'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

[evanovitch]

notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'
Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz1nXhMLYCp</div></div>

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

That makes perfect sense, it is nearly impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.
Hence the burden of proof lies on those who say that something exist to prove it by providing evidence.

[johnnycakes]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

&quot;Agnosticism is atheism for cowards&quot;

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

I think Pascal the mathematician thought of it this way. There are two possibilities -

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

and two belief positions

a. Belief in God
b. Non-belief in God

this leads to 4 outcomes

1-a - God exists and I believe
1-b - God exists and I do not believe
2-a - God does not exist and I believe
2-b - God does not exist and I do not believe

And subsequent implicit consequence from the 4 outcomes

1-a - Possibility of redemption; no down side
1-b - Possibility of damnation; all down side
2-a - False belief; wasted time &amp; energy
2-b - No redemption; no wasted time &amp; energy

Given that the most severe consequence comes from 1-b, and the most profitable consequence comes from 1-a, then logically one must choose to accept (1) that God exists, and belief in that God (a) is the best choice even without evidence since it means to choose the best of the possible outcomes.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Pascal was a fine mathematical mind; not so much on theological issues though. What is easily pointed out in Pascal's wager - and it is it's major flaw - is that this could also apply to any and every religious belief.

Regarding Dawkins, it's impossible to prove a negative.

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah, Pascal's Wager. Pascal was a fine mathematical mind; not so much on theological issues though. What is easily pointed out in Pascal's wager - and it is it's major flaw - is that this could also apply to any and every religious belief.

Regarding Dawkins, it's impossible to prove a negative. </div></div>

That's not a flaw. The choice then becomes which religion, instead of no religion at all.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Pascal the mathematician thought of it this way. There are two possibilities -

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

and two belief positions

a. Belief in God
b. Non-belief in God

this leads to 4 outcomes

1-a - God exists and I believe
1-b - God exists and I do not believe
2-a - God does not exist and I believe
2-b - God does not exist and I do not believe

And subsequent implicit consequence from the 4 outcomes

1-a - Possibility of redemption; no down side
1-b - Possibility of damnation; all down side
2-a - False belief; wasted time &amp; energy
2-b - No redemption; no wasted time &amp; energy

Given that the most severe consequence comes from 1-b, and the most profitable consequence comes from 1-a, then logically one must choose to accept (1) that God exists, and belief in that God (a) is the best choice even without evidence since it means to choose the best of the possible outcomes. </div></div>

Personally I prefer Occams razor over Paschal wager......reasoning being that I do not believe in God - I know God and see God everday.
Paschal wager sets up a false dichotomy - giving you only two options.....whilst reality afford us more options,

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Personally I prefer Occams razor over Paschal wager......reasoning being that I do not believe in God - I know God and see God everday.
Paschal wager sets up a false dichotomy - giving you only two options.....whilst reality afford us more options, </div></div>

How can it be a false dichotomy?

Its a simple binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. If you choose to follow the principle behind Occam's razor - it is often the simplest of explanations that bear closest resemblance to reality. Then picking up &quot;more options&quot; is making it more complex and therefore moving away from your stated principle of Occam's razor.

If you are atheist, then you can assert that God doesnt exist. If you are agnostic, you can at least say you dont know - but not knowing is not denial it is simply ignorance. Now I cant argue with agnostic, because I cant argue from a position of ignorance - there is nowhere to go from there. I must therefore choose to discuss from a position of <span style="font-weight: bold">IS</span> or <span style="font-weight: bold">IS NOT</span>. My choice is clear from my logic.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Personally I prefer Occams razor over Paschal wager......reasoning being that I do not believe in God - I know God and see God everday.
Paschal wager sets up a false dichotomy - giving you only two options.....whilst reality afford us more options,

How can it be a false dichotomy?

Its a simple binary choice. God exists or he doesn't.</div></div>

If God exist, is it a Christian God or a Hindu God?
What if God is a process? as oppose to a thing or being!!!!
What if God is but an Idea? - existing only in the imagination of man.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you choose to follow the principle behind Occam's razor - it is often the simplest of explanations that bear closest resemblance to reality. Then picking up &quot;more options&quot; is making it more complex and therefore moving away from your stated principle of Occam's razor.</div></div>

Not necessarily more complex but more consistent with reality, that God is everything and Nothing.......The (W)hole and the sum of the parts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are atheist, then you can assert that God doesnt exist. If you are agnostic, you can at least say you dont know - but not knowing is not denial it is simply ignorance. Now I cant argue with agnostic, because I cant argue from a position of ignorance - there is nowhere to go from there. I must therefore choose to discuss from a position of <span style="font-weight: bold">IS</span> or <span style="font-weight: bold">IS NOT</span>. My choice is clear from my logic. </div></div>

I am not an atheist......more an Animist/Pantheist.

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Pascal the mathematician thought of it this way. There are two possibilities -

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

and two belief positions

a. Belief in God
b. Non-belief in God

this leads to 4 outcomes

1-a - God exists and I believe
1-b - God exists and I do not believe
2-a - God does not exist and I believe
2-b - God does not exist and I do not believe

And subsequent implicit consequence from the 4 outcomes

1-a - Possibility of redemption; no down side
1-b - Possibility of damnation; all down side
2-a - False belief; wasted time &amp; energy
2-b - No redemption; no wasted time &amp; energy

Given that the most severe consequence comes from 1-b, and the most profitable consequence comes from 1-a, then logically one must choose to accept (1) that God exists, and belief in that God (a) is the best choice even without evidence since it means to choose the best of the possible outcomes. </div></div>

pascal however places a lot of weight on the flavor of the belief.

his wager should be best viewed through the prism of the logical problem of evil.

if there is a god, and he exists, he is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, and not omnibenevolent. he may be omnipotent and omniscient. but not all three.

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If God exist, is it a Christian God or a Hindu God?
What if God is a process? as oppose to a thing or being!!!!
What if God is but an Idea? - existing only in the imagination of man.
</div></div>

Now this is like deciding what's for dinner - having the dinner itself is presupposed, but what is actually going to be on the plate may differ. Your guess is as good as mine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not necessarily more complex but more consistent with reality, that God is everything and Nothing.......The (W)hole and the sum of the parts.</div></div>

Isn't nothing equivalent to non-existence?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I am not an atheist......more an Animist/Pantheist. </div></div>
As I said before, your guess is as good as mine

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
pascal however places a lot of weight on the flavor of the belief.

his wager should be best viewed through the prism of the logical problem of evil.

if there is a god, and he exists, he is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, and not omnibenevolent. he may be omnipotent and omniscient. but not all three. </div></div>

I'm not understanding your point about the &quot;logical problem of evil&quot;, and I also dont see how logic would be served any better or worse by being seen through any prism of further opinion. A logical statement is based on some level of &quot;if-then&quot; statement. Rather than adding a viewpoint through which to see the if-then statement, we should probably modify the original if-then statement. Given that the discussion is about the existience of God, it would have to be specifcially relevant to that in order to apply.

In my view, the question is simple enough - does God exist or not. It therefore does not need additional layers in order to discuss.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=franksterr]
If God exist, is it a Christian God or a Hindu God?
What if God is a process? as oppose to a thing or being!!!!
What if God is but an Idea? - existing only in the imagination of man.


Now this is like deciding what's for dinner - having the dinner itself is presupposed, but what is actually going to be on the plate may differ. Your guess is as good as mine.</div></div>

What it proves is that Paschal wager is a false dichotomy.....there is more than two options.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not necessarily more complex but more consistent with reality, that God is everything and Nothing.......The (W)hole and the sum of the parts.

Isn't nothing equivalent to non-existence?</div></div>

Not really thoughts are real..........but can they be weight or measured?
If they cannot be weighted or measured do they then exist?

Your reflection in a mirror is real but does it exist?

Or the plucky quanta that is both a wave and particle, everywhere and nowhere, popping in and out of existence all at the same time depending on the observer.

Hence God is the sum total of all that IS and ISN'T - EVERY-thing and NO-thing......NATURE.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I am not an atheist......more an Animist/Pantheist.
As I said before, your guess is as good as mine </div></div>

I am not guessing!

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If God exist, is it a Christian God or a Hindu God?
What if God is a process? as oppose to a thing or being!!!!
What if God is but an Idea? - existing only in the imagination of man.</div></div>
Now this is like deciding what's for dinner - having the dinner itself is presupposed, but what is actually going to be on the plate may differ. Your guess is as good as mine.</div></div>

What it proves is that Paschal wager is a false dichotomy.....there is more than two options.</div></div>

No. Based on your intelligence displayed so far, this is a deliberate misinterpretation of my words.

Your words were &quot;If God exist&quot; followed by questions that investigate the nature or form that God takes given the prior acknowledgement of existience. Our discussion here is about the existience of God or in my analogy &quot;dinner&quot;. The secondary discussion of what form that God takes is what you raised and I am not prepared in this thread to go there. This is why I simply park that section of the discussion with &quot;your guess is as good as mine&quot;.

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
pascal however places a lot of weight on the flavor of the belief.

his wager should be best viewed through the prism of the logical problem of evil.

if there is a god, and he exists, he is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, and not omnibenevolent. he may be omnipotent and omniscient. but not all three. </div></div>

I'm not understanding your point about the &quot;logical problem of evil&quot;, and I also dont see how logic would be served any better or worse by being seen through any prism of further opinion. A logical statement is based on some level of &quot;if-then&quot; statement. Rather than adding a viewpoint through which to see the if-then statement, we should probably modify the original if-then statement. Given that the discussion is about the existience of God, it would have to be specifcially relevant to that in order to apply.

In my view, the question is simple enough - does God exist or not. It therefore does not need additional layers in order to discuss. </div></div>

yes, but the wager goes on to define a state of being predicated on god's existence, so then the wager describes a position to adopt if one answers &quot;yes.&quot; that is the part where you list damnation etc implicit consequences.

that is why the logical problem of evil has to be taken into consideration.

once taken to the logical conclusion, it is plausible that there is a god, but he can not be all three truth claims commonly ascribed to him.