2 Arguments against God

[steamer]

At the risk of hating myself for responding:

You are begging the question.

To brush off probability calculations because life is here, and hence 100% probable, ignores the real debate. The debate isn't that life is here but rather how it got here and the probability of certain mechanisms for resulting in life.

To say evolution is 100% probable because we are here is utter nonsense -that presupposes what it tries to prove.

No that's just the thing, probability is predictive. You can't use it to predict if something did happen, because the something already happened. The odds for it happening again may be very unlikely, but the odds of it having already happened are 100% I didn't say anything at all about evolution.

Using that approach, every event is either 100% probable or 0% probable based entirely on what happens. Reducing probability to a mere observation of what actually happens kills an entire branch of inquiry -- not that evolutionists are above killing science to support their dead theory.

That approach works absolutely perfectly when talking about past events. Things really do only happen or not happen. If GG is saying do you know what the odds of this universe happening again are, then that's a different question.

[angela]

Wake up steamer.

This is not about your canned viewpoint that "Yawah did it " -- but rather about educated people (as you pretend to be) ===> about science.

Evidently, you have zero knowlege about what science tries to teach uneducated peope like you.

Please keep posting so that I may use you as an example of what scientifically uneducated people have to say. Usually I find examples in the Fundys

-It was really nice to find another non-thinking example in you.

Many Thanks!

GG

Dear CG,

You do not know me - my name is Angela - I am new to Theology Web. I am a christian like yourself. I've been perusing this thread where steamer seems sincerely to be inquiring into the possible existence of God, via an argument against his existence. You, like me, wish to convince him of his existence. However, you persistently insult him. This shows him a character trait that is precisely the opposite of God, who tolerates our sinfulness and ignorance with patience and mercy. So you drive him from God.

May God have mercy on us.
Amen.

Love,
Angela

[angela]

Oops.

Being new to this site, I didn't realize I was posting publicly - that was supposed to be a private e-mail to CG. Please ignore, if possible, those who are perusing this thread! :)

And my apologies to CG.

Sincerely,

Angela

[angela]

Hate to reply to myself again, but after perusing this entire thread, I realized that my above two comments were prejudiced and unneccessary. Now that I've completely discredited myself, please allow me to add my viewpoint (now that I've actually read the whole thread!) :D

Regarding the unchanging nature of God-

It seems to me that there were 2 comments made that captured this one (my apologies for not remembering the names of the people I'm citing - I'll go back and give you pearls, I promise! ;D)

1) God does not change. I think it was anontheist who gave the scriptural citations of this, that you'd have to do some fancy dancing with to get any other meaning out of. The Biblical stance does indeed seem to be, that in some important - indeed *ultimate* sense - God does not change.

2) God has apparently unfulfilled desires. This is practically self-evident, by those famous three premises that (a) God exists (b) There is evil in the world (c) God does not desire evil.

3) Mad Gerbil made the interesting philosophical statement, which I tend to agree with, that, since God is outside of time, that which appears to us time-bound beings as unfulfilled, is actually *not* unfulfilled, provided that this God is Sovereign, Powerful and can accomplish His Will.

...I must admit here that I did not thoroughly read all the posts about determinism versus free will. I did catch the drift, though, which seemed to be that God must have competing desires, where one desire trumps another.

I would like to add to this, in a way that puts a twist on the paradox.

Human beings know from experience what it is to have competing desires. This sort of tension or trial is what is traditionally known as "character building" in some christian circles - and this is because it requires proof, or building, of the essential character.

Bear with me:

Within the two desires, there is one 'better' and one 'worse' - and you form yourself (your true self, your inner self, that which endures)- according to which you choose. (In any given situation.)

What this has to do with the above argument, is that the desire you opt for essentially reveals your inner heart, and that applies to God as well as us, I dare to say (Have mercy on me Holy God!) - what I say, is that as God chooses, so He wills - so He is.

That is to say, He is essentially unchanging.

I have found, that when there are things about God that I do not understand, that proves that I do not understand. It does not prove anything about God, his nature or His existence. I think we do well to admit our ignorance, in the face of God.

Amen.

Hope I haven't entirely wearied you all.

Replies welcome.

Angela.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Dear CG,

You do not know me - my name is Angela - I am new to Theology Web. I am a christian like yourself. I've been perusing this thread where steamer seems sincerely to be inquiring into the possible existence of God, via an argument against his existence. You, like me, wish to convince him of his existence. However, you persistently insult him. This shows him a character trait that is precisely the opposite of God, who tolerates our sinfulness and ignorance with patience and mercy. So you drive him from God.

May God have mercy on us.
Amen.

Love,
Angela

You are correct Angela. I was way out of line and very arrogant in what I said. I apologize to all (especially Steamer) for saying that. Sometimes I get too excited about the debate and attack the individual rather than the subject. Shame on me!

If I dare to post that cross, then I must not dishonor the very God who commands us to be kind to others in word and deed.

I owe you and Gerbil thanks for holding me accountable. Keep it up!




GG

[Tickle Me Goody]

No that's just the thing, probability is predictive. You can't use it to predict if something did happen, because the something already happened. The odds for it happening again may be very unlikely, but the odds of it having already happened are 100% I didn't say anything at all about evolution.


That approach works absolutely perfectly when talking about past events. Things really do only happen or not happen. If GG is saying do you know what the odds of this universe happening again are, then that's a different question.

I think that you miss the point of conditional probabilites. That is why I gave the example of the the 3 disks. By examining what you can see, you can compute the probabilty of what you do not see. By seeing a red disk, one can compute the probability that the other side is black.

Similarly, by observing certain things about the properties of this universe, scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see.

GG

[steamer]

I think that you miss the point of conditional probabilites. That is why I gave the example of the the 3 disks. By examining what you can see, you can compute the probabilty of what you do not see. By seeing a red disk, one can compute the probability that the other side is black.

Similarly, by observing certain things about the properties of this universe, scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see.

GG

I do not disagree with the above. I was disagreeing when you said this.

Either it was created by a superior intelligence or else there must be a virtually infinity of universes.

To which I still disagree, for reasons mentioned.

By the way, I think that is a good trick question for your students. Calculate the probability that X did happen instead of X will happen. I also apologize for my actions towards you as well.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I think that you miss the point of conditional probabilites. That is why I gave the example of the the 3 disks. By examining what you can see, you can compute the probabilty of what you do not see. By seeing a red disk, one can compute the probability that the other side is black.

Similarly, by observing certain things about the properties of this universe, scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see.

GG

Mad_Gerbil is about to attempt to earn extra credit in class today. Here goes nothing....

*raises hand*

Um..professor? Yeah, MG here, freshman taking your class as an elective. Anyways, I've a comment..er, question about this:

Similarly, by observing certain things about the properties of this universe, scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see.

In the case of the disks, all sides of the disks were observed at some point before being placed into the bag; therefore, I do not see the link between your example (the observed) and your assertion (scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see).

*cough*

[angela]

I absolutely love debates about probability, because they're one of the few things in philosophical circles that I feel that I do not have any understanding of...thus they fascinate me!

I have always been annoyed in philosophy classes, when the discussion of possible worlds comes up, especially as a basic premise to any other argument, because my feeling is: there *is* this world. What can any other *possible* world, (possible :D) mean for us, who live in the real world?

What does it mean to be real, and what does this reality have to do with possibilities? In short: what bearing does probability theory have in practice?

(This is a serious, interested question!)

With respectful regards,

Angela.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Mad_Gerbil is about to attempt to earn extra credit in class today. Here goes nothing....

*raises hand*

Um..professor? Yeah, MG here, freshman taking your class as an elective. Anyways, I've a comment..er, question about this:


In the case of the disks, all sides of the disks were observed at some point before being placed into the bag; therefore, I do not see the link between your example (the observed) and your assertion (scientists can put bounds on the things that we do not see).

*cough*

You Gerbils never were very good at probabilty theory. I am not certain why they allow you to join the class.

But seriously ==> One of Einstein's statements was that he wondered if God had any choice in the way the universe is formed. Well we can explore that question.

One consdiers the parameters (constants) that comprise the universe and ask how much variation could be allowed and still have any universe exist. The answer is that there are many universes that are possible. Next you ask which universes give rise to life forms such as we are. Divide one by the other and you have the probabilty of the existance of this universe -- the one that we have come to know and love. The answer is that the probabily is miniscule.

Scientific atheists are likely to say that the other universes must exist and that we only know we are here because we are here.

Theists are likely to think that this is the only universe that God could create and have mankind, so this is the only one.

Alternately, scientists try to reduce the number of possible permutations of universes by looking for fundamental laws that constrain the variables.

Either way I see the discussion as indicating that one way or another the solution set lies outside of this one universe -- hence it is supranatural, not natural, IMHO.

Anyhow, it is fun to conjecture.

GG

[Tickle Me Goody]

I absolutely love debates about probability, because they're one of the few things in philosophical circles that I feel that I do not have any understanding of...thus they fascinate me!

I have always been annoyed in philosophy classes, when the discussion of possible worlds comes up, especially as a basic premise to any other argument, because my feeling is: there *is* this world. What can any other *possible* world, (possible :D) mean for us, who live in the real world?

What does it mean to be real, and what does this reality have to do with possibilities? In short: what bearing does probability theory have in practice?

(This is a serious, interested question!)

With respectful regards,

Angela.

Good question. See my resposne to Gerbil. If that is not clear enough, let me know.

gg

[steamer]

what bearing does probability theory have in practice?

The main thing I use probability for (other than gambling) is to try and predict the number of spare parts needed to go into inventory based on the failure rate of those parts. The inverse of failure rate is something called Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF). Although MTBF says nothing about when the first item will fail, it is useful in determining how many failures you can expect over a given period of time and how many spares you are likely to need. So yes, probability has application in the real world. Just one of many examples.

[angela]

Ok-

Thanks Steamer-

I'm not sure I grasp your reply to Mad Gerbil, CG, or else, I have something to add to it:

Given that there is *this* world:

Since this is our starting point - we manipulate variables that exist in this world, and this is supposed to help us figure out of there are any other possible worlds...(i.e. we remove Carbon from the periodic table, and do whatever empirical/theoretical tests we can to see if life is still possible - this is supposed to answer the question of other possible words in either the affirmative or the negative...this is just one example of a possible test.)

However: *this* very world is our starting point - therefore we have to assume the existence of this world before we can conjecture if 'this' world could have been different.

What this seems to mean (to me at least) - is that, if we want to think about other worlds, we can only go from the starting point that this one exists. And if the foundation for our knowledge in this new area is from 'the old world' :) - then, it renders all our conclusions about the possibility of *this* world being different from the way it is, rather invalid, to my way of thinking - since, all our conclusions in fact originated from the assumptions of the existence of this world.


(No?) - replies? (I should go to bed - I've been up all night - sorry if this is confusing to read!)

[steamer]

One consdiers the parameters (constants) that comprise the universe and ask how much variation could be allowed and still have any universe exist. The answer is that there are many universes that are possible. Next you ask which universes give rise to life forms such as we are. Divide one by the other and you have the probabilty of the existance of this universe -- the one that we have come to know and love. The answer is that the probabily is miniscule.

This universe had an equal chance of popping into existence as any other universe. More than some, because many of those universes imagined by these parameter changes simply aren't viable and would have resulted in a reset of initial conditions, a new roll of the dice if you will.

Scientific atheists are likely to say that the other universes must exist and that we only know we are here because we are here.

This is one conclusion.

Alternately, scientists try to reduce the number of possible permutations of universes by looking for fundamental laws that constrain the variables.

This is the more likely conclusion in my opinion. There may not be any other way for universes to exist than with the physics this one posseses. Some sort of proto-physics or quantum mechanism we have yet to find may control how these parameters become what they are.

Either way I see the discussion as indicating that one way or another the solution set lies outside of this one universe -- hence it is supranatural, not natural, IMHO.

Not necessarily, I'm rooting for the proto-physics!

[Tickle Me Goody]

Ok-

Thanks Steamer-

I'm not sure I grasp your reply to Mad Gerbil, CG, or else, I have something to add to it:

Given that there is *this* world:

Since this is our starting point - we manipulate variables that exist in this world, and this is supposed to help us figure out of there are any other possible worlds...(i.e. we remove Carbon from the periodic table, and do whatever empirical/theoretical tests we can to see if life is still possible - this is supposed to answer the question of other possible words in either the affirmative or the negative...this is just one example of a possible test.)

However: *this* very world is our starting point - therefore we have to assume the existence of this world before we can conjecture if 'this' world could have been different.

What this seems to mean (to me at least) - is that, if we want to think about other worlds, we can only go from the starting point that this one exists. And if the foundation for our knowledge in this new area is from 'the old world' :) - then, it renders all our conclusions about the possibility of *this* world being different from the way it is, rather invalid, to my way of thinking - since, all our conclusions in fact originated from the assumptions of the existence of this world.


(No?) - replies? (I should go to bed - I've been up all night - sorry if this is confusing to read!)

To be more specific, one considers just 6 constants of physics. Take, for example, the gravitational constant. It has some specific value but there is no known reason why it should be that value. So the physicist looks at all the possible values that it could have and determines if it is possible to have a universe with those values.

The answer comes out that it could and one can determine the properties of those universes. In addition, one can determine if any of those universes could support life as we know it. The percentage of those viable unverses that could support life is very few. So now we have a problem in that the "genie just got out of the bottle".

Do those universes exist or not? That is not a trivial question. If they do exist, then there is an explanation for why we live in a universe that is "finely tuned" for our existance. The reason is that only where we exist can we even raise the question. The flip side is that if the other universes could be shown not to exist then there is a strong case for the existance of an intelligence that "designed" this universe.

The basic point is that one cannot just shrug everything off as a "natural" (self-contained) universe any longer.

I should not say "cannot" because people can do whatever they wish to do. people who are uncomfortable with the scientific conclusions can always find a reason to refute it.

get more sleep!

GG