Poll: religon: a 7 point scale

[koichan]

the flaw with the "there is no evidence AGAINST the existence of god" argument is that if you try and apply it to any other fictional creature you'd get laughed out of the room.

just try it
"there is not proof that dragons dont exist, in fact most human civilizations at one point or another believed in the existance of dragons"
"you cant disprove the tooth fairy"
"santa is real until proven otherwise"

try it at home, its fun

How do you know God is a fictional creature though?

how do you know dragons are ?

How do you know they aren't?

does the fact that i dont know if they are or arent means that the chances are 50% for either options ?

In short, yes. There is no proof either side, so either side of the arguement is actually perfectly logical.

I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong and i'm very surprised nobody picked it up.

With no proof either way, the only certainty is the ratio is somewhere between 0% and 100%
Labelling it 50/50 is just lunacy

 

[bladeofdarkness]

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

But the argement against God claims that everything is coincidental.

What are the chances of a universe getting created by coincidence?
Multiply that by the chances of Earth being created by coincidence, and then the chances of evolution occuring and the human species becoming the dominant race by coincidence, and what would be the larger probability?

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

 

[Zombie_Fish]

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

? Let's backtrack a bit:

the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

You have just claimed that creation of the world/ universe was and wasn't part of the atheist argument.

Please explain.

EDIT: Well, seeing as you haven't responded yet, allow me to go into more detail:

You have claimed that the creation of the world/ universe is part of the theist argument.
And that the atheist argument is that everything about the theist argument is wrong.
So, I ask what does the atheist argument say about creation, and then you say that that's a different argument and that I shouldn't bring that into it.
So why is part of the atheist argument to say that "God created the world" is wrong, yet what actually created the world isn't part of the argument? Why is creation of the world part of the theist argument but not part of the atheist argument?

 

[Zombie_Fish]

We have no idea, because we have no idea what the probability of any of these things happening is.

Questions with two and only two answers do not default to 50% in the absence of any evidence. In a coin flip, you have evidence that the question will be resolved by a known physical object where one side is tails and the other side is heads--big difference in terms of available evidence.

True, but there are so many other possible combinations it would then be physically impossible to get a direct answer. In humanity's need for answers, we can only go with a fair average and base it upon theory, thus we need to generalise to 50/50. This need for answers is why we have philosophy.

Also, let's distinguish between the argument "there is or is not a god" and "I should live my life as if there is or is not a god."

While technically an atheist vs. theist argument is the former, in reality, it's basically the latter that is going on. Basically, no one is really interested in the former except as it impacts on the latter.

This I will agree with though. It is only through the former that we can come to a conclusion for the latter, but that is the sole purpose of this debate, so that we can come to a conclusion on the latter.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

We have no idea, because we have no idea what the probability of any of these things happening is.

Questions with two and only two answers do not default to 50% in the absence of any evidence. In a coin flip, you have evidence that the question will be resolved by a known physical object where one side is tails and the other side is heads--big difference in terms of available evidence.

True, but there are so many other possible combinations it would then be physically impossible to get a direct answer. In humanity's need for answers, we can only go with a fair average and base it upon theory, thus we need to generalise to 50/50. This need for answers is why we have philosophy.

We also have philosophy for the purpose of not allowing us to confuse our need for knowledge with our justification for the knowledge we claim to have.

We may 'need' to generalize to 50/50 but that doesn't mean it's a 'fair average': it's just an emotionally satisfying idea and shouldn't be part of any actually search for philosophical answers.

But if it wasn't part of any actual search for philosophical answers, then that would make some philosophical answers impossible to achieve. How can you come to a decent answer when the probability could be an infinite number of combinations?

Spoiler: EDIT

Well, seeing as this is still alive now...

 

[ChocoFace]

Actually evolution happens every time an organism mates and creates offspring. Everyone is slightly evolved from their parents.

I beg to differ. i know some people who have seriously de-evolved, if you catch my drift.

Anyways, im a 3.

There's no such thing as de-evolution. Nothing de-evolves.

really? i could've sworn that guy was an ape, though. Oh well-

 

[bladeofdarkness]

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

? Let's backtrack a bit:

the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

You have just claimed that creation of the world/ universe was and wasn't part of the atheist argument.

Please explain.

EDIT: Well, seeing as you haven't responded yet, allow me to go into more detail:

You have claimed that the creation of the world/ universe is part of the theist argument.
And that the atheist argument is that everything about the theist argument is wrong.
So, I ask what does the atheist argument say about creation, and then you say that that's a different argument and that I shouldn't bring that into it.
So why is part of the atheist argument to say that "God created the world" is wrong, yet what actually created the world isn't part of the argument? Why is creation of the world part of the theist argument but not part of the atheist argument?

sorry for the delay (was asleep)

the truth is i dont KNOW about how the world was actually created
so i dont have a specific argument to present about it

but i do know that the argument "god made it" is almost cetraintly false by default because it was created thousends of years ago by people who believed alot of other really stupid things about the world (that HAD been disproved)

hence the only argument i make, as an atheist, is that the theist aregument is wrong and that there IS no god
i dont claim to know the exact details of how the world was created, i simply deny the claim that the theist know
neither side KNOWS the answer behind the creation of the universe
but one side claims (falsely) that they do

 

[anNIALLator]

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

But the argement against God claims that everything is coincidental.

What are the chances of a universe getting created by coincidence?
Multiply that by the chances of Earth being created by coincidence, and then the chances of evolution occuring and the human species becoming the dominant race by coincidence, and what would be the larger probability?

I think the chances of a universe being created "by coincidence" are much higher than the spontaneous existence of a omnipotent, omniscient being with the power to create and keep constant observation of a universe.
The chance that a planet like the Earth would be created are fairly high, I'm sure. There are more than 200 billion stars in the Milky Way alone. On top of that, there are more than 130 billion galaxies. So that's around 50,000 billion billion stars available (probably a conservative estimate). You think it's unlikely that one planet would arise with the correct distance from it's star and the right conditions for life?(and that's only for our carbon based biology, there could be completely different types of organisms, perhaps based on ammonia)
Evolution does not happen through random chance. It works mainly by natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. You also assume that there's something special about humans becoming the dominant species. Whichever species evolves the ability to do science and ponder its existence is irrelevant. I'll admit that advanced scientific civilisations are probably rare, as it is unlikely that evolution would produce such an advanced race. But with the numbers available, and the time available, statistically you would expect such a race to arise at least once per galaxy. I could go into much more detail and write out the Drake equation, but I could not be bothered.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

sorry for the delay (was asleep)

the truth is i dont KNOW about how the world was actually created
so i dont have a specific argument to present about it

but i do know that the argument "god made it" is almost cetraintly false by default because it was created thousends of years ago by people who believed alot of other really stupid things about the world (that HAD been disproved)

hence the only argument i make, as an atheist, is that the theist aregument is wrong and that there IS no god
i dont claim to know the exact details of how the world was created, i simply deny the claim that the theist know
neither side KNOWS the answer behind the creation of the universe
but one side claims (falsely) that they do

Wasn't it the same thousends of years ago that proved that the Earth was round?
That light objects fall at the same speed as heavy objects?
That made and recorded the names of the stars?

You're basing the reliability of a claim on other claims. Bit hypocritical coming from someone who said:

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

The lack of proof counts as proof in itself.

Evidence, but not proof.

Snip

But the reason why I said humans is because I want to know the chances of a planet exactly like this one being made, by chance alone. There is nothing special about humans but I'm being more specific. bladeofdarkness used the chances of humans specifically becoming God's interest in his argument. Bear in mind there are probably hundreds of thousends more planets out there with civilization on it, God specifically having an interest in us.

I think I'm entitled to ask about the odds of humans becoming the dominant species.

 

[anNIALLator]

Snip

But the reason why I said humans is because I want to know the chances of a planet exactly like this one being made, by chance alone. There is nothing special about humans but I'm being more specific. bladeofdarkness used the chances of humans specifically becoming God's interest in his argument. Bear in mind there are probably hundreds of thousends more planets out there with civilization on it, God specifically having an interest in us.

I think I'm entitled to ask about the odds of humans becoming the dominant species.[/quote]

Wait, what? You're saying that there is extraterrestrial life, but God only cares about us? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

(Edit): Damn, I keep deleting the quote boxes.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

snip

you forget that that those who proved the earth was round did it to NEGATE the older claim that it was flat (and the one faith clang to)

as time progresses people learn MORE about the world and cancel out OLDER claims
the bible is full of older claims
newer info cancels out more and more of it as time passes
you'll be hard pressed to accept claims that gays cause earthquakes, or that the world was made in seven days (or that its only a few thousend years old)
or that all ceatures were made at the same time, in the exact form that they are now

and humans did not become the dominent species by chance
survivel of the fittest dictates it (fit =/= strong)
those who can adapt more, often by working together, are better fit to survive

evolution though natural selection is not something based on chance
the random mutaions are chance based, but the survival of those more fitting is not
to give an example
if you go a hospital and pic at random 100 patients
you'll get an assortment of people with varying medical conditions from the common cold to the comatose
THATS the random element
now have them all race in the same obstacle course (life) 10 times
chances are that the ones who come in the top 10 would usually be the same (or very close to the same) every time
because its almost certain that the wheelchair bound guy would be slower then the guy with a broken wrist or that the guy with crutches would lose to the guy with the bad cold
and that the comatose guy would never make it to the finish line
THATS the beauty of natural selection
its the non-random result, of randomly changing variants

 

[anNIALLator]

And what, exactly, makes us the 'dominant species'? Certain species of insect are much more numerous, have been around much longer, and have more functional societies that work towards the greater good.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Wait, what? You're saying that there is extraterrestrial life, but God only cares about us? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs

Need I say any more? I was talking about this claim when I said that. Seeing as he was being very specific about what God does, I think I'm entitled to being specific as well.

Blah blah blah

Please show me where faith clang to the theory that the earth was flat. (And here's a tip, don't say Columbus)

Also, how can you prove that the earth wasn't made in seven days? We have no evidence that it wasn't. The theory is perfectly possible.

 

[Superbeast]

And what, exactly, makes us the 'dominant species'? Certain species of insect are much more numerous, have been around much longer, and have more functional societies that work towards the greater good.

I'd argue humans are the dominant species as we have the greatest impact on the global environment and have things like science and philosophy.

I'd also point out that the common thinking is that we were very, very lucky to be a survivng species at all. Just in humanities infancy another ice-age struck, and nearly wiped the young species out (forcing many back from russia/sibera to nearly Africa again in essence). The fact that most of the natural predators were totally wiped out in the ice age/thaw meant humans could explore - and survive to reproduce - in relative safety. Being omnivorous and learning to farm propelled the species from nomadic hunters into societies and leading to eventual intellectual advancement and rapid expansion.

Also, had the dinosaurs not been wiped out by the meteorite then it's unlikely mammals would have ever advanced from small mouse/dog-like creatures that scavanged on dinosaurs' nests (as dinosaurs were relatively advanced organisms and more suited to the climate at that time than mammals were, thus preventing the mammal populations growing as they were out-competed in nearly everything).

 

[anNIALLator]

I severely disagree (To Zombie fish, not the post immediately above). No, the "Theory" is not perfectly possible. The laws of physics and observational astronomy show that 7 'days' is far too short a time for a planet to condense. When do you start the clock? At the Big Bang? When the atoms that will make the planet are fused in a star? When said star explodes? When the atoms for the earth first start to gravitate together? There is no known process or any evidence that a fully formed planet can be created in 7 'days'. There is no evidence that such an event happened. There is no other scientific theory about how the earth came to be. You can't say "God did it" because A) that is not science. And B) That is not a theory, either.

Here's a history lesson for you. Columbus was not the first person to discover that the world was round. This happened many years ago. The first (to my knowledge, I may well be wrong) person to figure out that the earth was round was a Greek mathematician called Eratosthenes who in 240 BC used two sticks and the distance between Alexandria and Cyene to measure the circumference of the earth with surprising accuracy (I think people suspected the earth was round before this). Anyway, he was one of the librarians of the great library of Alexandria - a wonderful nexus of knowledge and science in the ancient world. This beacon of science was sadly destroyed and it's last scholar, Hypatia, was brutally murdered in the street by a mob of Christian zealots.
There were other discoveries in the hayday of the ancient Greek world, by people like Aristarchus of Samos who taught that the earth went around the sun. Such scientific ideas revived by people like Copernicus and Galileo were denounced by the Roman Inquisition and by people like Martin Luther(asshole). People like him would completely disregard any claim that conflicted with scripture.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

Wait, what? You're saying that there is extraterrestrial life, but God only cares about us? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs

Need I say any more? I was talking about this claim when I said that. Seeing as he was being very specific about what God does, I think I'm entitled to being specific as well.

Blah blah blah

Please show me where faith clang to the theory that the earth was flat. (And here's a tip, don't say Columbus)

Also, how can you prove that the earth wasn't made in seven days? We have no evidence that it wasn't. The theory is perfectly possible.

the earth being flat was still the dominate theory even in the middle ages (when Christianity ruled)

and we know that the age of the earth is not thousends of years old
we also know that the earth started out as a flaming fireball that cooled down over a very long time (its still cooling down, thats part of the reasons for earthquakes)
see anNIALLator's post for a better explanation

and please stop making the "you cant prove that it isnt" argument
thats not an argument at all, its an Ad hominem type logical fallacy
so long as the asserter has not produced the evidence to support their claims, no evidence is required to disprove it

 

[anNIALLator]

Yes, exactly. It's not up to us to disprove you, the burden of evidence is on the person with the extraordinary claim. Not being able to disprove something does not add any legitimacy to the claim, like with Bertrand Russel's teapot.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

Yes, exactly. It's not up to us to disprove you, the burden of evidence is on the person with the extraordinary claim. Not being able to disprove something does not add any legitimacy to the claim, like with Bertrand Russel's teapot.

i was so going to say that one
you ninja'd my teapot argument '8D

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Snip

I hate to break it to you, but I did actually know Columbus didn't prove that the Earth was round (thus why I told him not to mention it). That was actually proven long before when philosophers traced their fingers along the horizon to find that it curves. This view was generally favoured by the church as they favoured philosophy. The earth being round as a result became the dominant theory.

and please stop making the "you cant prove that it isnt" argument
thats not an argument at all, its an Ad hominem type logical fallacy
so long as the asserter has not produced the evidence to support their claims, no evidence is required to disprove it

I say that because if you don't follow it then you're leaving out the obvious fact that it is possible. This is an all mighty being we're talking about here, it can probably do whatever it wants, no matter what the physics behind it are. Why does it need to follow to the laws and restraints of the universe if it controls the whole thing?

 

[bladeofdarkness]

its a variant of Occam's razor
the explanation that claims to explain the most, while explaining the least must be discarded
the moment you say "its god, it doesnt follow the laws of the universe" then you really havent explained anything
its like saying "a wizard did it"
its not an argument, its a "just because"