Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logically, we cannot assign the same levels of probability to every potential event imaginable. Hence,
1) An apple will fall from the tree when it's ripe. Yep; we pretty much all agree based on past observations, our understanding of gravity, and by putting them both together in our heads.
Probability [P] = "1" (unity, as they say...)
2) One of Jupiter's moons is made of green cheese. We won't be able to confirm this one for a while but eventually we can do a test. In the meantime though, is it even remotely plausible? Why would it be made of cheese, a product of the fermentation of mammalian milk? Are there Jovian cows whose milk is rocketed up to that moon in pre-cheese containers and then processed in-situ with some green food coloring added for a mystical effect?
Unlikey, but also unprovable. "P" = danged-near zero, and most of us would reasonably assign it a 100% zero probability.
3) There is a God. We're unable to test this one too easily, since He is seemingly reluctant to ever show Himself, even on the Tonight Show! I mean, really!
But... when we consider (a) all He's supposed to have done, or is (b) supposedly capable of doing, it all comes up quite improbable. As well, statistics of probabilities are progressively cumulative, by multiplication. As in: if something has a 1/100 chance of possibility, but also we add in to the first probability another thing with a similar low "P", then we have a combined probability now of only 1/100 X 1/100 = 1/100000.
Add in, let's say, another 10 or 15 highly and technically improbable things (Insta-Poof" creation; a global flood; faked dinosaurs, an instantly created and fully complete universe; all the world's 100M species of unique animals; His ongoing one-on-one personal and simultaneous control of each and every sub-atomic particle in the universe ... yada yada yada...) you can rather clearly see that the overall probability gets, well, infinitesimally, microscopically utterly tiny.
Thus, reasonably, "P" tends towards "0" here as well.
My simpler, logical, rational conclusion: there is "provably", No God.
Simple, huh? and logically believable to boot! Nifty! QED, as we say.
Logically, we cannot assign the same levels of probability to every potential event imaginable. Hence,
1) An apple will fall from the tree when it's ripe. Yep; we pretty much all agree based on past observations, our understanding of gravity, and by putting them both together in our heads.
Probability [P] = "1" (unity, as they say...)
2) One of Jupiter's moons is made of green cheese. We won't be able to confirm this one for a while but eventually we can do a test. In the meantime though, is it even remotely plausible? Why would it be made of cheese, a product of the fermentation of mammalian milk? Are there Jovian cows whose milk is rocketed up to that moon in pre-cheese containers and then processed in-situ with some green food coloring added for a mystical effect?
Unlikey, but also unprovable. "P" = danged-near zero, and most of us would reasonably assign it a 100% zero probability.
3) There is a God. We're unable to test this one too easily, since He is seemingly reluctant to ever show Himself, even on the Tonight Show! I mean, really!
But... when we consider (a) all He's supposed to have done, or is (b) supposedly capable of doing, it all comes up quite improbable. As well, statistics of probabilities are progressively cumulative, by multiplication. As in: if something has a 1/100 chance of possibility, but also we add in to the first probability another thing with a similar low "P", then we have a combined probability now of only 1/100 X 1/100 = 1/100000.
Add in, let's say, another 10 or 15 highly and technically improbable things (Insta-Poof" creation; a global flood; faked dinosaurs, an instantly created and fully complete universe; all the world's 100M species of unique animals; His ongoing one-on-one personal and simultaneous control of each and every sub-atomic particle in the universe ... yada yada yada...) you can rather clearly see that the overall probability gets, well, infinitesimally, microscopically utterly tiny.
Thus, reasonably, "P" tends towards "0" here as well.
My simpler, logical, rational conclusion: there is "provably", No God.
Simple, huh? and logically believable to boot! Nifty! QED, as we say.
For #3 you forgot...All the girls that work for GldnRule say there IS a God...and Gldn is it. (MOF, all you have to do is ask Him, and He'll tell ya)---which negates anything improbable.
Thus, reasonably, "P" isn't a factor any more...as it is now absolutely certain.
Really? You live without science? Then why do I see your words on my monitor?
The science is religion. Yes We see. On the TV speak: Those people from a cave celebrated religious - mystical cults. Sciences were not... Why you see I ? In Bibles it is written : should give certain quantity of the stolen riches, a part of slaves and virgins ... to Bibles Gods .
There is such book of the Bible: "figures".
By the way. To god of of 400 virgins and is a lot of animals.
What for to Christian (Jewish) God of the virgin? Probably that God and angels ****ed them... You are confident now : God did not exist?
Do you believe the existence of souls? If not, whats the source of our feelings? where do they come from? any scientific evidence to proof what you say is correct?
If not, whats the source of our feelings? where do they come from? any scientific evidence to proof what you say is correct?
The brain, the brain, and yes. I think it's pretty well established that the brain is where "we" live. Changing the physical and chemical makeup of the brain changes our personality - you get knocked out, drunk, depressed, and even suffer permanent personality changes due to changes or damage in particular parts of the brain. What more evidence do you need?
You know KC, that's actually a very good question. IIRC, "soul" in the Old Testament is different than soul in the New Testament. In Old Testament writings, most notably in describing animals brought onto the Ark, the word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. It was in the New Testament that Soul became more synonomous with "spirit." IOW, in Hebrew, soul and spirit are distinct, but in Greek, they are (usually) intertwined.
Do you believe the existence of souls? If not, whats the source of our feelings? where do they come from? any scientific evidence to proof what you say is correct?
The brain. I can never understand why the religious insist that feelings are of supernatural origin when there so much proof that everything occurs in the brain.
-Brain damage can leave a person unable to feel certain emotions or completely change who you are.
-Drugs that release chemicals into the brain can affect how we feel. Anti-depressants stop us from feeling sad, stimulants can make us feel happier and more energetic.
-Electrical stimuly to certain parts of the brain can make people have religious experiences.
-Psychopaths are completely unable to feel any sort of empathy towards other people, people with neural disorders such as autism also seem unable to feel the same way as we do.
Very often we get the Soul trotted out as some sort of evidence for God.
What is the evidence for a soul?
It is true that the soul is a very common concept amongst humans of all times and cultures. there must be something in it, mustn't there?
In fact, no. Humans have struggled with this feeling of identity and that it seems to have gone at death; where? This is not the place for a dissertation, but it is quite likely that the soul is a human wishful -thinking delusion as much as is belief in life after death and gods that will help us out.
What about the practical evidence for a soul?
This pretty much summarises it.
"After all the sophistication and miracles of modern medicine, biology and biogenetics, the concept of intellect remains a total mystery. There is no substance known to man, either within the human body or the lab, that will produce intellect. To scan the brain, as some scientists have done, with an imaging device and track down the parts of the brain that come into play under certain intellectual pursuits is not the same as isolating a substance that produces intellect. We may know that the brain is the seat of the intellect, but that says nothing about what intellect is or what substance, if any, produces it."
Looking at the development of animal actions from chemical reactions and problem - solving from just instincts and reasoning from problem - solving should make us question whether, in fact there is anything special about our intelligence than what we can do with it? For something that is god - given the theists certainly seem to treat it with distain, if it doesn't think the way they want.
There is also the experiements done that links the thought - processes with the material action of the brain. It has also been pointed out that, if the brain gets diseased or damaged, then the intelligence can (not always) be damaged too. Now, if that was down to a soul apart from the brain, that could nat be the case. True the snip above admits that but wants to know what intellect is made of.
It seems a silly question since it is so evidently electrical impulses is the brain. To say it isn't like a computer doesn't justify demanding an 'Intellect' molecule'
So this argument above is a bit short - sighted and is, in fact the fallacy of argument from ignorance. We cannot explain exactly what intelligence is so it must be that soul we believe in.
But, as I suggested above, even that is not justified. It is closing the eyes to a lot of pretty persuasive evidence that there is no reason to believe in a Soul. Nor is there reason to believe in any god. The argument from ignorance and that ignorance depends on ignoring the evidence. It is the same logical fallacy used in propping up both beliefs.
P.s I cut that snip from Josh Greenberg before I even knew who he was. Now I do. That his argument is short - sighted and fallacious is just what I would expect.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-19-2010 at 08:05 AM..
Reason: P.s I luv my P'esses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
