Yeah, as I've previously explained, you can get to "God almost certainly does not exist" from observation of the world plus two very basic premises that I'm confident that you (Wolfy) would agree with:
1. When considering which theory out of two different theories about how the world might be is probably true, you should always prefer less complicated theory to more complicated theory. In mathematical terms, P(A) ≥ P(A & B) for all events A and B.
2. The complexity of a theory is equal to the number of bits required to specify a perfect simulation of that theory in a universal Turing machine (ie. an idealized computer).
Because God is a very very complicated thing to simulate, all of the theories that specify God & the World are more complicated than theories that are just the World without simulating God. And this means that, unless we find evidence that rules out all of the theories without God that are less complex than the simplest non-ruled out theory with God, we should end up preferring a no-God theory to all of the God theories.
I disagree, with God, only one thing has to be true, that God exists, if that is true then evreything can be exsplained by god.
with out God
Laws have to be made in the universe with OUT any reason for them being made, why was gravty made long before planets? what causes gravtiy, how do these things "react" what caused them to react? how where they made to be able to react?
Why dose everything work? why dose it look logical?
(with out laws the universe would not be here)
thats just the start
You claim it is, I disagree, I believe in god for the same reason except that IMO God is a lot less complex then evrey sing TRILLION Pound TRILLION of things harping on their own
where is your proof God is more "complex"? we dont even know half the stuff of the unverse, we dont know how complex it is to be told the truth, for all we knw some things are so complex we can NEVER know the awnser
and the biggest problem is even if we DO take this stance, it still can be wrong, both ways.
so I think the point is mute
We cant in any way really know which is more complex as we dont know a fraction of either of them, and even if we did, it dont means its right or should be followed, for example it was simpler to say the world was flat, that evloution did not exist, that we had always been here, that whites where "better" then blacks based on skin color
all wrong of course
if anything history has shown not to believe that as its almost always wrong, how ever it dose have its place, but due to all of these I dont think it belongs in this subject
You cant say "God almost certainly dose not exist" no science has proven beyond a showdown of a doubt some power made all of this posible, doubt they ever will
One side requires a massive amount of faith, the other requires that the person cannot accept something without evidence. It's not like believing something is a choice, it's just something that arises based on what a person knows (unless they try really hard at lying to themselves until they start to actually believe it; but I can't think of any place where that happens frequently.)
Wrong, faith is belving with out seeing, or really knowing, you, by definition are saying
"if I cant prove it, it don't exist"
thats faith that if its not there where you can see it, then it don't exist
you put your faith in evince and that if we cant find God right now, it means he cant exist, ecen when history shows there are plenty of things we could not proved existed in till recently