Possibilities, probabilities - what?

Confident Learner Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 99

There is a 100% chance that there is no such person as God.

Too often, activists find themselves confronted by those who desire an advantage. And too often, activists fall into the trap. "Scientists would never admit a 100% chance that there is no god, it's just that the probability is so minute. There is a 99.99999...% chance that there is no god..."

First and foremost, god is a concept. An idea. Not a theory. Following scientific methodology, you follow facts and produce theories. You do not dream up ideas and then attempt to interpret facts to make those concepts more real.

So, I can conceive of cubic-style planets following square lines around their cubic-style suns. Is there a minute possibility that planetary formation could produce such planets and systems? Could there in fact be cubic planets upon which even the atmosphere itself followed a straight line? Not bloody likely. Not a one in a billion chance, not a one in a tenduotrigintillion chance, not ever. It's a nice concept, good for comics and cartoons, but it is not a theory, and such an idea is not even remotely credible according to scientific standards.

The same holds true for the concept of god. The concept is not worthy of scientific inquiry.

So why does it happen? Why are atheists, rationalists, freethinking activists - why are men of reason kowtowing to this sort of ignorance?

It's a form of apologetics. A political play, a social courtesy. You allow your opposition a little wiggle room, tell them they might be right, in order to get them to do the same.

The problem comes with the fact that the religious masses are delusional. They do not understand the rules of the game, nor do they care. They want us to yield to them, and they are willing to exploit every potential opportunity to that goal.

Forget the games, and leave apologetics to those who ought to be apologising for their stupidity and ignorance. Those who are capable of rational thought and are willing to submit to reason need not apologise to them.

The concept of god is mute. It is not a theory, and there is not a probability of a deities existence. To even contemplate such a probability involves moving from conceptual to theoretical. The existence of deities and spirits are ancients concepts derived from our primitive ancestors, not scientific theories based on sound observation and research.

There is, therefore, a concept of god. There is absolutely not, however, a god.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Being an agnostic I simply state. "I don't know. That it is impossible to know either way."

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:47 am

But why is it not possible to know?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

KnoB wrote:

But why is it not possible to know?

You prove that every day of your miserable and worthless life.

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:43 am

KnoB wrote:

But why is it not possible to know?

sjc wrote:

You prove that every day of your miserable and worthless life.

You know, I ask you a valid question and you just don't even bother addressing it. How fucking typical.

I will ask my question again: why is it not possible to know? Please answer this time. Of course, if you fail to answer, I'll just keep asking. I'd really like to know why it isn't possible to know. After all, you made the assertion that we can never know if there is or is not a god (it's logically identical to your claim that it's not possible to know). Thus, you must be omniscient, since that's the only way to make the claim that we can never know.

George H. Smith wrote:

Religious agnosticism is predicated on the concept of the “unknowable,” and herein lies the root of its irrationality. To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions.

...

When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one’s assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable.

Third, to support the existence of the unknowable not only presupposes knowledge—it presupposes omniscient knowledge. Again quoting Branden:

"The assertion that a thing is unknowable carries the necessary epistemological implication that the speaker is omniscient—that he has total knowledge of everything in the universe and, from his unique vantage point, is able to proclaim that certain things are inherently beyond the reach of man’s knowledge and understanding."

While some things are presently unknown to man, it is never rational to claim that something is forever unknowable to man. There is no possible evidence that one could adduce in support of this claim. Any evidence would flatly contradict one’s initial claim, because it would entail knowledge of the unknowable.

From Atheism: The Case Against God

Please tell me that you'll actually respond to this, rather than just fling some non sequitur insult.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Loser.

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:08 am

And there we have it: sjc can only respond with a non sequitur insult.

Thus, sjc has conceded all of my points. That's just how it works. Everyone can see that I backed my claim. sjc just whined and ran.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

KnoB wrote:

I'm a hypocrite and a fuckwad.

Yes, yes you are.

BTW, everyone? What everyone? There is no one else here, retard.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

Dissident1 wrote:

There is a 100% chance that there is no such person as God.

First and foremost, god is a concept. An idea. Not a theory. Following scientific methodology, you follow facts and produce theories. You do not dream up ideas and then attempt to interpret facts to make those concepts more real.

So, I can conceive of cubic-style planets following square lines around their cubic-style suns. Is there a minute possibility that planetary formation could produce such planets and systems? Could there in fact be cubic planets upon which even the atmosphere itself followed a straight line? Not bloody likely. Not a one in a billion chance, not a one in a tenduotrigintillion chance, not ever. It's a nice concept, good for comics and cartoons, but it is not a theory, and such an idea is not even remotely credible according to scientific standards.

The same holds true for the concept of god. The concept is not worthy of scientific inquiry.

They do not understand the rules of the game, nor do they care. They want us to yield to them, and they are willing to exploit every potential opportunity to that goal.

The concept of god is mute. It is not a theory, and there is not a probability of a deities existence.

There is, therefore, a concept of god. There is absolutely not, however, a god.

I sincerely doubt that a god exists. But, we can't really force the god concept into a rational scientific box, because by definitiion, god isn't part of that way of knowing. As you say, "god" isn't a theory. God isn't a scientific concept. The notion of a god can't be approached from science. The notion of cubic-shaped planets is a false analogy since planets are defined and described and are a part of the universe that drives rational scientific approaches to knowledge.

I would also go so far as to say that thinking of the god-concept in terms of probabilities is silly. Probabilities are also part of a rational scientific perspective. God exist or god doesn't exist. I find the idea ridiculous, particularly since I subscribe to a rational scientific epistemology, and therefore am an atheist. Believers DO NOT subscribe to a rational scientific approach--or at least they suspend rational thinking when it come to faith. They have zero evidence, so they can't have probabilities. We have zero evidence, since our epistemology can't address non-naturalistic "things" so we can have no probabilities.

Dissident1 wrote:

The existence of deities and spirits are ancients concepts derived from our primitive ancestors, not scientific theories based on sound observation and research.

Where did the primitive ancestors derive them from? This statement doesn't go far enough in explaining the presence of the god-concept today. We already know that the notion of god isn't a scientific theory--that's a truism.

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:45 am

sjc wrote:

I'm a hypocrite and a fuckwad.

Do you really want to start this again?

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

sjc wrote:

I'm a hypocrite and a fuckwad.

Do you really want to start this again?

Children!? Please...!

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:09 am

What do you think I was asking in my question?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore