Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, that isn't how science works.Ok, so pretend X is the probability of a supernatural being existing, and Y is the probability of that supernatural entity having the attributes of God.
X + Y = the probability of God existing
Now, your spaghetti monster, which it appears you have attributed godlike attributes to, has several other variables.
First, it has an X value simply because it is the probability of a supernatural thing existing. It also has a Y, because you have given it the same abilities to create and change reality as was being ascribed to God. It also has an M, simply because "God" is given no form, shape, or composition, so there is no value associated with these. However, a Spaghetti Monster has form, shape and composition, and while those should be separate variables, M works here.
So, at this point, probability of God = X + Y, probability of Spaghetti monster with Godlike attributes = X + Y + M.
Even without going further, a Spaghetti monster is less probable than a formless, unspecified, God. Unless M = 0, in which case the Spaghetti monster is formless, and thus hardly able to be called a Spaghetti monster.
Now, you have further specified what this spaghetti monster is like:
it is located in outer space, lets call A
it wears clothing, B
a bikini, C
it chants, D
"I like pie", Eafter these variables are added, the probability for the described spaghetti monster = X + Y + M + A + B + C + D + E
The only way this spaghetti monster is AS likely as God is if values M, A, B, C, D and E are equal to 0, in which case all you have done is change the word "God" with "spaghetti monster" and thus rendered your argument moot.
Not to keep hitting a dead horse, but that question shows a sort of lack of comprehension about what probability is...
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.
Way to still completely miss the point.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.
Well, ok, God could have other variables, and with each, the probability becomes less. You didn't specify that, however, you used a ridiculous example and said it was equally as likely as the concept of God.
why must God have those attributes?
Originally posted by inimalist
Well, ok, God could have other variables, and with each, the probability becomes less. You didn't specify that, however, you used a ridiculous example and said it was equally as likely as the concept of God.why must God have those attributes?
No offense to Christians, but how is God any more likely to exist than Santa Claus? He is magical, does magical things and is surrounded by magic. Sure: he could exist, but so could my monster.
Because either the bible or the church or Jesus said so. And the bible (or was it the church) also said that the earth was at the center of the universe. 馃槙
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
No offense to Christians, but how is God any more likely to exist than Santa Claus? He is magical, does magical things and is surrounded by magic.
ok, you are probably right. The probability of a human with magical powers is probably more than the probability of God, what point are you trying to make?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Sure: he could exist, but so could my monster.
yes, you are right, it could exist. This is, in fact, the very same point you argued with me a few posts ago.
Scientifically, you can't say something doesn't exist, so all things are potentially possible.
Your monster could exist, as could an even more complex and less probable monster (give him a funny hat or something), it doesn't change the fact that it is much more unlikely than just the concept of God or that it is a silly example meant to demean and dismiss Christian beliefs.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Because either the bible or the church or Jesus said so. And the bible (or was it the church) also said that the earth was at the center of the universe. 馃槙
and there is no other way to interpret church doctrine other than the way you do?
BTW, how do you only quote parts of a post?
And secondly, all I am trying to say is that God is not guaranteed to exist. No one knows for sure, and no one will ever know for a very very very long time.
And how is my monster more complex? There are thousands of pages that describe God. Maybe not as "crazy", but still not exactly "normal".
But yes, God still could exist. But he could not exist. Rationally, God is a joke, but since when is religion rational?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
BTW, how do you only quote parts of a post?
when you quote a post, quote tags appear at the beginning and end of what you want to quote:
[ QUOTE=11259360][i ]Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall [ /i]
[B ] XXXXXXXXXXXX [/B ][/QUOTE ]
Just copy and past the beginning and end tags around the text you want to quote
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And secondly, all I am trying to say is that God is not guaranteed to exist. No one knows for sure,
indeed, the same however can be said for his non-existence.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
and no one will ever know for a very very very long time.
no one will ever know. The question is unfalsifiable
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And how is my monster more complex?
I went over this. Had you specified you were talking about the literal interpretation of the Christian god, then you might have had a point.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
There are thousands of pages that describe God. Maybe not as "crazy", but still not exactly "normal".
are you claiming that the only way to interpret the attributes of God is through literal interpretations of the Bible?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But yes, God still could exist. But he could not exist.
/thread
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Rationally, God is a joke, but since when is religion rational?
that is preposterous and bordering on prejudice. Do you think all people who believe in God are irrational or believe for irrational reasons?
Do you claim to have access to a universally absolute capacity for rational thought?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.
Regardless of which argument you lean towards, screaming "preposterous" is futile. On one hand, a God-like being is invincible, not subject to the laws of physics or the human imagination, and could easily exist without leaving footprints for you to see. On the other hand, a universe with endless time and space that fluctuates repeatedly and employs four different known forces renders every scenario--including the creation of life--not only possible, but nearly inevitable.
But since neither assumption employs a stable premise (that is to say, a God-like being is undiscoverable and an eternally fluctuating universe in unprovable), absolute knowledge doesn't exist.
As far as mechanical logic is concerned, I tend to lean toward the eternally fluctuating universe. When it really comes down to it though, I believe in a God. My reasons are strictly personal, and not subject to scientific review.
I didn't mean that Christians were irrational (sorry if that offended anyone) I'm just saying that faith is not that rational. Luther (or was it someone else) said that reason is faith's enemy. Faith is spiritual, not logical.
Most Christians are smart...most (phelps church), but they tend to not think that rationally when confronted w/religion.