Probability of God's Existence.

[Curious George]

Such a profound truth as 'it is he that sitters upon the circle of the earth' Isaiah 40/22 760BC did not come from nothingness. Such a truth had to have come from an entity which not only knew that truth but could project it into that primitive mind.

From our discussion it is clear that you accept that something can come from nothing and the how and why of such may very well be incomprehensible to our mere human brains. Regardless, that is no need to invoke god just as it is no reason to reject god. All that is important here is to realize that a) it is possible for something to have come from nothing and b) this still tells us nothing regarding the "probability ," (as used in the op) of what that something was.

 

[Evie]

From our discussion it is clear that you accept that something can come from nothing and the how and why of such may very well be incomprehensible to our mere human brains. Regardless, that is no need to invoke god just as it is no reason to reject god. All that is important here is to realize that a) it is possible for something to have come from nothing and b) this still tells us nothing regarding the "probability ," (as used in the op) of what that something was.

God is an entity of which we cannot wrap our minds around. In no way can God be referred to as 'nothingness'.

 

[Evie]

God is an entity of which we cannot wrap our minds around. In no way can God be referred to as 'nothingness'.

Something knew that truth regarding the 'circle of the earth'. And that 'something also had the power to project it into the mind of Isaiah in 760 BC.

 

[godnotgod]

Again that trickster has you chasing your tail. Even though you think she is not present. That is the most devilish trick she can play.

Excuse me. The only way that maya can be detected is with a mind not attached to maya. That mind is, by definition, free.

 

[godnotgod]

Existing things including life itself cannot be brought forth from a nonexisti g entity whatever that entity is. Existence begets existence.

Well now you have invoked the Law of Infinite Regression.

The Big Bang Theory states that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. All things came into existence at that moment. There was no prior 'existence' out of which existence emerged. There was no Time or Space for anything to exist IN. The Big Bang was an event in No-Time-Space.

 

[Evie]

Well now you have invoked the Law of Infinite Regression.

The Big Bang Theory states that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. All things came into existence at that moment. There was no prior 'existence' out of which existence emerged. There was no Time or Space for anything to exist IN. The Big Bang was an event in No-Time-Space.

Even Stephen Hawkins concedes that something had to exist prior to the Big Bang for a Big Bang to even occur. (Assuming such a Big Bang occurred at all. It is a theory.

 

[psychoslice]

God is an entity of which we cannot wrap our minds around. In no way can God be referred to as 'nothingness'.

First you have to prove god.

 

[psychoslice]

Even Stephen Hawkins concedes that something had to exist prior to the Big Bang for a Big Bang to even occur. (Assuming such a Big Bang occurred at all. It is a theory.

Yes like Einstein, they did believe in something bigger than us, but they certainly didn't believe in a man in the sky which made everything lol.

 

[Evie]

First you have to prove god.

A human mind is incapable of 'proving' God ' .But the ego of human consciousness will never accept that incapability.

 

[psychoslice]

A human mind is incapable of 'proving' God ' .But the ego of human consciousness will never accept that incapability.

I see it as the ego wanting to believe in that which has no proof, so its your ego that is talking.

 

[Evie]

E

First you have to prove god.

ven Einstein could not explain in an absolute way human origins and existence.

 

[psychoslice]

E

ven Einstein could not explain in an absolute way human origins and existence.

So what, it doesn't mean there's a god out there somewhere, come on, that's childish thinking.

 

[godnotgod]

Even Stephen Hawkins concedes that something had to exist prior to the Big Bang for a Big Bang to even occur. (Assuming such a Big Bang occurred at all. It is a theory.

Something did not have to exist prior to the BB for it to occur, partly because there cannot have been a 'prior', since 'prior' points to Time and Space having existed, which, according to the theory, did not exist. But the BB can have occurred WITHIN something, a 'something' that is 'no-thing'. In fact, it HAD to have occurred within no-thing, since no thing yet existed. That no-thing is CONSCIOUSNESS, which does NOT exist in Time or Space. The BB was an event in CONSCIOUSNESS, which is No-Thing-Ness.

The word 'theory' as used scientifically, does not have the same meaning as that used by the layman. A scientific theory, for all practical purposes, is a fact, such as 'the Theory of Evolution', or 'the Theory of Gravity', because everything new we throw at the theory, works.

 

[arthra]

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

If we had a strong solar belch or burst (Solar EMP) it could wipe out all our data and "memory" and maybe a future generation would suggest the likelihood of our existence was next to nil...

One EMP burst and the world goes dark - USATODAY.com

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If we had a strong solar belch or burst (Solar EMP) it could wipe out all our data and "memory" and maybe a future generation would suggest the likelihood of our existence was next to nil...

One EMP burst and the world goes dark - USATODAY.com

"future generation would suggest the likelihood of our existence was next to nil..."

You need to think that one over.

 

[paarsurrey]

OK this needs to be cleared up.

Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. A random event in this context is random sampling or random assignment.

Arguments about the probability of God's existence are nonsensical. Remember that probability is a measurement, and it is not the same thing as possibility.

So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist. If God does not exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God does not exist. So the argument makes no sense at all

Remember that it is possible outcomes; generally the debate is not about the outcome of God's existence, instead the debate is about whether or not God already exist.

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

Just because someone assigns a chance or suggest there is a chance to one of their beliefs, that alone does not prove that belief is or could be true. Probability does not define existence, it is tool with limitations, and is only useful when applied within its proper context and support by empirical data and rational thought.

There is absolute no probability of this probability, please.
The truthful religion makes it clear, very emphatically and without any ambiguity. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

My fault and the forum format as well. So


I am not slamming you btw i appreciate your stuff even if i at times seem obtuse or difficult.
I will try and simplify my other writing by saying there is 100% chance that nature exists. You may protest but, asking a question based on ken ham brain isn't actually a question. You asked specifically does God exist I said yes 100% proof God exists. Or do you think ken hammites actually even understand the topic of either nature or god and you agree with on anything?

There is 0% evidence of them understanding nature about 1% understanding god, maybe. If there is already 1% understanding to begin with how can one Have anything but 1% or less probability of the likelihood of the fantasy being true? It's a question that is starting out not even wrong. Therefore the question is invalid as its framed unless you agree with ken ham NER (not even wrong) On anything which I do no, t especially nature and or God.

My fault and the forum format as well. So


I am not slamming you btw i appreciate your stuff even if i at times seem obtuse or difficult.
I will try and simplify my other writing by saying there is 100% chance that nature exists. You may protest but, asking a question based on ken ham brain isn't actually a question. You asked specifically does God exist I said yes 100% proof God exists. Or do you think ken hammites actually even understand the topic of either nature or god and you agree with on anything?

There is 0% evidence of them understanding nature about 1% understanding god, maybe. If there is already 1% understanding to begin with how can one Have anything but 1% or less probability of the likelihood of the fantasy being true? It's a question that is starting out not even wrong. Therefore the question is invalid as its framed unless you agree with ken ham NER (not even wrong) On anything which I do no, t especially nature and or God.

"there is 100% chance that nature exists"
I agree with one .
Everybody, even the OP would acknowledge that nature, Universe, and the OP do exist, without going into the discussion of its probability and otherwise. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There is absolute no probability of this probability, please.
The truthful religion makes it clear, very emphatically and without any ambiguity. Please
Regards

That statement does not make any sense.

 

[David T]

"there is 100% chance that nature exists"
I agree with one .
Everybody, even the OP would acknowledge that nature, Universe, and the OP do exist, without going into the discussion of its probability and otherwise. Right? Please
Regards

Well interestingly a lot a of people are convinced reality we experience is subject subjective to the mind and the human mind is the objective determination of it.. In a sense yea it exists for many but it's virtual. A bit like a reality of a reality of reality on and on till they arrive at a reality that suits them. Silly but that mental phenomena is literally real.breathing takes a back seat to that.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The probability that any given religious debate on the forums will turn into an argument over God's existence approaches 100% with each new post.

Just a guess, but I don't think that one needs to be formally tested.