Mich (Andre?) , thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm going to
add a few thoughts here.
Thandarr

mich wrote:

"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142140915.245186.137760@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

How can we judge which of a number of highly improbable suggestions is
true, especially in light of the lack of evidence. I'm not sure the
scientists you identify have thought out all the possibilities. Let's
take those four:

1. The universe is an illusion. Frankly, considering the wild
improbability of the other three concepts, this is the most probable
default position. There is no universe, there is no god, and we don't
exist, we are merely the figment of the imagination of some equally
nonexistent being. I can't give any principled answer for rejecting
this most probable default position, but I do. Maybe it's Cogito ergo
sum, but I'm not sure that follows either.

However,within this hypothesis,one needs to redefine reality, and so a
definition of reality is needed. To simply define it as nothing or

nonexistant actually makes the God hypothesis real. To claim that God is
nonexistant...."as we are nonexistant" supports God as being real, in

sense of the word of "reality"...

I do not agree that we need to redefine "reality." I'm pretty sure I
don't understand the reality we have, much less an alternatively
defined reality. I'm not redefining the reality we experience as
nonexistence. Rather, I'm saying, under this possibility, that we do
not exist, at all, in any form. The universe doesn't exist. God
doesn't exist. Nothing exists. For some reason, very few people are
willing to actually stop at this conclusion. The reason I say it's the
most probable is that all the other possibilities are too improbable.
The possibilities involving God come later. This isn't one of them.

2. The universe spontaneously arose out of nothing. Maybe. Maybe if
you wait long enough anything can happen once in a large enough space,
or if you wait an infinite amount of time in an infinite amount of
space, anything can happen an infinite number of times. The problem

that even time might not exist without some matter or energy to exist
within that time. While I think it's also highly improbable, it's the
next most probable after the theory that we don't exist at all and
never have.

Fine, but this only strengthens the God hypothesis once more....if the
belief
of something being created out of nothing is a valid hypothesis, then,

would the God hypothesis be any less valid?

Because it is more likely that chaotic matter, energy, time, space, etc
arose with the ability to change and combine and interact with itself
over billions and billions of years (mostly, of course, before there
were "years") and ended up, in a few localized occasions, in highly
complex structures including life than it is that a complex perfect
omniscient omnipresent "deity" happened to pop into existence. This
isn't the God option either.

3. The third concept does seem improbable because everything that has
happened or ever would have happened would have already happened a

time ago. That's why a beginningless universe seems to me marginally
less improbable than a universe that suddenly randomly popped into
existence at some point.

This could be resolved by including cycles of different universes (big

big crunch/ or heat death, back to a singularity); the event happening
within
endless of cycles.

I agree that this could be resolved in that way, but the eternal
recycling universe wasn't one of the options proposed. Indeed, it may
be the most probable of all, eternal existence of matter and energy
trapped in infinite cycles.

iblility is that an intelligent creator created the

universe and is the first cause. If existence is 1) an illusion
perceived by a non-existent being there is no need for a god. After
non-existence I find the creator god probability the least probable
because if something is going to either 2) exist eternally or 3) pop
into existence suddenly, in either case it is much more likely to

out disorganized and chaotic rather than organized like a supreme
being. It comes down to the idea that if it takes a supreme
intelligence to make a universe, what must it take to make the supreme
intelligence?

By definition, God is eternal, and so the possibility #2 only must

the universe is eternal, which scientifically is a valid hypothesis, or

been created by a big bang, which simply states the
the cause of the universe, being the point of singularity, is

therefore unobservable, then ,science cannot disaprove of a God

as being eternal and infinite at the same time. Notice the point of
singularity, being infinite, does not represent nothingness, and is only

be taken as an hypothesis, not a theory, since infinity is something out

the scope of science.This makes the big bang hypothesis no greater than

God hypothesis.

I am not sure why "By definition, God is eternal." We define God in
absolutes, but we have no real way to know whether our definitions are
accurate. Otherwise, it's hard to know whether the Big Bang hypothesis
is more likely or less likely than the creator God hypothesis.

The problem is that all these are actually no more than philosophical
thought experiments. We have no way to investigate, study, or test to
determine whether existence exists or how it came into existence if it
does. Therefore I propose that the correct answer is "5) It cannot

determined from the information given."

I agree; faith is "not" a science, but remains within the realm of
philosophy...until someone finds some verifiable implications which

theory support or disprove the existance of God.

I agree with you agreeing with me here.

Now this is the weird part. The human mind seldom settles for an I
don't know on the question of the origin of the universe. I've
contemplated this for years, and I've come to the conclusion that if
one were to argue probabilities all four of the suggestions are "too
absurd a supposition for any consideration." There must be an
explanation we haven't conceived yet. In the absence of such a more
probable explanation, when I search my mind to decide what I really
believe, what I actually believe is the possibility that I have
identified as the least probable. I think there was some kind of

creative force that created the universe, while at the same time I
acknowledge the concept as maddeningly improbable.

Now is that any reason I ought to accept YOUR god or YOUR scripture?
Absolutely not. Mine is as good as yours and yours is as good as the
next person's.

I totally agree.

Your reference to Hebrew and Christian scriptures leads

me to the conclusion that you are a Christian. Your choice of posting
this in an Islamic newsgroup indicates at least some of your targets
are those of the Islamic faith. To me it is undeniable that Jews,
Christians, and Muslims feel a true strong connection to the divine
essence through the practice of their religion. The same is true of
sincere practitioners of every faith. Muslims, Christians, and Jews
all have loud and dangerous minorities who want to use their religions
as a sword against others, but most of you are just looking for that
intimate contact with the divine, and to the extent you achieve that,
you are right--for you.

I agree. Even if God truly exists, our concept of His/Her It's nature

be limited by our ability or rather innability to fully comprehend

It. This limitation is on the side of the creature, not God.

I do not know whether atheism and agnosticism constitute "faith
systems" because by definition they fail to provide--or even
offer--that intimate feeling of contact with the divine.

In my opinion, everytime an atheist posts on religious newsgroups,or

an atheist newsgroup, he/she conciously or at least subconsciously think
about the concept of God, which identifies them as being not simply
unbelievers but actually are rejecting the notion of God. This is a

process which demands a form of reasoning, one of which also lies

the bounderies of verifiable implications, and is therefore a form of
philosophy equal to that of faith.

The problem here is that you and I are defining faith differently. If
faith is merely the acceptance of a philosophical premise about the
existence of God on the basis of inadequate evidence, you're right.
Atheists and fundamentalists both do that. If, on the other hand,
faith is something more than merely reaching a conclusion about things
not seen, those seeking contact with the divine are doing something
very different from those just debating a philosophical idea.

Thandarr

Mich (Andre?) , thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm going to
add a few thoughts here.
Thandarr
mich wrote:

"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142140915.245186.137760@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

How can we judge which of a number of highly improbable suggestions is
true, especially in light of the lack of evidence. I'm not sure the
scientists you identify have thought out all the possibilities. Let's
take those four:

1. The universe is an illusion. Frankly, considering the wild
improbability of the other three concepts, this is the most probable
default position. There is no universe, there is no god, and we don't
exist, we are merely the figment of the imagination of some equally
nonexistent being. I can't give any principled answer for rejecting
this most probable default position, but I do. Maybe it's Cogito ergo
sum, but I'm not sure that follows either.

However,within this hypothesis,one needs to redefine reality, and so a
definition of reality is needed. To simply define it as nothing or
something nonexistant actually makes the God hypothesis real. To claim
that God is nonexistant...."as we are nonexistant" supports God as being
real, in our sense of the word of "reality"...

I do not agree that we need to redefine "reality." I'm pretty sure I
don't understand the reality we have, much less an alternatively
defined reality. I'm not redefining the reality we experience as
nonexistence. Rather, I'm saying, under this possibility, that we do
not exist, at all, in any form. The universe doesn't exist. God
doesn't exist. Nothing exists. For some reason, very few people are
willing to actually stop at this conclusion.

mich wrote:

"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142140915.245186.137760@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

......
.... Nonsense snipper activated .....
....

Andre

*Thus spake God's Creator*

The concept of God's was created for the same purpose
as fairy tales;

To assist people whose minds are not developed enough understand
what is real, and what is not real. ;-) (Like little children) :-)




God's Creator!
( *All God's want money, slaves and virgins* )
:-)
--

Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/

Nog wrote:

Pastor Bluskie wrote:

J Young wrote:

Is God real?

Yes God is real please adjust your actions accordingly.

No, he is just made up *****. It's all in your tiny little head.

yes just like atheists make up *****, its all in your tiny foil head.