Seeing DirtySix argue about the specifics of statistics on another thread, I got the goofy idea to google the statistical odds of God existing, just to see if someone had even tried such a thing, and thinking "you couldn't really even calculate such a thing." I must say I was pleasantly surprised at what the first result was by a Scientist no less lol 67% baby lol, the odds are stacked in my favor, not that I needed odds in the first place since to me it is a 99% probability that will be 100% through direct experience within a decade or so. Odds on that God exists, says scientist | Education | guardian.co.uk So much for the whole "well most things point to their not being a God" argument, it was all factored in lol, I friggin love it, gave me a good jolly ho ho ho like Santa reading it.
Wow. This article is ... flawed. "recognition of goodness..." according to who? Earthquakes and cancer are evil? Says who? Earthquakes, at least, are pretty well understood. It seems they are saying they're evil based on the consequences, as though plate tectonics is out to get us. I don't see any reason to place the odds above 50/50 here. The reasons given are subjective. If you say that God is good, then you must also say that what we consider as "evil" among ourselves are "good" to God. If I did that, couldn't I just say that God is a certainty? On the other hand, I could regard that as a complete violation of human rights, and say that all things God does are "evil" to humans. Then, shouldn't I say that God is either completely false, or surely evil? In the end, if the criteria are made up based on subjective valuation of all aspects of life, we are back where we started and this thread has little point but to provoke.
I dont get it; are you trying to be facetious or are you actually serious? Its getting hard to tell with most people on this site.
Isn't this the kid that was supposed to put me on ignore? I'm glad I permeate so much of your personal life. On topic - It even starts with an assumption. It's whimsical and lofty at best.
The odds of the existence of a god are pretty obvious. 50% Chance there is 50% Chance there isn't Since we'll never know the truth, the clear solution is not to be an atheist or a theist but to stop giving a shit and get on with our lives
That's not how probability works. Especially since you can't actually know whether we'll know the truth one day or not.
There either is a God or isn't. There's no ACTUAL evidence in either direction. How is that not 50/50?
Now you're working under the assumption that "god" is a supernatural creator. The human race can't even fathom the nature of their own creator, if they so believe in one. How in the fuck do you expect to even suggest a probability for the existence of something that you have no idea what it even really is? It's not so cut and dry.
That was my point with 50/50. I thought we were just talking about a generic supernatural god. If we're not then I have no idea because everybody has been saying GOD, but there's thousands of different Gods they could be talking about.
Odds of any human conceptions of a god/s being true, 0%, the chance of there being some sort of higher being are probably slightly higher. People have been trying to prove the existence of a god/gods for 8000 years now, and found sweet fuck all, whereas science has been trying to disprove a god's existence for 2 or 3 hundred, and has already disproven so much that was thought to be 'gods will and doing'. I don't really get probability that well, but it seems to me like that 67% must be seriously skewed (why is an earthquake "naturally evil"?)...
The problem with the first statement is that "God" is SUCH a broad term that we may in fact discover something eventually that people consider to be god. Hell, pantheism says nature is god and nature certainly exists. Also, I hate to be such a contrarian lol but science doesn't try to disprove anything, it tries to discover the truths of nature
Fine, I should've said relatively mainstream religious concepts of god and made it 1%, you're right there could be some crazy guy in a forest somewhere whose concept of god is the only right one... And it doesn't try and disprove anything (I really worded my first post badly lol), but along the way it does disprove many of the arguments for god's existence (evolution disproving the creation myths and the argument that the beauty of nature must be the product of some sort of divine will, for example).
Like I said in the OP, I agree with Postal in that I don't believe such odds can truly be calculated. However I thought for sure whoever would try to calculate it would be trying to make the statistics go against God, since believers don't give a crap about the statistics, whereas atheists would want such statistics in their "scientific ammunition" against God. Likewise DirtySix, considering your discussion was about the statistical possibility of life on other planets and the statistics that God exists, it hardly influenced my personal life for me to make a post on the internet about my findings, don't flatter yourself, this is why I call you a troll, because you didn't come in here to debate, but to try to antagonize me. I suppose your reading comprehension isn't too good, or else you'd see I decided to just stop having any debates with you since you're irrational and antagonistic. You think it's "yeah call me a troll because I disagree with you", however if you used a little of your brain, you'd realize tons of people on here disagree with me, however they are mature enough to do so in a respectable way, whereas you're more like the 8 year old on the playground trying to argue that the red power ranger is the best (since that's your favorite emoticon) edit: This thread is not antagonistic, I have no desire to try to back it up, I was just sharing what I found to be rather hilarious at the time if you can't tell by my light hearted Santa "ho ho ho" chuckle about it.
I like the juxtaposition of "don't flatter yourself" with accusing me of just coming in here to antagonize. Like I said, I don't care near enough about you to do that. I don't make threads with asides to you or post about you on my facebook. Then you make a comment about my reading comprehension, but then you don't have a rebuttal for the fact that it starts with an assumption, which automatically fails anything from being a real statistic. The only reason you think I'm antagonistic is you ignore (or horribly fail to notice) the actual debate in my post.
90% of your OP's are antagonistic in their own right. "I know some d-bags will do this and that" "DirtySix said..." Your thinly veiled backhanded remarks don't go unnoticed. It's not very zen of you.
I'm not talking about your other debate, I'm talking specifically about your responses to me. Likewise, it was directly what made me look it up, and so I gave credit to my source for searching such a thing. The FB post was about "ghee will keep a garment from lighting on fire", but it would be a waste of precious ghee and you still think there is some other fireproofing agent, so I am just going to build a large fire (I don't know about it being 9 foot tall, but I shouldn't even need that big of a fire to prove my point to a lesser extent) and set an oven thermometer where his torso, his arm above the torso, and his neck/face would have been by the flame, just to show that the act of being that close to even a smaller fire would have easily made his skin blister. It's starting to get cold here, so that will only further work to counterbalance the temperature near the fire and I am still sure it would be enough to burn you. I'm not sure if my camera has volume or not, at least it doesn't have a speaker but I haven't tried uploading any videos, volume will be of no importance though.
Yeah, a whole 2 posts lol, very close to 90% with a couple thousand posts to compare to. Alright, later bro.