| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Donald E. Flood" |
| Date: |
02 May 2006 10:41:42 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
Everyone,
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE. Now, some of you will equate
atheism with the "null hypothesis," and on this point, I agree with you.
Like most atheists, I see atheism as simply a logical extension of science
and the scientific method. Science and the scientific method, of course,
deals with probabilities. Theories are always provisional, always open to
change. Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The word "science," of course, stems from the word Latin word, "to know"
(according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary), which means that
Science, in its broadest sense, encompasses the entire body of human
knowledge. Now, human knowledge is, of course, incomplete and to an extent,
subjective, and such will always be the case. But, consider the speed of
light. Galileo was one of the first to measure the speed of light. His
value was "very fast or infinite." But, then Romer came along and found
that the speed of light was finite. From there, other experimenters began
to measure the speed of light to finer and finer degrees of precision, and
the value that we have today (roughly, 300,000 kilometers per second) has
not changed very much during the last several decades. Clearly, science has
made progress in this area, and it is no longer sensible to believe, as
perhaps did Galileo, that the speed of light may be infinite. Clearly, it
is not!
Science arrived at the modern-day value of the speed of light through
empiricism, theory, testing, replication, and most importantly, through
falsification. Galileo made a conjecture about the speed of light that made
a testable prediction. Romer showed that Galileo was wrong in this area.
Did this mean that Galileo was somehow a "big dummy"? No, of course not!
Galileo was, of course, a genius and one of the greatest scientists of all
time. He simply lacked the theory and tools to investigate this area
further, through no fault of his own.
Intelligent Design, theism, deism, pantheism, etc., are among the infinite
propositions that fall in the realm of religious faith and belief. Any of
those ideas, however similar or contradictory to each other, can be believed
by "the faithful." As a matter of fact, anything at all can believed! It
is a question of, "Does it make sense to believe in it?" Without
falsification, we are faced with a set of infinite possibilities. A
person's religious faith is simply the arbitrary selection of some of those
possibilities. If God exists, then he/she/it could conceivably reveal
himself/herself/itself at any place and at any time. If this would occur in
a clear and unambiguous manner, then atheism (and agnosticism) would be
disproved. No such "test" exists for theism, deism, pantheism, or any other
religious faith. This is why atheism is the most logical position to hold,
because theism (or deism, pantheism, etc.) can never, ever be disproved.
Unlike religion, science and the scientific method establishes a "burden of
proof," not on the skeptic, but on the believer. Something can be believed,
but that does not mean that it is true. Without evidence and the ability to
test that which is true and separate it from that which is false, we are
simply left with possibilities.
Your thoughts?
Don
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
02 May 2006 08:59:39 PM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 05:39:46 AM |
|
|
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fl2g52p28ekhjp6lsalc68fks9rdr3nemd@4ax.com...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific" and
illogical for you to do so!
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 08:05:29 AM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific" and
illogical for you to do so!
That's so cute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 10:30:20 AM |
|
|
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:adah52lnc3smhtun8rd1fo9c95jphhschg@4ax.com...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific"
and
illogical for you to do so!
That's so cute.
Well, you're either a hubric, sophormic "teenage brat" or an adut with one
or more personality disorders and/or psychological illness who is in need of
some quality mental health treatment. I suspect the former, but fear that
it is the latter.
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 09:13:51 AM |
|
|
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:adah52lnc3smhtun8rd1fo9c95jphhschg@4ax.com...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific"
and
illogical for you to do so!
That's so cute.
Well, you're either a hubric, sophormic "teenage brat" or an adut with one
or more personality disorders and/or psychological illness who is in need of
some quality mental health treatment. I suspect the former, but fear that
it is the latter.
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
04 May 2006 09:23:31 PM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific"
and
illogical for you to do so!
That's so cute.
Well, you're either a hubric, sophormic "teenage brat" or an adut with one
or more personality disorders and/or psychological illness who is in need of
some quality mental health treatment. I suspect the former, but fear that
it is the latter.
Not only a couch philosopher but a couch psychologist too, I see. As
much fun as it has been to listen to your "theories", may I suggest
you actually try to counter what I wrote a few paragraphs above or
kindly close the door when leaving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
04 May 2006 09:56:37 PM |
|
|
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ucdl525npeb161oafedpj231ck3smb9n20@4ax.com...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB
I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith,"
etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally,
atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
Then, you should not have responded at all! And, it was "unscientific"
and
illogical for you to do so!
That's so cute.
Well, you're either a hubric, sophormic "teenage brat" or an adut with one
or more personality disorders and/or psychological illness who is in need
of
some quality mental health treatment. I suspect the former, but fear that
it is the latter.
Not only a couch philosopher but a couch psychologist too, I see. As
much fun as it has been to listen to your "theories", may I suggest
you actually try to counter what I wrote a few paragraphs above or
kindly close the door when leaving.
I do not necessarily disagree with what you are saying. As I stated in
another reply, I would consider "positive atheism" to be the leading
contender over all the other philosophies/theologies that I have
encountered, including theism, deism, pantheism, etc. However, I would not
go so far as to say that it is 100% true, but only that it is "likely true,"
by far, the best and most coherent of "the competition." To say that
atheism is falsifiable is, I grant, somewhat rhetorical. If God truly
exists, he/she/it has an almost unlimited number of opportunities to reveal
himself/herself/itself. In this respect, atheism could be easily disproved,
if God truly existed. But, yes, I certainly see your POV and do not
disagree with it! By default, atheism does not define "God," because how
can you define "something" that does not even exist! I suppose that some
would make a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism at this point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 04:58:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:59:39 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <fl2g52p28ekhjp6lsalc68fks9rdr3nemd@4ax.com>
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
You didn't miss much.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
03 May 2006 05:38:35 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:s2ig525f96lb6n9rn5m21bavblu2laiolf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:59:39 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <fl2g52p28ekhjp6lsalc68fks9rdr3nemd@4ax.com>
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
Time and time again in the news, on this Usenet group, and on the IIDB I
hear the phrase "Science versus Religion," "Science versus Faith," etc.
However, atheism and theism are NOT "equivalent"! Principally, atheism,
unlike theism (or deism), is FALSIFIABLE.
Untrue, for several reasons. One is that atheism doesn't define
god(s). Does it make sense to claim that a religion that defines a
meatball as god falsifies atheism? Why, why not? As to indexing gods
to the supernatural, any observable trivially becomes natural, so
godlike status of any observable can be, and should be, rejected.
There are many other similar problems.
Didn't read rest of the post.
You didn't miss much.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Oh, please, if you think that I am "missing something", then say so!
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 11:44:56 AM |
|
|
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 08:44:45 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 08:53:01 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch hat geschreibt:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Since when is 0.5 not a number between 0 and 1?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 10:18:31 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:53:01 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch hat geschreibt:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Since when is 0.5 not a number between 0 and 1?
Probabilities don't have a decimal notation.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
11 May 2006 01:31:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:18:31 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <orm262pdrjqvivcp2n7hedqs26s65ccsrc@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:53:01 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch hat geschreibt:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Since when is 0.5 not a number between 0 and 1?
Probabilities don't have a decimal notation.
Where did you get your math degree?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
11 May 2006 10:18:55 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:ihm562d6epupbu5danvlh0ip6hkpausg8e@4ax.com...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:18:31 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <orm262pdrjqvivcp2n7hedqs26s65ccsrc@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:53:01 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch hat geschreibt:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute
probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Since when is 0.5 not a number between 0 and 1?
Probabilities don't have a decimal notation.
Where did you get your math degree?
You do not need to be so rude! A probability most certainly can be
expressed with decimal notation:
http://www.minitab.com/resources/Articles/SomeMisconceptionsAboutConfidenceIntervals.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
11 May 2006 01:31:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <jbh262he9e0b6tauni0ch790kdb90al4k1@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
It is an entirely acceptable and usual method of representing
probabilities.
It is still wrong, though!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
11 May 2006 10:21:48 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:nfm562t56qrtshtctq89amhvheb6jklja1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <jbh262he9e0b6tauni0ch790kdb90al4k1@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute
probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
It is an entirely acceptable and usual method of representing
probabilities.
It is still wrong, though!
--
Another example:
http://www.minitab.com/resources/Articles/TwoSampletRandomization.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 08:53:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann
<kann@keinspam.de> let us all know that:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Wrong. Probabilities don't have a decimal notation anyway.
Actually they do.
But this guy is talking out of his rectal orifice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 12:03:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 01:47:46 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 05:26:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.05.09.18.47.44.723148@keinspam.de>
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
Then it is not a probability.
It is a "joke".
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 02:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 02:51:44 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 03:06:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 09:09:16 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 16:06:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
Show some contradictory evidence,
The OP's claim that the probability of the evidence of god is greater than
zero is just as arbitrary as my claim it is exactly 0.5.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 03:49:38 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 16:06:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
Yes I do. I agree with your claim that there is an equal amount of
evidence supporting each of the possibilities. Thus I assign an equal
probability to each of the outcomes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 04:31:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:49:38 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 16:06:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
Yes I do. I agree with your claim that there is an equal amount of
evidence supporting each of the possibilities. Thus I assign an equal
probability to each of the outcomes.
Then you can't read for comprehension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 06:00:21 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 17:31:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:49:38 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 16:06:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
Yes I do. I agree with your claim that there is an equal amount of
evidence supporting each of the possibilities. Thus I assign an equal
probability to each of the outcomes.
Then you can't read for comprehension.
I can accept that I misunderstood your point. I'm not sure how I could
have comprehended zero evidence to mean that one outcome had a greater
probability than another or that a non zero probability meant that there
wasn't evidence somewhere that we haven't presented. Please explain with
more simple English.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 07:48:42 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 17:31:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:49:38 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 16:06:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:44 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
Now you are asking not about the existence of god, but the existence of
some particular god. For that the probability is 0.5/N where N is the
number of particular gods. See the roulette wheel experiment in my other
reply.
No. You have no information other than that it's a baseless claim, to
create that model.
Yes I do. I agree with your claim that there is an equal amount of
evidence supporting each of the possibilities. Thus I assign an equal
probability to each of the outcomes.
Then you can't read for comprehension.
No you do! My answer is in respond to Donald Flood, not you. Remind me
what you said originally so I can rebut your argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism versus Theism (Deism, Pantheism, etc.) |
09 May 2006 02:48:37 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:46 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 16:44:56 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Tue, 02 May 2006 15:41:42 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
Therefore, the probability of the existence of God, supreme
being(s), higher power(s), etc., cannot be assigned an absolute probability
of zero.
The probability is 0.5.
Show your math.
It isn't math, it's predictive determinism.
Since we can't measure the existence of god directly, we must construct a
predictive model that fits the evidence we have. The only evidence we
The baseless claim.
have of god is the claim that god exists. My model consists of a US coin.
One side says In God We Trust, the other doesn't. When I flip the coin, 50
percent of the time the model tells me to trust in god. In the other 50 %
of the cases, I receive no communication from god. Based on the results of
this experiment to measure gods existence, I conclude there is a 50%
probability that god exists. It's sort of like measuring subatomic
particles.
In other words it's *****. What happens when you factor in all the
other possibilities like the Zeus, Mithras, Osiris, Odin etc? The
Great Arkleseizure? Santa Claus? Do you lose at poker? After all, a
card can either be the ace of spades or not. So its possiility must be
0.5.
When I factor in all the other possible gods, I get a giant roulette
wheel. All the possibilities where god exists are colored red and all the
possibilities god does not are black. Each god is assigned a natural
number, n and a red and black slot one with the even number 2^^n the other
one the odd number 2^^n-1.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
