Statistical evidence of god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
We don't. Answer my question !
your words
post 110
Hume is simply saying that, unlike the claims made by Christians that everything God made is good, everything is not always good.
why is it not good?
post 108
If you take his example of rain, it would obviously be good, if it rained at the required time in the required place and vice versa.
Why would that be good?
Still no statistics in this thread labelled “Statistical evidence of god”.
Lets look at odds.
Odds for a straight flush 1 in 649740. Long odds, would not bet against it.
But the odds of a straight flush occurring in two games gets a lot better.
Now the odds of get a straight flush in 649740 games are great, 1 to 1
Now if you got to select the cards you could keep from each previous random hand your odds will decrease dramatically. About the most games you would have to play is 110 before you got a straight flush.
This is how evolution works. It gets to keep the good cards (genes) from the previous hand (generation). Thus the odds of something like our eye occurring are very good, because each generation gets to keep the good genes.
So what about a god. What are the odds of a god, the concept of the most complicated entity, just popping into existence? Well im sure they are very long (I say impossible) and I would guess that they are much longer then the formation of a chaotic universe.
So show us the odds of a god. Give us a number so we can compare them against the good odds of complicated life forms existing from just random events.
The odds (if we assume that one of humanities religions is correct) that you have selected the correct religion is about 1 in 4400.
The odds of your particular interpretation of god being correct are even longer, about 1 in 6500000000
The odds that you feel the need to move humanity (and your self) from mediocrity into a superior purpose are 1 to 1 in my humble opinion.
Lets look at odds.
Odds for a straight flush 1 in 649740. Long odds, would not bet against it.
But the odds of a straight flush occurring in two games gets a lot better.
Now the odds of get a straight flush in 649740 games are great, 1 to 1
Now if you got to select the cards you could keep from each previous random hand your odds will decrease dramatically. About the most games you would have to play is 110 before you got a straight flush.
This is how evolution works. It gets to keep the good cards (genes) from the previous hand (generation). Thus the odds of something like our eye occurring are very good, because each generation gets to keep the good genes.
So what about a god. What are the odds of a god, the concept of the most complicated entity, just popping into existence? Well im sure they are very long (I say impossible) and I would guess that they are much longer then the formation of a chaotic universe.
So show us the odds of a god. Give us a number so we can compare them against the good odds of complicated life forms existing from just random events.
The odds (if we assume that one of humanities religions is correct) that you have selected the correct religion is about 1 in 4400.
The odds of your particular interpretation of god being correct are even longer, about 1 in 6500000000
The odds that you feel the need to move humanity (and your self) from mediocrity into a superior purpose are 1 to 1 in my humble opinion.
The Christian view was that everything God made was good; this means nothing "created" was bad. Good and bad is not defined in relation to anything in particular; it relates to everything without exception. This, in itself is nonsense because to call something good we must have in mind a comparison with something that is bad or a real or imaginary example of that same thing if it were bad. So, to claim that everyhing is good is a nonsensical statement. If , for example, everything were blue, we should not talk of colour at all.
Your question is , in effect, asking what is blue good for, which is a non-question.
Hume is simply taking Christians at their word and answering them in the way they have couched the question. He is saying that sometimes it rains too much, sometimes too litlle which implies that sometimes the amount of rain is appropriate to what is required, for crops for example.That's it. Why you cannot understand this is beyond me.
So, to repeat, the question of what everything ( creation) is good for is meaningless.
Does O'Grady venture an opinion on this ? And what is the misunderstanding of the purpose of creation she refers to ? How should creation be understood ?
Hume is not saying anything of the sort. It is clearly evident that Hume is a humanistic pragmatist carefully avoiding reprisal from the religious right of the time.
There is no good nor evil. The mind is but a collection of learnt memes applied in spasmodic righteous epochs. Once again the human need to move from the mediocrity of nature into the divine purpose of the gods blights the subjective interpretation of even the most advanced thinkers of our times.
unlike the word "blue", "good" can be seen in terms of purpose/functionalism/etc so the analogy doesn't hold
so why is having crops good?
Whose issues of purpose/function are being held as indubitable?
If you examine the proposal that there are two persons in contention
1 - god (the creator of the universe)
2 - the living entity (conditioned by material existence)
would you expect that issues of "goodness" (ie agreeability of function to a said object) would be the same?
Would a conditioned living entity's notion of what something is good for be the same as gods?
Or perhaps you would be more comfortable working with an analogy thats more on your turf
Would you expect a prisoner's notion of how a jail should be "good" top be identical to how a prison manager's notion of how a jail should be "good"?
Last edited:
what on earth are you talking about?
If you can't see how Hume is clearly faulting issues of creation, its difficult to see how you are even approaching Hume's argument
and ironically, that entire point of view has arisen out of seeing inherent faults in creation
Without conviction in karma and rebirth, it is probably impossible to not see faults in creation.
Without conviction in karma and rebirth and Liberation, it is probably impossible to see creation as faultless and good.
You have no argument, so I shall leave you and O'Grady to it. You simply cannot understand the point I am making. Continue to confuse yourself !
Without conviction in karma and rebirth it is posible to escape getting bogged down in primitive belief systems which have nothing to support them other than the gullibility of their followers. Have you ever heard of the Enlightenment; it has nothing to do with geese in bottles and all the other nonsense that has been imported from the East for those who cannot face the decline in Christianity ,and seek a substitute.
Last edited:
Actually I would argue that without a conviction that life is eternal and the only stable sphere of eternal existence is that which is socialized around god, its impossible not to see faults.
Notions of karma and reincarnation simply make the issue of our existence in mundane existence more tenable.
Last edited:
But how can one arrive at such a conviction?
How can one arrive at such a conviction without first believing in karma and rebirth?
Without notions of karma and rebirth, the gap between oneself and God seems insurmountable.
yes you are right, on an ultimate philosophical level
everyone does not necessarily have a need to practice on an ultimate philosophical level however
How fortunate for them!
They'll be saved within a couple of decades. While I will crawl behind for a billion more kalpas, or more.
How soothing.
meanwhile suffer like a dog or an ass ...
You do come out with such rubbish. Do you believe that all who do not subscribe to your partoicular view of thing must be suffering ? What a load of tosh ! Buddhism is for wimps, people who cannot handle reality, think for themselves and make their own unfettered decisions. Why else do they talk of "taking Refuge " ?
There is more to life than sufferinmg ! And I notice that you mention a dog or an ass. Why not likre a human ? Is it because it sounds more dramatic to refer to animals ?