How likely is it that the following exist.

[Prodigy54321]

your estimation of the percentage chance that the following exist.


--at least one god

--one and only one god

--Christian God

--Muslim God

--if you consider another specific god to be most likely of all know gods..please state which one and how likely.

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around


----------------------------------

to clarify

by "god" in "at least one god" or "one and only one god"..I mean what we would typically consider a god...I know it's broad..but basically use a base of gods that are known to be believed to exist in the past or present.

by "christian god" or "muslim god" I mean generally..bascially what most christians or muslims believe that god to be.

just go with it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Prodigy54321]

--at least one god
.5%

--one and only one god
.45% most of the decent arguments for god tend to only be possible for one god

--Christian God
.02%

--Muslim God
.0188%

--if you consider another specific god to be most likely of all know gods..please state which one and how likely.
christian is my highest (I know, I'm biased /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around
.0000001% or lower

the numbers in these questions really aren't important..how they relate to eachother is what I am curious about.

[thylacine]

Absolutely zero for all of them. No doubt whatsoever.

[madnak]

At least one - 55%
More than one - 30% (actually anywhere from ~5% to ~50%, depending on what that means exactly, first impulse was 10 but I think 30 is better)
Christian God - not sure how to express such a small number
Muslim God - slightly higher than Christian
I have no specific God I think is most likely, but I sure don't think it's a personal God whatever it is.
Pink elephant - Slightly higher than Christian and Muslim combined.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely zero for all of them. No doubt whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

not even technically?

[GBP04]

--at least one god
1%

--one and only one god
.999999%

--Christian God (as understood from Bible)
.000002%

--Muslim God
.000001%

[Matt R.]

-- at least one god

99%+. I define God as the creator of physical reality. IMO, physical reality must almost certainly have a creator. Thus my estimate.

-- one and only one god

Infinitesimally less than my prior estimate, but less nonetheless. I would guess that an entity with the ability to create the matter, energy, and physics of our reality can be more easily defined as a single entity. I wouldn't think we'd need to break it down into multiple units to more accurately describe it. But, since it is at least possible, I have to make the estimate smaller than the first estimate.

-- Christian God

Don't know. I would imagine there are as many different ideas on the nature or properties of the "Christian God" as there are Christians. Not to mention the differences in what a non-Christian may perceive the Christian God as. I would think you and I have vastly different ideas of what the Christian God is, for instance.

-- Muslim God

No idea. Same reasoning as above. I'm not exactly sure what the average Christian view of God is. I know quite a bit less of the average Muslim view.

-- if you consider another specific god to be most likely of all known gods... please state one and how likely

I don't exactly understand the question. I think the statement "belief in a specific god" is not really defined well. Do you mean belief that God has specific properties? Just because you call God a different name doesn't mean he's a separate "specific God". It just means you call him/her/it by a different name. Also, if you ascribe certain properties to God, yet someone else ascribes slightly different properties, I don't think it's really useful to say they belief in separate "specific" gods. Just that they believe God has different properties.

-- an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around.

0%. Pink implies color, which if it was undetectable it would not have. Elephant implies a well-defined biological organism, which we can perceive with our senses. The statement "undetectable pink elephant" is contradictory.

[madnak]

I think he said in the OP not to nit.

Just saying.

[Matt R.]

Not trying to nit. Sorry if it came off that way.

I re-read the OP to see what may come off as nit-picky, and I realized I glossed over the part about "generally... what most people consider the Christian or Muslim God to be".

I don't think my post was being nitty in this regard (if that was what you are referring to). I honestly don't know what the average Christian or Muslim view is. I can make a really wild guess, but I don't think that would be useful. If I had to throw a number out there, I would say 0%. I don't think the human mind can even come close to comprehending an entity with the power to create a universe. So any "idea" of God that a Christian or Muslim would come up with must necessarily be metaphorical and in terms of things he can observe. I don't think it would be possible for any one person to come up with an exact, concrete idea of God that is 100% correct.

The rest of my post may sound nitty, but I think it is important. I think a lot of the ideas of God around here are not very well defined at all, and I was trying to figure out what was meant by, for instance, "separate specific gods".

[ojc02]

--at least one god
Don't know, don't care

--one and only one god
Don't know, don't care

--Christian God
Don't know, don't care

--Muslim God
Don't know, don't care

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around
Don't know, don't care


I'm not being an ass (I promise). On a recent thread I wrote that I think that is the only reasonable way to answer that question. The reason for this is that, like all unfalsifiable concepts, one cannot disprove the existence of god or even reasonably estimate her probability. If you start putting effort into answering these questions then you have to consider literally anything that someone can dream up: pink elephant, fsm, angels, ghosts, etc. Maybe that's the point of your post.

[thylacine]

thylacine said:[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely zero for all of them. No doubt whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]


ojc02 said:[ QUOTE ]
--at least one god
Don't know, don't care

--one and only one god
Don't know, don't care

--Christian God
Don't know, don't care

--Muslim God
Don't know, don't care

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around
Don't know, don't care


I'm not being an ass (I promise). On a recent thread I wrote that I think that is the only reasonable way to answer that question. The reason for this is that, like all unfalsifiable concepts, one cannot disprove the existence of god or even reasonably estimate her probability. If you start putting effort into answering these questions then you have to consider literally anything that someone can dream up: pink elephant, fsm, angels, ghosts, etc. Maybe that's the point of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think ojc02 agrees with me.

[madnak]

Last I heard, "don't know" and "no doubt" meant two different, and mutually exclusive, things.

[Duke]

If they would have thought it a god 200 years ago? 100%. If we'd still think it's a god today? 0%. If it has to be seen as a god forever in the future? 0%.

Any specific deity worshiped by a religion? 0%.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Last I heard, "don't know" and "no doubt" meant two different, and mutually exclusive, things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the whole thing again and think about it.

[madnak]

You're saying that you're being all semantic and clever, and when you say "no doubt" you just mean you don't feel doubt, or something like that?

Because otherwise, nope, not seeing it.

[ICMoney]

>0 God
100%

1 God
100%

Christian God
100%

Nit,
ICMoney

[thylacine]

Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
At least one - 55%
More than one - 30% (actually anywhere from ~5% to ~50%, depending on what that means exactly, first impulse was 10 but I think 30 is better)
Christian God - not sure how to express such a small number
Muslim God - slightly higher than Christian
I have no specific God I think is most likely, but I sure don't think it's a personal God whatever it is.
Pink elephant - Slightly higher than Christian and Muslim combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are bizarre numbers.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Choose a set that consists of all biological species which have been observed and classified. Let a 2nd set be all biological species which have NOT been observed and classified.

The 2nd set consists of an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

I think the answer to the first question is: it depends on the characteristics of the hypothesized being or species. For the second question: however much time you want to devote on contemplating the existence of each being or species.

It does not follow that none of the species from set #2 exists, nor does it follow that considering the possibility of their existence is a waste of effort. It certainly does not follow that NO species exists which we have not yet observed.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

0, but that doesn't mean the probability that any of them exist is 0. The probability that the temperature is now exactly 50 degrees F is 0, but the probability that the temperature is between 40 and 60 degrees is 1. (Yes, I know, temperature is technically not the best example, but it's a good illustration of the mathematical point.)

[ QUOTE ]
How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

However much I want, and however much is rewarding to me. Obviously I can't consider all of them. But that hardly means I "shouldn't," or that I shouldn't consider certain specific ones (and particularly ranges, see above).

Even if a 0 probability really meant an impossibility (which it doesn't in this case), that would still hardly be a reason not to think about them. You know what? I happen to like reading fiction. The events I read about in fiction never happened and never will. So I must be some moron for reading fiction, huh?

Ideas and the consideration of ideas can have value regardless of their accuracy. I find the idea of the luminiferous ether interesting, even though I don't believe in it. I find thinking about what heaven would be like to be rewarding, even though I don't believe in it. In fact, I consider my ability to ponder "what if" to be one of the most important abilities I have.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least one - 55%
More than one - 30% (actually anywhere from ~5% to ~50%, depending on what that means exactly, first impulse was 10 but I think 30 is better)
Christian God - not sure how to express such a small number
Muslim God - slightly higher than Christian
I have no specific God I think is most likely, but I sure don't think it's a personal God whatever it is.
Pink elephant - Slightly higher than Christian and Muslim combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are bizarre numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a unique perspective. But I think my numbers are rather consistent.

While we have no evidence for a pink invisible elephant god, we also have no evidence against it. Certainly a pink invisible elephant god isn't inherently contradictory (I'm assuming that "pink" and "elephant" do not refer to physical characteristics, of course - Matt is right that if pink refers to physical color then "pink" and "invisible" are incompatible).

So, no reason to believe in pink elephant, no reason to disbelieve either.

But the Christian and Islamic Gods are contradictory. Particularly the Christian God that is supposed to be omnibenevolent. These contradictions make the Christian and Muslim Gods highly implausible - while the pink elephant, I honestly wouldn't be surprised (I wouldn't expect it either, of course).

As thylacine pointed out, the probability of each is technically 0, and yet I believe that the pink elephant is more probable than the Abrahamic gods. This may sound contradictory, and in a way it is, but in a way it isn't. Take a hundred items from an infinite set - the likelihood that any of them exists is 0. Take one item from that same set - the likelihood is identical. And yet, intuitively it seems to me that it's "much more likely" the first case will be a "hit" than the second case. Does it "make sense to say that?" Well, not really - I don't think it makes sense to apply probability in this case at all. But despite the fact that the likelihood of any of these gods is infinitesimal, I consider the pink elephant to be a "bigger infinitesimal."

[JMa]

isnt the Christian god the same as the Muslim god?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
isnt the Christian god the same as the Muslim god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no. they're on opposing sides. The muslim god allows muslims to go to hell for not believing in jesus as a god... for example.

luckyme

[madnak]

No they aren't, and particularly not if you're referring to common interpretations, as I am. Christian believe their god is all-loving, Muslims do not. Therefore Christians are far more deluded than Muslims.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I think ojc02 agrees with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I completely agree with your interpretation. I think the key is these god concepts are unfalsifiable. As such, I think you can't say anything about the probability of her existing or not.

For the possible undiscovered species analogy, those species *are* falsifiable. It is theoretically possible to search every inch of the earth to find them, as such you cant treat them in a scientific fashion. This is very different from the god concept which is unfalsifiable because people argue you could never find god no matter what. (Unless you're dead in which case it's a little late to be of use /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Matt R.]

ojc02,
I would argue that it is NOT theoretically possible to search every inch of the earth to find them. It is impossible to put that many man hours and that much effort into accomplishing such a task. This is, in part, because species are in a constant state of flux -- once we finished the process of "finding" them all, there is probably at least one more to be found somewhere that wasn't there when we were doing the survey.

But, if you have issue with this, we can then look at mathematics. In a mathematical system, there are statements that are neither provably true nor provably false (Godel). This does not mean that they are not worthy of consideration. After all, if we did not even consider them, how would we know whether they can be proven true or false? We haven't even tried. It does not follow that all mathematical inquiries are worthless until AFTER they are proven true or false. There is a clear contradiction here if you believe this.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Choose a set that consists of all biological species which have been observed and classified. Let a 2nd set be all biological species which have NOT been observed and classified.

The 2nd set consists of an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

I think the answer to the first question is: it depends on the characteristics of the hypothesized being or species. For the second question: however much time you want to devote on contemplating the existence of each being or species.

It does not follow that none of the species from set #2 exists, nor does it follow that considering the possibility of their existence is a waste of effort. It certainly does not follow that NO species exists which we have not yet observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have brought up a very bad analogy. There are plenty of examples of species, and there are obviously lots more that exist but are not discovered.

But on the other hand no-one has ever had any legitimate reason to think anything even remotely resembling a `god' exists.

[Matt R.]

Yes, but there are no examples of species which have not yet been discovered. Yet it is still worthwile to consider their existence, and it is almost certain that some specific species exist which we have not seen.

There are no definitive examples of entities which created our universe. This is because it is impossible to observe the creation of the universe. Yet they may or may not exist. It is worthwhile for some to consider their existence. It may not be for you -- your choice.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have had legitimate reasons to think that God exists. If there were no legitimate reasons, we would not be having this discussion. The idea of God would be so obviously wrong that no one would even have given it serious consideration. The fact that you disagree with those reasons is irrelevant (at least to the overall point I was making).

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

0, but that doesn't mean the probability that any of them exist is 0. The probability that the temperature is now exactly 50 degrees F is 0, but the probability that the temperature is between 40 and 60 degrees is 1. (Yes, I know, temperature is technically not the best example, but it's a good illustration of the mathematical point.)

[ QUOTE ]
How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

However much I want, and however much is rewarding to me. Obviously I can't consider all of them. But that hardly means I "shouldn't," or that I shouldn't consider certain specific ones (and particularly ranges, see above).

Even if a 0 probability really meant an impossibility (which it doesn't in this case), that would still hardly be a reason not to think about them. You know what? I happen to like reading fiction. The events I read about in fiction never happened and never will. So I must be some moron for reading fiction, huh?

Ideas and the consideration of ideas can have value regardless of their accuracy. I find the idea of the luminiferous ether interesting, even though I don't believe in it. I find thinking about what heaven would be like to be rewarding, even though I don't believe in it. In fact, I consider my ability to ponder "what if" to be one of the most important abilities I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now consider an infinite collection of pairwise disjoint infinite collections of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings. This trumps what you said above. And it can be iterated ad infinitum, so it hypertrumps anything you could come up with along these lines.

Also see my response to Matt R. which addresses a different point. There are maybe a million known species, so certainly it is reasonable that there are more to be discovered, and in fact people keep finding new ones all the time. People knew about the planets in our solar system, and speculated there could be others, and now they are being found. Even when we only know of one of something, such as one planet with intelligent life, or one universe (the observable one), it is reasonable to speculate about others.

But there is absolutely zero evidence for anything supernatural. There is no reason to expect there ever will be.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but there are no examples of species which have not yet been discovered. Yet it is still worthwile to consider their existence, and it is almost certain that some specific species exist which we have not seen.

There are no definitive examples of entities which created our universe. This is because it is impossible to observe the creation of the universe. Yet they may or may not exist. It is worthwhile for some to consider their existence. It may not be for you -- your choice.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have had legitimate reasons to think that God exists. If there were no legitimate reasons, we would not be having this discussion. The idea of God would be so obviously wrong that no one would even have given it serious consideration. The fact that you disagree with those reasons is irrelevant (at least to the overall point I was making).

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples of species are known.

Examples of supernatural things are not.

[Matt R.]

Oh yeah to tie it in with the whole "no doubt" vs. "don't know" game, which is what I was relating my post to.

Just because you don't know whether something exists should not mean you have "no doubt" that it does not exist. They are two different, and mutually exclusive, statements as madnak said.

If a scientist said "I don't know whether or not X exists" therefore "X does not exist and is not worthy of my consideration", he would be an absolutely terrible scientist... and wouldn't have a job for long.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Examples of species are known.

Examples of supernatural things are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

50,000 years ago, examples of molecules which comprise the air we breathe were not known.

Does that mean that air molecules did not exist 50,000 years ago?


My point is that you don't have to have a concrete example of something, or a concrete example of something similar, for it to exist. You don't have to "know" something for it to exist. You don't know everything, I promise.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah to tie it in with the whole "no doubt" vs. "don't know" game, which is what I was relating my post to.

Just because you don't know whether something exists should not mean you have "no doubt" that it does not exist. They are two different, and mutually exclusive, statements as madnak said.

If a scientist said "I don't know whether or not X exists" therefore "X does not exist and is not worthy of my consideration", he would be an absolutely terrible scientist... and wouldn't have a job for long.

[/ QUOTE ]

For EVERY X?

One of the skills of a good scientist is to figure out which X are worth considering.

You need to think about this, and read the other threads on this as well. You are definitely not getting it.

[51cards]

They exist like political boarders exist.

[Matt R.]

I am getting it just fine.

You are saying that because you have not observed God that it is not even worthy of consideration. This is a really bad reason to have "no doubt" God exists.

You are saying that the idea of God is not worthy of consideration. This is possible, although I disagree. It does not follow that your "reasons" for thinking the idea of God is not worthy of consideration must be right (or wrong). If your only "reason" is that you have not observed him/her/it, your reason is extraordinarily bad, as I have shown.

It is possible you have a good reason other than "haven't observed" to believe God does not exist. If you don't feel it is worth your time to consider God, this is fine. Don't pretend that your reason MUST be right though.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that you don't have to have a concrete example of something, or a concrete example of something similar, for it to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all your analogies have been with material things and merely different forms of them. You want to use that to make claims about immaterial things. We can allow for a bizillion unknown formations of matter.

You need to come up with examples of spiritual entities that have now been shown to exist, then you can ask, "why can't spiritual entity X also exist".

Or are you claiming that god is just another humdrum material entity just arranged rather strangely? I have to learn to wait for clarification :-)

luckyme

[Matt R.]

Mathematics is not a material thing. As I've said, some mathematical statements can be proven neither true nor false.

Are mathematical statements that have been proven neither true nor false not worthy of consideration? Do you have "no doubt" that these mathematical statements are false?

If you answer yes to this question, you probably should not be a mathematician.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematics is not a material thing. As I've said, some mathematical statements can be proven neither true nor false.

Are mathematical statements that have been proven neither true nor false not worthy of consideration? Do you have "no doubt" that these mathematical statements are false?

If you answer yes to this question, you probably should not be a mathematician.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're doing the same thing. We have tons of examples of known mathematical statements.
Come up with one spiritual entity ( doesn't have to be god) and then your "why can't there be an X-type spiritual entity" would deserve a different answer.

If you're claiming that god is just another form of mathematical expression then we need to retool.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Now consider an infinite collection of pairwise disjoint infinite collections of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Probability isn't fundamentally discrete, it's fundamentally fluid. It can't be applied to situations like this. It can be applied to ranges, given certain conditions. But definitely not to what you're suggesting here.

[ QUOTE ]
Also see my response to Matt R. which addresses a different point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same point, and again it's irrelevant.

You did fail to address the more relevant point. You have carried the assumption that if something doesn't exist then it's not worth considering throughout this argument. You've been given multiple examples of cases in which this assumption simply doesn't apply, but you have never actually gone ahead and justified it. I'll make it an explicit question:

If I derive benefit from considering God, then I have an incentive to do so regardless of whether God exists (even, in fact, if I have certain knowledge he doesn't exist). You suggest that having no reason to believe God exists implies that we "shouldn't" think about God. What is your specific position regarding this? As far as I can tell, it's one of the following:

If there is no reason to believe that a certain thing exists, then it is immoral to consider that thing.

If there is no reason to believe that a certain thing exists, then no benefit can ever be derived from considering that thing.

Both of these statements are absurd and the latter is demonstrably false. Perhaps your position is more nuanced. So tell me what it is.

[Matt R.]

I think your use of the word spiritual is complicating matters immensely. Not saying it is unwarranted, it is just making it difficult.

I don't think we can make the claim "God cannot be observed". We also cannot make the claim "the existence of God cannot be proven true or false". We may be able to prove that it is true. We just don't have the ability to right now. Much like we didn't have the ability thousands of years ago to prove the existence of Nitrogen.

I think you are saying a spiritual entity must be by definition non-observable (or its existence is non-provable). I don't like this definition. If we somehow could use tools to scientifically verify the existence of say, a ghost, I don't think it ceases to be a "spirit". It's still a freaking scarey ass ghost that my thermocombobulator happened to pick up on.

Actually, to go along with your 2nd to last post, I don't think God is necessarily an "unmeasurable spirit entity", or whatever. I think if we COULD, somehow, observe the creation of the universe, we may very well be able to see God. The nature of the question makes it impossible at this time, however.

Just to retool, as you said, because I think it may be necessary. I don't like your use of the word spiritual. I think it may mean different things for a lot of different people. Let's use the word "unobservable entity". And by unobservable, I mean unobservable right now. Not necessarily impossible to observe by definition. Simply limited by our current state.

[madnak]

You already need to retool; your argument is fallacious.

You're suggesting that if we have one example of something that falls within a certain class, then it is worth speculating about other members of that class. Then you're using arbitrary classifications to justify scientific inquiry based on its "classes" but not spiritual inquiry based on its "classes." Furthermore, you have never explained why the existence of one member of a class somehow justified a belief in other members, nor have you explained why the absence of any member of a class implies that a belief in a member of that class is unjustified.

And some other minor things. Like, everything can be considered to fall under the general class that includes everything. Molecules are a member of this class. Molecules exist. God is a member of this class. Therefore, as one member of this class (molecules) exist, we are justified based on your approach in speculating about the nature of another member of this class (God). Thus, according to your reasoning, molecules justify belief in God.

Second, you claim that mathematical statements exist and that we can therefore analyze them. Mathematical statements, however, are merely records designed to record relationships and concepts that can't be said to "exist" in any physical sense. If we can speculate about mathematics because mathematical statements exist, then we can speculate about spirituality because spiritual statements exist.

Finally, for any given class, there was a "first time" human beings became aware of the existence of that class. Prior to that time, said class had no known members, and therefore it was irrational to consider or seek after members of the class. Thus, all the "first time" discoveries were either accidents or examples of irrational speculation. Some were clearly the result of irrational speculation, and therefore irrational speculation is an effective technique that has led to valuable empirical results. Therefore, it is rational to engage in irrational speculation.

I believe there are quite a few refutations, the point is you're clinging at straws. Can you present some rigorous framework according to which it is "wrong" (practically, morally, or otherwise) to think about God?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to retool, as you said, because I think it may be necessary. I don't like your use of the word spiritual. I think it may mean different things for a lot of different people. Let's use the word "unobservable entity". And by unobservable, I mean unobservable right now. Not necessarily impossible to observe, by definition. Simply limited by our current state.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Unobservable" is too general, but I have no problem scraping 'spiritual'. I'm quite willing to leave the specific characteristics of it loose.

To use an analogy, if we discovered Casper the Friendly Ghost and you wanted to say, "see, entities like that only more powerful, knowledgable, creative, whatever, stuff we can't even imagine" then I think you'd be using your 'bin-der, dun-dat' argument correctly.

Using quadratic equations and rare field mice as "like that only different" when it come to a god-option seems not what you want, but all that you have .. so far.. where else can we go with this?

luckyme

[Matt R.]

Hrmm... I'm not exactly sure if this is the proper direction but I will try it.

I think that, if God exists, nature must be a natural extension of God. By this I mean, as an example: if you see a painting, it is a natural extension of the artist. One can try to learn properties of the artist by studying the painting. The painting would not exist without the artist, and one can try to understand the painter through the painting.

I think that, hypothetically, if we continue to study science we will come to know God if she exists.. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive. God may, like those mathematical statements, be one of the statements of our system that can neither be proven true nor false. We may never get the "tools" necessary to verify the claim (I can't even begin to speculate what those tools are). This does not mean it isn't worthy of consideration (or that it MUST be false). We may stumble upon an answer one day -- just like that mathematician may stumble upon a proof to the theorem he thought was unprovable.

[Piers]

--at least one god 100%
--one and only one god 0%

--Christian God 0%

--Muslim God 0%

--if you consider another specific god to be most likely of all know gods..please state which one and how likely.

The Sun 100%
The Moon 100%
Julia Caesar 100%

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around 0%

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if God exists, nature must be a natural extension of God. ......

.......I think that, hypothetically, if we continue to study science we will come to know God if she exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This limiting of the 'unknown' is one of the stumbling blocks. Leave it wide open and it becomes more attractive to skeptics ( more attractive may still be minimal). Too much of the persons wants are placed in most of these 'unknown' scenarios.

luckyme

[MaxWeiss]

1. Infinitesimal, though not zero.

2. Infinitesimal, though not zero. Less than the answer to
#1, due to its constraints

3. Infinitesimal, though not zero. Less than #2, due to its
constraints.

4. Infinitesimal, though not zero. Very close to #3.

5. Infinitesimal, though not zero. Less than #3 or #4, due
to less knowledge about him/her or popularity.

6. Infinitesimal, though not zero. Less than #5, due
to less knowledge about him/her or popularity.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a unique perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason, this sentence struck me as bizarrely funny. I can't decide what it is about it. The 'truism' quality, the (probably projected) egotism, the obviousness, the implied assumptions...its basically like a 5 word mental puzzle. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[madnak]

No, the egotism is definitely real.

But that's the only hint you'll get!

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You're suggesting that if we have one example of something that falls within a certain class, then it is worth speculating about other members of that class.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was refuting the concept the because there are material things we don't know about, that proves there can be immaterial things we don't know about. Or because there are aspects of mathematics we don't know about then Wiggidians are possible.

That argument comes down to a non-argument. 'Because there is a rock on the far side of the moon we didn't know about, then there can be beer cans that talk on pluto.'
( meant to be silly, seeing I explained so poorly earlier I see).

It seems to me if the 'because there are X there can be Y' argument has no validity unless there is some tie-in, else finding one grain of sand enables us to claim any possiblity we want. But heck, we can do that without the grain of sand.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I was refuting the concept the because there are material things we don't know about, that proves there can be immaterial things we don't know about. Or because there are aspects of mathematics we don't know about then Wiggidians are possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're the one trying to prove an impossibility, not the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me if the 'because there are X there can be Y' argument has no validity unless there is some tie-in, else finding one grain of sand enables us to claim any possiblity we want. But heck, we can do that without the grain of sand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the point I was arguing. I suppose I misinterpreted and we were attacking the same fallacy. The point is that we can consider these possibilities, even without any grain of sand. And so far nobody has established based on any rational process that we shouldn't consider them. The closest thing is that "there are an infinite number of them, so it's impossible to consider all of them, so we should not consider any of them," which doesn't follow.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we can consider these possibilities, even without any grain of sand. And so far nobody has established based on any rational process that we shouldn't consider them. The closest thing is that "there are an infinite number of them, so it's impossible to consider all of them, so we should not consider any of them," which doesn't follow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Contemplate away! is my motto.

Each of us can fritter away our time in any contemplation we want, naturally. It's the attempt to validate a specific tree of inquiry on a sandy foundation that needs to be challenged.

Is the dispute over the contemplation ( as you seem to suggest) or over the "Eureka, I've found a grain of sand, so why shouldn't there be Wiggidians?" which seems the one I'm always running across.

luckyme

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Choose a set that consists of all biological species which have been observed and classified. Let a 2nd set be all biological species which have NOT been observed and classified.

The 2nd set consists of an infinite number of equally likely, mutually exclusive hypothetical beings.

What is the probability that any particular one of them exists?

How much effort should you devote to contemplating the existence of each particular one of them?

I think the answer to the first question is: it depends on the characteristics of the hypothesized being or species. For the second question: however much time you want to devote on contemplating the existence of each being or species.

It does not follow that none of the species from set #2 exists, nor does it follow that considering the possibility of their existence is a waste of effort. It certainly does not follow that NO species exists which we have not yet observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have brought up a very bad analogy. There are plenty of examples of species, and there are obviously lots more that exist but are not discovered.

But on the other hand no-one has ever had any legitimate reason to think anything even remotely resembling a `god' exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i get to define "legitimate reason" and
if i get to define "god" then
i can contradict you.

ray

[madnak]

Struck me as the former. You should know I'm usually on the opposite side when it's the latter.

This is right on the heels of the "it's stupid to talk about Christianity" thread, and thylacine's posts seem to be all about the contemplation - not the support.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah to tie it in with the whole "no doubt" vs. "don't know" game, which is what I was relating my post to.

Just because you don't know whether something exists should not mean you have "no doubt" that it does not exist. They are two different, and mutually exclusive, statements as madnak said.

If a scientist said "I don't know whether or not X exists" therefore "X does not exist and is not worthy of my consideration", he would be an absolutely terrible scientist... and wouldn't have a job for long.

[/ QUOTE ]

For EVERY X?

One of the skills of a good scientist is to figure out which X are worth considering.

You need to think about this, and read the other threads on this as well. You are definitely not getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

consider these two x's:

x1 - let this universe be an instance of an information deprivation experiment.
x2 - let the level of deprivation be severe (large set of unknowns).

how important is it to consider the effects of the knowledge deprivation upon the minds of the human inhabitants?

i offer as precedence any and all scientific experiments ever conducted as a means to study the effects of deprivation.

btw there is an ot scripture that indicates what i just described

ray

[CaseS87]

--at least one god
1/infinite

--one and only one god
1/infinite

--Christian God
1/infinite

--Muslim God
1/infinite

--an undetectable pink elephant that follows you around
1/infinite

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely zero for all of them. No doubt whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, well that makes one of us wrong

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Hrmm... I'm not exactly sure if this is the proper direction but I will try it.

I think that, if God exists, nature must be a natural extension of God. By this I mean, as an example: if you see a painting, it is a natural extension of the artist. One can try to learn properties of the artist by studying the painting. The painting would not exist without the artist, and one can try to understand the painter through the painting.

I think that, hypothetically, if we continue to study science we will come to know God if she exists.. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive. God may, like those mathematical statements, be one of the statements of our system that can neither be proven true nor false. We may never get the "tools" necessary to verify the claim (I can't even begin to speculate what those tools are). This does not mean it isn't worthy of consideration (or that it MUST be false). We may stumble upon an answer one day -- just like that mathematician may stumble upon a proof to the theorem he thought was unprovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

matt,

i grew up believing most of what you just said; i still like the sound of it for sure.

your definition of god obviously holds that god constructed this universe. i'm willing to guess that your definition also allows for a very serious level of power and control (i.e. omnipotence) - if what i've said so far is not accurate then please clarify otherwise please consider this very important point:

you need to include something/anything in your definition about whether or not god intends for the inhabitants of this place to access god from this place - that is acquire knowledge and/or proof etc.

this has very much to do with what most of the atheists are saying in regards to the complete lack of ability to contact god or prove the existence of god in any way other than belief. they are not wrong for pointing this out and it makes sense that those who like access to knowledge would be a little annoyed at the decision of a god this powerful to decide to intentionally keep us in the dark.

i see only 3 basic choices here:

a) deprivation experiment - contact will never happen in this life because that is what god wills and therefore we only have faith until we die and return to the place where god is.

b) evolutionary prerequisite - we have yet to evolve the "nth sense" needed to make contact and until then we have only faith.

c) advent - there are unknown conditions that must exist on earth before god will return to this place (i.e. much of new testament theology deals with this scenario) and until then we have only faith.

d) other?

your thoughts?

ray