Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfy]

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

[Grek]

Remember, it's not "the simplest God hypothesis that you can think of", it's "the simplest God hypothesis that has not been ruled out by evidence".

You can't get a complexity discount for taking atoms out of your theory, or not explaining why gravity works. We know that atoms exist and that gravity happens. Any theory where there aren't any atoms and gravity doesn't work isn't a theory that could be true. You still have to come up for some rule that distinguishes things that will happen from things that won't happen. Let's look at an example:

We know from observation that if you drop an apple out of a tree, it will accelerate at about 9.8 meters per second per second on earth. If you want to work out which theory of gravity is more simple, the non-God theory looks like:

1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out what where everything will move due to gravity.

and the God theory looks like:

1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out where God wants everything to move to.
2. Everything moves to where God wants it to move.

and that second one is more complicated regardless of what formulas you're using to describe gravity/God's desires regarding the falling of apples.

Basically, if "The Universe exists how it does because God made it that way" is part of your theory, then you have to also specify why God made it the way he did instead of some other way that he could have made it.

[Wolfy]

I think your reaching, we could say the same about non God, why dose it fall at that speed what causes it?
and then the big question you add how did it come to be with out somehting "making it" that way

and so both are the same by your logic

because if you take out God you have to ask" why is it this way" (Unless you dont care, in which case you can do the same for God)

1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out what where everything will move due to gravity.

The problem with your logic is

A. assume the foulness are true, and assume for some reason that gravity gives a "consent pull" with out someone setting it that way, then you have to ask why it was able to do this, with out something make it.

For evreything you "claim" God has your side dose as well

1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out where God wants everything to move to.
2. Everything moves to where God wants it to move.

You misunderstand, again it would not be this, it would be *God uses the exact same foumla as the one above, so in closing its either with God
Same fourmla, why did he do it this way
with out God, same foulard how did it become this way with out god.

if "it was made by ____" with out help, you have to add "how it did it and why it came to be"
Even them out

I'd agure there is one differences, we know why God made it a way that WORKS, because he is inelegant and knows ways that dont, but how would the unverse know?
so you have to add how did it account for what word work and not work.
with intlegnt degin its clear to see why, they knew it would work
but with out? there is no reasson for it to "just fit"

[Thecard]

Yeah, I don't think atheists have faith.  That's what makes them atheists.
They have... Logical conclusions, I guess.  I'd take faith over logic any day, but they're two different ways of looking at life and its meaning.
I accept that Christianity (my view of it,'at least) is of logical.  I use the empty space for faith.

Well, I'm not about to try solving logic puzzles through faith, it's all about context.

Spoiler: Long Post to Wolfie (click to show/hide)

Wolfie, I had shitty penmanship until this year, my sophomore year.  And by shitty, I mean I was literally writing with my non-dominant hand.  I was not taken seriously when I wrote an essay by hand.  And my speech, good lord my speech!  My jaw is all fucked up.  My teeth cannot touch except for the very back two.  I am physically incapable of closing my mouth.  That really plays a number on pronunciation, I'll tell you.

So I know what it's like to be physically incapable of something and bring judged for it.  My third grade teacher ridiculed me, I was often the butt of jokes throughout grade school and middle school.  My second grade teacher, she actually ripped up my handwritten essays and threw then in the trash because they weren't written legibly.  My kinder teachers had me read out what they couldn't understand, but often they could not hear me correctly.
I just found out about my left hand this year.  I had gotten used to just accepting it being illegible, because it didn't affect my grade much if I just typed out my papers.  But in the beginning of this year my history teacher flat out told me I'd flunk the exam, and his class, if I couldn't write legibly.  If he hadn't had the balls to tell me I needed to do better, I would never have found out, and I would not have a chance of passing any of his tests that included an essay (most of them).

So, I guess what I'm saying is: I know how you feel.  That feeling has been a, if not the, defining part of my life.  But you shouldn't get offended when someone tells you to do better (my father did once, and the rest of my family thought legibility just wasn't important to me).  Yeah, you've been trying for two decades.  I been trying for over ten years to talk right, it ain't happened yet.  I been trying over ten years to write so it can be read, and I only barely got that now.  Would you believe it, it looks like some third grade idiot's writing, but that's beautiful to me, and to my family.  I've been trying to be social, I finally am friends with a girl, after (you guessed it) more than ten years of trying to talk to any one at all.  I tried for ten years to calm my mind down, to focus on class work, but I can only stay awake by taking the medicine my doc gives me for ADD.
You aren't the only one here who had gone through that bullshit, and I know it sucks a big, fat one.  But sometimes ya just gotta stop complaining and do something.  There is a reason for you having trouble with English.  Probably some form of dyslexia, or another learning disability.  There is no inexplicable occurrence that happens when you write.

Don't let anyone tell you you're just bad at something.  And good lord, don't go telling yourself that either!
I didn't accept having shitty writing, my family did, and they convinced me to give up.  But don't just let people have you give up!  It isn't fair to you!

[Grek]

The question "Why does gravity work the way it does?" doesn't really have an answer. We know the way it works, but there's answer to why it doesn't work some other way besides, "That's just how gravity works." If you say "Gravity exists because God wants it to exist." then you also have to ask "Why does God want gravity to exist?" and "Why does <insert reasons here why God wants gravity to exist> make God want gravity to exist?" and so on all the way down.

Either you have an infinite list of justifications, or you stop at the first step and say "That's just the way things happen to be."

[Wolfy]

The question "Why does gravity work the way it does?" doesn't really have an answer. We know the way it works, but there's answer to why it doesn't work some other way besides, "That's just how gravity works." If you say "Gravity exists because God wants it to exist." then you also have to ask "Why does God want gravity to exist?" and "Why does <insert reasons here why God wants gravity to exist> make God want gravity to exist?" and so on all the way down.

Either you have an infinite list of justifications, or you stop at the first step and say "That's just the way things happen to be."

Cant we say the same thing for God?

your preety much saying "ignore all the questions on my side, but ask every single one on your side, and you cant do what we do and say "that's just the way he made it"

[Grek]

The problem is that you're going 1 step too many. Instead of

Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: God.
Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.

it should be

Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: Just because.

since that middle step can be cut out.

[Wolfy]

But you can do the same for God and just say "just cause" and it ends up being the same.

Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.

answer for all of them right there

which makes them equal

[Grek]

That doesn't actually answer the question of "Why does gravity exist" unless you add back in "God makes gravity exist." at some point. At which point you've added back in the needless complexity.

[Wolfy]

That doesn't actually answer the question of "Why does gravity exist" unless you add back in "God makes gravity exist." at some point. At which point you've added back in the needless complexity.

but neither dose yours, your acting like with god we NEED an answer but with out we can just say "meh" and using that as proof God dont exist, it dont work that way

if you can say "cause" with out God, then you should be abel to say it with him

If "just cause" works for your side why not the other?
either you add it to both or you dont add it at all, other wise your just TRYING to make your side more logical by giving it an unfair advantage of demanding the other side explain why while you can just say "becuse"

[Grek]

Err, no. The order for which is better is:

Best: An actual answer to why the world is the way it is that doesn't ultimately end up being "just because" at some point.
Second Best: Saying, "just because" right away without any extra justifications.
Third Best: Saying, "just because" after 1 extra justification.
Fourth Best: Saying, "just because" after 2 extra justifications.
N+2 Best: Saying, "just because" after N extra justifications.

If adding in the step where you say "because of God" isn't necessary to get to either an answer or "just because", you shouldn't do it. It doesn't add anything.

[Wolfy]

But YOUR doing that to your side, why dose Gravity exist if there is no God? what caused it to work that way?
God gives that answer, God can answer it because he knows the best ways to do things and in this case that was the best way

Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: God.
Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.

it should be

Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: Just because.

Do you deny or not deny, you just did the very thing you told me not to do here?

[Thecard]

I think Grek is not necessarily disagreeing with you.  He's more trying to critique you, it seems.  He is saying that you shouldn't add extra justifications to your argument because they are aren't needed.   I kinda concur.  I don't need to justify God's actions, even if I could understand his motives.

It is late here though.  Grek could be talking about a bad case of genital hiccups and I might not be able to tell.

[Wolfy]

I dont need to either, I'm not justfying his actions, what he is saying (sounds like to em anyways)

Non God, you can remove "why dose gravity work" and answer with "it just dose"
but you cant do that with God

[Grek]

This:

why dose Gravity exist if there is no God? what caused it to work that way?
God gives that answer, God can answer it because he knows the best ways to do things and in this case that was the best way

translates to:
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: Because God wanted gravity to work that way.
Q: Why did God want gravity to work that way?
A: Because that is the best way for gravity to work.
Q: Why is that the best way?
A: <insert reasons why gravity is a good thing here>
Q: Why does that make gravity better?
A: It just does.

where it should just go:
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: It just does.

In order for your theory to predict where the apple will fall, it still has to have all of the physics-y bits in there somewhere. Just saying "God" doesn't help you predict anything. And since adding in all those intermediate steps doesn't help you explain anything beyond what just physics will explain, it's just adding in a dangling node labelled "God" and re-labeling "The Physics of Gravity" as "God's Divine Will Regarding Gravity" without changing what the theory predicts will happen.

Basically, in order to justify adding in God to your theory, God has to do something. If God+Physics predicts the same thing as just Physics without adding God, then you don't need God. It's dead weight on your hypothesis.