God and Free Will

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea.

I think that's always the correct answer to bootstrapping questions

[/ QUOTE ]

An algorithmic approach will often do in normal cases, but these omni-whatever ones are tough. It's hard to look omni if you have to go through a short pants stage.

luckyme

[spoohunter]

Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence', to answer your question.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 possibilities:

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Is that you GeorgeW?
I'm often suspecious of black-white dichotomies as the lead-in to an issue. ( not that it can't prove out, I'm just sorta sigh and say... gawwliee can't there be at least 3 options).
Fortunately, in this case there seems other approaches.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a more interesting question is how can a supposedly "open-minded" atheist consider all sorts of unprovable hypotheses explaining the origin of our universe (infinite # of universes, "spontaneous" big bang from nothingness... whatever). Yet when considering the possibility of a God, they say "Ehh, anything but that one."

[/ QUOTE ] I have asked many times for evidence of this God, and i never seem to get any but hersey, and prophesy, and personal experience. The 03 god is by far the most extraordinary claim I've ever heard in my life. Something from nothing, I realy have no idea about the properties of nothings. So while I certainly find it extraordinary, I'm not all that shocked. However the most complex being fathomable posited to have always been arranged in that fashion just boggles my mind. Very complex systems, nah the ultimate complex system to have always been for no reason sounds more like sweet fantasy than anything real. I also personaly don't like to discuss the very unliklyness with people because I think it borders on unethical to do so. Unless of course you have the care and time to replace what is useful(e.g. morality..) about religion. I have tried a couple times to get a conversation going about just what is useful about religion. It appears that both sides do not wish to discuss the benefits of religion. Theists because they think my intent is to belittle them, and/or because they don't want to have anything to do with the thought that their theism is a means to get things. And atheists don't want to discuss it because they'd rather belittle the benefits of religion than give them merit.

But to answer your question, it's because although it's unproven there is lots of evidence, and not much evidence for god.

Oh and unreasonalble people to tend to get on my nerves also. I try my best to understand that at one point in time I didn't know what I know either, and be as understanding as I can about that.

[Matt R.]

What? Any possibility that does not include "God created our universe" is included in my second option. There is no third option based on how I defined it. If you want to split it up into more options, go right ahead. But that would still leave option number 1 -- and there would be no reason to dismiss it over other unprovable (all) hypotheses.

[Matt R.]

I keep hearing the word "evidence". The problem is that science is simply about understanding and classifying physical phenomena. It will not and cannot ever make claims regarding something such as God, or things which exist beyond where we can observe and experiment.

Just because we can see some tiny structures in an electron microscope and name them molecules, or smash atoms together and see little blips on a screen and call them quarks, doesn't mean we automatically know why they are there in the first place. If God DID create the universe, wouldn't we still be able to make observations and create our scientific theories? Does our universe have to be "magical" and without logic or science for God to exist? Of course not. Just because we can make observations and try to understand our universe does not mean this is "evidence" against some type of God.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Any possibility that does not include "God created our universe" is included in my second option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to help chez get his boots on right now, but here's one scenario to mull - I have a daughter that discovered the cure for cancer. I paid for her medical training. Don't I get any credit?

Actually, a version of this is what theists were forced into after Darwin ( but I'm not referring to that, just secondary and joint efforts and ...)

oh. remember I said that there are times that black-white is the state, just that I'm awfully suspicious of it as a premise.

luckyme

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a more interesting question is how can a supposedly "open-minded" atheist consider all sorts of unprovable hypotheses explaining the origin of our universe (infinite # of universes, "spontaneous" big bang from nothingness... whatever). Yet when considering the possibility of a God, they say "Ehh, anything but that one."

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really quite simple. The as of now unprovable hypotheses about the possible origins of the universe are plausible extensions of things that are proven (under a standard of preponderance of evidence).

On the other hand there hasnt been a single piece of evidence presented for the existence of god. Therefore including that possiblity adds an implausible, unproven and unnecessary layer on top of those other hypotheses.

Show me any way in which god is plausible, necessary or any evidence of his existence, and I will consider it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It will not and cannot ever make claims regarding something such as God,

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless claims for god go against observed fact, other than that, no, science is not into the supernatural by definition.
[ QUOTE ]
or things which exist beyond where we can observe and experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darn,where the H were you during the "exist" discussion. Does something exist if we can't observe it and it doesn't show itself by experiment. What does that rule out of 'exist' then, it certainly qualifies elves.

luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence' ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about your belief in the principle of preponderance of evidence?