they can't be sure whether there is, or is not, a god.

that it is meaningless to act as if he does.

What is propable is possible, and according to Aristotle all possibilities actualize.

infinitesimally possible. is not probable.

That's how the concepts relate.

And that's the situation with Anthropic Principle, universe with settings allowing life like us, is remotely, infimitesimally possible. Not probable at all.

But here we are. Point for Aristotle.

is nonsense. It speculates probability with very little data.

it's not the word of god, but if you want to call standard physics speculation with "very little data" and "nonsense", by all means.

the data for how many sol type suns with Earth type planets in all the billions of galaxies is just not there.
So we don't know how improbable our situation is.

that you take a little time to educate yourself about anthropic principle. It seems that you are confusing it with the propability of life on other planets.

it is a philosophical argument, not one from physics. You responded saying it was standard physics. I described one of the reasons it holds little scientific value without data.
I don't need to get into a useless discussion with you about philosophy equating physics.

actually never heard about professional philosophers discussing anthropic principle (of course some might have), only theoretical physicists. I'm currently reading a book dedicated to the subject, 'The Goldilocks Enigma - Why is the Universe just right for life", written by Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and a cosmologist.

And the subject of Anthropic Principle has been central in all the physics books (about GUT and TOE) I've resently read, by Lee Smolin, Steven Weinberg, etc. Who generally think that physics can or at least try should answer questions starting with "why".

If you have no wish to discuss - and learn more - easiest way is just to stop participating in discussions.

refers to basic stuff like:
- Values of physical constants that allow carbon being born in stars
- The strengths of four basic forces
- particle masses
- amount of dark energy
- etc.

Nothing to do with placement of Earth. Slightest changes in any of those values would not allow life like us, and these coincidenses lead to question WHY out of all possibilities, these values are biofriendly. Common answers are various forms of ID and multiverse.

Some theoretical physicists like the cosmological 'know thyself' answer that universe allows physical systems (genes, brains, computers, etc) that can explain universe to itself.

You have to assume that if there is a god that god would be capable of proving it's own existence to everyone's satisfaction. This has never happened.

You can not however prove that gods don't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.

the necessity to assume so.

Yet I haven't done it.

The ability to do something does not dictate a desire to do so.

I consider myself agnostic because it cannot be proven either way.

The rules of science make it that way.

it is not 50/50, more like 99.9999999999 that God does not exist, to .0000000001 in favor. And I am being generous.

"A" means without...

A-theism means without god BELIEFS.

"gnostic" deals with knowledge, theism with belief.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can prove there are no gods,
just that you don't believe in or worship any.

I recognize that I cannot back up my belief system that would incline me to Atheism. Like Dawkin's, I refer to myself as an agnostic to reconcile my inability to back up a belief of disbelief.

Unless God = Laws of Physics. In that case I am not Atheist or Agnostic.

In the same way that "intellectual integrity" would require all to concede
they can't be sure whether there are, or are not,

leprechauns
fairies
ogres
invisible pink dragons
Paul Bunyon and
Principled Republicans

I'll file that with the other brazillion things I don't know.

Is it close to 1? .5? .1?

I'll certainly go first. I consider it vanishingly small. A whole host of leading zeroes to the right of the decimal. There is no real difference in life between a .00000000000000000001 and a .00000000000000000000000000001 as far as this kind of question goes - but I'm somewhere in there.

than humans on this earth exists.

What do you think that probability is?

...infer you mean some species of life that makes decisions more effectively than we do when considering universalized teleology - the holistic greater good and all that, and possibly having greater mental capacity to deal with those decisions, I'd have a try. I'd probably consider the age of the universe, the age of life on earth, the extrapolated number of planets likely to be in their local "Goldilocks zone", and come up with something certainly north of .5. Couldn't go to 1 of course as we really have no way to know how improbable abiogenesis et al. are as we have only one datum, but wouldn't guffaw at a .8 or so. Same of course goes for something far more brutal and stultified than we are.

But life and divinity are of course massively different qualitatively. We don't even have the single datum there. While superior technology could easily approximate magic as the old cliche goes, it would have to be immeasurably unimaginably superior to approximate divinity, especially sole-creator divinity. Could a hypothetical "Q" type something (if the Star Trek reference is permissible) fool me into thinking it divine? Sure - but hypothetical Vulcans surely would not.

ridden with hubris.

But a story came to mind, about a horse that was a man-whisperer. A friend of mine was in much pain, both physical and mental, after a motor-bike accident and losing a leg. His name is Philip (Greek for 'friend of horses' or 'horse-lover' ) and he told about an encounter with a horse that went through all his body, massaging and caressing with it's lips, until my friend became a sogging pile of pain-release.

Millions of stories like that, no doubt. I have lots of respect for mushrooms, among others.

But are life and divinity necessarily different qualitatively? It's a matter of semantics (what isn't) but what if the difference is only or mainly just about size and scale? And divinities referred to larger inclusive wholes? E.g. Gaia hypothesis and "holistic greater good" at that scale, that has some support in New Age etc. circles?

While I personally have no more regard for new-agey woo like Gaia "theory" than I have for desert monotheisms, there's nothing in atheism that means we all are similarly dismissive. While "god" is obviously a troublesome term to define, a reasonable starting point would typically include an entity able to change or subvert accepted physical laws by an act of will. If it cannot of an instant give me the power of self-propelled contolled and sustained flight, or produce a working perpetual motion machine from thin air, it's not theos.

I find it a rather dogmatic, rigid and very restrictive description.

If that is your definition, than I can see why you would consider yourself an atheist.

According to that starting point, Einstein & co = theos.

Before Einstein came up or "willed" that E=mc2, it was accepted physical law that atoms can't be split. After that Truman & co willed to blow up Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a fancy new Deus ex Machina way, presumably not much unlike what the Hebrew tribal sky-daddy did to Sodoma and Gomorra.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by it. Do you mean more intelligent? More adapted to its environment?

It would be like saying how humans are different than the bog from which we evolved.

The language used regarding evolution bothers me. The only meaning of "more evolved" to me is that an organism is better adapted to a certain environment. So human beings are not necessarily "more evolved" than any other organism.... depending on what environment we are in, we may be less evolved. So, to me, saying that there is something "more evolved" when talking about god or aliens or angels or whatever just makes no goddamn sense.

I actually developed this philosophy in parallel with my studies of evolution. I suppose the best way for me to describe it is that adaptation may occur in environments or realms that I can't even imagine. If we got this far here on this little earth, what could have possibly occurred way before us or in some completely alternate environment.

It makes sense to me. I just found it audacious to think that this elegant theory had topped out on this little piece of dirt.

How could we prove or disprove psychic toasters? Since they are psychic, even if we did prove their existence, they may be able to just erase all memory of the proof, and protect the secret of their existence.

As for toasters, unless they can do bagels they're frauds.

...even though many of us have repeated the same thing often. Very few atheists ever did or do claim to be sure. To be sure of absence is as faith-based as to be sure of presence. Implicit atheists - the vast majority - just accept it as a vanishingly small and irrelevant probability. There is no difference to me between "god X exists (and X could bwe any god equally)" and "the Cubs will go 162-0 without allowing a run". I can't be abvsolurely sure that either may not be true - but I assume both are nigh impossible and not worth behaving as if they were likely.

than God though.

He said he does not have a disproof of God and doesn't say I KNOW God does not exist. He states he thinks the probability is very remote.

For present reference, the title is not mine.

His own words are there on the video for all to hear.

Since you didn't have it all in quotes I assumed it was yours.
My objection goes to the author and not you then

or giant purple and green space faring zebras shooting comets and clowns out of their asses don't exist.

you can't prove a negative

Godel is laughing.

--imm

have a problem understanding the logic within the sentences when stated in English.

They seem to grasp at yet another straw of an infinitely small probability, (which is the nature of this non-certitude) as their "proof" that all atheistic thought is somehow flawed, when, in actuality, it really serves to show the strength and intellectual integrity of atheistic thinking. Compared to beliefs in the existence of something without a shred of measurable evidence, atheism has much more logical integrity than any theistic system of "belief".

That such a person, assuming they assert this about all gods, is merely an explicit rather than implicit atheist, and is coming from a position of faith just like you do.

Implicit atheists can certainly so assert about specific god-claims that are internally contradictory, such as a married bachelor god, or a two dimensional cuboid god, or an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent god, but we can no more be certain of the absence of all gods, or any logically possible god, than we can be certain of the absence of 18' tall bright blue tripedal aliens somewhere in the universe. Doesn't mean we have to consider their existence in the slightest - we just can't absolutely deny the possibility.

I don't think it's the best methodology to determine an infinite concept.

atheistic thought is narrowly limited in its scope. No offense intended (really), just true.

seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touch/felt. That is empiricism. And if one extends that to logical empiricism, which adds an inductive component (rational, but still limited to material considerations) aka The Scientific Method, then a limitation is definitely imposed.

Many people accept the existence of subjective evidence, while atheistic/secular thinking only considers objective empirical evidence. That's the difference.

and being conscious of sensing and feeling.

I don't sense how also theistic or non-secular thinking and evidence would not be based on experiencing as sentient being. Given that sensing is not limited to the classical five physical senses, but much more complex and versatile, also according to scientific understanding and classification.

five recognized physical senses. Logical empiricism does not recognize anything considered to be metaphysical, religious, a apriori, or intuitive.

Inductive reasoning is also perfectly acceptable. I need no evidence whatsoever to accept as likely true the idea that Neanderthals cared for their offspring.

Can't say about you for sure, but I can feel electromagnetic fields and so can everybody else I've asked.

But you seem to be making an ontological philosophical argument (Ding an Sich), which is highly problematic, also in regards to current scientific understanding. Which describes electrons as Dirac equations (cf. "effect&quot of electromagnetic fields, which have next level of genaralisations in QED and electroweak theories.

I highly doubt that "electron an sich" is a logically and scientifically valid concept.

such evidence comes through observation, and direct observation can only be conducted by using one or more of the five senses, therefore empirically.

And I never said that inductive reasoning is not acceptable. It is both necessary and acceptable, however, in using logical empiricism that inductive reasoning used to form an hypothesis is limited to that which is observable, measurable, or testable.

All your subjective experiences also fall into that category. Imaginary voices are not possible without reference to voices. Feeling "God's love" is not possible without the same neurochemistry that registers terrestrial emotions. It all works on the same brain function.

use of the physical senses. Therefore, empirical and objective. It is no different than using a telescope to see distant stars. Your physical senses are still being utilized. Without your eyes you cannot see the image produced by the telescope. It is merely an extension of your eyesight. Using glasses to see this webpage is another example of the use of instrumentation being used for empirical observation.

In answer to what else is there. subjective reasoning also involves philosophic POV. If reason using ontological and teleological methods, deity can be "proven", if only subjectively.

Does that mean to you that all other people's claims are limited to the five senses?

are there other ways of knowing than simply via the 5 senses?

Your knowledge of the Bible reaches you purely through your five senses. You have what seems to originate inside your own mind; but you have to ask how reliable that can be - it includes dreams, after all. Does it reach up to the standard of reliable knowledge?

goes without saying. However, I was referring to individual philosophical insight. Totally subjective.

for other sensory complexes besides the famous five is "gut feeling".

But also wikipedia can be considered general understanding:
"Human beings have a multitude of senses. In addition to the traditionally recognized five senses of sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception), other senses include temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception) and acceleration (kinesthesioception). What constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a sense is."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses

Besides pain, we can also feel well, euphoric, etc., and from what I hear, religious themes have lot to do with those sentiments.

only the five senses, which let one be aware of their outer surroundings, are considered. And, that fifth sense of touching or physically "feeling" is understood to include being sensitive to cold, pain, etc.

I think that you and I are very much in agreement about those extra senses.

Thousands of children have imaginary friends. Thousands of adults have seen/felt ghosts. Thousands of religious people have had epiphanies and heard dozens of different gods speak to them. Do all imaginary friends and ghosts and gods exist? How do we know which ones do and do not?

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

But when several or many experience something, or there are several reports of something happening, etc., the evidence is still subjective, but nonetheless real to those who did observe or experience whatever it was that occurred.

Also there is no single answer to your question. Philosophically, deity can be "proven," though subjectively, by applying ontological or teleological methods. Still subjective.

just true, because you "know" it is true, without anything concrete to back it up. Just your faith that it is.

at some point God will manifest if the probability is above zero that he exists.

that it is forbidden to assume an infinite probability space. Especially by others.

...Dawkins' words should be very comforting.

He can't be "sure" the sun will rise tomorrow either, but the probability that it will not is so very small so as to not be worth bothering about.

Seriously, this is just how scientists speak. Nothing is for sure, and all knowledge is provisional pending further evidence.

That is for certain. But, if he does exist so what he was/is just a minor sea god, probably been demoted to pond god by now anyway for his murderous ways. IMO if there is any kind of god it might not still exist. Perhaps, god is that force they talk about in Star Wars, just a thing that gets things going a catalyst perhaps, but doesn't really have a personality or anything it is just that a force that make things go.

A god that answers prayer is not implied by either. The non-existance of a prayer answering god is easily disproved by a trip to Las Vegas.

that he does not exist.

you had left out the "That is for certain" part, you might have had a case, but since certainty is not possible, you have nothing more than your own opinion.

in The God Delusion. On a scale from 1 (100% certain God exists) to 7 (100% certain God doesn't exist), Dawkins classifies himself as a 6, or de facto atheist. Very low probability of believing, but short of complete non-belief: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

(Apologies if this is mentioned in the video. I'm at work atm and can't see it.)

then that god does exist. However, that does not mean that god exists outside of yourself.

Much like an idea. An idea exists in your mind but may not exist any place else.

of one's boundaries and what is inside them and what is outside, exist?

outside of yourself??

Over the years some have stated that only they exist and everything else is within their mind

If that is the case then they must be a force of the universe(god)

that's what you are asking. I simply asked where the boundary exists, and you answered with a question presuming that the boundaries exist either inside or outside. The boundary in question.

Which is kinda funny.

edit: My first response in this post was directed to a different thread
my mistake

Your opinion was that solipsism sucks. I see no need to disagree with that opinion. But that was not an answer to my question about the location of the idea of boundaries.

It was a genuine question that I don't know the correct answer to, perhaps it is a paradox revealing some unnecessary presuppositions, dunno. There was no intention of ridicule or put down, just invitation to think about the question.

I do not know if I would say it sucks, but I have trouble buying into it.

As far as boundaries are concerned I guess I look at it as each one of us has an essence different than anyone else. That is the inside. Everything else would be outside of that.

in my mind?

I thought not.

But believers in the FSM, or any other mythical creature, has to exist in our minds first, then someone else has to prove us wrong in order for us to stop believing? That's your rules?

Not buying the FSM fantasy, or any other one you cannot prove.

relate to question about boundaries of, in and out of mind?

I'd have hoped that since The God Delusion has been a favorite target of scorn for theists for the better part of five years, at least the ones on this group would have taken the trouble to actually read it, if not familiarize themselves with its contents.

It must be a slow day in religious news.

That would be heresy!!! I'm sure most believers only read the critical reviews of Dawkins' books from the religious leadership.

I seem to recall asking one of our esteemed religious believers a few months back just what objection he had to Dawkins' books. I don't recall getting a specific answer.

I do, however, recall the uproar over Dawkins' recent book aimed at a young readership. Outrage!

Aren't you one?

Anyone familiar with Dawkins' scale would know that he doesn't identify as a 7 and doubts that many do.

I'm not a 7 and I've never claimed to be.

I fall somewhere between 6 and 7. If we're sticking to integer responses, I leave it at 6 and omit the nuance that would place me a bit higher.