Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand. Fortunately, we have more than close correlation (everyone believes except a minority).

You don't have this, as most people believe your god is wrong. If you can use the popularity of belief in god as evidence of god, then it logically stands that you must be able to use the popularity of dismissing a certain god and/or religion and/or denomination as proof of its non-existence.

We have fulfilled prophecy and the truths and reliability of the Bible to lean upon.

Such as? And if you take those things, then what of god's commandments for wanton destruction, blood shed, and death?

I understand how to parse correlation and causation. I also understand the difference between strong and weak correlation.

It doesn't seem like you do, the way you lean upon a correlation of popularity as evidence of existence of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Slow down a bit. First, we are discussing how it is that most persons believe in a god(s).

If that's what we're talking about, I recommend "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer: it's the title of one of his books as well as the title of a lecture he gives. Different versions are available as online videos.

If you'd like, I can go over some of the aspects of human psychology he touches on that tend to predispose people to believe in things like gods. Spoiler: none of them are based on the truth of the proposition.

Second, we can see how likely it is that God being prescient, would reveal Himself particularly through predictive prophecy.

"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You might see (or think you see) this. The rest of us won't see it until you make a case for your position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand how to parse correlation and causation.

Your arguments suggest otherwise.

I also understand the difference between strong and weak correlation. I also don't want to play semantics with you--because then almost every scientific proof and axiom is describing correlation and not causation!

There are scientific techniques that can address this problem (e.g. confirming that a factor is a cause and not an effect by deliberately manipulating it and observing the result). Science also addresses the problem by considering mechanism: if thing A correlates with thing B, is there any physical way for thing A to cause thing B (or vice versa)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You don't have this, as most people believe your god is wrong. If you can use the popularity of belief in god as evidence of god, then it logically stands that you must be able to use the popularity of dismissing a certain god and/or religion and/or denomination as proof of its non-existence.

Such as? And if you take those things, then what of god's commandments for wanton destruction, blood shed, and death?

It doesn't seem like you do, the way you lean upon a correlation of popularity as evidence of existence of god.

Most people have the monotheistic God as wrong?

Christianity: 1.2 Billion adherents

Islam: Says Jesus is a prophet and the master of Judgment Day (not Muhammed): 1.2 Billion

Believe God exists in some kind of monotheist form: 5.5 Billion

I'm not leaning on a "correlation of popularity" but a near-100% assertion from all people from all times in all cultures that atheists are wrong. How do you account for that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that's what we're talking about, I recommend "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer: it's the title of one of his books as well as the title of a lecture he gives. Different versions are available as online videos.

If you'd like, I can go over some of the aspects of human psychology he touches on that tend to predispose people to believe in things like gods. Spoiler: none of them are based on the truth of the proposition.


"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You might see (or think you see) this. The rest of us won't see it until you make a case for your position.

You say some interesting things again. You are saying if God wanted to reveal Himself to people interested in seeking Him, and was prescient, that He wouldn't demonstrate His prescience via predictive prophecy?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your arguments suggest otherwise.



There are scientific techniques that can address this problem (e.g. confirming that a factor is a cause and not an effect by deliberately manipulating it and observing the result). Science also addresses the problem by considering mechanism: if thing A correlates with thing B, is there any physical way for thing A to cause thing B (or vice versa)?

I understand. You accept physical mechanisms as proof that correlation is causation.

Yet, you refuse to talk to God (physical, not merely metaphysical) to see if God will physically manifest to answer your prayers.

Again, you have a double standard. Of course, your come from will be "Why should I talk to a God who doesn't exist? That is foolish?" as if all scientific testing comes up "true" and "valid" and only confirms presupposed facts!

I'm saved in part because I applied the hypothesis method to the tests of the scriptures.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most people have the monotheistic God as wrong?

If you consider all people throughout all history, yes. And it's not just a monotheistic God I mentioned, but I also said even other denominations with specific religions such as Christianity. To a Southern Baptist, pretty much everybody else is wrong and going to Hell. To a Calvinist they are the only ones doing it right. And Mormons have their own distinct beliefs as well. This is where it becomes especially problematic, because to most people Lutherans, or Methodists, or Episcopalians, or Catholics have it wrong.

I'm not leaning on a "correlation of popularity" but a near-100% assertion from all people from all times in all cultures that atheists are wrong. How do you account for that?

That is an appeals to popularity. You are doing nothing more than saying "this many people have believed this." That proves absolutely nothing other than how many people believed that. It says nothing about the belief being wrong or right. So very many people believe we only use about 10% of our brain, but their beliefs do not make that statement correct. So very many people used to believe in spontaneous generation, but that was never real or true. So many people have and do believe that blood sacrifices appease their gods and ward off bad weather and misfortune. But we know that just isn't real or true.

I understand. You accept physical mechanisms as proof that correlation is causation.

He's not doing that. None of us but you are. It's a very basic scientific rule that correlation does not mean causation. Yet you take the popularity of an idea and insist that alone must make it true. The 12 o'clock tower bell ringing at 12 does not make the 12 o'clock bus arrive at the same place everyday at 12, despite the two events being very strongly correlated (a perfect 1 even, in this case).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You say some interesting things again. You are saying if God wanted to reveal Himself to people interested in seeking Him, and was prescient, that He wouldn't demonstrate His prescience via predictive prophecy?

No - I didn't say anything like that. Did you actually read my post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand. You accept physical mechanisms as proof that correlation is causation.

Did I say "physical"? Work on your reading comprehension.

Yet, you refuse to talk to God (physical, not merely metaphysical) to see if God will physically manifest to answer your prayers.

You refuse to give a rational explanation for what this would accomplish.

Again, you have a double standard. Of course, your come from will be "Why should I talk to a God who doesn't exist? That is foolish?" as if all scientific testing comes up "true" and "valid" and only confirms presupposed facts!

Should I just make my signature "@BilliardsBall - don't presume to know what I'm thinking. You're not very good at it" as my forum signature? It might save me some time.

I'm saved in part because I applied the hypothesis method to the tests of the scriptures.

What tests?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most people have the monotheistic God as wrong?

Christianity: 1.2 Billion adherents

Islam: Says Jesus is a prophet and the master of Judgment Day (not Muhammed): 1.2 Billion

Believe God exists in some kind of monotheist form: 5.5 Billion

I'm not leaning on a "correlation of popularity" but a near-100% assertion from all people from all times in all cultures that atheists are wrong. How do you account for that?

It's debatable whether a Trinitarian god is "monotheistic." The vast majority of those Muslims you mention would say it isn't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you consider all people throughout all history, yes. And it's not just a monotheistic God I mentioned, but I also said even other denominations with specific religions such as Christianity. To a Southern Baptist, pretty much everybody else is wrong and going to Hell. To a Calvinist they are the only ones doing it right. And Mormons have their own distinct beliefs as well. This is where it becomes especially problematic, because to most people Lutherans, or Methodists, or Episcopalians, or Catholics have it wrong.

That is an appeals to popularity. You are doing nothing more than saying "this many people have believed this." That proves absolutely nothing other than how many people believed that. It says nothing about the belief being wrong or right. So very many people believe we only use about 10% of our brain, but their beliefs do not make that statement correct. So very many people used to believe in spontaneous generation, but that was never real or true. So many people have and do believe that blood sacrifices appease their gods and ward off bad weather and misfortune. But we know that just isn't real or true.

He's not doing that. None of us but you are. It's a very basic scientific rule that correlation does not mean causation. Yet you take the popularity of an idea and insist that alone must make it true. The 12 o'clock tower bell ringing at 12 does not make the 12 o'clock bus arrive at the same place everyday at 12, despite the two events being very strongly correlated (a perfect 1 even, in this case).

I agree with most of what you wrote. The bell that rings at Noon does not make the Sun move to a Noon position. Right.

Fortunately, there are so many gaps and holes in things like abortion on demand, evolutionary theory, moral relativism, etc. that the path is clear.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fortunately, there are so many gaps and holes in things like abortion on demand, evolutionary theory, moral relativism, etc. that the path is clear.

What does that have to do with my post? I'm not a moral relativist, not one single credible scientist will say all the details in ToE are ironed out, and what "gaps and holes" are found in "abortion on demand?"

 

[McBell]

What does that have to do with my post? I'm not a moral relativist, not one single credible scientist will say all the details in ToE are ironed out, and what "gaps and holes" are found in "abortion on demand?"

psssst...
there has to be some place to put god....