12-30-07 show Joel Martin

[The Pair of Cats]

I was going to rant a bit on the atheism thing as well but it looks like it has been handled. In my personal experience I have found that there are a couple of key phrases that can alert the listener that they're hearing the words of a fool. Two of these phrases are:

Athiesm is a religion.
Science is a religion.

These statements indicate that the speaker can not differentiate between a belief, a logical process of discovery, and a religion.

Personally, if someone can't tell the difference between these three things then I'm not really interested in anything else they have to say. I'm interested in the paranormal, but I see no reason why someone who can't differentiate between a belief and a religion would be qualified to tell me anything about it. If they can't grasp the simple truths why are they speaking about complex ones?

Ok then. I am just interested. Gives us your expert definitions of the following.

Define the meaning of science.
Define the meaning of religion.

 

[DBTrek]

Ok then. I am just interested. Gives us your expert definitions of the following.

Define the meaning of science.
Define the meaning of religion.

I'm not the arbiter of the English language so my definitions are nothing special. The dictionary, however, is a reasonable authority of the english language.

sci·ence /?sa??ns/ Pronunciation Key - [sahy-uhns] –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Karl Popper would go on to say that anything that is not falsifiable is not science. That is, if something can't be proven false then it's outside of the realm of science. Saying "Jesus died for our sins" would be one example. We can't possibly prove that the statement isn't true, therefore it is outside of the realm of science. If I say "Gravity does not exist" on the other hand, this is something that can be tested and proven as either true or not.

Science also reaches repeatable conclusions by utilizing the scientific method. It is steeped in observation, experimentation, and measurement.

Religion, on the other hand, operates on faith. It does not require proof, experimentation, or repeatability. Under religion you either accept or reject the ideas at face value. You either 'believe' that god exists and behaves in a particular way or you don't.

re·li·gion /r??l?d??n/ Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Can the two be at further ends of the spectrum from eachother? Science and religion are near diametrically opposed (one being fact based one being faith based). To be oblivious of this, or worse, to actually think that they're both "the same thing" indicates to me that the person making the statement has a pretty loose grasp on what religion and/or science is.

 

[nikki630]

In the case of your ballerina vermin, maybe but not in the case of an omnipotent super-being who could easily hide it's existence from us at will or indeed proof of who's existence may require sensory appartia we simply don't have. That's the flipside to the existence/non-existence debate: god(s), by definition alone, would be smarter than we are.

That's GIANT ballerina vermin if you please

I see a problem with this logic, you are proposing the attribute of undetectability which there is no evidence for, to a being that there is no evidence for. To be blunt but hopefully not offensive -- you are making something up to support your premise that the existence and non-existence of god have equal probability.

But as luck would have it -- I forgot to mention that my violet Swan Lake dancing rodents are, coincidentally, also undetectable - go figure . Using your argument, that gives them the exact the same chance of existence as god and so are equally worthy of belief.

The difference being that if I told you I believe in undetectable, giant purple rats in tutus, if you are honest about it, you would think me barking mad, but if I tell you I believe in an undetectable omnipotent super-being you would think me perfectly sane. Yet -- the evidence for them both is exactly the same.

Try this -- whatever argument you would like to make for the existence of, or probability of god, change 'god' to giant (please don't forget the giant part -- its important) purple rats in tutus and see if you would accept it as proof of existence or probability of existence.

 

[CapnG]

That's GIANT ballerina vermin if you please

I sit corrected.

I see a problem with this logic, you are proposing the attribute of undetectability which there is no evidence for, to a being that there is no evidence for. To be blunt but hopefully not offensive -- you are making something up to support your premise that the existence and non-existence of god have equal probability.

But as luck would have it -- I forgot to mention that my violet Swan Lake dancing rodents are, coincidentally, also undetectable - go figure . Using your argument, that gives them the exact the same chance of existence as god and so are equally worthy of belief.

Ah but you've missed the key ingredient in my supposition: superior intelligence. When people have these discussions, those in the con camp (hardcore atheists in particular) seem to make their arguments based on the notion that god is some sort of mineral we've yet to discover, or a bug hiding under a rock that we've yet to lift up. God is a "thing" we can "find" if we just look hard enough. Most humans have trouble dealing with other humans who are smarter than they are, so the notion of a superior being who makes the smartest human look like a drooling moron is simply too offensive to their fragile human egos. NOTHING could be beyond human knowledge... could it?

Now, if you think I'm "making things up" to support this notion, let's flip the coin for a second: We (humans) can observe bacteria and microscopic life forms which cannot in return observe us because they lack the apparatia to do so. Does that mean we don't exist from their perspective?

The point is we're not discussing something that standard logic can be applied to because it supercedes it. The existence or non-existence of god must therefore be an equal probability. To say that "there is no proof, therefore there is no god" is at BEST an assumption, born of ignorance.

Now if we could only find a Babel fish, we could sort this nonsense out instantly...

 

[nikki630]

That's GIANT ballerina vermin if you please

I sit corrected.

Thank you -- I ma glad we got that straightened out.

Ah but you've missed the key ingredient in my supposition: superior intelligence. When people have these discussions, those in the con camp (hardcore atheists in particular) seem to make their arguments based on the notion that god is some sort of mineral we've yet to discover, or a bug hiding under a rock that we've yet to lift up. God is a "thing" we can "find" if we just look hard enough. Most humans have trouble dealing with other humans who are smarter than they are, so the notion of a superior being who makes the smartest human look like a drooling moron is simply too offensive to their fragile human egos. NOTHING could be beyond human knowledge... could it?

Now, if you think I'm "making things up" to support this notion, let's flip the coin for a second: We (humans) can observe bacteria and microscopic life forms which cannot in return observe us because they lack the apparatia to do so. Does that mean we don't exist from their perspective?

The point is we're not discussing something that standard logic can be applied to because it supercedes it. The existence or non-existence of god must therefore be an equal probability. To say that "there is no proof, therefore there is no god" is at BEST an assumption, born of ignorance.

Now if we could only find a Babel fish, we could sort this nonsense out instantly...

Darn -- I knew there was something I forgot. Those giant purple rats in tutus? , yeah..... they have superior intelligence too. Who knew ? In fact, they are actually a pantheon of gods and goddesses that created the universe to have a place to perform Swan Lake and then made us so they would have an audience. Too bad they forgot to make themselves detectable.

I'll bet you can see where this is going.

You are simply giving god attributes (making it up) that fit your argument as I am giving (making it up) my giant rats the same attributes. If I give my giant rats all the attributes of god, then they must have the same probability of existing. I can do that for the same reason you can do that for your god. Because the only evidence for existence of either of them is "because I said so".

To say that "there is no proof, therefore there are no giant purple rats wearing tutus " is at BEST an assumption, born of ignorance.

Let me make one thing clear -- I freely admit that one can not prove god does not exist, just as one can't prove god does exist. I also freely admit that there is a possibility that I am wrong (I said as much in my first post) .. I am simply saying that in my mind the probability of god existing is far less than the probability of existing.

Simply put, I think that not believing in something when there is no evidence to support belief, makes more sense than than believing in something when there is no evidence for it. Or even more simply put "because I said so' just doesn't make it so -- at least not for me. I have come to this conclusion using what you call standard logic.

You have said standard logic does not apply -- why? -- because you say there a being that transcends logic as we Know it -- what proof do you have of this? none. Again -- you apply an attribute to this being that fits your arguments. The whole basis of your argument is 'because I said so'.

When god can't stand up to logic, you simply dismiss what I say with "standard logic doesn't apply" . You invalidate my arguments with a wave of your magic wand -- poof they are gone -- how did this happen ??? It seems the god that there is no evidence for has attributes that there is no evidence for that makes that standard logic invalid . Well If anything I say can be invalidated simply by you saying it doesn't apply, then this discussion can not continue. I have no defense against the "it doesn't apply because I say so" argument

Oh -- and those bacteria, they have a sensory organ we can't detect that allows them to know we exist.

"God - I refuse to provide evidence that I exist because evidence denies faith and without faith I am nothing.
Man - Ah, but the babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't.
Poof! God disappears in a puff of logic" - Douglas Adams

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

b]God[/b] - I refuse to provide evidence that I exist because evidence denies faith and without faith I am nothing.

Sure, if you're only going to limit your imaginings of god to that of Christianity or whatever. Me, I would think him/her/it/they to be much more... grandiose and abstract than such as that. Whatever though... I don't think the "real" he/she/it/they really cares whether or not anyone "believes", but that's just totally my own guess based on what I believe to be logic.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Ok then. I am just interested. Gives us your expert definitions of the following.

Define the meaning of science.
Define the meaning of religion.

I'm not the arbiter of the English language so my definitions are nothing special. The dictionary, however, is a reasonable authority of the english language.

sci·ence /?sa??ns/ Pronunciation Key - [sahy-uhns] –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Karl Popper would go on to say that anything that is not falsifiable is not science. That is, if something can't be proven false then it's outside of the realm of science. Saying "Jesus died for our sins" would be one example. We can't possibly prove that the statement isn't true, therefore it is outside of the realm of science. If I say "Gravity does not exist" on the other hand, this is something that can be tested and proven as either true or not.

Science also reaches repeatable conclusions by utilizing the scientific method. It is steeped in observation, experimentation, and measurement.

Religion, on the other hand, operates on faith. It does not require proof, experimentation, or repeatability. Under religion you either accept or reject the ideas at face value. You either 'believe' that god exists and behaves in a particular way or you don't.

re·li·gion /r??l?d??n/ Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Can the two be at further ends of the spectrum from eachother? Science and religion are near diametrically opposed (one being fact based one being faith based). To be oblivious of this, or worse, to actually think that they're both "the same thing" indicates to me that the person making the statement has a pretty loose grasp on what religion and/or science is.

Cheers.
Thanks for that!

 

[CapnG]

Too bad they forgot to make themselves detectable.

In no way am I suggesting god "forgot" to make him/her/itself detectable. That would kinda preclude the whole "omniscient" thing anyway. I am stating that it is silly to rule out the idea that either a) we are incapable of descerning a gods existence AT ALL or b) that such a superior being may not have actively taken steps to ensure we CANNOT "detect" it by any means EVER.

And let's be clear here, I'm not talking about the judeo-christian god, or any hindu god or tribal diety or any specific god at all, merely the concept of "a god". I also don't rule out the oriental notion of "big G" and "small G" gods in which big G gods are what we traditionally think of in the west and small G gods are anything more powerful than humans but still less than a "true" god (after all, if we're not the top of the food chain, who says we're in the number 2 slot?).

You have said standard logic does not apply -- why? -- because you say there a being that transcends logic as we Know it -- what proof do you have of this? none. Again -- you apply an attribute to this being that fits your arguments. The whole basis of your argument is 'because I said so'.

Pardon? When did I ever say god(s) exist definitively? I said IF god(s) exist then they must be, by defintion alone, smarter than us. But not merely smarter, GREATER on every concievable level to the point of being inconcievable. A vast unknown quantity we label "god" because we exist in a world of finite concepts and we simply MUST name everything.

But the fact is standard logic CANNOT apply because it operates under the supposition that all things can be known or proven and doesn't include the possibilities I've already outlined several times for inherent ommission or deception on the part of beings more powerful than us.

When god can't stand up to logic, you simply dismiss what I say with "standard logic doesn't apply" . You invalidate my arguments with a wave of your magic wand -- poof they are gone -- how did this happen ??? It seems the god that there is no evidence for has attributes that there is no evidence for that makes that standard logic invalid . Well If anything I say can be invalidated simply by you saying it doesn't apply, then this discussion can not continue. I have no defense against the "it doesn't apply because I say so" argument

Now you're getting it! You can't expect a god to reveal him/her/itself on a purely human level for your particular benefit (especially under laboratory conditions). What are you (or any of us, or indeed ALL of us) compared to a god? And that includes your rodent friends since you've granted more and more powerful attributes to them, making them ultimately the same thing as "gods", which sort of invalidates your own arguments. It's certainly no sillier than some of the other creation stories out there...

Oh -- and those bacteria, they have a sensory organ we can't detect that allows them to know we exist.

No they don't. This is not some fictional construct, my argument could be applied to any real-world bacteria you like. We're above them on every level, we can study them indefinitely and even re-write their very DNA at our whim, by all comparatives we are gods at their level, thus by our level "real" gods would have to be exponentially more.

 

[nikki630]

b]God[/b] - I refuse to provide evidence that I exist because evidence denies faith and without faith I am nothing.

Sure, if you're only going to limit your imaginings of god to that of Christianity or whatever. Me, I would think him/her/it/they to be much more... grandiose and abstract than such as that. Whatever though... I don't think the "real" he/she/it/they really cares whether or not anyone "believes", but that's just totally my own guess based on what I believe to be logic.

Well -- I certainly agree that if I am wrong and there is a god, then it bears no resemblance to the gods of any religion we know of.

 

[nikki630]

In no way am I suggesting god "forgot" to make him/her/itself detectable.

Mea Culpa -- that was poorly written on my part. You see my rats -- they obey the laws of logic. I had said they had created humans to be their audience and had also said they were undetectable. A conflict I resolved by saying they had forgot to make themselves detectable -- I had in no way meant to imply you had said something similar.

That would kinda preclude the whole "omniscient" thing anyway. I am stating that it is silly to rule out the idea that either a) we are incapable of descerning a gods existence AT ALL or b) that such a superior being may not have actively taken steps to ensure we CANNOT "detect" it by any means EVER.

All true and I don't rule out those ideas. I am however saying that those ideas do not change the laws of probability. I still say that when there is no evidence for something the laws of probability say it is less likely to exist. If this is not true then my rats have as much chance of existing as not existing, and my rats are an equally valid belief as god is.

So -- let me ask this outright; Do my rats have as much chance of existence as god does ? And if not why not.

And let's be clear here, I'm not talking about the judeo-christian god, or any hindu god or tribal diety or any specific god at all, merely the concept of "a god". I also don't rule out the oriental notion of "big G" and "small G" gods in which big G gods are what we traditionally think of in the west and small G gods are anything more powerful than humans but still less than a "true" god (after all, if we're not the top of the food chain, who says we're in the number 2 slot?).

I certainly believe there are beings in the universe that are far more knowledgeable and 'powerful' than we are. As Arthur C. Clarke said " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The proof of this statement is evidenced by the Cargo Cults XXX.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/john.html.Does (change the XXX to WWW) . Being more advanced certainly does not make them gods in the commonly used sense of the word.

You have said standard logic does not apply -- why? -- because you say there a being that transcends logic as we Know it -- what proof do you have of this? none. Again -- you apply an attribute to this being that fits your arguments. The whole basis of your argument is 'because I said so'.

Pardon? When did I ever say god(s) exist definitively? I said IF god(s) exist then they must be, by defintion alone, smarter than us. But not merely smarter, GREATER on every concievable level to the point of being inconcievable. A vast unknown quantity we label "god" because we exist in a world of finite concepts and we simply MUST name everything.

But the fact is standard logic CANNOT apply because it operates under the supposition that all things can be known or proven and doesn't include the possibilities I've already outlined several times for inherent ommission or deception on the part of beings more powerful than us.

I did not mean to imply that you said god definitively exists. again poor writing on my part.

I disagree that logic 'operates under the supposition that all things can be known or proven'. Logic is a way to draw conclusions from observable facts or theorems that we see as reasonable( such as as parallel lines never meet). Those conclusions can change based on new facts or when theorems change.

You argument of undetectability presupposes first that there is a god at all , and second the nature of this god includes undetectability. Neither of which are FACTS and unlike the parallel line example there is no reason to believe they might be true . However, that there is no evidence for the existence of god IS a fact. It is also a fact that when something exists there is observable evidence of its existence. Given those two FACTS, then the logical conclusion is that it is likely that god does not exist.

Bacteria is a perfect example of this logic, if you had told people living before the invention of the microscope that such creatures exist, they would in all likelihood think you were daft. After some discussion you might convince them of the possibility of such creatures, but not the probability. then one day -- you invent a microscope. The observable evidence for bacteria has changed and so now you can convince people of the high probability of their existence.

I freely admit that there is a possibility of the existence of god. I simply see that the laws of probability do not support the existence of god..This is one of many reasons I do not believe in god. When the observable evidence for the existence of god changes, then I will change my opinion of the probability of god, not before.

When god can't stand up to logic, you simply dismiss what I say with "standard logic doesn't apply" . You invalidate my arguments with a wave of your magic wand -- poof they are gone -- how did this happen ??? It seems the god that there is no evidence for has attributes that there is no evidence for that makes that standard logic invalid . Well If anything I say can be invalidated simply by you saying it doesn't apply, then this discussion can not continue. I have no defense against the "it doesn't apply because I say so" argument

Now you're getting it! You can't expect a god to reveal him/her/itself on a purely human level for your particular benefit (especially under laboratory conditions). What are you (or any of us, or indeed ALL of us) compared to a god? And that includes your rodent friends since you've granted more and more powerful attributes to them, making them ultimately the same thing as "gods", which sort of invalidates your own arguments. It's certainly no sillier than some of the other creation stories out there...

Actually I CAN and DO expect god to reveal itself just for my belief and benefit. If there IS a benefit in believing in god, why would it withhold that benefit from me by hiding? Because this omnipotent being could certainly make itself known in a way that I could understand. Does it need my belief, my faith, for some reason ?

If however there is no benefit in believing, well then why bother ?

You say that we can not apply stand logic to the understanding of god, yet you try to do it yourself with your bacteria example. All we have is standard logic to understand life the universe and everything and if there is a god, and if it does want us to believe in it (for whatever reason), then presumably it gave us that reasoning facility so we could reach the conclusion that it is likely it exists. But it seems whenever one applies standard logic to the question of god you get the opposite answer, this is not definitive proof, but it does decrease the likelihood of existence.

Using your argument of "what are we compared to a god" -- then what does a god need with my belief and I'll take it a step further -- what does god need with a universe ? What can a universe provide the omniscient/omnipotent being you postulate ?

Oh -- and those bacteria, they have a sensory organ we can't detect that allows them to know we exist.

No they don't. This is not some fictional construct, my argument could be applied to any real-world bacteria you like. We're above them on every level, we can study them indefinitely and even re-write their very DNA at our whim, by all comparatives we are gods at their level, thus by our level "real" gods would have to be exponentially more.

Yes -- we can do all those things, but as you have implied -- we don't know everything and Ill go so far to say that we hardly know anything about the universe and how it functions. That includes life. So , how do you KNOW there is no sensory organ that allows bacteria to sense us? How do you KNOW that is true? What if we don't that the ability or tools to observe this clearly fictional sensory organ ? This is exactly the same argument that you have made for the probability of god. We can't observe it, but it might exist. Well, my admittedly fictional organ MIGHT exist too, even though it is not observable. And using your arguments -- even though I totally made up this sensory organ, its existence is just as likely as its non existence.

As I have said -- I have no doubt that there are beings far more intelligent and powerful than us. The might appear as gods to someone inclined to believe in such things, but that does not make them gods in the commonly used sense of the word any more that John in the Cargo Cults was a god. .

I will close with this:, if you continue to insist that 'standard logic' does not apply then this conversation has ended. As I said -- I have no defense against the 'that doesn't count' argument and it is a waste of both of our time to continue.

 

[David Biedny]

Humans know squat about the Universe. What we know is so much more extensive than anything we've figured out, and the discussion of God proves this in spades. The idea that we have even a molecule of a clue that we can understand the motivation of whatever awesome force is behind this Universe, makes me laugh. It's silly beyond compare.

Everyone get over themselves. In the words of Bill Hicks, "we're viruses with shoes".

dB

 

[Seth]

"we're viruses with shoes".

If we were drinking...cheers.

 

[nikki630]

Humans know squat about the Universe. What we know is so much more extensive than anything we've figured out, and the discussion of God proves this in spades. The idea that we have even a molecule of a clue that we can understand the motivation of whatever awesome force is behind this Universe, makes me laugh. It's silly beyond compare.

Everyone get over themselves. In the words of Bill Hicks, "we're viruses with shoes".

dB

Amen to that -- oops did I just say that ????

 

[David Biedny]

Humans know squat about the Universe. What we know is so much more extensive than anything we've figured out, and the discussion of God proves this in spades. The idea that we have even a molecule of a clue that we can understand the motivation of whatever awesome force is behind this Universe, makes me laugh. It's silly beyond compare.

Everyone get over themselves. In the words of Bill Hicks, "we're viruses with shoes".

dB

Oh, jeez, I meant to say, "what we don't know".

Oy...

dB

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The definition of "God" is in the mind of the beer holder.

 

[CapnG]

You argument of undetectability presupposes first that there is a god at all , and second the nature of this god includes undetectability. Neither of which are FACTS and unlike the parallel line example there is no reason to believe they might be true .

Untrue! IF there is a god the very FACT we cannot detect it insists upon the notion of undetectability. You're arguing against yourself.

Bacteria is a perfect example of this logic, if you had told people living before the invention of the microscope that such creatures exist, they would in all likelihood think you were daft. After some discussion you might convince them of the possibility of such creatures, but not the probability. then one day -- you invent a microscope. The observable evidence for bacteria has changed and so now you can convince people of the high probability of their existence.

Does that mean bacteria did not exist before the invention of the microscope? Now imagine if no one ever invented the microscope. Would their still be bacteria then? Our ability to detect something has NO EFFECT on it's actual existence, only on our understanding of it.

I freely admit that there is a possibility of the existence of god. I simply see that the laws of probability do not support the existence of god..This is one of many reasons I do not believe in god. When the observable evidence for the existence of god changes, then I will change my opinion of the probability of god, not before.

You're in for a long wait. Still, this is I think the core of our disagreement. As far as I am concerned the odds of anything existing must be 50/50 until I see some evidence of SOMETHING, one way or the other. Both sides make good cases and yet neither can substantiate anything so, personal opinions aside, when it comes down to numbers it must remain a tie as I see it.

You say that we can not apply stand logic to the understanding of god, yet you try to do it yourself with your bacteria example.

Well it seems you've got me there although I suppose what that really means is you and I differ in opinion on what exactly "standard logic" is. To clarify, if there is a god, then he can basically make shit up as he goes. He has the advantage of "waving the magic wand". In essence, there would have to be a "god logic" which would be incomprehensible to us.

what does a god need with my belief and I'll take it a step further -- what does god need with a universe ? What can a universe provide the omniscient/omnipotent being you postulate ?

First off, who said god needs you to "believe" in him? Not I to be sure. And second, how in the name of muffins do you propose I answer a question on a behalf of a theoretical omnipotent being?

As I have said -- I have no doubt that there are beings far more intelligent and powerful than us. The might appear as gods to someone inclined to believe in such things, but that does not make them gods in the commonly used sense of the word any more that John in the Cargo Cults was a god. .

I doubt that would matter to THEM. They might be aware of their not-so-god-like nature but they're unlikely to point it out to we talking monkeys now are they?

I will close with this:, if you continue to insist that 'standard logic' does not apply then this conversation has ended.

Then so it ends but for what it's worth, I've enjoyed the argument. It's so rare to have a non-flame fueled discussion about ANYTHING on the internet...

 

[ABR486]

I find most atheists to be dogmatic and close minded, much like fundamentalists. Agnostics strike me as much more reasonable, but atheists, I consider them to be the flip side of religious fanatics. Basically, I don't trust anyone who is filled with certainty and wants to tell me, "This is how it is." Those tend to be the most clueless folks you will come across.

 

[nikki630]

I find most atheists to be dogmatic and close minded, much like fundamentalists. Agnostics strike me as much more reasonable, but atheists, I consider them to be the flip side of religious fanatics. Basically, I don't trust anyone who is filled with certainty and wants to tell me, "This is how it is." Those tend to be the most clueless folks you will come across.

Hi ABR486

I totally agree with your sentiment about people who are so filled with certainty they think they know how it REALLY is.

I don't know if you are referring to my posts or not, but if you re-read my posts, you will see that I admit to the possibility of being wrong many times, likewise every atheist I have every met has admitted that possibility. As I said in one of my early posts, even one of the most rabid atheist I can think of ,Richard Dawkins, admits as much in his book The God Delusion. I don't think you can say the same for the most rabid believer.

I look at it this way, everything is possible, just not probable. Everyone in there own minds assigns probability to an event. For example, it is possible that overnight the earth will reverse its rotation and the sun will rise in the west. Possible, but extremely improbable and I would think most people would say that they don't believe that could happen. In the same way I think the existence god extremely improbable and so have decided for myself that I do not believe in a god or god(s)

Should some evidence or argument be presented that changes my idea of the probability of god, then I will certainly change my belief.

 

[nikki630]

Then so it ends but for what it's worth, I've enjoyed the argument. It's so rare to have a non-flame fueled discussion about ANYTHING on the internet...

And so it ends.

But likewise, I enjoyed our discussion and that it did not turn into a flame war was a real bonus. As you say very rare - especially about god. Thanks for the mental gymnastics, they made me reevaluate my beliefs -- always a good thing every now and then.

Stay well

 

[ABR486]

Hi Nikki. No, I wasn't referring to your posts, and looking over the thread I would agree you are quite open minded. All the best.