Thread: About this "99.99...%" thing

Originally Posted by wendylove

You said this

Your arguing that god can violate logic laws. This means abandoning logic as he would be doing something illogical. See in logic their is only yes or no, now god can't create the stone or he can't lift it, so were left with a paradox. A paradox means in logic that the things is non exsistant i.e. proof by contradiction.

You don't know very many paradox's, do you?

I will put this to you one more time, in other words so that you will not turn this around:

"A Man is so strong - infinitely so - that other men tried to trap him in a net (the paradox). Is He capable of freeing himself?"

If God can do anything, then violating Logic is one of them. THAT is logical.

You can either have logic or illogic.
Anwser the paradox, is it yes or is it no. It has to be logically one of them or god does not exsist, now youre trying to say god can break logic. But logic can't be broken again the apple argument.

Then you are saying that God isn't OP. Your argument is that an OP being can be caught, mine is that He can't.

YOU answer ME. Can an OP being violate logic? By Its very deffinition is is so.

Keeper, keeper, keeper. I typed 2 not 2.4. So your saying that one part of logic is true and the other is false.

2.4 rounds down to 2

Youre assuming god exsist. Now the omnipotent paradox is proof that god does not exsist logically. You're trying to say 2+2=5

I'm really wondering if you are paying attention to what I have said. First
a) An OP being can escape the paradox and
b) If God is OP is also a debat

Mathematics has nothing to do with this universe. 2+2=4 is true always, even if nothing exsist.

So you say. I'm not going to re-type my arguments. Answer them properly. And use my "Ask Me" thread.

I just proved using logic that god can't exsist.

I just proved that
a) You don't listen
b) You can't follow my logic
c) God can escape the paradox
d) You are deraling my topic. I have another thread going for this kind of topic.

Ofcourse greek mathematician were wrong that why they didn't accept they a atom exsist. And that why your not accepting that god does not exsist.

And you can't except that He does.

Now, are you afraid that "There is not proof" is a weak argument? If not, then give me your others.

You know, what this thread is actually about?

Originally Posted by Keeper

2.4 rounds down to 2

Not by itself, it doesn't.

"A Man is so strong - infinitely so - that other men tried to trap him in a net (the paradox). Is He capable of freeing himself?"

This is stupid. The paradox is reasoning and logic. Can god make 2+2=5, the anwser is no as it would be a contradiction and illogical.
Either god obeys logic or god does not obey logic? Which one keeper

If God can do anything, then violating Logic is one of them. THAT is logical.

Sorry keeper but no. If you violate logic then your action must be illogical, illogical is a paradox and paradoxes are not real.

2.4 rounds down to 2

Maybe in statistics, however in pure maths this doesn't happen. The number pi doesn't magically round to a whole number.

I'm really wondering if you are paying attention to what I have said. First
a) An OP being can escape the paradox and
b) If God is OP is also a debat

Well, say I am a paradox. Say I am 1=0 then you could argue I can escape my fate of non exsistance if I was all powerful. However, in what logical way can 1=0 exsist and in what way does being all powerful make you logical.

Now, are you afraid that "There is not proof" is a weak argument? If not, then give me your others.

No evidence is not a weak argument. You logic is god can do stuff illogically i.e. he can make 2+2=5, however this is logically impossible theirfore god must be logically impossible.

Somebody who can break the laws of logic must be logically impossible as he is not acting in the laws of logic. Since their is the logical and the illogical god must be illogical to break logic, illogical things don't exsist. I have a apple I takeaway the apple? The apple is still their in the basket. Now that will never happen, by saying god exsist your arguing that the apple is in the basket?

Originally Posted by wendylove

Maybe in statistics, however it pure maths this doesn't happen. The number pi doesn't magically round to a whole number.

Maybe we should just say "one God rounds down to zero Gods," and call it a day.

Originally Posted by wendylove

This is stupid. The paradox is reasoning and logic. Can god make 2+2=5, the anwser is no as it would be a contradiction and illogical.
Either god obeys logic or god does not obey logic? Which one keeper

How should I know? I'm only mortal.

And no, you are wrong. If God is OP (which you seem to have a hard time excepting as a possibility) then, by Deffinition He can do ANYTHING! Your logic be damned, the word speaks for itself.

Need I remind you, this thread is NOT about wiether God exists or not, but why you believe he doesn't.

Or do you prefer to talk about this? My link remains.

Sorry keeper but no. If you violate logic then your action must be illogical, illogical is a paradox and paradoxes are not real.

Why do I even bother arguing with you? Maybe I should take my own advise ...

Maybe in statistics, however in pure maths this doesn't happen. The number pi doesn't magically round to a whole number.

Yes. And? Rather, don't answer that. WE will simply derail this topic more ...

Well, say I am a paradox. Say I am 1=0 then you could argue I can escape my fate of non exsistance if I was all powerful. However, in what logical way can 1=0 exsist and in what way does being all powerful make you logical.

WE are coming from two completely opposite viewpoints ...
If you wan't to talk about this, then lets move this to another thread. Like the OTHER one I made.

Oh, and try to structure your sentences. I sometimes have a hard time following you.

No evidence is not a weak argument.

I didn't say it was. I even said earlier on that is wasn't. Are you even reading what I am typing?

You logic is god can do stuff illogically

This seems to be your staple argument. We get it: You don't think like me. However, if one person saw one thing as illogical, and another saw it as logical, who is right? I have given you logical arguments, yet you say mine are illogical. You can given me what you claim to be logical, and I disagree.

Clearly, we disagree on what logic is, and you seem determained to keep this OT.

i.e. he can make 2+2=5, however this is logically impossible theirfore god must be logically impossible.

It actually isn't, but I don't think you are going to listen, so ...

Somebody who can break the laws of logic must be logically impossible as he is not acting in the laws of logic. Since their is the logical and the illogical god must be illogical to break logic, illogical things don't exsist.

I said you don't have to repeat yourself.

I have a apple I takeaway the apple? The apple is still their in the basket. Now that will never happen, by saying god exsist your arguing that the apple is in the basket?

No, but you are.

Now, in Bold print, and enlarged (with colour):

ARE YOU GOING TO PUT DOWN THE REASONS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD OR AREN'T YOU?

We get your illogical argument, flawed as it is, but what of the others?

And finally, if you wish to pursue this issue, take it up here

Till then, stay on topic.

It's quite simple why. Because we weren't brainwashed into believing in gods, or because we somehow came to this conclusion because of various factors. I could ask you if you believe in "slicing a window with frogs". It's a completely made up statement. You don't believe in it. Why don't you believe in it? There are no reasons, you don't even consider the statement because of its seemingly stupid meaning, you just don't believe... Why would you? There are no visible advantages from believing it.

Keepr this isnt a decent thread, it isnt a fresh one. Its a redundant one. Stopmaking threads like these, you just wanted to make a thread in the religion section, its what you 2.
Stop ruining the forum and only make a thread when youve got something new or intersting to say.

Edit, make a thread based on your views rather than asking ppl fo views when you really dont wanna hear it.
Maybe we should all decide to argue the cosmological argument, and then the next day another theory. And one by one cover the theories for the existance of god and show how illogical they are indeed. maybe that eh?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I don't exactly not believe in the FSM. I believe in a Creator (for the same reason I don't believe there isn't one) who's nature I can't imagine. AS it is, however, the Creator I believe in revieled himself to Man long ago, and from this all other (or most) religions developed (there are other explanations to the similarities between religion, but I personally feel this one is right (could be wrong, though ... )). Anyhow, the FSM was a diliberatly made parody of the Creator, and well this may actually be God's nature, I doubt it, as it contradicts the old religions, which I believe to be the most accurate. (of which no doubt, you reject as authentic and/or correct). I realize I may have just opened myself up for a number of questions and accusations, but could we move this to my "Ask me" thread?

Anyhow, Looking back at what you said, I do not see any similarities ...

Now, back to what I asked: So, aside from lack of evidence, is there any other reason that you have for not believing in God?

I'm not saying lack of evidence isn't relevant (nor am I saying that is is not a good enough reason to doubt on its own), but I would like to know if that is it.

I see much more credibility in the idea that something with finite power and less than total goodness created the universe than I do in the existence of the Judeo-Christian style God. I see significantly more possibility in the former. However, I still think it is profoundly improbable.

My view on human emotions and behavior is that it is a bunch of chemical events happening as a result of evolution. People get angry to protect themselves against rivals, people get jealous because it drives them to try harder to get food or to hold onto a reproduction mate. People want to be adored because group adoration results in physical protection in the jungle and cave territories and even in modern civilization. I see all such qualities as evolutionary biology that generally serves as physical protection and reproduction probability. With that in mind, I have an extremely hard time thinking about an invisible entity having an emotional propensity to do something as incredibly difficult as creating a universe. Consciously creating the universe and its laws is something way too difficult for anything to consciously do, I think that the idea that such a being would ever evolve is very unrealistic, and I see no reason why the type of being it would take to do it would want to do it. I think there is much more possibility that the Tooth Fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It's quite simple why. Because we weren't brainwashed into believing in gods, or because we somehow came to this conclusion because of various factors.

And that is what I am asking you. This isn't a "Is there a God?" thread.

I could ask you if you believe in "slicing a window with frogs". It's a completely made up statement. You don't believe in it.

How do you know

Why don't you believe in it? There are no reasons, you don't even consider the statement because of its seemingly stupid meaning, you just don't believe... Why would you? There are no visible advantages from believing it.

And I am not asking you that. I am asking WHY you don't believe; what factors made you think so. The fact you have taken offense (or is that just irritation? I wonder what at ... ) lets me know you don't like to consider it (unless I am mistaken, which I know I could be)

Originally Posted by imran_p

Keepr this isnt a decent thread, it isnt a fresh one. Its a redundant one.

How is asking why people don't believe in God redundent? People make it redundant when they try to twist it into a "There is no God/Yes there is!/No, your wrong!" thread.

The fact so many keep trying to do so, without even (answering the question!) irritates me.

Stopmaking threads like these, you just wanted to make a thread in the religion section, its what you 2.

Religion is one of my favourit subjects. And how is this thread like the others I have made?

Stop ruining the forum and only make a thread when youve got something new or intersting to say.

Or a question COMPLETLY unrelated to the others R/S threads pops into my mind?

Edit, make a thread based on your views rather than asking ppl fo views when you really dont wanna hear it.

I do want to hear. BUT VIRTUALLY NO-ONE HAS BEEN ON TOPIC. For that matter, you didn't put down your reasons. Why not?

Maybe we should all decide to argue the cosmological argument, and then the next day another theory. And one by one cover the theories for the existance of god and show how illogical they are indeed. maybe that eh?

Maybe, but what does that have to do with this?

[edit] Thank you Universal. You at least have remained on topic.

I answered why in the first two sentences. I don't really believe in free will and the likes. So just because. I don't believe because... I don't. Why? I don't know. There is something I do know, that is that people who were brainwashed a child have more chances of following those "implanted suggestions" than anyone else.
Believing has nothing "rational" about it. We just try to validate the beliefs we nourish with some evidence or proof pointing in that direction, because that is the purpose of belief...to exist. It is some strange constant made by humans. Can you give it a purpose?
Probably a by-product of the brains simulation capabilities.

I will tell you why I don't believe in God. I think this should be clear enough.

I was born without any beliefs of any kind, as I imagine everyone is. Every belief I have has come from my experiences, and my ability to make sense of those experiences.

Eventually, I came to believe many things. That my mother loved me. That eating would stop the emptiness in my belly. That the stovetop could hurt me if I touched the flame. That walking was faster than crawling.

All of these beliefs came from my personal experience. Not all of them were correct, but they were all based on the best information I had at the time. Many of them were discarded when more reliable information came along.

Never during the course of my life has any personal experience strongly suggested to me that God exists. Any small hint of evidence could be quickly dismissed by critical thought. There simply were not the variables in place for the belief to develop.

This is why I do not believe in god. I hope that is easy enough to understand.

So basically you don't believe in the FSM because you believe in god as described by the "old religions". Is believing in the FSM because new religions are more reliable justification for disbelief in your god?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I am not referring to a God of a curtain nature, I am simply referring to a Creator.

....
I do want to hear. BUT VIRTUALLY NO-ONE HAS BEEN ON TOPIC. For that matter, you didn't put down your reasons. Why not?

I'd think that the reason that not many people are on topic is that it's hard to actively disbelieve in an undefined entity. I couldn't answer your question - I'm agnostic to an undefined god.

I would have an objection to a conscious creator - unless time already existed, god would not have been able to create (verb, needs two states, which needs time) anything. But since consciousness doesn't seem to be independent of god's definition, this objection doesn't hold to an undefined god.

But that's just me. I might be speaking out of my ass.

Crap, and here I thought the topic was about a LD technique that had a 99.99...% chance of working. I guess I should have looked at which section it was in.

Anyway, my answer to your question "Why don't you believe in God?" is: "N/A", because I do believe.

Originally Posted by badassbob

There is no possible way that there could be 100% certain atheists, because no matter what proof they have to disproove God there will always be the theory that God put the "proof" there as a test of faith.

Why didn;t this thread end here?

Thank you, Skysaw and Bonsay

Originally Posted by Mark

So basically you don't believe in the FSM because you believe in god as described by the "old religions". Is believing in the FSM because new religions are more reliable justification for disbelief in your god?

Only if you do believe in the FSM

Originally Posted by spoon

I'd think that the reason that not many people are on topic is that it's hard to actively disbelieve in an undefined entity. I couldn't answer your question - I'm agnostic to an undefined god.

I would have an objection to a conscious creator - unless time already existed, god would not have been able to create (verb, needs two states, which needs time) anything. But since consciousness doesn't seem to be independent of god's definition, this objection doesn't hold to an undefined god.

But that's just me. I might be speaking out of my ass.

Well, it is your own opinion. As for an identification ... I really couldn't help you there ...

Anyhow, thank you

Originally Posted by Michael

Why didn;t this thread end here?

Because it is about asking Atheists why they don't believe: What factors make you believe this.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I could ask you if you believe in "slicing a window with frogs". It's a completely made up statement. You don't believe in it.

Originally Posted by Keeper

How do you know

You're the thread starter, stay serious!

I think the answer that most people have been getting at here but have never really said, thus leaving Keeper unsatistfied, is common sense. If you have never been taught to believe in a god, then why on earth should you start believing in one when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that one exists.

I think skysaw put it best:

Originally Posted by skysaw

I think the point is that there is no evidence that there is a god. Realizing this, the conclusion makes pretty much sense.

Also, something that noone has said is we are so small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things... why would we have been created so small, and alone in the universe. Really, what purpose does the rest of the universe serve. What did (hypothetically) God have in mind for it?

Come to that, what is our purpose in life? Did God just create us out of the goodness of his heart? Why did he let us feel such emotions as greed and anger and malice, when he could have made us a race of perfect beings who never made mistakes and who never felt the above-mentioned emotions?

Originally Posted by Keeper

Only if you do believe in the FSM

Let's assume that I do. Does your god still exist?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Let's assume that I do. Does your god still exist?

Who can say? I believe you are wrong, and you believe that I am. If you believe in the FSM, how can I prove you wrong?

Do you, though?

FSM is so fucking awesome, haha. you can't prove it wasn't the creator. but you can reason that it wasn't. just like you can reason that there was never a point in which there was absolutely nothing.

I am an atheist at the moment due to a number of reasons. Perhaps the most reasonable position would be to be agnostic (I sometimes wonder) but I think atheism is the best position at the moment.

I believe that there is no evidence for the existence of god. So how do I get from this belief to the conclusion that there is no god at all?

Basically through an application of Ockham's razor. It is true that atheists cannot be certain that there is no god, but this does not by any means indicate that a god exists. Arguments from ignorance get you into all sorts of trouble.

Ockham's razor is the critical application of 'do not multiply entities beyond necessity.' Applying this to the god debate gives good reason to disbelieve God's existence. For example, it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator exists, but does not leave any evidence for its existence. It is possible, but when along such arguments things get a bit awkward, and it can result in us not knowing anything at all.

The flying spaghetti monster was devised as an example of this point. Surely most people would consider the idea of an all-powerful flying bowl of spaghetti to be absurd. The point is that we can't be 100% certain that such a creature does not exist. It could exist, and be actively hiding its presence, or we simply might not have found any evidence yet.

The point is that arguments from ignorance do not work. Knowledge can only work if it is conservative and justified. One cannot run into a gun battle with the belief that one's skin is actually bulletproof because it is possible that you possess supernatural powers - you would likely end up rather dead. One cannot say that pink unicorns exist simply because it is possible. When forming working beliefs, beliefs which are likely to drastically change one's life, I personally prefer not to start accepting beliefs because they are possible, because quite a lot of things are logically possible.

Challenge:

So, if anybody is trying to argue for a god based on an argument of ignorance (the argument that we cannot proove that god does not exist) then I challenge you thus:

You have no hands. You have no feet. How did I arrive at this conclusion? A simple argument from ignorance, of course.

If you are a brain in a vat, recieving every sensation and experience that forms your 'reality' through a variety of electrical signals, then you have no hands.

You cannot proove that you are not a brain in a vat.

Therefore, you do not know that you have hands.

Here you see the flaws of the argument from ignorance. This is why I am an atheist, even though I cannot proove that god does not exist. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulders of whoever is postulating a belief; it is not up to atheists to disprove god's existence, instead it is theists who must present measurable and testable evidence.

I haven't read all of the posts in this debate so far, so sorry if I'm repeating what someone else said.

Just to interupt with a statment (let us not change the threads subject): It is true we could just be brains in a vat, but how can you say that we are not? To assume that someone is an idiot for believing what you don't (I hope I have not made this mistake, and I pray I never will), but to dismiss a possability as unlikely is to possably dismiss the truth. The OR is - to my mind - a huge fallacy. The odds of any one lotto ticket winning is infentesamly small, yet one will.

Prove ot me that we arn't in a vat, and that it is unlikely. Prove to me that the Atom excists using only what was known to the Ancient Greeks.

With that said, I would like to thank everyone who has posted why they don't beleive here.

Just to check, though: So the Main reason most of you have is that it goes against your personal opinion of what is Logical?

Originally Posted by Keeper

So the Main reason most of you have is that it goes against your personal opinion of what is Logical?

Bingo. Personally, my opinion on that is pretty solid and not just some wild guess. I don't even believe in spirits (conscious minds without material mediums), much less spirits that create universes, and far less than that spirits that are infinitely powerful. (trying very hard not to bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster... Dammit, I did it again!)

Just to interupt with a statment (let us not change the threads subject): It is true we could just be brains in a vat, but how can you say that we are not? To assume that someone is an idiot for believing what you don't (I hope I have not made this mistake, and I pray I never will), but to dismiss a possability as unlikely is to possably dismiss the truth. The OR is - to my mind - a huge fallacy. The odds of any one lotto ticket winning is infentesamly small, yet one will.

The brain in the vat argument from ignorance is actually one of the biggest problems in epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge.) It's true - we have no way of positively disproving that we are brains in vats. The problem with arguments from ignorance is that it is impossible to disprove anything using their terms - there is always regress to a more skeptical scenario. However, if we were to believe every and any possibility - which are infinite - on the slight chance they might be right will result in the collapse of our knowledge system. Nothing would be able to be 'known' because we would be believing everything, and in the process forming many, many false beliefs. We would believe many falsities (type one errors) for the sake of a few limited successes (type two hits), which would only be due to pure luck.

To use your lotto analogy: suppose you buy a ticket for a lotto draw, the prize of which is $10 million. Suppose 50 million other people also bought tickets to the lotto draw. Somebody has to win, granted, and although your chances of winning are 1 in 50 million - very small - you cannot be 100% sure that you will not win. You can say to your friend 'oh I bet I won't win' but you cannot know for certain that you will not win. It would not make sense, though, to take out a loan on a $10 million dollar house based on the fact that it is possible that you might win.

In using the argument from ignorance (oh and sorry - that is the actual philosophical name of the argument, I didn't mean to infer that all who use it are ignorant or stupid, sorry!) the foundations of knowledge are eroded, because each argument (unicorns, dragons, spaghetti monsters, brain in vat etc) is just as plausible as the next.

If you believe every possibility - of which there are infinite - then you do not know anything because your knowledge has no critical value.

In rejecting arguments from ignorance it is true that it is entirely possible that one might reject a truth, but the consequences of doing otherwise - that is, using arguments from ignorance - are much worse. Much of human life is dedicated to setting some value on knowledge, and in fact scientific method is the best application of this. Science is often wrong, and in being conservative and skeptical, science often laggs behind in accepting new theories and can blind itself to truths. However, when faced with the alternatives, science gives us the best chance we have of ever knowing something.

Sorry I took that a bit off-topic, but I find it a very interesting discussion.

The main reason I have for being atheist is that belief in god would be rejecting rational and critical thinking. Rational, critical, thinking is the only way we have of determining the reality around us and arriving at truths.