Okay, I'm basically on your side, but please show me how you calculate the probability that science will explain all of "creation". We have no unified theory or an explanation for the big bang, beyond speculation. So how do you arrive at a" more likely" or "less likely" conclusion? If you want to talk about specifics like evolution, fine we have a theory and millions of observations to support that model. But not to explain the big bang,
I have t made any assertions as to the probability of science doing anything. I'm simply pointing out that based on the evidence to date for the existence of a god or gods, it is more likely than not they don't exist.
What evidence? And you have made a statement about probability when you claimed it is more likely that there is no need for a creator. That is a statement of probability that references science as the basis for the claim, because that is all we have. .
You do guesses, Rahl...I suspect we all do. I call my guesses...guesses. You are being pigheaded about acknowledging that you do make guesses...and that your guess "it is more likely that no gods exist than that any do"....is a guess. You sound so intelligent...I cannot fathom why you are doing it. I wonder if you know.
Would you two either get a room or quit sniping like a couple of old hens. You sound like a couple of teenagers arguing.
Sorry my comments sound like the kind of post a teenager would make. I don't think they do...at all. To be honest with you...YOUR post quoted sounds more adolescent. If you do not like what I have to say on this subject...tune out. The ramifications of people guessing there is a god...contributes to making this world an ugly place in which to live. We will NEVER make a significant impact on the people who guess a god exists...without first convincing them their "beliefs" that there is a god is NOTHING BUT A GUESS. And having others, like Rahl, guess that there are no gods...and pretend their guesses are something more than guesses...is a negative in the effort to make that needed change. I will effort in that direction for as long as possible...and with as much dedication as possible. Okay?
Exactly. To date, there is exactly zero evidence to support the statement that a god or gods exist. . Correct. But not about science as you suggested. It makes no mention of science. - - - Updated - - - Just not about a god or gods.
Your blind guess that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...almost surely occasioned by your blind guess that there are no gods... ...IS A GUESS. You do guess about the existence or non-existence of gods. - - - Updated - - - Run out of evasion tactics, D?
Yeah, you do. You are guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. It is a blind guess. What you do not do is...to acknowledge when you are guessing.
Nope. It's no more a guess than pointing out it is more likely than not that the Easter bunny doesn't exist. Try addressing the analogy and you might finally realize how absurd your argument is.
You seem to be unaware that you just spoke from a philosophical materialism perspective, and that perspective has at its foundation...faith. Your faith lies in the assumption that matter is the ground of reality, and that consciousness comes from matter. But there is another assumption that can be made, and that assumption is, consciousness not matter is the foundation, the ground of reality. These two assumption remain assumptions because they cannot be tested, in order to determine what the foundation of reality is. SO, is it possible that the brain is a transceiver of consciousness, instead of creating consciousness? Sure. And if it is, you just put purpose and meaning back into this universe. This is why I like this non materialism much better than your way of thinking. I prefer to believe in meaning over meaninglessness when it comes to reality. While understanding the truth of all of this is probably not knowable. But arrogance demands to know, and that is when the arguing begins. ha ha
It is a blind guess...about the REALITY of existence. If it were not, by now you would have produced the math to substantiate that the probability of a god is in fact less than the probability of no gods. But we both know that you cannot determine the probability of either... ...so you are guessing. Okay. Nothing wrong with guessing. But you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that it is a guess.
If I had to guess, I would say, it manifested from big C Consciousness. A Consciousness of infinite potentialities. With infinite intelligence. Call it any name you want, as long as you know what you are doing. But it is outside your ability to understand, for you are a simulation in this virtual reality. But the virtual reality is imbued with a scent of this Consciousness. It creates self awareness. So the Big C Consciousness is self aware. Through its Creation. I like this view for a meaningless universe and self awareness just is too depressing for a sensitive consciousness. And the gods man has created are just too foible, like humans.
Just can't be bothered to play your silly "guessing games" any longer...because that is all this is to you. You are just going to have to play alone from here on in while I stick with reality and the facts instead. Have a nice day!
The fallacy of your "borg collective consciense" allegation is that it is not any different to the baseless assumption of the existence of an omnipotent creator of the universe. The hard scientific facts of reality don't need any baseless assumptions because they are based upon the scientific method and peer reviewed. Feel free to believe whatever you want since that is your right but factual knowledge outweighs baseless assumptions every single time.
We both know you are guessing about the probability of there being no gods being greater than the probability of gods existing. THAT is what we KNOW. - - - Updated - - - I've got lots of people to discuss this issue with, Derideo...and I work with actual facts...rather than that pretend stuff you are pushing. If you want to play games...you WILL have to go somewhere else.
I agree it's outside our ability to understand, just as an alien told us- Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12) PS- Jesus wasn't a "god created by man", he was solid flesh and blood..
We get it, Rahl. You cannot muster up the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that your assertion, "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are any"...IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BLIND GUESS. That's okay, Rahl. Lots of atheists have that same problem. Maybe you will grow out of it. By the way, the last thing in the world my argument is...is absurd.
I know you get it, which is why you are furiously dodging the analogy. Is it more or less likely the Easter bunny exists? Answer this question honestly please, and you will hopefully understand how absurd your argument is. I might be giving your cognitive abilities too much credit though.
The thing we are discussing is your assertion that "it is more probable that there are no gods than that there are." THAT IS A BLIND GUESS. You have nothing in the way of reason, logic, science, or math to back that up. That attempt at logic you offered was no better than a theist offering, "Well just look...there has to be a god." You are making a blind guess about the issue...and you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you are. Must be tough for you to deal with that, Rahl.
It's ok frank, we all knew you couldn't muster the courage to face the fact your argument was destroyed.
