Why The Monotheistic God Is Too Improbable To Believe, Even On Faith

[Technocratic]

Well, for the case of a monotheistic God, none of them have any empirical evidence supporting their existence, and they are all mutually exclusive. Therefore, one can hypothetically devise an infinte set of possible, equally unempirical competing deities. If you divide any one unempirical entity by the infinit set of potentialities, you get a figure approaching zero, meaning the probabilty of any monotheistic deity approaches a vanishingly small figure. Very improbable indeed.

It works, to a lesser extent, for polytheism as well.

 

[Panache]

Advantage: the guy who actually KNOWS what he thinks instead of saying "it's not probable" or "I might accept alien intelligence". me =)

This cracks me up. I hear this type of "logic" from religious folk all the time. "I'm certain of my paradigm, and you aren't certain of yours, so mine is more likely to be true." It's patently ridiculous.

One kid gets a bike for Christmas and thinks his mom probably got it for him, but isn't sure, since it could have been his dad or his grandpa. Another gets a bike for Christmas and is absolutely certain that Santa brought it to him all the way from the north pole.

Which one is more likely to be right?

 

[Cephus]

This cracks me up. I hear this type of "logic" from religious folk all the time. "I'm certain of my paradigm, and you aren't certain of yours, so mine is more likely to be true." It's patently ridiculous.

One kid gets a bike for Christmas and thinks his mom probably got it for him, but isn't sure, since it could have been his dad or his grandpa. Another gets a bike for Christmas and is absolutely certain that Santa brought it to him all the way from the north pole.

Which one is more likely to be right?

Excellent point. This kind of nonsense happens all the time. You get the religious person saying something like "you can't prove my god isn't real, therefore it's just as likely to be true as any other possibility!" That kind of thing is ridiculous. It's like Raelians saying "you can't prove that there aren't reptilian aliens running the government, therefore it's just as likely to be true as any other possibility!"

The fact is, it's just not a rational possibility. It's not as good as any other alternative. Both of those are unsupported by a shred of objective evidence, they do not match what we see in reality, therefore they are illogical possibilities that any intellectual individual must reject as having any credibility until evidence is actually presented to support them.

God is no better than reptilian aliens in the White House.

 

[majora$$hole]

And since we are on the subject of being "improbable", why not put up some evidences as to how the thought of the big bang theory are improbable? the thought of two random molecules randomly colliding with each other and randomly (word of the day) producing enough energy to create a WHOLE UNIVERSE is mind boggling in and of itself. (excluding the alien intelligence theory, which is rather frustratingly easily defeated by the question "If the aliens created the universe, who created the aliens?" and if you say the big bang then you say that the aliens are NOT the creators) And many big bang theorists like to ignore the law of cause and effect. But it is of no consequence, my Bible tells me exactly how the universe was created. Advantage: the guy who actually KNOWS what he thinks instead of saying "it's not probable" or "I might accept alien intelligence". me =)

isn't is also (frustratingly easily defeated by the question "if GOD created the universe, who created GOD?")?

 

[cpwill]

isn't is also (frustratingly easily defeated by the question "if GOD created the universe, who created GOD?")?

no, it isn't. as i pointed out in my earlier post.

 

[Cephus]

no, it isn't. as i pointed out in my earlier post.

But unfortunately, you didn't. You just invented an exception out of thin air, you never demonstrated that there's any such thing as an entity that exists outside of time. Just making something up and claiming it's true doesn't make it credible.

Therefore, since we know the rules that currently exist, let's keep our arguments inside of those rules. If you're going to make an unjustified exception for one, you have to allow it for all.

 

[joe six-pack]

no, it isn't. as i pointed out in my earlier post.

How would we know what post you are talking about? I don't feel like searching.

Could you summarize? If you have a brilliant argument, make it.

 

[Hawkins]

Usually, deist arguments come off as discomfort over ignorance about the nature of the universe around us. Because some people are uncomfortable not knowing how things work, they insert some form of god into the equation to make it all seem a bit more plausible, but that really has nothing to do with how things actually work and everything to do with making ourselves feel better about it. The whole "look at the trees" mentality really does nothing to understand the true nature of reality, how it came into being, etc. It's a feel-good patch designed to say "aha! I've figured it all out, now I don't have to think about it anymore!" But in reality, doing so simply makes you stop looking for the real answers because in your mind, you've already found them. Imagine how life would be today if medicine had stopped looking for cures to disease by saying "all disease is caused by demons"?

That's purely speculation without proof/evidence. You don't know ancient people's minds so all you write here is purely a reflection of your own faith.

Your faith differs from the theists. I try to establish a scenario to give you some food of thought.

Assume that you met with God by yourself to be sure that God exists. Now how will you be able to tell others. You'll find that there is not an efficient way for such a truth to be conveyed. All you can do are just testimony and witnessing, as those are already the most efficient ways.

And coincidentially, Christianity is all about testimony and witnessing, uniquely.

Personally, I possess the same problem, He is so evident to me though I know I can't present it evidently to others as I understand that by the covenant people need faith (instead of proof) to be saved. Thus proof is not allowed. Yet at least, it allows me to think in a very special way that others don't seem to be able time. As a result, I bring you with the perspective there as the food of thought of the day,

Assume that you met with God by yourself to be sure that God exists, what will you do?!

 

[TaskmasterX]

That's purely speculation without proof/evidence. You don't know ancient people's minds so all you write here is purely a reflection of your own faith.

Your faith differs from the theists. I try to establish a scenario to give you some food of thought.

Assume that you met with God by yourself to be sure that God exists. Now how will you be able to tell others. You'll find that there is not an efficient way for such a truth to be conveyed. All you can do are just testimony and witnessing, as those are already the most efficient ways.

Right. There is no way to tell others because there's no way to explain it logically. All God-Believers' belief is based on obscure, un-provable "proofs". How can anyone logically explain a belief that was arrived at illogically?

And coincidentially, Christianity is all about testimony and witnessing, uniquely.

That's right. And science is all about observing and reasoning. If my choices are other peoples' conflicting, un-provable testimony and witnessing, or the logic and reason of science, then I choose science.

 

[majora$$hole]

no, it isn't. as i pointed out in my earlier post.

okay then how can YOU so easly defeat the position aliens created the universe with "if the aliens created the universe, who created the aliens?"? and then you say god did the same thing so i posed the same question to you replaceing aliens with god and all you have is "no, it isn't". good arguement!!!

 

[Cephus]

Assume that you met with God by yourself to be sure that God exists. Now how will you be able to tell others. You'll find that there is not an efficient way for such a truth to be conveyed. All you can do are just testimony and witnessing, as those are already the most efficient ways.

No, all I can do is understand that I had a personal experience that caused me to believe something happened. I understand that such an experience cannot convince anyone else that such a thing is true unless they had the experience as well. Therefore it is pointless to run around telling someone about a personal experience that no one else has had, especially one that is so far outside the realm of common understanding and objective examination.

Personally, I possess the same problem, He is so evident to me though I know I can't present it evidently to others as I understand that by the covenant people need faith (instead of proof) to be saved. Thus proof is not allowed. Yet at least, it allows me to think in a very special way that others don't seem to be able time. As a result, I bring you with the perspective there as the food of thought of the day,

It's a funny thing, all religions make exactly the same claim. I guess *ALL* gods are real because all religions have people who claim to have experienced them. Of course, you cannot prove to anyone that whatever experience you might have had actually happened, you cannot prove to yourself that it happened either. Most religious people that I've talked to who have had experiences have never questioned their particular interpretation of them. Something happened, it must have been their god. Alternate explanations are entirely ignored because it doesn't fit into their particular paradigm.

Assume that you met with God by yourself to be sure that God exists, what will you do?!

Question the experience first and foremost. Understand the fallibility of the human mind. Make sure I actually understand what happened rather than insisting that my experience was the most emotionally satisfying concept my mind can come up with.

But then, I'm rational.

 

[First Thought]

Right. There is no way to tell others because there's no way to explain it logically.

There is also the issue of subjective experiences being ineffable. At best, they can be described generally.

All God-Believers' belief is based on obscure, un-provable "proofs".

Incorrect. But that's hardly surprising when one is making sweeping generalizations about billions of people.

How can anyone logically explain a belief that was arrived at illogically?

You cannot. Thus the limitations in logic are apparent.

That's right. And science is all about observing and reasoning. If my choices are other peoples' conflicting, un-provable testimony and witnessing, or the logic and reason of science, then I choose science.

I choose both science and spirituality. Why limit yourself to one or the other?

 

[TaskmasterX]

There is also the issue of subjective experiences being ineffable. At best, they can be described generally.

Yes. And science is objective and effable. Subjective experiences have no proof that can be experienced or observed by others. Every subjective experience cannot be true, yet they can all be wrong.
You don't need faith that combustion works. It is always true, no matter what country you live in, what culture you are a part of, or what time period you live in. The laws of science can be proven to everyone. They function the same for everyone, everywhere.

Incorrect. But that's hardly surprising when one is making sweeping generalizations about billions of people.

Really? Can you give me the name on just one person who has found evidence of God that isn't going to tell me that it requires faith? Just one?

You cannot. Thus the limitations in logic are apparent.

Right. Though it's not a limitation of logic. It's the faulty reality of your experience.

I choose both science and spirituality. Why limit yourself to one or the other?

I've already explained this to you in another thread, which you gave up on.

Right. So reason and logic, given to us by the creator, are not to be used to try to discover reality, but instead something that can't be proven that we actually have or that it was even given to us by a creator, spirituality, should be used. Why program us a certain way, but then require us learn about the programmer in some other way we weren't programmed. Reason and logic are part of our species. Babies use reason to investigate and learn about the world around them. Spirituality doesn't exist for them until they learn about it from another person.
Spirituality is being broken down by science. There was once a time when the sun, moon and planets were thought to be of a spiritual origin. The basic laws of nature were thought to be the work of spirits. As science begins to explain more, the spiritual components disappear.

 

[First Thought]

Yes. And science is objective and effable.

Agreed.

Subjective experiences have no proof that can be experienced or observed by others.

Agreed. This does not, however, render them meaningless or irrelevant.

Every subjective experience cannot be true, yet they can all be wrong.

Define "true." They have truly been experienced.

You don't need faith that combustion works. It is always true, no matter what country you live in, what culture you are a part of, or what time period you live in. The laws of science can be proven to everyone. They function the same for everyone, everywhere.

I agree that science is an extremely useful tool for navigating and understanding the physical world we live in.

Really? Can you give me the name on just one person who has found evidence of God that isn't going to tell me that it requires faith? Just one?

You said:

"All God-Believers' belief is based on obscure, un-provable "proofs"."

I disagree, since my beliefs are formed from my subjective experience. Unless you are suggesting that the world as I experience it is an "obscure, un-provable 'proof'." But then that would call your views into question.

Right. Though it's not a limitation of logic. It's the faulty reality of your experience.

Do you believe mystical experiences are simply hallucinations?

I've already explained this to you in another thread, which you gave up on.

I do not recall.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Agreed. This does not, however, render them meaningless or irrelevant.

Let me put it to you in a different way. Following your line of thinking, every subjective experience would have to be considered relevant. For every person that has found a subjective, spiritual reason for their existence, each one has discarded other subjective beliefs in favor for the one they choose. There is no proof either way, yet you still disgard the other beliefs, all the while saying that, because your beliefs can't be disproven, then they can't be irrelevant.
Science doesn't work this way. Theories are accepted or discarded based on observation and experiment. The observations and experiments will hold the same result for all.

Define "true." They have truly been experienced.

Do you believe mystical experiences are simply hallucinations?

They may have been experienced. If this is the case then I believe they are misinterpreted physical phenomenon. If they weren't experienced then that would make them fabrications. Some religions use drugs to create hallucinations and then call it mystical.
Again, men assigned spiritual and mystical properties to natural phenomenon they didn't understand. As the human race has become more technologically advanced, we've been able to create tools and devices that have allowed us to peer into parts of nature not observable to the naked eye or to the rest of our senses. The tools, along with mathematics, have allowed us to assign physical laws to the natural phenomenon and allowed us to manipulate and in some instances, recreate the natural phenomenon. In a way, we have become the gods we created.

I agree that science is an extremely useful tool for navigating and understanding the physical world we live in.

And until it can be proven otherwise, the physical world is all that exists. And since you can't prove me wrong, then that statement is not irrelevant.

You said:

"All God-Believers' belief is based on obscure, un-provable "proofs"."

I disagree, since my beliefs are formed from my subjective experience. Unless you are suggesting that the world as I experience it is an "obscure, un-provable 'proof'." But then that would call your views into question.

What I'm suggesting is your interpretation of your "subjective experiences" are wrong. Instead of interpreting the experience as having a mystical origin. I would try to see if I could try to recreate the experience so I could gather more information and perform experiments. I would make hypotheses that try to explain it in physical terms and test those hypotheses and not just automatically think it's mystical when I have no proof that there is even a mystical reality. Introducing this idea into things just brings up more questions. Why does there need to be two realities - a physical and a spiritual? Give me a good reason and don't tell me it's God's plan. That only works on people who believe in a God. If I told you that if you don't believe in unicorns then one is going trample you in your bed tonight, you would say that what I'm saying is irrelevant because you already don't believe in unicorns, even though you can't prove me wrong.

 

[First Thought]

Let me put it to you in a different way. Following your line of thinking, every subjective experience would have to be considered relevant. For every person that has found a subjective, spiritual reason for their existence, each one has discarded other subjective beliefs in favor for the one they choose. There is no proof either way, yet you still disgard the other beliefs, all the while saying that, because your beliefs can't be disproven, then they can't be irrelevant.
Science doesn't work this way. Theories are accepted or discarded based on observation and experiment. The observations and experiments will hold the same result for all.

Science is wonderful for repeatable and observable results. No one is disputing that science is dependable.

They may have been experienced. If this is the case then I believe they are misinterpreted physical phenomenon.

"Believe" being the key word. The individual places significance on phenomena.

If they weren't experienced then that would make them fabrications. Some religions use drugs to create hallucinations and then call it mystical.
Again, men assigned spiritual and mystical properties to natural phenomenon they didn't understand. As the human race has become more technologically advanced, we've been able to create tools and devices that have allowed us to peer into parts of nature not observable to the naked eye or to the rest of our senses. The tools, along with mathematics, have allowed us to assign physical laws to the natural phenomenon and allowed us to manipulate and in some instances, recreate the natural phenomenon. In a way, we have become the gods we created.

We are learning. But we still have a ways to go.

And until it can be proven otherwise, the physical world is all that exists.

The above is your view.

Subjective experience of mystical states or visions is available to all with a genuine interest. If you want to experience things that science cannot explain, there are various methods. These experiences can then be reproduced and experienced subjectively. They do not require validation from the external world, for they are merely applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

And since you can't prove me wrong, then that statement is not irrelevant.

It's very relevant to you. Not so much for myself.

What I'm suggesting is your interpretation of your "subjective experiences" are wrong.

So... You believe that the way you interpret phenomena is superior to my framework? Interesting.

Instead of interpreting the experience as having a mystical origin. I would try to see if I could try to recreate the experience so I could gather more information and perform experiments. I would make hypotheses that try to explain it in physical terms and test those hypotheses and not just automatically think it's mystical when I have no proof that there is even a mystical reality. Introducing this idea into things just brings up more questions. Why does there need to be two realities - a physical and a spiritual? Give me a good reason and don't tell me it's God's plan. That only works on people who believe in a God.

I do not know why a non-physical reality exists. I only know that it does. Just because an idea challenges the boundaries of comprehension does not mean it should be disregarded.

If I told you that if you don't believe in unicorns then one is going trample you in your bed tonight, you would say that what I'm saying is irrelevant because you already don't believe in unicorns, even though you can't prove me wrong.

"As ye believe, so shall it be done unto you."

 

[Panache]

And until it can be proven otherwise, the physical world is all that exists. And since you can't prove me wrong, then that statement is not irrelevant.

What is the number pi made of? Are you claiming that the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference doesn't exist?

The physical world is the hardware. The soul is the software. Software isn't made up of atoms, but it still exists. In fact, the hardware is pretty much useless without it.

 

[GodsWrath]

the first commentator in the video made the comment that the Bible doesn't have any mention of DNA, infectious disease, etc. But the Bible does actually give evidence of scientific truth. For example:
-The Bible describes the suspension of Earth in space:
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space. He hangs the Earth on nothing.
-The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical:
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
-The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure. The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago.
So the Bible actually does have proof of scientific facts, the only holy book to do so. There are many more passages that can be quoted in this instance...

I would have to disagree...


1. In genesis ch 30 Jacob takes stripped rods and put it in a troth and had animals looking at it while they mated. the offsrpings then came out with stripped fur. in other words, if im having intercourse with my wife while watchign Barney the big purple dinosaur, my kids will be born big, purple, and have a tail.

2. Bible said earth is 5768 yrs old. look at the geneology of luke, (Even one Christian evangelical tried to convince christians that dinosaurs and humans once lived peacefully on earth...ummm, sorry brother, but thats the flintstones)

3. Book of Magi, it talks about zorastrian priests from Iran following a star, hovering over a stable...Do you know how big a star is? physically impossible

i suggest reading Italian scientists Maurice Bucaille's book, "The Bible, Quran, and Science" where he studies teh Bible and Quran and converts to Islam in the process claiming that the quran doesn't make a "single scientific blunder"...

 

[First Thought]

2. Bible said earth is 5768 yrs old.

This is one interpretation, but the Bible itself says no such thing.

 

[Manc Skipper]

This is one interpretation, but the Bible itself says no such thing.

Elementary addition of an unbroken line of "begats" which extends into recorded history is quite a solid form of "interpretation". IF the data is accurate.

 

[hallam]

Elementary addition of an unbroken line of "begats" which extends into recorded history is quite a solid form of "interpretation". IF the data is accurate.

That is unreliable too. Begating at age 30 creates double the about of time than begating at age 15. You would need to know much more information to make any type of accurate age of the earth calculation here than with what the Bible give you. Lets say there are 100 people in the linage. If they all begat children at age 15, that makes for only 1500 years. However, if they all begat at age 50, that makes 5000 years. If they all begated at 100, that is 10000 year. Now if some accounts are taken as true, Noah lived to be 900 years old. So if take his age and say that every generation was reduced by one year (Noah 900, Ham 899 and so on), we say that they all had children on that very last year only, and then calculate the first thrity people we get 27435 years. That would be a significantly larger number than 6000 were we to finish the calculation. Or even if we were to modify by saying that each generation was reduced by 3 years, it should be significantly larger than 6000 years old for the age of the earth. Considering the Bible only gives you names of the linage, this is not an accurate measurement.

 

[TaskmasterX]

"Believe" being the key word. The individual places significance on phenomena.

I place the same amount of significance on ALL phenomena. Just because something happens that can't be explained, does not mean it has a mystical origin, as i have already explained that science eventually erases the mystical component of natural phenomenon and it's not finished yet.

We are learning. But we still have a ways to go.

How do you know how far we have to go?

Subjective experience of mystical states or visions is available to all with a genuine interest.

This is another subjective statement, not factual. Again, FIRST you need to explain the reason for there to be a mystical realm before you can start talking like mystical states actually exist. For some reason you can't seem to accept that I don't accept the premise that mystical realms, or states exist.

So... You believe that the way you interpret phenomena is superior to my framework? Interesting.

If you accept the fact that some people are better football players, writers, artists, politicians, etc. than others, then why can't some be better at interpreting phenomena than others?

I do not know why a non-physical reality exists. I only know that it does. Just because an idea challenges the boundaries of comprehension does not mean it should be disregarded.

I'm asking this question again: What criteria do you use to decide which subjective experiences are relevant and which are not? You keep saying that in the spiritual realm we are all one. Why then would we need to subjectively find the reason for existence in this realm? Wouldn't it make more sense that we all would end up with the same experience or interpretation of this reality if we were all part of the same creator?
We all see the universe in the same way and get the same experience when using the objective laws of science.

What is the number pi made of? Are you claiming that the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference doesn't exist?

The physical world is the hardware. The soul is the software. Software isn't made up of atoms, but it still exists. In fact, the hardware is pretty much useless without it.

When did I ever claim that math doesn't exist? Math is the programming language of the physical universe. While matter and energy could be the hardware. A soul isn't necessary. Adding it in just brings a whole lot of questions, like throwing a wrench into the system.
If you want to describe consciousness, then that would be more like the computer user, not the software. Sure, the hardware and software is there, but it needs a user too. It leads to one of the greatest paradox questions: Does the universe exist because life is here to experience it, or do we exist only because of the universe's existence? Or maybe both? We both can't exist without each other. We are all part of one great system where all parts are necessary. There doesn't need to be another realm. It's not necessary for the system to work. It actually throws the system off.

 

[First Thought]

Elementary addition of an unbroken line of "begats" which extends into recorded history is quite a solid form of "interpretation". IF the data is accurate.

It is a very big "if," considering the source.

 

[Panache]

When did I ever claim that math doesn't exist? Math is the programming language of the physical universe. While matter and energy could be the hardware. A soul isn't necessary. Adding it in just brings a whole lot of questions, like throwing a wrench into the system.
If you want to describe consciousness, then that would be more like the computer user, not the software. Sure, the hardware and software is there, but it needs a user too. It leads to one of the greatest paradox questions: Does the universe exist because life is here to experience it, or do we exist only because of the universe's existence? Or maybe both? We both can't exist without each other. We are all part of one great system where all parts are necessary. There doesn't need to be another realm. It's not necessary for the system to work. It actually throws the system off.

What is a soul, if not a pattern of consciousness? God in theory is an infinitely complex pattern of consciousness. No other realm is necessary, but no other realm has been posited. God and human souls would occupy the same realm as other patterns.

 

[GodsWrath]

This is one interpretation, but the Bible itself says no such thing.

LIke i said, look at the genealogy of Luke...it mentions all the patriarchs from the creation Adam to Jesus at 2010 getting to 5768 years old...


as far as a star hovering over a stable, i made a mistake...its mentioned in book of Matthew..not Magi.lol it was the Magi's following the star

ps. The Bible also says that "True Christians" can drink POISIN and not be harmed (Marc: 16)