A Math Magic God Problem - Page 3

PairTheBoard · #21 05-20-2007, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

Lestat · #22 05-20-2007, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How about simply stating that in His vast and magnificant creation, there is no reason to think that God takes a particular interest in what BluffThis had for breakfast this morning. Does that work for you PTB?

Matt R. · #23 05-20-2007, 11:52 PM

If you were boundless in your abilities and time was not an issue to you, wouldn't it equally stand to reason that you were interested in everything ?

Put another way, I really don't think the argument of "Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details. Therefore I have rigorously proven the probability of God caring about X is incredibly tiny" holds much water.

vhawk01 · #24 05-21-2007, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you were boundless in your abilities and time was not an issue to you, wouldn't it equally stand to reason that you were interested in everything ?

Put another way, I really don't think the argument of "Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details. Therefore I have rigorously proven the probability of God caring about X is incredibly tiny" holds much water.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, agree with all this, except I think BT! is talking about a SPECIAL interest. To the being you are talking about, does special interest even make any sense?

Phil153 · #25 05-21-2007, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the argument. You either accept that God, in his infinite creative power, created just one universe with just one sentient life form on a single planet, or accept that God created the situation I described above. And if he created the situation I described above, then the Jesus story is guffaw-worthy nonsense.

PairTheBoard · #26 05-21-2007, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How about simply stating that in His vast and magnificant creation, there is no reason to think that God takes a particular interest in what BluffThis had for breakfast this morning. Does that work for you PTB?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea. That's a pretty straightforward statement of the opinion. Why bring in all this high falootin talk about "probabilities"?

I once had a friend who was very spriritually minded. He believed in God and prayer. I once asked him what he thought about this idea of Providence. He said he thought there were some things God just didn't give a sh-t about. I suspect the breakfast BluffThis had this morning would be one of them.

PairTheBoard

Matt R. · #27 05-21-2007, 12:29 AM

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

Phil153 · #28 05-21-2007, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a different question. The original question is a very reasonable one. What is P(guy did actual magic) given that this magic can be duplicated? It comes back to historical probability, which is something that can be roughly quantified. Most rational people, theist or not, should come up with a very small number for P(guy did actual magic). David's simply trying to get some rough math to go with that number.

vhawk01 · #29 05-21-2007, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'no' interest people probably mean something more like 'no special interest,' but that could be me putting words in their mouths. But if God cares just as much about me as he does a hydrogen atom floating in Alpha Centauri, then there isn't much distinction between "doesn't care" and "doesn't especially care," is there?

Matt R. · #30 05-21-2007, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the argument. You either accept that God, in his infinite creative power, created just one universe with just one sentient life form on a single planet, or accept that God created the situation I described above. And if he created the situation I described above, then the Jesus story is guffaw-worthy nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's not your argument, then what is? I agree with your sentiment that if God exists and is the greatest being imaginable, then we are but a tiny fleck in a sea of universes. You seem to be asserting that it follows that God does not care about humans because of our insignificance. I think the opposite follows (that he cares about everything), and I think I showed why this is more likely.

How does it make the Jesus story guffaw-worthy nonsense?