and concluded that it's merely a "bunch of stuff"??

As for Buddha, his argument points to accepting ignorance,

Utterly false. Show me where he has done that.

which is unscientific.

Actually, science admits that it doesn't know things all the time... and accepts that fact.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat