Originally posted by midnightbrigade
reply to post by nj2day
Fair enough, I would say though, that evidence and probabiltiy is what you make of it based off of faith. The evidence would suggest that because you
see many people, on a side walk, and two of them are buying a soda from a machine, you could logically surmise that one of them dropped it and you
found it. However, there is an enormous amount of other possibilities that could have brought that quarter to that spot.
Basing a belief off of evidence is not faith... holding a belief with no evidence is faith...
A bum could have dropped it, a kid could have lost it out of their lunch money, someone simply didn't want it and placed it there. My point
is, your logic is based on as much faith as the Christian argument that God placed it there.
nope... If you flip a coin there are 3 possible outcomes. 49.9% heads, 49.9% tails and .2% that it will land on its edge. There could be a 4th
possibility... that the coin will not be acted on by any outside forces, and will stay hovering at the apex of its arc toward the ground...
It is a possibility, but no one has ever seen it happen... and no one has been able to get it to react in a similar way via experimentation.
A person who swears the coin can/will do that... is the one basing this belief against all evidence... and is acting on faith... I mean after all...
can you prove it can't happen?
believers are hedging their bets on the 4th option and the hovering coin... Atheists will play the odds and say Heads or Tails... knowing full well it
might land on its side... but the odds aren't that great... and knowing full well in the history of coin tossing, it has never just hovered in the
air at the apex of its arc toward the ground...
This is not faith... its statistics.
Being that we are not omniscient, we can only examine a list of probable outcomes and make a conclusion off of that. Logic and reason are
simply another faith based mechanism to help us explain our world.
Logic and reason are what we use to draw conclusions from observation... Since observation is concrete, and can be replicated by anyone with the time
to set up the experiment... it is entered as evidence. Faith, is belief without evidence.
You can hold the quarter in your hand, you know its "real". You can see the people buying, you know they are "real" so you draw one
I can weigh it, pass it to anyone else who would like to see it... and they will all conclude that is in in fact real... the evidence for its
existence is then conclusive.
however, in science, you don't have to see it to believe it like the average joe would...
Instead, we can prove its existence without seeing it by observing the impact the given object has on its immediate surroundings. Yet another proof
that is lacking with a "god"
That is just as valid as a different set of base values examining the same evidence. A Christian can look at that setup and determine that God
placed it there. Or, in a more existential vein, God helped that man get a job, so that he had a quarter to drop because he knew on this day in the
future I would need a quarter to get through the turnstile in the subway.
Now probability determines that god didn't place it there... and the existentialist alternative you offered, goes against Occam's Razor... i.e. is
it really that much of a stretch to say that all the events your stating could have happened exactly the same... but -1 god?
We as humans don't have the capacity to see on that large of a scale, nor do we have the ability since we can't see in to the
Oh yes we do... as evolution works very much on the same principals... a series of simple steps... that over time lead to complexity.
I would submit that assuming God isn't real, undercuts the very fabric of "make as few assumptions as possible" and if God IS real, then it
would have every bearing on the observable predictions.
Assuming god is real leads to a huge pile of assumptions... you have to assume not only that god exists, but he has the power to act, he has the
desire to act, that he has existed forever, that power can be absolute, etc etc... it goes on and on... Vastly more assumptions that you are, for some
reason, not concidering. Now, if I can explain that there is approx a 100% chance that the coin I flipped will have one of those three outcomes I
mentioned above... and I flip it, and it lands on heads... why is there a need to presume that "god made it land on heads". There was a high
probability of the coin landing in that manner to begin with... you're just adding more assumptions.
I go back to my argument about choice. You choose to work from the basis that God doesn't exist, without giving much thought to the fact that
he COULD exist, just because he hasn't walked up and shaken your hand
I base my assumptions on the improbability of such a reality. It is, in fact just as improbable as the quarter levitating for no reason at the apex
of the arc... I doubt you'd hedge your bets on that if I decided to make that wager with you.
I disagree, I don't believe that it's ignorant at all, it's just different. I think the difference between the bible, and greek myths,
would be who they attribute the providence to. I would say that they were using the same method of trying to explain their world that Christians do
But for some reason, Christians are "right" and the ancient greeks were "wrong"
What makes the bible more factual is the amount of followers in Christianity as opposed to those who still believe the Greek myths.
Whoa there... Popularity does not make something true.
Facts are facts only based on the number of observers.
erm... the number of observers according to one source, that was written by anonymous people (for the most part). The actual truth of the claims
impossible to find evidence for...
The bible is no better than a copy of Beowulf. Prove Grendel is real.
[qutoe]A drinking glass in America is called a glass. A drinking glass in Germany is called a tasser. If I go to Germany and order a "tasser es
vasser" I'll get a glass of water. A Germans fact is that it's a tasser, my fact is that it's a glass. Same result, different fact.
not really, completely different pantheon with a different set of beliefs all together... not the "same thing diff name" like you are suggesting.
If thats the case... than satanists have found the same god as the christians! they just call it something else!
That's true, and isn't part of respecting their right to believe not attacking those beliefs?
No, I am free to speak my opinion. But, i am not free to try and impose legislation to attempt to outlaw their beliefs in favor of mine. Your kid
can pray in school to themselves if they want... but don't come near my kid. (another thread lol so i'm not gonna go there)
Isn't that the same circular logic you were lamenting in a previous post? But I will take you up on the offer of a Russell's Teapot.
I've never heard the term and I will research it.
How is that circular logic? Circular logic would be "God is all powerful, the bible says so... and god wrote the bible". (another thread out of
that one too... If the bible says god can't lie... and god wrote the bible... isn't it possible that he can indeed lie? LOL)
I think there has been a multitude of evidence supporting the existence of a God. Such as an entire army reporting that the sun stayed in the
sky longer than one day, or that God gave Moses the power to part the Red Sea. This was observed my multitudes of people. But this "evidence" is
just not in the standards and graduated cylinders that you would like.
This is not evidence unless we can confirm this with multiple unrelated sources... instead... all evidence comes from the bible... and documents
proven to be Midieval forgery...
Also to the person who is upset that we label God "He" Come on, do you get upset that we label sailing vessels as "She'? It's just a
LOL yah, I have to admit... in a thread like this, taking offense to the use of a pronoun is a little much...
[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]