Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

Probability/likelihood of gods

Contrary to the belief of somebody such as Richard Dawkins, while the god hypothesis may at least in part be empirically testable, I don't see how it's possible to put a more or less definite figure on the probability or likelihood of the existence of gods. I may well rapidly go astray here as mathematics is by far my weakest suit, but my understanding of probability is that the accurate estimation of likelihood relies on a prior knowledge of the full range of options.

For example, doubtless the easiest ways of estimating probability involve coins. Coins have an obverse and a reverse so tossing a coin can give only one of two possible outcomes. In a slightly more complex fashion, using playing cards relies on the fact since we know beforehand that a standard deck contains 52 cards, the probability of drawing any card (or combination of cards) can be worked out on that basis.

I think it's even possible at least to begin to try to plug in some of the numbers relating to something like the probability of life like our own elsewhere in a certain section of the universe (something we've discussed here before). We can't of course make a hard and fast estimation as we can with coins or cards, but we have one example of life in the universe and a pretty good knowledge of the kind of conditions needed to produce our kind of life, life as we currently know it, so we can at least make a tentative start. This was the impetus behind the famous Drake equation.

This isn't the case with gods, though. We not only have absolutely no examples of any gods existing, prior to that we don't even have any coherent definition of the term that everyone can agree upon before we start looking. A spectrum of theistic probability doesn't, I think, work for that reason. I would contend that you have to have some prior knowledge of the range of options, like two sides of a coin or 52 cards in a pack, to be able to put a figure on a probability, and this is impossible with gods.
Derek

With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely.

Please tell me you're not serious.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely.

Please tell me you're not serious.


OK
gone

Just because a lot of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it so!
Shaker

Floo wrote:
Just because a lot of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it so!

Ralph apparently seems to think that it does.
gone

Shaker wrote:
Floo wrote:
Just because a lot of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it so!

Ralph apparently seems to think that it does.


So do many others where Christianity is concerned!
Shaker

It's often implied, not so often (at least in my experience) stated so baldly. Very strange.
gone

Shaker wrote:
It's often implied, not so often (at least in my experience) stated so baldly. Very strange.


I have seen the statement made on a good number of occasions by Christians quite as baldly as Ralphie put it.
cyberman

Re: Probability/likelihood of gods

Shaker wrote:
Contrary to the belief of somebody such as Richard Dawkins, while the god hypothesis may at least in part be empirically testable, I don't see how it's possible to put a more or less definite figure on the probability or likelihood of the existence of gods. I may well rapidly go astray here as mathematics is by far my weakest suit, but my understanding of probability is that the accurate estimation of likelihood relies on a prior knowledge of the full range of options.

For example, doubtless the easiest ways of estimating probability involve coins. Coins have an obverse and a reverse so tossing a coin can give only one of two possible outcomes. In a slightly more complex fashion, using playing cards relies on the fact since we know beforehand that a standard deck contains 52 cards, the probability of drawing any card (or combination of cards) can be worked out on that basis.

I think it's even possible at least to begin to try to plug in some of the numbers relating to something like the probability of life like our own elsewhere in a certain section of the universe (something we've discussed here before). We can't of course make a hard and fast estimation as we can with coins or cards, but we have one example of life in the universe and a pretty good knowledge of the kind of conditions needed to produce our kind of life, life as we currently know it, so we can at least make a tentative start. This was the impetus behind the famous Drake equation.

This isn't the case with gods, though. We not only have absolutely no examples of any gods existing, prior to that we don't even have any coherent definition of the term that everyone can agree upon before we start looking. A spectrum of theistic probability doesn't, I think, work for that reason. I would contend that you have to have some prior knowledge of the range of options, like two sides of a coin or 52 cards in a pack, to be able to put a figure on a probability, and this is impossible with gods.


The point about a definition is slightly weaker than the reast, I think, but in general I agree with Shaker's OP. When people say something is 'likely' or 'probable' (or unlikely or improbable) they are making a statistical claim which has to be based upon data. If there is no data spporting the claim, then it is simply a guess being passed of as a mathematical assessment, which is bordering on dishonest.

Ralph2, your claim that the faith of 2.2 billion people makes God's existence probable is pushing the boundaries of 'talking bollocks' into new and unexplored territories. Well done.
Farmer Geddon

Know what - if the 3 could agree that their god was the same one god, then it would be close to an impressive 4 billion believers!!
Farmer Geddon

although according to Wiki:

Secular*/Nonreligious*/Agnostic/Atheist ≤ 1.1 billion

Hinduism 1 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Really the combined non-believers add up to around 1.1 billion?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely.

Please tell me you're not serious.


No, but I know some men who are

There are 1,927,953,000 Christians in the world today according to http://exchristian.net. They take up 33.73% of the worlds population. 968,025,000 are Catholic, 395,867,000 protestants, 217,948,000 Orthodox, 70,530,00 Anglican and 275,583,000 are other Christian denominations.

Christianity (from the Ancient Greek translation Χριστός, Christos of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Maaḥ, meaning "the anointed one"[1] and the Latin suffixes ian and -itas) is a monotheistic,[2] Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. Christianity is the world's largest religion,[3][4] with approximately 2.2 billion adherents, known as Christians.[5][6][7][8] Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the savior of humanity prophesied in the Old Testament. Consequentially, Christians refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Quote:

Cyberman

Ralph2, your claim that the faith of 2.2 billion people makes God's existence probable is pushing the boundaries of 'talking bollocks' into new and unexplored territories. Well done.


Ralph Said

With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely - Not Probable.

Cyberman claims I said.

2.2 billion people makes God's existence probable - I didn't say that. Probable would indicate that there is probability data to substantiate my claim where as to say "more then likely" is my opinion. The views that I express on here are my opinions based on personal knowledge and experience.

You do realize that this is not the bear pit. Words like b-----ks should not appear in print outside of the bear pit, so I am told.

2.2 billion believers is not absolute proof but to any level headed person it should make you start to smell a rat.

I am sure that is not unexplored territory or even considered as talking b-----ks to anyone with their head screwed on. After all there is only 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist in the world. Why should we listen to such a small minority. I find profanity offensive usually spoken by those who have a poor command of the English language. It is gutter talk that belongs in the gutter, or kept between men, not on a public forums for women and children to read.

Everybody else, around 6 billion, believe in a supernatural entity of one form or another. 6 billion people who believe in fairy tales and 1.1 billion people who have little to no belief in anything. I know that numbers prove nothing but seriously, why should any of us 6 billion people listen to a word that a minority group of 1.1 billion says. They have obviously got it wrong yet you will find them on countless numbers of these forums trying to convince us that they are right. With 6 billion fairy tale believers we should at least be able to determine on whose side these 1.1 billion are on. Not Gods, that is for sure.

Is that statistical data sufficient to absolved me from being a dishonest person who talks b------ks about the facts but at least has the decorum not to use profanity unnecessarily. Please check the links for the data accuracy

Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I know that numbers prove nothing


That is actually all you need to have said. There it is in a nutshell - numbers prove nothing, from your very own fingers. The fact that numbers prove nothing is precisely the reason why the argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum (in essence two terms which are synonymous) is a fallacy. And yet, despite this admission, you still expended a great many words on trying to shore up your assertion that the number of god-believers in the world makes the existence of a god more than likely - which is in itself actually a meaningless phrase.

Well, guess what? It doesn't. And you've just confessed as much, which makes the posting of a load of superfluous statistics and a table all the more bizarre. If

Quote:
numbers prove nothing


then your assertion that

Quote:
With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely


is rendered vacuous. These two opinions cancel each other out. You can either hold one or the other, but not both simultaneously because they're mutually exclusive.

Quote:
but seriously, why should any of us 6 billion people listen to a word that a minority group of 1.1 billion says.

Because it could very well be true, and most likely is. As you yourself have said, the existence or non-existence of gods is not an issue decided by number of adherents. Having admitted as much I don't see how you can credibly continue to cling on to your fallacious line of non-reasoning about the number of believers rendering god's existence more than likely.

Quote:
They have obviously got it wrong


What's "obvious" about it? Somebody else used that word here yesterday, and with as little (i.e. no) justification. Nietzsche said that atheism is obvious by instinct. Who is right?
Derek

Shaker

Quote:
That is actually all you need to have said. There it is in a nutshell - numbers prove nothing, from your very own fingers. The fact that numbers prove nothing is precisely the reason why the argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum (in essence two terms which are synonymous) is a fallacy. And yet, despite this admission, you still expended a great many words on trying to shore up your assertion that the number of god-believers in the world makes the existence of a god more than likely - which is in itself actually a meaningless phrase.

Well, guess what? It doesn't. And you've just confessed as much, which makes the posting of a load of superfluous statistics and a table all the more bizarre. If


Bizarre - really? Strikingly unconventional and far-fetched in style or appearance; odd. A tad over the top maybe - superfluous

Quote:
Quote:
numbers prove nothing


then your assertion that

Quote:
With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely


is rendered vacuous. These two opinions cancel each other out. You can either hold one or the other, but not both simultaneously because they're mutually exclusive.


Not really vacuous is it. Science dictates to us that numbers is irrelevant. We are not that stupid though. If 200 people witnessed a man taking a gun out of his pocket, pointing it at someones head, and then shooting him point blank in the head, would be sufficient to deem that man guilty of murder, even in the absence of the gun as evidence. Yes, you could come up with intricate points of law but at the end of the day 200 people saw it and if they had no reason to deny it the man would end up behind bars. The same applies with religion. It is true that no individual can pass onto anyone their experience of divinity, however, 2.2 billion would undoubtedly spur some interest in the claim and lead to people believing the fairy tale. Thus numbers are important to those who believe as well as being evident that those numbers do not prove anything in terms of the scientific method.

Quote:
Quote:
but seriously, why should any of us 6 billion people listen to a word that a minority group of 1.1 billion says.

Because it could very well be true, and most likely is. As you yourself have said, the existence or non-existence of gods is not an issue decided by number of adherents. Having admitted as much I don't see how you can credibly contonue to cling on to your fallacious line of non-reasoning about the number of believers.

Quote:
They have obviously got it wrong


What's "obvious" about it? Somebody else used that word here yesterday, and with as little (i.e. no) justification. Nietzsche said that atheism is obvious by instinct. Who is right?
[/quote]

My old university lecturer always said that when you write anything write it for the simplest of minds to understand.

As you asked me if I was being serous I found it incumbent upon me to explain in detail that I am being serious.

Just because I cannot prove the existence of a God does not mean that a god does not exist. To have no proof is in itself proof that he exists as he has made it abundantly clear to us that we are required to live by faith and not knowledge.

A fallacy to the non-believer, yes, but to me, and 2.2 billion others, not such a fallacy as we take comfort in the fact that we all believe in the same fairy tale and that a good majority of us believe in the supernatural in one way or another. Yes, 6 billion people could all be wrong, but what logically thinking mind believes that, other than that of the atheist.

Well it is obvious to us 6 billion believers that you 1.1 billion non believers are wrong. Would you expect any different.

If the determination of whether atheism was wrong or right was done my majority vote then atheism would be wrong, however, atheists have latched onto the fact that despite 6 billion individuals saying that a supernatural entity exists there is no method of scientifically testing it. They then conclude that the fairy tale is a falsehood perpetrated by 6 billion individuals. Now that is a real fallacy. But hey, we will all see one way or another at some point in our lives.

Lastly, why haven't you picked up Cyberman on his atrocious spelling mistakes like you do me. Are you being selective on who agrees with you and who does not.

Why is it necessary for Cyberman to insult my person instead of simply disagreeing with my point of view and just saying, "I disagree because..... " Because I am Ralph?
gone

Everyone in the whole world could believe in the deity, but it still wouldn't mean it existed!
Derek

Floo wrote:
Everyone in the whole world could believe in the deity, but it still wouldn't mean it existed!


What do you think it means then Floo
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Not really vacuous is it.


Yes. That's why I used the word vacuous.

Quote:
It is true that no individual can pass onto anyone their experience of divinity, however, 2.2 billion would undoubtedly spur some interest in the claim and lead to people believing the fairy tale.


Interest in the claim, undoubtedly. Lead others to believe in it, no:

(1) Because all numbers tell you is how many people believe a given thing. The baton then passes to fields such as psychology and anthropology to explain why such beliefs exist.

(2) Because you imply that all of these 2.2 billion people have had some sort of spiritual experience, some revelation of the divine or whatever which leads them to their beliefs, when I suspect that this is true of very few. I don't have any figures to hand - I don't even know if any exist; if anyone has ever compiled such data - but I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents are not so because of a religious experience but because of birth/upbringing/culture and the like. This doesn't make them cultural believers in quite the same way that people refer to cultural (i.e. purely nominal, meagrely knowledgeable, functionally unbelieving) Christians in this country: it doesn't make them any less believers. But to say, or even to imply, that these 2.2 billion believers are so because of religious experience strikes me as utterly mistaken.

Quote:
Just because I cannot prove the existence of a God does not mean that a god does not exist.

Negative proof fallacy.

Quote:
To have no proof is in itself proof that he exists as he has made it abundantly clear to us that we are required to live by faith and not knowledge.


This old university lecturer you mentioned ... I don't need to invoke my psychic powers to be able to say that he wasn't a lecturer in philosophy, was he?

And, unsurprisingly to me, you really don't understand the concept of proof. Your no-proof-is-itself-proof is asinine: it makes your belief indefeasible (there's no possible scenario which could ever demonstrate it to be wrong, even in principle), something which has cropped up a few times within the last week or so, as well as being irrational - "absence of evidence for a given thing is exactly what we should expect to see if said thing exists". That's not the way the real world wags.

Quote:
A fallacy to the non-believer, yes, but to me, and 2.2 billion others, not such a fallacy as we take comfort in the fact that we all believe in the same fairy tale and that a good majority of us believe in the supernatural in one way or another. Yes, 6 billion people could all be wrong, but what logically thinking mind believes that, other than that of the atheist.

That sort of logically thinking mind, basically

Quote:
Well it is obvious to us 6 billion believers that you 1.1 billion non believers are wrong. Would you expect any different.

Not at all, but I'd expect a word like "obvious" to have some sort of defence or substantiation rather than simply being flung down and in itself taken to be self-evident.

Quote:
If the determination of whether atheism was wrong or right was done my majority vote then atheism would be wrong, however, atheists have latched onto the fact that despite 6 billion individuals saying that a supernatural entity exists there is no method of scientifically testing it. They then conclude that the fairy tale is a falsehood perpetrated by 6 billion individuals. Now that is a real fallacy.

It would be ... were it the case. It isn't.

Quote:
But hey, we will all see one way or another at some point in our lives.

How will that work, then? How will we "all" "see" "one way or another" "at some point in our lives"? Explain.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:

Ralph Said

With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely - Not Probable.

Cyberman claims I said.

2.2 billion people makes God's existence probable - I didn't say that.


Do you mean that something can simultaneously be both "More than likely" and "improbable"?
gone

Why should belief, without any evidence to back up that belief, make a thing probable?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Everyone in the whole world could believe in the deity, but it still wouldn't mean it existed!


What do you think it means then Floo


Floo doesn't need to speculate as to what it means for her statement to be true. It could mean there is a God. It could mean they are all mistaken.

There was a time when everyone in the world believed that the Earth was the biggest thing in the universe. That doesn't mean it was likely to be true.
gone

There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

Of course a deity could exist, the Bible could all be true, I would be a fool to deny that it could just be so. I sincerely hope not!
Derek

Shaker
Quote:

Quote:
Not really vacuous is it.


Yes. That's why I used the word vacuous.


No, that is why you have used the word vacuous unnecessarily with the intent to be argumentative and contentious. It is a part of your vocabulary and rhetoric.
Quote:

Quote:
It is true that no individual can pass onto anyone their experience of divinity, however, 2.2 billion would undoubtedly spur some interest in the claim and lead to people believing the fairy tale.


Interest in the claim, undoubtedly. Lead others to believe in it, no:


Well, I beg to differ. 6 Billion believers in something 1.1 billion still living in obscurity. I would say that those 6 billion were in someway drawn to it where as the 1.1 billion have not woke up yet to smell the coffee
Quote:

(1) Because all numbers tell you is how many people believe a given thing. The baton then passes to fields such as psychology and anthropology to explain why such beliefs exist.


No, the baton does not get passed to anything, It is taken, by Science, who decides that it does not fit in with their scientific method, therefore, God does not exist until it can. Christian do not need it explaining. They know why such beliefs exist, because God exists.
Quote:

(2) Because you imply that all of these 2.2 billion people have had some sort of spiritual experience, some revelation of the divine or whatever which leads them to their beliefs, when I suspect that this is true of very few.


If you have taken that implication from my words then you have done so in error. I am sure that a good proportion of them have had some kind of an experience with the Holy Ghost, who testifies to the soul of the truthfulness of the existence of God as surely as night follows day, however, I am sure that there is a plethora of reason why some are Christians and not atheists.
Quote:

I don't have any figures to hand - I don't even know if any exist; if anyone has ever compiled such data - but I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents are not so because of a religious experience but because of birth/upbringing/culture and the like.


That suggests that people are stupid and never develop the ability to think for themselves. I was not born a Mormon so how do you reconcile my beliefs for 25 years of my life. nonsensical isn't it and probably why nobody has ever conducted any research into it..

Quote:
This doesn't make them cultural believers in quite the same way that people refer to cultural (i.e. purely nominal, meagrely knowledgeable, functionally unbelieving) Christians in this country: it doesn't make them any less believers. But to say, or even to imply, that these 2.2 billion believers are so because of religious experience strikes me as utterly mistaken.


Yes, I would agree.
Quote:

Quote:
Just because I cannot prove the existence of a God does not mean that a god does not exist.


Negative proof fallacy.


Yes, quite.

Quote:

This old university lecturer you mentioned ... I don't need to invoke my psychic powers to be able to say that he wasn't a lecturer in philosophy, was he?


No he wasn't but he was no fool either. It wouldn't have mattered if he were a janitor he just so happened to be a doctor of biology. It is the words that are important not who said them. I have taken his advise on board and rarely have to explain myself twice because of it. If you have problems with reading my post have you considered that it may just go clear over your head. If you ae particularly stuck with anything please let me know and I will try and help you with it.
Quote:

And, unsurprisingly to me, you really don't understand the concept of proof. Your no-proof-is-itself-proof is asinine:


It is very telling that your vocabulary consists of so many abusive and negative words that stupefy you opponent. The absence of proof is a prophecy foretold. If you spent half of your time debating the matter in hand instead of using tactics to discredit people you might actually pick up some knowledge along the way.

Quote:
it makes your belief indefeasible (there's no possible scenario which could ever demonstrate it to be wrong, even in principle), something which has cropped up a few times within the last week or so, as well as being irrational - "absence of evidence for a given thing is exactly what we should expect to see if said thing exists". That's not the way the real world wags.


Why? Although God says that we should live our lives by faith only you still expect evidence. Well yes of course you do.

As the majority of the real world believe in a supernatural being then I would suggest that such a statement is erroneous based on your own incredulity

Quote:
A fallacy to the non-believer, yes, but to me, and 2.2 billion others, not such a fallacy as we take comfort in the fact that we all believe in the same fairy tale and that a good majority of us believe in the supernatural in one way or another. Yes, 6 billion people could all be wrong, but what logically thinking mind believes that, other than that of the atheist.

That sort of logically thinking mind, basically

Quote:
Well it is obvious to us 6 billion believers that you 1.1 billion non believers are wrong. Would you expect any different.

Not at all, but I'd expect a word like "obvious" to have some sort of defence or substantiation rather than simply being flung down and in itself taken to be self-evident.

Quote:
If the determination of whether atheism was wrong or right was done my majority vote then atheism would be wrong, however, atheists have latched onto the fact that despite 6 billion individuals saying that a supernatural entity exists there is no method of scientifically testing it. They then conclude that the fairy tale is a falsehood perpetrated by 6 billion individuals. Now that is a real fallacy.

It would be ... were it the case. It isn't.
Quote:

Quote:
But hey, we will all see one way or another at some point in our lives.

How will that work, then? How will we "all" "see" "one way or another" "at some point in our lives"? Explain.


It is polite when requesting a service from someone to just say please.

Because it is my belief that there is a continuation to life after the body has died. It will be at that point when we will come to a speedy knowledge that our beliefs have been vindicated or it will not matter if we are wrong or right.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Floo:93401"]There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so. Since then we have gotten used to Science being wrong so we are more skeptical about their claims.

Quote:
Of course a deity could exist, the Bible could all be true, I would be a fool to deny that it could just so. I sincerely hope not!


Why would you hope not?
Derek

[quote="cyberman:93400"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Everyone in the whole world could believe in the deity, but it still wouldn't mean it existed!


Quote:
What do you think it means then Floo


Floo doesn't need to speculate as to what it means for her statement to be true. It could mean there is a God. It could mean they are all mistaken.


Floo posed a question. I called her on it asking her to explain what she said. That is debate.
Quote:

There was a time when everyone in the world believed that the Earth was the biggest thing in the universe. That doesn't mean it was likely to be true.


No, there was a time when scientists believed that the Earth was the biggest thing in the Universe and then passed that information onto us. It was science that were wrong again and it was another reason for us to disbelieve them.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

Ralph Said

With 2.2 billion people believing that he exists then it is more then likely - Not Probable.

Cyberman claims I said.

2.2 billion people makes God's existence probable - I didn't say that.


Do you mean that something can simultaneously be both "More than likely" and "improbable"?


As one is based on unqualified opinion and the other on statistical data, then yes.
Derek

Floo wrote:
Why should belief, without any evidence to back up that belief, make a thing probable?


It doesn't
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
There was a time when everyone in the world believed that the Earth was the biggest thing in the universe.


Until well into the 1920s it was a perfectly respectable scientific establishment belief - not necessarily mainstream, but widespread and as I say, respectable - that the Milky Way was the entire Universe. A very eminent astronomer indeed, Harlow Shapley, took part in what was then known as the Great Debate - Shapley held that the Milky Way, which we now know to be one of uncountable galaxies, was the entire Universe. Other galaxies just seemed to be incomprehensibly and unbelievably far away: some astronomers simply had a sort of brainfart and just couldn't accept that the observable cosmos really was/is that mind-bendingly vast.

Edwin Hubble soon proved him wrong.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so.


No, Ralph, that is not true. Science never taught that the world was flat. That was only ever folk belief.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so.


No, Ralph, that is not true. Science never taught that the world was flat. That was only ever folk belief.


Not completely true is it. It may appease you to think you have proven me wrong, which is paramount here for you, but if we tell the truth it was a cultural myth spread by Washington Irving or it was believed by educated people (Scientists) and then passed on to people who did not have a clue. What is certain is that it was not the general belief of society in those times, they didn't care either way. Either way you are nit picking resulting in a detraction from the OP, which is, if sufficient people believe it that is doesn't make it true. There was not sufficient people who believed in a flat earth to qualify it for that scenario.
gone

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so.


No, Ralph, that is not true. Science never taught that the world was flat. That was only ever folk belief.


I agree.
Shaker

Quote:
Well, I beg to differ. 6 Billion believers in something 1.1 billion still living in obscurity. I would say that those 6 billion were in someway drawn to it where as the 1.1 billion have not woke up yet to smell the coffee

Drawn to it, yes indeed. Now, why would they be drawn to it?

Quote:
No, the baton does not get passed to anything, It is taken, by Science, who decides that it does not fit in with their scientific method


Just so.

Quote:
therefore, God does not exist until it can.

As good a way of putting it as any, I suppose.

Quote:
Christian do not need it explaining. They know why such beliefs exist, because God exists.


Begging the question - an oft-misused phrase in these benighted TOWIE and microwavable chips times, where it's frequently bastardised to mean 'this raises the question ...' or 'this suggests the question ...' Said by some linguists to have been a corruption of 'this begets the question ...'

I, however, prefer to stick with its original and proper usage, which means to indulge in a spot of petitio principii, alias circular reasoning - to assume the prior truth of something which is yet to be demonstrated. It's what you're doing here, which is why I mention it.

Quote:
That suggests that people are stupid and never develop the ability to think for themselves.

Indeed, but I could have told you that.

Quote:
I was not born a Mormon so how do you reconcile my beliefs for 25 years of my life.

I haven't the faintest idea what your beliefs were for the first 25 years of your life.

Quote:
It is very telling that your vocabulary consists of so many abusive and negative words that stupefy you opponent.

"If you can't win them over with words, bamboozle them with bullshit." - William Wordsworth, 1932.

Quote:
Why? Although God says that we should live our lives by faith only you still expect evidence. Well yes of course you do.

Of course I do. And you're begging the question again, by the way.

Quote:
As the majority of the real world believe in a supernatural being then I would suggest that such a statement is erroneous based on your own incredulity


Argumentum ad populum, how nice to see you again. I thought you said yesterday that numbers prove nothing?

Quote:
Because it is my belief that there is a continuation to life after the body has died.

I dare say it is. But a belief is all that it is.
Derek

Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so.


No, Ralph, that is not true. Science never taught that the world was flat. That was only ever folk belief.


I agree.


Then you do so in error, which a quick flick through the internet will demonstrate.

Quote:
Not completely true is it. It may appease you to think you have proven me wrong, which is paramount here for you, but if we tell the truth it was a cultural myth spread by Washington Irving or it was believed by educated people (Scientists) and then passed on to people who did not have a clue. What is certain is that it was not the general belief of society in those times, they didn't care either way. Either way you are nit picking resulting in a detraction from the OP, which is, if sufficient people believe it that is doesn't make it true. There was not sufficient people who believed in a flat earth to qualify it for that scenario.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:93448"]
Quote:
Well, I beg to differ. 6 Billion believers in something 1.1 billion still living in obscurity. I would say that those 6 billion were in someway drawn to it where as the 1.1 billion have not woke up yet to smell the coffee

Drawn to it, yes indeed. Now, why would they be drawn to it?


Cheap bear at the bar, children eat free, easier way to make death acceptable, hope or the knowledge that it is all true conveyed to them via the Holy Ghost who testifies of the truth to those who ask.

Quote:
Quote:
No, the baton does not get passed to anything, It is taken, by Science, who decides that it does not fit in with their scientific method


Just so.


Exactly, maybe you should tell Cyberman that. He says that scientists don't do this but folk actually do it.
Quote:

Quote:
therefore, God does not exist until it can.

As good a way of putting it as any, I suppose.


Why thank you

Quote:
Quote:
Christian do not need it explaining. They know why such beliefs exist, because God exists.


Begging the question - an oft-misused phrase in these benighted TOWIE and microwavable chips times, where it's frequently bastardised to mean 'this raises the question ...' or 'this suggests the question ...' Said by some linguists to have been a corruption of 'this begs the question ...'

I, however, prefer to stick with its original and proper usage, which means to indulge is a spot of petitio principii, alias circular reasoning - to assume the prior truth of something which is yet to be demonstrated. It's what you're doing here, which is why I mention it.


Christians willing to die for their particular religion are assuming nothing. Such an act requires a little more than just an assumption that what they believe in is true.
Quote:

Quote:
That suggests that people are stupid and never develop the ability to think for themselves.

Indeed, but I could have told you that.


There we are then

Quote:
Quote:
I was not born a Mormon so how do you reconcile my beliefs for 25 years of my life.

I haven't the fanitest idea what your beliefs were for the first 25 years of your life.


Really, good job that i was trying to show a point that religion does draw one to its doors.

Quote:
Quote:
It is very telling that your vocabulary consists of so many abusive and negative words that stupefy you opponent.

"If you can't win them over with words, bamboozle them with bullshit." - William Wordsworth, 1932.


Quite

Quote:
Quote:
Why? Although God says that we should live our lives by faith only you still expect evidence. Well yes of course you do.

Of course I do. And you're begging the question again, by the way.


Not really. I should have known the answer before I raised the question. The eyes of your understanding have not yet been fully opened so i should not expect 20/20 vision.

Quote:
Quote:
As the majority of the real world believe in a supernatural being then I would suggest that such a statement is erroneous based on your own incredulity


Argumentum ad populum, how nice to see you again. I thought you said yesterday that numbers prove nothing?


Not number, just your own incredulity

Quote:
Quote:
Because it is my belief that there is a continuation to life after the body has died.

I dare say it is. But a belief is all that it is.


No, belief is all you see it to be. You do not know what I might know or experienced what I might have experienced. If God exists what are the chances of him divulging any knowledge of the continuation of life to you? Not good is it?
gone

Ralph a person may believe something to be true with all their heart and soul, and be willing to die for their belief, but it still doesn't mean what they believe has any substance to it!
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Christians willing to die for their particular religion are assuming nothing.


I'd have thought that they're making a rather large and unjustified assumption that their beliefs about the nature of reality are in fact true.

Quote:
Such an act requires a little more than just an assumption that what they believe in is true.

Does it? Why does it?

Quote:
Not number, just your own incredulity


This doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
No, belief is all you see it to be.

Yes. Because there's no evidence for it.

Quote:
You do not know what I might know or experienced what I might have experienced.

I'm sure we're all agog and dying to know.

Quote:
If God exists what are the chances of him divulging any knowledge of the continuation of life to you? Not good is it?

(a) Why not?

(b) Why, if God exists, does it just happen to be the very same God who has inculcated in a tiny minority of people cultish and bizarre if not downright ridiculous beliefs (Jesus appeared in continental North America; sin-repelling underwear)?

That's an incredible coincidence, isn't it, that the God who exists just happens to be the God of your own particular little tribe? How lucky.
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph a person may believe something to be true with all their heart and soul, and be willing to die for their belief, but it still doesn't mean what they believe has any substance to it!


Yes, that is true, however, for a normal intelligent person to be willing to die for their belief requires more than just faith. One must be pretty certain of the consequences. But that is why I said "more than likely." There are always exceptions to the rule.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:93459"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Quote:
Christians willing to die for their particular religion are assuming nothing.


I'd have thought that they're making a rather large and unjustified assumption that their beliefs about the nature of reality are in fact true.


Yes, I am not surprised.

Quote:
Quote:
Such an act requires a little more than just an assumption that what they believe in is true.

Does it? Why does it?


Because if it ain't a safe bet then you will lose a lot of money

Quote:
Quote:
Not number, just your own incredulity


This doesn't even make sense.


Oh Well. Clean over the head again. No point explaining. You will not get it.

Quote:
Quote:
No, belief is all you see it to be.

Yes. Because there's no evidence for it.


Yes there is evidence. You can have that evidence should you want it.


James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Moroni 10

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Quote:

Quote:
You do not know what I might know or experienced what I might have experienced.

I'm sure we're all agog and dying to know.


Who is "We"?


Matthew 7


6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Quote:
Quote:
If God exists what are the chances of him divulging any knowledge of the continuation of life to you? Not good is it?

(a) Why not?


Matthew 7:6

Quote:
(b) Why, if God exists, does it just happen to be the very same God who has inculcated in a tiny minority of people cultish and bizarre if not downright ridiculous beliefs (Jesus appeared in continental North America; sin-repelling underwear)?

That's an incredible coincidence, isn't it, that the God who exists just happens to be the God of your own particular little tribe? How lucky.


No, i haven't worn the all magic underwear for sometime now. Keeps you nice and warm on those cold winter nights though. Cotton. No i left that tribe and have gone solo now.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Yes there is evidence. You can have that evidence should you want it.

James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Moroni 10

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


The only thing that that is "evidence" for is just how much in love you are with begging the question - assuming the prior truth of something yet to be demonstrated. Circular reasoning, indeed. You're using a passage of writing which assumes the truth of something to try and prove the truth of the thing in the writing. Like this:



Bzzzzzt. No points.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Yes there is evidence. You can have that evidence should you want it.

James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Moroni 10

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


The only thing that that is "evidence" for is just how much in love you are with begging the question - assuming the prior truth of something yet to be demonstrated. Circular reasoning, indeed. You're using a passage of writing which assumes the truth of something to try and prove the truth of the thing in the writing. Like this:



Bzzzzzt. No points.


I think that might only apply to the 1.1 billion. They require no prior truth as they already have it. It is you that does not have it and you can get it just by following these step exactly, that is a promise, but hey, why change what you like.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
There was a time when most thought the world was flat!

No Floo. There was a time when scientists thought the world was flat and told everyone so.


No, Ralph, that is not true. Science never taught that the world was flat. That was only ever folk belief.


I agree.


Then you do so in error, which a quick flick through the internet will demonstrate.



Can you back up this assertion with any evidence?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum