Fed up of non believers

[redwhine]

My point is that in the end there either is, or isn't, a Creator,and that is what is 50/50.

 

Should it turn out to be true that there is, then all the probability theory in the world will not prevent that theory being 100% wrong.

 

Are you able to grasp that simple premise?

The probabilities of there being a creator or not add up to 100% (more commonly known as 1), but, unless you can demonstrate that they have equal probability, then it is not necessarily 50/50.

 

Any comment on the fact that I proved to you that you are in fact a Believer in my last reply to you?

I don't recall that, but you were wasting your time; there are lots of things that I believe. I've never denied it.

 

To refresh your memory, you believe in the absence of a God ( because of probability theory )

No. I lack belief that a god exists.

[Ryedo40]

When people such as Le Maitre and Einstein are prepared to believe in God it really is strange to me that lesser intelligences think that they can be certain there isn't one.

 

Einstein did not believe in God. Here's what he had to say, in a letter, a year before his death:

 

 

Still, without Brouwer’s suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.

 

http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html

[redwhine]

Why doesn't it?

See previous answer.

 

Science proposes that the universe either popped into existence from nothing without cause or it has always existed!!

Does it? Have you any evidence of that?

 

Does one of these theories have to be less probable than the other, or would you say that their degree of probability is equal?

To claim that the probabilities are equal without evidence is unscientific.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 11:05 ----------

 

In which case you will have no problem whatsoever providing me with your definitive definition of the word Agnostic?

Will you?

Already done that.

 

So I'll try a different diagram...

 

http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/agnostic-diagram2.png

 

And what I have been posting are my opinions, there is a difference but it appears to be beyond your comprehension.

Really? I know they're just your opinions. There's been bugger all facts!!

[mjw47]

The probabilities of there being a creator or not add up to 100% (more commonly known as 1), but, unless you can demonstrate that they have equal probability, then it is not necessarily 50/50.

 

 

I don't recall that, but you were wasting your time; there are lots of things that I believe. I've never denied it.

 

 

No. I lack belief that a god exists.

 

Unless you are actually obtuse you know perfectly well what I mean. It is within your nature and that of some of your fellow posters to come over all pedantic when being unable to get someone to accept your point of view.

 

You must be a joy down the pub.

 

May I borrow that technique and point out to you that if someone lacks a belief in something ,then it means that they believe the opposite. ' I don't believe the patient will survive. '

 

This means ' I believe the patient will die.'

 

Both statements could of course be wrong, which makes them beliefs, as apposed to certainties ' The patient is going to die. ' ' The patient will live. '

 

Now about that definition of Agnostic, a word which is apparently redundant in your opinion as everybody is either a theist or an atheist.

 

And not in someone else's diagram, in your own words.

 

That way we can compare your definition with the definition previously posted which was put forward by an extremely well qualified person in the field in question.

 

Whilst your about it you can no doubt explain why the word exists and is in common usage as a separate description to the other alternatives?

 

In your own time.

 

PS. In post 837 you stated ' You've claimed quite a lot of knowledge '. In post 843 you state ' Really? I know there just your opinions '.

 

Contradicting yourself completely. Do you know this pedantic thing is catching isn't it?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 11:31 ----------

 

No I'm afraid I don't. Could you explain why a binary choice must be 50:50 all the time, or did you write 50:50 in a very sloppy fashion and think everyone would think that it means a binary choice?

 

Please see the first paragraph and the following sentence in my reply to Redwhine above.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 11:45 ----------

 

Einstein did not believe in God. Here's what he had to say, in a letter, a year before his death:

 

 

 

 

http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html

 

To me - and I may be wrong - that comes across as Einstein not believing in any God as worshiped by any of the Earthly religions.

 

As I said, it appears to me that he thought of any creative intelligence as being simply disinterested in mankind and unlike anything we had dreamed up, and therefore not to be worshiped and have religions dedicated to them.

 

All I can say is if that's not the case, then for a scientist he was extremely imprecise in his language, given the quotes I mentioned earlier.

[Obelix]

 

Please see the first paragraph and the following sentence in my reply to Redwhine above.

 

You still make no sense. Do you agree that a binary choice is not necessarily a 50:50 split of probabilities?

[Cyclone]

Please explain just what exactly 'pretty much everyone' is disagreeing with me about?

 

Are you under the impression that everyone agrees with you?

No, certainly not.

But in this discussion, on this thread, you appear to be alone in supporting your opinion.

 

If so, that is slightly delusional and an appeal to the imaginary masses, unless of course you have conducted a poll on this thread without me being aware of it?

It would be appeal to mass opinion, if I were trying to claim that you are necessarily wrong because many people disagree with you.

All I actually said though was that you don't appear to have considered that you might be wrong.

 

As to people being in cahoots you are aware that Lockjaw admitted that he and another poster had PMd each other to discuss the thread with particular reference to me aren't you?

No, I must have missed that post. That's 2 people though, is that sufficient for a cohort?

 

It does amuse me though, the idea that there needs to be an online conference in order to deal with a self acknowledged no nowt. And failing miserably.

 

By the way my opinions are not in the least unusual, there are literally millions of agnostics.

Yes, as there are billions of theists. Appeal to mass opinion?

 

The reason there are few ,if any, on here is because our belief means that any in depth ongoing discussion of religion or atheism is considered to be a pointless exercise.

 

It is, but I'm having a laugh, and that's always been one of my priorities.

 

I wish my opinions were unusual, that would make me an original thinker which alas I don't believe I am.

 

And before you use the 'appeal to authority' comment again please explain two things.

 

Firstly, if I am so enamoured of authority why do I disagree with the Professors conclusions?

You're keen enough to rely on them when you want to, you do keep referring to them and telling us that they must be correct because he's an expert in the subject.

 

Secondly, given his background, qualifications and acknowledgement by his peers, why do you consider yourself better able to define words which are directly applicable to his expertise?

 

I didn't claim that I did. That doesn't alter that you keep making this appeal to authority. Just because an 'expert' said it, doesn't make it correct.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 11:54 ----------

 

Not a myth in the opinion of a massive number of people, and not as slightly believed as you would like to think.

 

That's the thing about myths isn't it. Some people believe in them. Doesn't make them any more true though.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 11:56 ----------

 

What if 'God' simply has no interest whatsoever in what to him - if he exists - would be of no more interest than a flea is to you?

 

Humans have decided that we are in some way special. That's only our take on things though isn't it?

 

Imagine Albert Einstein attempting to communicate with an ant. Bear in mind ants work together to serve a common purpose, and therefore do have some form of communication ability.

 

Even if Albert managed to get on their wavelength, exactly how long do you think they'd hold his interest?

 

Albert was one of the most curious men that ever existed but I imagine boredom would set in rather swiftly.

 

Now imagine the discrepancy between the intelligence of Einstein and God, the being that caused the entire universe to come into existence and Albert with it.

 

Why would God wish to converse with us lot?

 

As for all the bad things, have you ever lived in the countryside? If you have you will be aware of the noises which take place at night when the predators come out to feed.

 

Does it concern you? Not really I'd imagine, it's simply the way things are.

 

Well if there is such a thing as a God the Creator I would imagine that the same level of concern probably applies.

 

That does not mean there's no God, it simply means that human hubris, and a lot of reasonable peoples hopes are without foundation and irrelevant.

 

Omniscient and omnipotent means that unlike Einstein this theoretical deity can do everything, all at the same time, without any strain. So why would he not communicate? Or at least produce something else to pretend to be him and communicate, or remove his ability to be bored, or remove our ability to conceive off and thus bother him...

Edited March 7, 2014 by Cyclone

[Waldo]

Omniscient and omnipotent means that unlike Einstein this theoretical deity can do everything, all at the same time, without any strain. So why would he not communicate? Or at least produce something else to pretend to be him and communicate, or remove his ability to be bored, or remove our ability to conceive off and thus bother him...

 

Can an insect use it's mental faculty to comprehend why you do what you do, for example in your job (in IT yeah?)?

 

Could the insect even consider the possibility that it's not really up to the task?

 

It could not even know it was not up to the task, it has insufficient faculty to comprehend the magnitude of the task, and how far beyond the scope of it's own capabilities the task is.

[Ryedo40]

To me - and I may be wrong - that comes across as Einstein not believing in any God as worshiped by any of the Earthly religions.

 

As I said, it appears to me that he thought of any creative intelligence as being simply disinterested in mankind and unlike anything we had dreamed up, and therefore not to be worshiped and have religions dedicated to them.

 

All I can say is if that's not the case, then for a scientist he was extremely imprecise in his language, given the quotes I mentioned earlier.

 

To sum up, he's saying God belief is the most childish superstition - and religion is the incarnate of that. When he mentioned God, like in the quote you posted, he was taking the pantheist approach that uses flowery religious language to help the general masses understand. Steven Hawkings has also has been noted for doing the same. And it's a shame because it does confuse things.

[Cyclone]

And we can add lack of comprehension to your list. Well we could do, except it doesn't need adding, as it was apparent long ago.

 

My point is that in the end there either is, or isn't, a Creator,and that is what is 50/50.

 

Should it turn out to be true that there is, then all the probability theory in the world will not prevent that theory being 100% wrong.

 

Are you able to grasp that simple premise?

 

 

 

Probability theory is basically what bookmakers use to decide what odds to lay.

 

And usually they are right, otherwise they couldn't remain in business.

 

However every day they pay out to punters who defied the odds and were 100% correct.

 

Any comment on the fact that I proved to you that you are in fact a Believer in my last reply to you?

 

To refresh your memory, you believe in the absence of a God ( because of probability theory )

 

However, as you cannot prove that theory ( I'll assume you understand the difference between probability and certainty ) it means that you believe it without 100% proof, making you a believer.

 

And once again we run into the brick wall of you wanting proof of a negative.

 

Yet you refuse to prove that Santa doesn't exist, relying on your belief for that 'knowledge' in 'common sense' or that 'nobody believes in Santa except children'.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 12:27 ----------

 

Why doesn't it?

 

Science proposes that the universe either popped into existence from nothing without cause or it has always existed!! Does one of these theories have to be less probable than the other, or would you say that their degree of probability is equal?

 

Science doesn't propose to answer that question. We don't know and at the moment can't figure out how to know.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 12:30 ----------

 

I know precisely what point is being made. MY point is that in the end it comes down to yes or no, one or the other, do you understand that point?

Why claim that they are equally likely outcomes then?

 

In addition, when it comes to believing or not believing, there is no previous 'form' there's nothing the 'bookies' can look back at and truly assess the odds.

 

When people such as Le Maitre and Einstein are prepared to believe in God it really is strange to me that lesser intelligences think that they can be certain there isn't one.

Appeal to authority again. Other equally intelligent people have no believed, but intelligence is only tangentially related to rationality IMO.

 

And before we get into the 'did he didn't he' Einstein debate, he is on record as stating ' Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

 

He also ( with reference to your post above ) said ' God does not play dice. '

 

He apparently had no belief in a ' personal God ' meaning ( I think ) that he did not go along with the existing religious theory's of virtually all religions that God could be appealed to and would act on humanities behalf.

 

I think he thought it was a 'disinterested' as apposed to an 'uninterested' God.

 

I tend to think roughly the same, if of course I've got the drift of his viewpoint.

Atheists of course will tell you he was one of them. Well they would say that wouldn't they?

 

It doesn't really matter what he was, it's not some point scoring game where the group with the most high profile members wins.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 12:34 ----------

 

Can an insect use it's mental faculty to comprehend why you do what you do, for example in your job (in IT yeah?)?

 

Could the insect even consider the possibility that it's not really up to the task?

 

It could not even know it was not up to the task, it has insufficient faculty to comprehend the magnitude of the task, and how far beyond the scope of it's own capabilities the task is.

 

If it could communicate with me and kept demanding things, I'd probably squash it. Other insects would see this as proof that I exist.

[danot]

[quote=redwhine;10370462

Does it? Have you any evidence of that?

it's the scientific theory that scientists/cosmologists are most widely agreed upon and as far as I'm aware , no other theory as been put forward that can challenge it, or do you know different?

 

 

Redwine

To claim that the probabilities are equal without evidence is unscientific.

science isn't infallible!

 

The scientific counter argument to creationism is- 'If God can exist without cause, why can't the universe?' And that, makes the probability of there being a cause/creator 50/50.

Edited March 7, 2014 by danot