Probability of God

[heflores]

Alright, kids are asleep, I hope to sound more coherent now.

As you said in your very insightfull last post. The human is three dimension. We agree that two of the dimensions will perish. All would agree to that I hope. Then the soul and it's acceptance or purging from the Universal Order "God"is the question in hand.

I believe this is the true fear for human kind and the only point at which risk should be assessed if we are to enter a risk analysis excercise.

 

[Xev]

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)?

What on earth are you babbling about?

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.

Our universe may be a closed system, however, energy could be gained from the multiverse at the expense of disorder elsewhere.

 

[heflores]

Ok.
Good stopping point live4him,
I'll check this site tomorrow.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Posted by 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.

Any of those can be proved or disproved. Any of those can co-exist. Therefore any of those can be used to answer the question "Where did I come from?" and the question is left without being answered by science.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by heflores
The problem in hand then becomes finding

I guess that I'm a bit lost now. I thought the issue was attempting to give evidence for the existence of God. Whether or not a human soul gets hurt or rewarded has nothing to do with this issue.

However, lets continue.

Originally posted by heflores
the probability of
1- Doing hurt to the soul
2- Rewarding the soul

Well, this is quite dependent upon the probability of the existence of God. If God exists, then the probability of the soul being either hurt or rewarded is 100%. If He doesn't exist, then the probability is 0%.



However, I believe that you are attempting to give Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is that wagering Atheism against Christianity.

Atheism wagers a finite cost for a finite payoff, resulting in a finite expected value. Christianity wagers a finite cost for an infinite payoff, resulting in an infinite expected value. Thus, if one wants to place the smart wager, the person would choose the Christianity option.

 

[Jaxom]

You missed my point.

Originally posted by Live4Him
First, every thing that has been experienced (on earth and in space) conforms to these laws. Thus, we have no evidence to doubt them.

But they are not fixed laws, and may have to be adjusted with new data. In fact, there's been a recent discovery that they may not hold at sub atomic levels.

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

That's why I used quotes...what we think is the universe, may not be the entire universe, what's referred to as multiverse. Or it may be all there is, but somehow the laws we use to describe it don't hold up at that scale.

Back to the subject, how do you define what a soul is, in technical terms? Can it be measured as it leaves the body behind? Is it something tangible?

 

[Juliette]

Posted by Live4Him:

"Thus, if one wants to place the smart wager, the person would choose the Christianity option."

A slave would. A person jealous of their freedom and their mind would not.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Xev
What on earth are you babbling about?

Well, I've quoted textbooks on Thermodynamic (i.e. written by experts on Thermo), which states that these laws are applicable to every type of system (isolated, closed, open). Yet, still you doubt it.


Then, I pointed out that the earth is an open system, and these laws are applied every day on earth (i.e. car engines, refrigerators, etc.). You've stated that these laws are not applicable to open systems. So, apparently, you believe that they are not applicable here on earth.

So, how were the Laws of Thermo ever tested?

Originally posted by Xev
Our universe may be a closed system, however, energy could be gained from the multiverse at the expense of disorder elsewhere.

If the universe is considered a closed system, then by definition, energy (except for heat) and matter is not transferred outside of the system.

 

[Jaxom]

Let's see, I'm going to play it safe, and believe in God, so I can get into Heaven. I have no reason to believe, but hey, better safe than sorry, right?

No true god would see though that...

But I guess if you believe that there is a God, and you can only get in by believing, and not just by being a good person, then what choice does he leave you?

Getting back to the original, lost subject, I still fail to see how you determine the odds against the various creation theories, other than through what evidence there is for each. And isn't that what science does, weigh each theory by the data it predicts, and the winner is the one with the best score?

 

[Live4Him]

[

Originally posted by Jaxom
But they are not fixed laws, and may have to be adjusted with new data. In fact, there's been a recent discovery that they may not hold at sub atomic levels.

You're clutching at straws. What you are saying is that while science may not have the answers yet, someday it will.

Sure, but in the meantime you have to put your faith in believing that science will confirm your beliefs. And, after you are dead, what difference does it make? If you are dead, then you've placed your bet, win or lose.

Yet, Christians have put their faith in that which has already been confirmed, even in recent times.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaxom
Back to the subject, how do you define what a soul is, in technical terms? Can it be measured as it leaves the body behind? Is it something tangible? [/QUOTE]

Yes and no. We can measure the absence of the soul. When a person is in a coma, the body is still alive, the life support functions are still working, but they aren't conscious of their environment. What's missing? According to technical terms, nothing.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Juliette
A slave would. A person jealous of their freedom and their mind would not.

We are all slaves, whether we admit it or not. Some of us are slaves to the belief that God's Word gives us the truth. Others are slaves to the belief that science will (eventually) give us the truth, even though it has been proven to be presented falsely again and again and again.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Live4Him
You're clutching at straws. What you are saying is that while science may not have the answers yet, someday it will.

Sure, but in the meantime you have to put your faith in believing that science will confirm your beliefs. And, after you are dead, what difference does it make? If you are dead, then you've placed your bet, win or lose.

Yet, Christians have put their faith in that which has already been confirmed, even in recent times.

If you put faith into something, that means you can't show proof of it, but you believe it to be true. What you say here is it CAN be confirmed, and therefore wouldn't need faith at all. However, when asked to provide proof, there's a lot of waffling (just look at the many posts on this board alone). I'm not doubting that true believers FEEL they know God exists and all, but this is not enough for the skeptical mind. So are we doomed then, because we question things?

We can measure the absence of the soul. When a person is in a coma, the body is still alive, the life support functions are still working, but they aren't conscious of their environment. What's missing? According to technical terms, nothing.

Coma to my knowledge means no brain activity. So soul equals neural activity? Fair enough, since that's something intangible, like software in the computer.

 

[Cris]

live4him,

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.

If the big bang is just one of an infinite number of concurrent big bangs in a universe with infinite size then that satisfies a naturalistic model. The issue of a closed system cannot apply since something with infinite size has no boundaries and therefore cannot be closed.

Given the valid possibility of an infinite universe then this must also have a positive probability, especially since we know the universe already exists, and we don't know a god exists.

We also know that something with the property of infinity must also exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun.

Given that an infinite universe is probable and that something infinite must exist, and that the universe definitely exists, and in the absence of any evidence for anything supernatural then that lends increasing value to the probability of a naturalistic solution.

Also, given that the primary function of an omnipotent god is that he is the creator of the universe then we can see that if the universe is infinite and has therefore always existed then the need for a creator god is eliminated. This seriously reduces the probability for the existence of a god.

I see two possible scenarios -

1. Infinite universe that eliminates the need for a god.
2. Finite universe created by an infinite god.

This indicates 3 factors to consider as a probability value -

1. Infinite Universe.
2. Finite Universe.
3. Infinite God.

We know that infinity must exist so that favors 1 or 3.
We know that the universe exists so that favors 1 or 2.
We have no evidence for gods so that eliminates 3.
If 3 is eliminated then that also eliminates 2 since infinity must be present.

We are left with an Infinite Universe being the only acceptable probable solution.

 

[spacemanspiff]

We are all slaves, whether we admit it or not. Some of us are slaves to the belief that God's Word gives us the truth. Others are slaves to the belief that science will (eventually) give us the truth, even though it has been proven to be presented falsely again and again and again.

hey i like science.
what if i think that neither God nor science will give me the ultimate truth anytime soon. am I still a slave

back to the topic

i don't see how we can get some probability of God. if there is some sort of absolute Truth, there are a miriad of possibilities. how on earth could you come up with a probability with out just guessing(not that you shouldn't). to this day it seems that no one has found the holy grail, proof of the absolute truth. anyone who says they have is guessing. which is basicly what religion is. that's why they call if faith.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Live4Him
Others are slaves to the belief that science will (eventually) give us the truth, even though it has been proven to be presented falsely again and again and again.

Trying not to go in a lot of directions, but I have to comment that science, just as religion, has been presented by humans, who make mistakes. That doesn't fault the method itself.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Jaxom

Let's see, I'm going to play it safe, and believe in God, so I can get into Heaven.

But, you must have faith in Him. Without that, claiming to believe is a waste of time.

You believe in science, don't you? Even to answer the questions which haven't been answered yet?

See the flaw? You trust science without evidence, even though you cannot trust God without evidence.

I have no reason to believe

If you don't, it's because you haven't looked.

No true god would see though that...

Exactly.

if you believe that there is a God, and you can only get in by believing, and not just by being a good person, then what choice does he leave you?

Looking with an open mind.

You see, you trust that science will answer questions of long ago, even though there is evidence against those conclusions. Yet, you still go on believing. Why?

You believe because you had an open mind about science. And you accept the pathological science along with it.

I still fail to see how you determine the odds against the various creation theories

I don't. I clearly addressed that in my original post. I stated that this post only addressed the issue of theism vs. naturalism. I never mentioned creationism, nor the various theories of creation.

And isn't that what science does, weigh each theory by the data it predicts, and the winner is the one with the best score?

Have you ever heard of polywater? It was discovered back in the late 1960's. It was claimed to be the most dangerous substance on earth, if it ever got out of the laboratory. It was reported for several years by the scientific journals Science and Nature.

The problem is that it never existed. It was a flawed experiment. Yet, science took years to correctly determine the evidence. And, it was never reported in either Science or Nature.

The best score? It is that polywater is extremely dangerous. But in reality... It wasn't even science.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

If the big bang is just one of an infinite number of concurrent big bangs in a universe with infinite size then that satisfies a naturalistic model. The issue of a closed system cannot apply since something with infinite size has no boundaries and therefore cannot be closed.

Nope. This doesn't get you out of your dilemma. The definition of a system is not constrained by its size. It could be smaller than an atom, or larger than the known universe, or even of infinite size. You can define a system as "everything that exists". The edges themselves are at infinity.

Given the valid possibility of an infinite universe

But unable to be proven, which is a contradiction of science.

Given that an infinite universe is probable

So you claim. But I'm asking you to prove it.

that the universe definitely exists

Granted, the finite universe exists. But you are stipulating that the INfinite universe exists. This is something that you must support.

1. Infinite universe that eliminates the need for a god.

Again, even if the universe is infinitely large, that doesn't mean that the Laws of Thermo no longer apply. Science applies to the natural world through observations. Everything that has been observed about the universe show that these laws are applicable everywhere.

Yet, you are stipulating a universe that is beyond these laws. You stipulate a universe outside of our universe. And there is no empirical support of this alleged universe.

We know that infinity must exist

Didn't you forget to prove your premise (i.e. that there is an infinite universe)?

Thus, your conclusion cannot stand.

We are left with an Infinite Universe being the only acceptable probable solution.

This conclusion fails the test. If the premises have been shown to be lacking substance because you haven't offered support.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

I see two possible scenarios -

1. Infinite universe that eliminates the need for a god.
2. Finite universe created by an infinite god.

This indicates 3 factors to consider as a probability value -

1. Infinite Universe.
2. Finite Universe.
3. Infinite God.

We know that infinity must exist so that favors 1 or 3.
We know that the universe exists so that favors 1 or 2.
We have no evidence for gods so that eliminates 3.
If 3 is eliminated then that also eliminates 2 since infinity must be present.

We are left with an Infinite Universe being the only acceptable probable solution.

I've been saying that for quite a while and you and others have been put me down... I ask myself why...

But anyways...let's get to the discussion...

1. Infinite universe that eliminates the need for a god.
2. Finite universe created by an infinite god.

An infinite universe needs infinite space-time. Since space-time is limited , this option is not valid. If time was infinite, there would be infinite time in the past and the present would never arrive. Since the present is here, then time must be finite. Space naturally follows it.

So, the only option left is number 2: God exists.

1. Infinite Universe.
2. Finite Universe.
3. Infinite God.

1. is already proven wrong (above)
2. is already proven right (above)
3. must be true to allow the existance of a finite universe.

We know that infinity must exist so that favors 1 or 3.

Yes, no problem.

We know that the universe exists so that favors 1 or 2.

Yes, no problem.

We have no evidence for gods so that eliminates 3.

There is also no evidence for the following:
- Big Bang (surely not enough, otherwise we wouldn't have brane theory).
- Brane Theory
- Multiverse
- Cyclic Universe
- Infinite Universes
- Superstring Theory

And they all contradict each other, and the data collected is usually contrdictory since it always increases the probability of A and decreases of the B (and in the next time decreases A, increases B). So we have as much evidence for God as for any of those theories.

If 3 is eliminated then that also eliminates 2 since infinity must be present.

I already explained why an infinite universe is impossible.

We are left with an Infinite Universe being the only acceptable probable solution.

Already proved wrong...

Therefore...
God exists

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Jaxom
Trying not to go in a lot of directions, but I have to comment that science, just as religion, has been presented by humans, who make mistakes. That doesn't fault the method itself.

Sorry, but I'm getting swamped with all the posts.

I agree that humans, who are subject to biases and errors, present science. That is why I support the presentation of empirical evidence.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Live4Him
You trust science without evidence, even though you cannot trust God without evidence.

Science without evidence is not science, is it?

If you don't, it's because you haven't looked.

Assumptions are dangerous things.

You see, you trust that science will answer questions of long ago, even though there is evidence against those conclusions. Yet, you still go on believing. Why?

If there is evidence against a theory, then the theory is flawed. I agree with that. That's how it works.

I stated that this post only addressed the issue of theism vs. naturalism. I never mentioned creationism, nor the various theories of creation.

Fair enough. Since you had addressed Raithere's list, I had assumed (see, bad thing) that it was open to other theories as well.

Have you ever heard of polywater? It was discovered back in the late 1960's. It was claimed to be the most dangerous substance on earth, if it ever got out of the laboratory. It was reported for several years by the scientific journals Science and Nature.

The problem is that it never existed. It was a flawed experiment. Yet, science took years to correctly determine the evidence. And, it was never reported in either Science or Nature.

The best score? It is that polywater is extremely dangerous. But in reality... It wasn't even science.

Hmmm..is that what Kurt Vonnegut's ice nine is based on?

Like I said, science in the hands of people can be misused, look at cold fusion as well. But it is self correcting, if it's used correctly.