Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Shell B]

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Try not to think too hard. You're thinking yourself into the wrong a lot here.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.



You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"

We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.

How in the hell did nothing give rise to something? There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.

I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.

---

Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"

That would be "therefore God is conceivable"

Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Or- you could explain how it is.......you know, engage in that discussion you desire.
(you seem to be missing a key variable in your question btw)

Pro-tip

---

Along one interpretation, in the hypothetical granting the universe, and given god or no god, the probability for both is exactly 1 for 1.....because here we are. That's the trouble of assigning probability to an event that already happened.
Along another interpratation, granting the universe but not taking god or no god as a given, we weigh the evidence and reflect upon how that might compell us to modify our beliefs, insomuch as we have them - whatever they may be.

In one scenario, it's useless unless we take the very idea we wish to explore as a given (which is how we end up with parity between them-it was smuggled in before any computation was done-), but we can't really do anything else, as assigning a probability to a concept like god is absurd - give it a try. In the other, we have overwhelming evidence for one side of the coin - and yet people have failed to modify their beliefs. Not all of them, mind you, the RCC famously decided that "evolution was a-ok", recently as one example.

---

Did you come up with this yourself or did you copy and paste it?

So, in other words, you wouldn't like to elaborate. That's okay, I didn't expect you to anyway.

Along your first interpretation, it's absolutely false. Consider this analogy "In the United States, the probability of winning the lottery is exactly 1 in 1. But for Bob, because, well, there Bob is with his winning ticket."

It's not even a tiny smidgeon false. Read very carefully. Your analogy however, is pathetic. But for Bob what? If Bob has a winning ticket in his hands what is the probability of him winning the lottery Vinny? Or does this only count when the guy holding the ticket is god?

That's not how probability works. In fact there's a name for the kind of fallacy you are using here. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

It is exactly how probability works, or more precisely..how it doesn't when you attempt to reach a conclusion about the likelihood of an event that's already happened by way of granting any given cause for shits and giggles.

It's when someone fires randomly at the side of a barn, and then draws bulls-eyes around the bullet-hole and calls himself a sharpshooter. Ie, you are using data that is not meant to give us proper probability.

That was my pro-tip, by the way.

That's not exactly what it is, but close enough. Maybe you could elaborate on the mountains of data I'm ignoring (-then- you could claim I was using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy)?

-Of all the fucking things you could have officially gone all apologetic about, you chose fine tuning....... I suppose it was only a matter of time.

[Zen Badger]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.


You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"

We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.

How in the hell did nothing give rise to something? There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.

I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.

---

Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

But it has been shown that it is the natural order of the universe that simple systems obeying local law will evolve into complex systems.
No designer necessary.
You could well be right, there could be an intelligent first cause to the universe. But you need to provide evidence that it exists, not bat around probability curves until you get the answer you like and then claim it's the truth.
And even if you do succeed, you then have to prove that it your particular god and not one of the thousands of other gods that humans have concocted.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Did you come up with this yourself or did you copy and paste it?

So, in other words, you wouldn't like to elaborate. That's okay, I didn't expect you to anyway.

Along your first interpretation, it's absolutely false. Consider this analogy "In the United States, the probability of winning the lottery is exactly 1 in 1. But for Bob, because, well, there Bob is with his winning ticket."

It's not even a tiny smidgeon false. Read very carefully. Your analogy however, is pathetic. But for Bob what? If Bob has a winning ticket in his hands what is the probability of him winning the lottery Vinny?

That's not how probability works. In fact there's a name for the kind of fallacy you are using here. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

It is exactly how probability works, or more precisely..how it doesn't when you attempt to reach a conclusion about the likelihood of an event that's already happened by way of granting any given cause for shits and giggles.

It's when someone fires randomly at the side of a barn, and then draws bulls-eyes around the bullet-hole and calls himself a sharpshooter. Ie, you are using data that is not meant to give us proper probability.

That was my pro-tip, by the way.

That's not exactly what it is, but close enough. Maybe you could elaborate on the mountains of data I'm ignoring?

Of all the fucking things you could have officially gone all apologetic about, you chose fine tuning.......

The problem is, you have two separate, contradictory probabilities of Bob winning the lottery.

Before he wins it's 1 in n number of tickets.

After he wins it's 1 in 1?

This is nonsense. You can't have two different, contradictory probabilities for one situation.

After he wins, it's not even the same scenario, the previous odds don't apply.

I know how difficult it is to admit you were wrong and I'm right. So I won't even expect you to do anything other than make personal attacks and say "you're wrong, you're wrong" without engaging with what I'm saying.

But I hope you at least understand that you can't have two separate probabilities for the same instance. Just like you can't have two different heights using the same units for the same person at the same time in the same place.

Only one probability is right for Bob winning the lottery, and 1-1 is not it. That's why we're not out there buying up lottery tickets right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem is, you have two separate, contradictory probabilities of Bob winning the lottery.

Before he wins it's 1 in n number of tickets.

After he wins it's 1 in 1?

This is nonsense. You can't have two different, contradictory probabilities for one situation.

Bolding is mine..........

After he wins, it's not even the same scenario, the previous odds don't apply.

Bolding is mine...........

I know how difficult it is to admit you were wrong and I'm right. So I won't even expect you to do anything other than make personal attacks and say "you're wrong, you're wrong" without engaging with what I'm saying.

Feel free to elaborate on exactly where I've failed to explain to you that "odds" mean jack shit with regards to events that have already occurred?

But I hope you at least understand that you can't have two separate probabilities for the same instance. Just like you can't have two different heights using the same units for the same person at the same time in the same place.

Good thing we don;t actually have two contradictory probabilities, eh? Do you want people to humor you or not?

Only one probability is right for Bob winning the lottery, and 1-1 is not it. That's why we're not out there buying up lottery tickets right now.

1-1 if he has the ticket in hand. The probability of any event, given that the event already occurred, is always 1:1. The problem is...the way the question is manufactured, not probability.

What's the probability that you posted your last response?

[Angrboda]

If anybody needs me, I'll be over here, kissing Hank's ass.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The problem is, you have two separate, contradictory probabilities of Bob winning the lottery.

Before he wins it's 1 in n number of tickets.

After he wins it's 1 in 1?

This is nonsense. You can't have two different, contradictory probabilities for one situation.

Bolding is mine..........

After he wins, it's not even the same scenario, the previous odds don't apply.

Bolding is mine...........

I know how difficult it is to admit you were wrong and I'm right. So I won't even expect you to do anything other than make personal attacks and say "you're wrong, you're wrong" without engaging with what I'm saying.

Feel free to elaborate on exactly where I've failed to explain to you that "odds" mean jack shit with regards to events that have already occurred?

Are you kidding?

An improbable event doesn't become probable just because time has passed.

Nobody calculates probabilities like this.

A coincidence that happened in the past is still a coincidence. An inevitability that happened in the past is still an inevitability.

If you wind back the clock and run the event again you just might get a very different outcome than your 1:1 prediction.

How old are you?

edit: Instead of wasting my time with this crap, go learn about Bayes Theorem. I'll even tutor you on Skype or something.

[cratehorus]

Bolding is mine..........

Bolding is mine...........

Feel free to elaborate on exactly where I've failed to explain to you that "odds" mean jack shit with regards to events that have already occurred?

Are you kidding?

An improbable event doesn't become probable just because time has passed.

Nobody calculates probabilities like this.

A coincidence that happened in the past is still a coincidence. An inevitability that happened in the past is still an inevitability.

If you wind back the clock and run the event again you just might get a very different outcome than your 1:1 prediction.

How old are you?

hey vinny why these assholes bothering you?

[Something completely different]

ohhh cute.


When Harry met Sally.