Very true and I agree, billions of people can be wrong however if you have no evidence to show that these people are wrong you have a collective witness that bears to the truth and this in and of itself is evidence. I of course disagree to the claims of people making these things up. This is simply your opinion thay you cannot prove.
And if all of these people agreed on the particulars, you would have a point. But they don't. And *that* shifts the evidence to it simply being something made up and/or people conditioning themselves into belief. I don't agree that there is a 'collective witness' because there are simply too many disagreements between those in the 'collective'.
if it was a real being, as opposed to self-deception, I would expect much more consistency around the world and there simply wouldn't be the diversity of religions. Once again, they cannot all be correct, but they *can* all be wrong. And the diversity suggests exactly that.
Well that is not true. People do indeed agree on the basic properties of God this is called religion. Of course not all religions agree together. Yet this does not prove that there is no a religion that has got it right now does it? Keep in mind I have never said all religions are right either. Many contradict each other. However a contradiction does not prove or disprove that God is real or not real and that God does not exist.
No, but it does suggest that the strength of their beliefs isn't a marker of the truth of their beliefs and it does bring into serious question whether *any* are correct.
Once again, if everyone were seeing the same thing, we would expect a consistency that isn't there.
I have a similar background but not in general mathamatics. My proffession leads me more towards biometrics but that said many of these models are indeed based on assumptions. Something that cannot be quatified with out them unfortunately as you would agree. I am sure not every assumption used in many mathamatic models are correct. However they do give us a general understanding of the probabilities and chances of things that are likely to take place IMO so are useful as a general guide.
Of course models have assumptions. That is how they arise, whether it be in biology or in physics. The question is whether the models are testable and give results consistent with observation. Those models that don't give any testable predictions can be discarded as meaningless and those that give incorrect predictions can be discarded as wrong (or, potentially, mere approximations).
I would argue that it is you who have failed as you have not really addressed any of the content of my posts to you. You simply hand waived the chances of life occuring through intelligent design and the probability of life occuring without it.
That's because I have not seen any calculation that is anywhere close to valid from either end of this. As far as I know, given the natural laws make life inevitable. We simply don't know, although the evidence we have is that life arose naturally (or, at least not by any processes that contradict the known laws of nature).
So, as far as I can see, the probabilities are exactly the same in the two scenarios.
Or have you proven that there is no God and that God does not exist. If we pretend we know all things when we do not we are only fooling ourselves.
Once again, I withhold belief until there is evidence and the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. This i s how it is in every other subject.
I would argue that the lack of evidence is simply a lack of evidence before evidence is discovered and revealed. I believe God will reveal himself to all one day but at that time it will be too late for the many.
And you can believe that if you wish. At this point, that is a hope based on a complete lack of evidence. And, if such does happen, there *would* be evidence for belief and people will change their minds (same as what happened with black holes).
Thanks Poly I am enjoying our discussion thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I'm enjoying it also.
My basic point is that people are really, really good at deluding themselves, even to the point of hearing the voice of Cher giving advice. I see no reason to suspect God belief is anything different. And, given the evidence of how much people can delude themselves, and that the *ways* to delude oneself align well with activities like prayer and meditation, the evidence as I see it points to self-delusion and not a perception of reality.
