Are you an atheist?

[Mike375]

I think you are both wrong on the odds: The odds are not 50-50 in favor of there being an afterlife (or a god, or a superbeing, or ressurection). The odds are 99-1 against for the simple fact that there is no evidence that any of these things exist.

Think about it this way. What are the odds of there being a heffalump? Are they 50-50? Sure, it is possible that there is an animal called a heffalump, and it lives in a remote forest or in the ocean or on mars and we just haven't discovered it. But allowing for the possibility that it exists does not move the odds to 50-50, it moves them to 99-1. The odds are 99% against it actually existing because no-one has ever seen one, but we allow the 1% chance that they exist because you just never know.

What are the odds that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, the tilt for the seasons etc and etc and etc and etc so as life can exist. The strange nature of water that makes it get less dense at 4*C so the rivers, lakes don't freeze solid. What are the odds that this strange planet also has by far the largest moon compared to the planet's size.......tides.

Some people would say that the evidence for a creator is all around you everyday.

Now let's go a couple of steps further. If earth is the only place in the universe with life what are the odds. That would a creator an extremely huge favourite in the betting stakes.

On the other hand if there are zillions of planets in the universe then that opens the door for extremely high odds that there are superior forms of life to us and logically that would extend through to a superbeing.

 

[Rabbie]

I understand that it's rather unlikely.

Look at it another way, you flip a coin and it comes down heads.
You flip it 10,000 times and it comes down heads every time.
You flip it consistently every day for 100 years and it comes down heads every time.

I supect it means that either the coin or your flipping technique is flawed in some way

 

[Alisa]

What are the odds that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, the tilt for the seasons etc and etc and etc and etc so as life can exist. The strange nature of water that makes it get less dense at 4*C so the rivers, lakes don't freeze solid. What are the odds that this strange planet also has by far the largest moon compared to the planet's size.......tides.

It is hard to say, but the odds are probably poor: We don't know the process by which the universe formed, but going on the hypothesis that there have been many many big bang events, that would provide a potentially large number of events in which a universe with planets was created. If the number of big bang events were large, and given that we already know that the galaxy is enormous, then it was only a matter of time (possibly trillions of years?) before the earth was created. The fact that there is only one earth actually supports this reasoning - if earth were instead "created" by a "creator", then it wouldn't make any sense that there is only one planet with life on it. An all powerful creator could have created as many life supporting planets as he wanted.

Now let's go a couple of steps further. If earth is the only place in the universe with life what are the odds. That would a creator an extremely huge favourite in the betting stakes.

On the other hand if there are zillions of planets in the universe then that opens the door for extremely high odds that there are superior forms of life to us and logically that would extend through to a superbeing.

I think that given the size of the galaxy, it is entirely possible that there are life forms on other planets, and that some of those life forms may be more "advanced" (a pretty subjective term) than us. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the odds of there being some "superbeing" out there that designed our universe.

 

[Mike375]

The fact that there is only one earth actually supports this reasoning - if earth were instead "created" by a "creator", then it wouldn't make any sense that there is only one planet with life on it. An all powerful creator could have created as many life supporting planets as he wanted..

Not so. If we are the only the ones then the Bible snaps into gear. Also, a being that cold create the universe is such that we not even begin to establish his/hers/its reasons.

Actually, my general belief is that there are levels of superior beings and one of the might have done solar system but that was the extent of his horsepower.

I think that given the size of the galaxy, it is entirely possible that there are life forms on other planets, and that some of those life forms may be more "advanced" (a pretty subjective term) than us. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the odds of there being some "superbeing" out there that designed our universe.

Try to imagine a life form that is as far above us as we are above the ant or bacteria.

 

[Rich]

7 billion percent?

You can't have more than 100% though, can you?

 

[Alisa]

Not so. If we are the only the ones then the Bible snaps into gear. Also, a being that cold create the universe is such that we not even begin to establish his/hers/its reasons.

Actually, my general belief is that there are levels of superior beings and one of the might have done solar system but that was the extent of his horsepower.



Try to imagine a life form that is as far above us as we are above the ant or bacteria.

That is so illogical. If the earth was created naturally, not designed, then the odds would be small that a planet such as earth would ever come to be. If the odds were small, then you would expect there to be no earths, or very few. Therefore, the fact that we only know of one earth supports the hypothesis that the odds of the earth occuring naturally are very small.

There is a being so powerful that it can create a whole universe, and 8 or 9 planets, and populate one of the planets, but THEN it runs out of energy? Are you kidding me?

 

[Alisa]

You can't have more than 100% though, can you?

That's what I was thinking . . .

 

[Mike375]

That is so illogical. If the earth was created naturally, not designed, then the odds would be small that a planet such as earth would ever come to be. If the odds were small, then you would expect there to be no earths, or very few. Therefore, the fact that we only know of one earth supports the hypothesis that the odds of the earth occuring naturally are very small.

There is a being so powerful that it can create a whole universe, and 8 or 9 planets, and populate one of the planets, but THEN it runs out of energy? Are you kidding me?

You did nor read my post. I said I think there are different levels of superbeings and one of them did the earth etc but that was his limit. Not the same fellow that kicked off the universe.

 

[Alisa]

You did nor read my post. I said I think there are different levels of superbeings and one of them did the earth etc but that was his limit. Not the same fellow that kicked off the universe.

While I respect your right to think that there are different "levels of superbeings", I stand by my original point, which is that the odds are against our universe having been designed by anyone, god, superbeing, or junior superbeing, therefore, it only takes faith to think that our universe was designed by someone, while it does not take faith to think that it probably wasn't.

 

[Mike375]

While I respect your right to think that there are different "levels of superbeings", I stand by my original point, which is that the odds are against our universe having been designed by anyone, god, superbeing, or junior superbeing, therefore, it only takes faith to think that our universe was designed by someone, while it does not take faith to think that it probably wasn't.

This all really like reading the racing form to pick which horse to bet on. We basically have the same data/experiences and go from there.

But as I said at the start of the thread I am an agnostic, I just don't know. For the last few years my leaning has been to various levels of superbeings.

 

[Alisa]

This all really like reading the racing form to pick which horse to bet on. We basically have the same data/experiences and go from there.

But as I said at the start of the thread I am an agnostic, I just don't know. For the last few years my leaning has been to various levels of superbeings.

Ofcourse we don't know - if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The point is, why bet on a horse that hasn't shown up to the track?

 

[Pauldohert]

I think you are both wrong on the odds: The odds are not 50-50 in favor of there being an afterlife (or a god, or a superbeing, or ressurection). The odds are 99-1 against for the simple fact that there is no evidence that any of these things exist.

Think about it this way. What are the odds of there being a heffalump? Are they 50-50? Sure, it is possible that there is an animal called a heffalump, and it lives in a remote forest or in the ocean or on mars and we just haven't discovered it. But allowing for the possibility that it exists does not move the odds to 50-50, it moves them to 99-1. The odds are 99% against it actually existing because no-one has ever seen one, but we allow the 1% chance that they exist because you just never know.

I never said they were definately 50/50 I just said that the probability remained unchanged that an afterlife with no return existed. Cos the evidence that noone has returned - doesn't affect it at all. So if it was 50/50 before the "evidence", cos the evidence is useless its still 50/50 afterwards.


I suppose the actual probability would be determined by how you view the evidence, and because the nature of the question calls into doubt the validity of science, or is based on abelief system other than science. I guess the actual probability is hard/impossible to work out.

For what its worth.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

On the hefflump argument, the evidence required is all within accepted scientific boundaries, ie we are accepting you would maybe want to see a footprint. I don't think not seeing a footprint points either way to there being a God, its differnat.

 

[Alisa]

I never said they were definately 50/50 I just said that the probability remained unchanged that an afterlife with no return existed. Cos the evidence that noone has returned - doesn't affect it at all. So if it was 50/50 before the "evidence", cos the evidence is useless its still 50/50 afterwards.


I suppose the actual probability would be determined by how you view the evidence, and because the nature of the question calls into doubt the validity of science, or is based on abelief system other than science. I guess the actual probability is hard/impossible to work out.

For what its worth.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

On the hefflump argument, the evidence required is all within accepted scientific boundaries, ie we are accepting you would maybe want to see a footprint. I don't think not seeing a footprint points either way to there being a God, its differnat.

You know that story where the guy asks why god abandoned him (because there was only one set of foot prints in the sand), and god says that's when I was carrying you? To me that is a perfect example of how the absence of evidence, in this case footprints, is completely twisted around to mean the exact opposite of what a lack of evidence really means. The simplest and most likely, although not the only, explanation when there is no evidence is that the thing you are looking for evidence OF does not exist.

Oh, and your link is very cute. But he starts from a false hypothesis:

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

Assuming that the odds start out at 50-50 is false. There are a lot of other false things he gets into after that, but after starting out with an invalid assumption makes it pretty pointless to go any further.

 

[Mike375]

Ofcourse we don't know - if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The point is, why bet on a horse that hasn't shown up to the track?

Well I guess that is where we differ. To my eyes the superbeing's footprints are all over the place for all to see

 

[Rich]

Well I guess that is where we differ. To my eyes the superbeing's footprints are all over the place for all to see

You're getting confused with a Yeti...............

 

[Mike375]

You're getting confused with a Yeti...............

You could be right

 

[Alisa]

Well I guess that is where we differ. To my eyes the superbeing's footprints are all over the place for all to see

You seem to be referring to complexity and/or rarity - there is something complex and rare, some superbeing must have designed it. But just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it was designed.

People used to think that god made the sun rise too, before they learned that the earth was spinning. People used to think lightning was god getting angry before they learned about static electricity.

Now that science has explained most basic physical laws, people have had to reduce their concept of the scope of god's interference in the world. Instead of seeing god's actions in the tide, since we now know it is the moon that causes the tides, now people see god's actions in setting up the system that allows the moon to create the tides.

But that is a losing game - if we only see "god's footprints" through the gaps in our scientific knowledge, and never along side it, then every advance for science is a loss for "god". Now if someone could point out one scenario where we have a good scientific understanding and at the same time see "god's footprints", then I will be impressed.

 

[Mike375]

You seem to be referring to complexity and/or rarity - there is something complex and rare, some superbeing must have designed it. But just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it was designed.

People used to think that god made the sun rise too, before they learned that the earth was spinning. People used to think lightning was god getting angry before they learned about static electricity.

Now that science has explained most basic physical laws, people have had to reduce their concept of the scope of god's interference in the world. Instead of seeing god's actions in the tide, since we now know it is the moon that causes the tides, now people see god's actions in setting up the system that allows the moon to create the tides.

But that is a losing game - if we only see "god's footprints" through the gaps in our scientific knowledge, and never along side it, then every advance for science is a loss for "god". Now if someone could point out one scenario where we have a good scientific understanding and at the same time see "god's footprints", then I will be impressed.

Anyone who thinks about this subject will have thought of the aspect of what was a miracle 500 years ago is nothing today.

But my feeling is that for quite some time we have reached the core of technology. Remember also that what is new technology is only new because of manufacturing. There was nothing about going to the moon in 1969 that was not well known for years and years before. It is my understanding that if you spoke to Hawking or could go back in time and speak with Hoyle, Hubble, Einstein etc there would not be much difference.

As a by the way I am in the group where Big Bang pushed me further a long the graph to the superbeing end of the spectrum.

 

[Alisa]

Anyone who thinks about this subject will have thought of the aspect of what was a miracle 500 years ago is nothing today.

But my feeling is that for quite some time we have reached the core of technology. Remember also that what is new technology is only new because of manufacturing. There was nothing about going to the moon in 1969 that was not well known for years and years before. It is my understanding that if you spoke to Hawking or could go back in time and speak with Hoyle, Hubble, Einstein etc there would not be much difference.

As a by the way I am in the group where Big Bang pushed me further a long the graph to the superbeing end of the spectrum.

That is completely bogus. Quite some time, meaning what, a few decades? That is like one one-thousanth of a drop in the bucket. Humans are just in their childhood as a species (as to whether they will make it to adulthood, who knows). Vast scientific advances continue to be made. Einstien's theories have provided a foundation for many more advances since his time. So after all of these fantastic advances, you are going to throw in the towel and say, that's it, there is nothing more to be learned from science, and no big discoveries will ever be made again?

 

[Mike375]

That is completely bogus. Quite some time, meaning what, a few decades? That is like one one-thousanth of a drop in the bucket. Humans are just in their childhood as a species (as to whether they will make it to adulthood, who knows). Vast scientific advances continue to be made. Einstien's theories have provided a foundation for many more advances since his time. So after all of these fantastic advances, you are going to throw in the towel and say, that's it, there is nothing more to be learned from science, and no big discoveries will ever be made again?

Of course there will be discoveries but I think we have the basic core there.

And again, advances beyond Einstein are really more about how to make it or the facility, political will etc to make it happen.

I am inclined to think a big break through would be to discover what causes gravity. But I guess the the big real crunches are infinity or creating something from nothing.

I often think if we had some extra sense the answer might be obvious. Imagine if the population of the earth died out and aliens arrived and these aliens did not have the sense of sight. What a mystery windows would be. Imagine trying to work out why buildings, cars etc were purposely made with much weaker sections