Probability of God

Live4Him

Registered Senior Member
Hello all,

I'm new at this forum (i.e. this is my first post). However, I've been quite active in two other forums. So, in debates, I'm not a newbie. Yet, I haven't got a handle on this forum style just yet. So, if I make mistakes (formatting, etc.), please forgive me.

As far as my posting style, I tend to get to posts once a day. Yet at times, several days can pass before I get a chance to address posts if I'm busy.

And without further ado ... let's tackle the subject at hand.

One of the posts that I read contained a probability of God. That got me to thinking about this topic. What is the probability of the existence of God, without naming names, existing? What I mean by "God" is some supernatural being that has omniscient and omnipotent capabilities. To answer this question, one must ask a simple question. "Where did I come from?"

To determine a probability, one can measure the actual results over time. But, on certain questions, it is impossible to answer based upon repeated results. For example, the Twin Towers collapse in New York cannot be duplicated multiple times. Therefore, other methods are more practical for determining the "probability" of that event. Thus, some times it is necessary to determine the probability by eliminating other possibilities. For example, we could reasonably state that the towers did not collapse because of the wind that day.

Since this question (Where did I come from?) is of this nature, I will be utilizing the technique of eliminating the alternative answers in order to objectively determine the probability of the existence of God.

There are many theories that attempt to answer that question. In fact, there are too many to address in this short post. However, I can address two of the more common theories.

NATURALISM

Simply speaking, naturalism is the belief that all life's questions can be answered through science. Thus, there is no need for a god or gods to explain life's mysteries.

Naturalists answer the question of "Where did I come from?" with the following sets of answers.

A) All human life came from the first human couple.
B) The first human couple evolved from a more primitive species.
C) This species evolved from a series of evolutions back to the first life on earth.
D) The first life evolved by chance, due to available energy from the sun.
E) The sun came into being through a process known as the "Big Bang".
F) The Big Bang originated from a singularity, which exploded scattering matter that formed the galaxies.
G) But, there is no naturalist explanation for the origins of this singularity.

Thus, we are left with three questions that are unanswerable through science.

What are the origins of Matter, Energy and Time?

Since naturalism is unable to explain these three questions, then naturalism is not a viable option.


THEISM

Theism is the belief that a god or multiple gods created the universe. Three of the more common theist religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Since all three are founded upon a common source (i.e. Old Testament), I will utilize this source as a foundation for answering this question.

The Bible records that God created the heavens and the earth, along with all plants, animals, and mankind.

It also addresses the questions which naturalism was unable to answer.

Where did the following originate?

Matter - Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Energy - Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Time - Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.


CONCLUSION

With naturalism eliminated as a possible contender for explaining the origins of life, the probability of a supernatural being is increased. However, this still doesn't guarantee that God is a certainty.

Thus, one is left to consider which supernatural being holds the likely answers to life's questions. Just food for some discussion. :confused:
 
Originally posted by Live4Him
G) But, there is no naturalist explanation for the origins of this singularity.

Thus, we are left with three questions that are unanswerable through science.

What are the origins of Matter, Energy and Time?

Since naturalism is unable to explain these three questions, then naturalism is not a viable option.
Actually, there are several naturalistic hypotheses on the table: Cyclic Universe, Fields of probability, Infinite Universes, pbrane theories, quantum fluctuation within the singularity, etc.

~Raithere
 
Actually, there are several naturalistic hypotheses on the table: Cyclic Universe, Fields of probability, Infinite Universes, pbrane theories, quantum fluctuation within the singularity, etc.

Well, lets consider the first one, the Cyclic Universe. This theory holds that the universe just cycles through an infinite series of "Big Bangs". Of course, this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that an infinite motion machine cannot exist. Thus, this explanation violates the foundation of naturalism because if contradicts known science.
 
ehh, now that i think about it, i'd say there's about a 37% chance God exist(only 3% for the christian god):)
 
Weighing the evidence for each case, I'd have to say the chances of some creator of the universe is....

Not that high...
 
Originally posted by spacemanspiff
ehh, now that i think about it, i'd say there's about a 37% chance God exist(only 3% for the christian god):)

Welcome Live4Him, I'm glad you picked that topic, spacemanspiff is also very inteligent. I hope Spookz might come once in a while too. Let me ask you guys, you seem to be fresh on math and probability, may I use you for a second???

I talk in lament, so please bare with me. Do you agree that the main pshycological goal for our quest for the existance verses non existance is pure and simple and it's fear of the unknown.. Let's agree on this first because I think it's a very important factor in the probability proof.
 
An addition:

Isn't more important that we proof that god exist to us and not the fact that god exist in general?
 
Do you agree that the main pshycological goal for our quest for the existance verses non existance is pure and simple and it's fear of the unknown.

Well, I guess that I could agree with that statement. However, I would have phrased it as "Desire to understand the unknown". But, that's semantics.
 
Ok.
And if we also assume that we're proofing the existance to god to humans and not to other entities, then we must define the fear itself.

I'd say the fear is hurt that is physical or emotional.
Do you agree?
 
Originally posted by heflores
Isn't more important that we proof that god exist to us and not the fact that god exist in general?

I would agree with this completely. If God exists, He exists whether an individual believe it or not. Yet, to that individual, whether or not he believes that God exists is very critical to his future actions.
 
Well, lets consider the first one, the Cyclic Universe. This theory holds that the universe just cycles through an infinite series of "Big Bangs". Of course, this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that an infinite motion machine cannot exist. Thus, this explanation violates the foundation of naturalism because if contradicts known science.

1: Put down the crackpipe.
2: Read a bit of basic physics.
3: Realize that the second law only applies to closed systems. Thus this does not violate the second law.
4: Apologize for your stupid post.
 
Live4him, Don't worry about this idiot, you'll get used to the annoying flies after a while. please aswer my last post.

In summary:

1- We said we'll look at the existance of god from the prespective to humans.

2- We identified humans with fear

3- We identified fear with physical and mental hurt

Do you agree so far?
 
Originally posted by heflores
I'd say the fear is hurt that is physical or emotional.
Do you agree?

Nope. I view a person as a trinity. The body is the physical manifestation of a person. The spirit is the emotional manifestation of a person. Both of these will disappear when a person dies. The body returns to the ground, and the spirit returns to God.

However, the soul, the third manifestation of a person is the part that is critical in this question. A soul longs for acceptance. It knows that it is "unlikeable", yet it desires to "belong".

The naturalist’s soul "belongs" with the thought that someday that person will cease to exist, and they accept that thought. They also accept the belief that their actions are meaningless in the long-term view.

The religious person's soul "belongs" by being accepted by the supreme being in the universe.
 
I know this is tiresome to repeat in yet another thread, but is there any evidence of this spirit and soul that you can offer?
 
is the universe a closed system?

Depends on the value of lambda, I think.

if the universe is by definition all that there is,woudn't it be?

I think that under such theories our universe is only one of a system of many universes.
 
Originally posted by Xev
3: Realize that the second law only applies to closed systems. Thus this does not violate the second law.

Actually, you're quite misinformed. Let me quote.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. No process will occur spontaneously unless it is accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the universe. This applies to an isolated system, a closed system, and an open system.
-- Biological Thermodynamics, Donald T. Haynie

It is a common misrepresentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics by naturalists. If the Laws of Thermo could only be applied in closed systems, then how could the EVER be applied, since they were developed and tested here on earth (i.e. an open system)?

Second, the only truly closed system is the universe. Thus, this would be the only applicable system to the Laws of Thermo. This, therefore, invalidates your position.
 
We do not yet know how the "laws" of thermodynamics apply to the "universe" as we see it. It is a theory, and just as any theory, if it does not model real universe observations, it must be modified. What we call the universe may not be all there is, so it may indeed not be a closed system.
 
Originally posted by Live4Him
Nope. I view a person as a trinity. The body is the physical manifestation of a person. The spirit is the emotional manifestation of a person. Both of these will disappear when a person dies. The body returns to the ground, and the spirit returns to God.

However, the soul, the third manifestation of a person is the part that is critical in this question. A soul longs for acceptance. It knows that it is "unlikeable", yet it desires to "belong".

The naturalist’s soul "belongs" with the thought that someday that person will cease to exist, and they accept that thought. They also accept the belief that their actions are meaningless in the long-term view.

The religious person's soul "belongs" by being accepted by the supreme being in the universe.

I completely agree, then I'll use your definition of human hurt.

The problem in hand then becomes finding the probability of
1- Doing hurt to the soul
2- Rewarding the soul

your head seems more organized than mine now, so, rephrase and let me know.
 
Originally posted by Jaxom
We do not yet know how the "laws" of thermodynamics apply to the "universe" as we see it. It is a theory, and just as any theory, if it does not model real universe observations, it must be modified. What we call the universe may not be all there is, so it may indeed not be a closed system.

First, every thing that has been experienced (on earth and in space) conforms to these laws. Thus, we have no evidence to doubt them.

Second, by definition, the universe includes every thing. Thus, it is the only true isolated system.
 
Back
Top