Does God exist?

That's not quite correct. Following your logic would mean that because it will either rain or not tomorrow, there is a 50% chance of both, which is not true. Probability isn't defined by the number of outcomes, but by the likelihood of the causing factors.

You imply evolution and the 'big bang' theory as information which is used to invalidate the idea of Deism. Semi-intelligent Deists would claim that they are divine instruments or manifestations. Scientists do not debate the force behind them, just the fact that the ideas are credible.

 

My 50% - 50% logic only applies to a debate where no logical arguments can be brought (if you can bring scientific arguments that infirm/confirm God feel free to do it). Generalizing this logic would be a mistake .

No I imply that invalidating the consensus method due to the "appeal to the people" would be a mistake simply because logic cannot answer all our question and mainly because we humans also sport analogical and illogical thinking . Ignoring our non-logical side it is something impossible and ironically illogical .

And thanks for calling me stupid . In case you didn't noticed I was referring to the stage where expanding singularity theory and evolutionist theory where accepted by consensus even thou they weren't backed by hard facts .

 

Doesn't sound like much of a worthwhile debate :/

I wasn't referring to you personally. I just find it bewildering why so many religious people have this instinctual, knee-jerk hatred for evolution and such. The theories themselves make no judgment on anything spiritual, they merely explain mechanics.

I scanned over that section of this thread. I think the majority opinion creates a reality, but not necessarily a correct one. Humans are very ruthless with their nature of conformity.

I see. I can't say much for the universe origin theory because I don't know much about it at all, but evolution is based on facts and evidence, at least at this moment in time.

 

evolution is based on facts?? yet evolution cannot be observed. are you kidding me? evolution is a theory and at this moment not even close to being fact.

 

Evolution is a fact, look it up. What you are confused about is the theory of evolution which is a theory on how it happens, but the fact it hapens is a fact.

 

I cannot prove that you are a murderer and you can't prove that you aren't so from A logical point of view there's a 50% chance that you are a murderer.

 

It's more of a polemic then a debate and it does have it's enjoyable moments .

Let me reformulate : I was talking about the back up that these theories had when they where launched . The consensus of the scientific community was all that stood by them in the early years , since the evidence that was behind them could be easily attacked and invalidated .

I appreciate your input to this discussion but please refrain from posting arguments that can be scientifically nullified .

Do the majority of the people on the globe think that I am a murderer ?

As I said this type of thinking applies in only certain situations . You have reminded me that in the US the consensus of the jury is law despite the evidence .

And just in case some wacko reads this and thinks I'm a murderer or your a murderer we have Roman Law on our side . "Testis unus , tesitis nullus"

 

Considering the average IQ is 100 I would put much stock in what the majority think as they've proved wrong over and over again throughout history. That's how the rich and powerful get to be rich and powerful, by controlling what the stupid people think.

 

With that logic there is a 50% chance that invisible fairies live in my sock draw.

They are entirely supported by evidence. We know that the universe is expanding and we know that evolution and common ancestry happens. Not only are they entirely supported by evidence but every test which has the ability to falsify them ends up also fully supporting them. If you think either is even remotely conjecture you frankly know nothing about them.

No, they were never accepted based on consensus.

I don't mind you admitting your own conclusions are illogical and based on nothing, but stop suggesting ours are too.

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of not trying to prove your own position and instead try to present opposing positions as equally facile.

 

So you went around the world and questioned every living human and then you came up whit this conclusion ? In Gods case we're talking about a overwhelming global majority .

Really ? Fully backed up huh ? That mean we know everything about the Big Bang right ? So we know why the Big Bang was occurred and how the expansion looked in it's 1st moments right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Features.2C_issues_and_problems

I would say that even today there are some that deny Big Bang . And they are part of the scientific community according to wikipedia . I would call them idiots but they do exist . The Big Bang is still a theory . It's not considered a law like Newton's or Ohm's . AFAIK the Big Bang was proven after a NASA probe mapped the Universe using only readings from radiation that was over 14 billion years old (I don't remember if it was gamma or microwave) .

As for me I will always believe in God . As i have stated before . I cannot scientifically prove that He exists , you cannot prove the contrary . And I was just showing that you can't compare God whit fairies and invalidate their existence using the same set of arguments .

 

True , but we do trust the majority to decide the leaders and to deal justice .

 

Well, according to you, invisible fairies either live in my sock draw or they don't so, according to you, there is a 50% chance that they do.

We don't need to know everything about an event to know the event took place. For instance, yesterday there was a car crash at the top of my road. I heard it happen and see the aftermath. The fact that i don't know what caused him to crash doesn't mean i can't know that a crash occurred.

How many times do people need this shit explained to them? There is no "still a theory", "just a theory" or "only a theory" in science. Theories don't graduate in to laws or becomes something else based on how sure we are that they are true.

A theory isn't a rung on the ladder of certainty.

A theory is an explanation of how/why something happens. It's not speculation, conjecture or an hypothesis. Theories explain everything from knots, tides and gravity. This doesn't mean that these things may not exist, it just means there is a theory explaining them.

Theories don't graduate in to laws. A theory will remain a theory because it's different to a law. Laws state that something will happen, theories explain how it will do it. Gravitational law states that the apple will fall to the ground, gravitational theory will explain it's acceleration. Tide theory will predict when low tide will be, knot theory will explain if a string formation will produce a knot.

I can compare them, you just need not to - what with it demonstrating that your belief is as ludicrous as a belief in fairies. Don't worry, i never expected you to admit that they are the same, i just wanted to watch you wriggle while trying to get out of it.

 

I hope you're not reverting in your spiky anti-theist state again . So one last time : the majority of the people on Earth believe God exist thus for there is a positive consensus , the majority of the people on Earth don't believe fairies exist thus for negative consensus . And once more this is an analogical response for a logical question . Why analogical ? Because this questions cannot be answered by logic .

So you because we can see the residual radiation and the expansion you can conclude that the Big Bang occurred ? To bad there are multiple ways to generate radiation and to cause visual spacial expansion .

Actually the gravitational pull formula not only explains but it also makes it possible to calculate the acceleration . Theories generate laws and then formulas , that's why you will hear the term "Einstein's law of relativity" .

Wriggle ? I enjoy any polemic that requires some brains .

 

Your argument was that when neither can be proven, it's 50/50. That would apply to the invisible fairies living in my sock draw. Again, the amount of people who believe something has no statistical influences over whether something is factually true or not. To suggest it does is an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. You really are tying yourself up in knots here.

There are many things which are evidence of the big bang.

Theories are different to laws. Seriously, google it. I'm tired of explaining this only to have you pretend not to understand. A theory isn't the initial speculation. They are different things in the same way a book telling you how a train works in different to a timetable telling you when the next train will arrive.

 

Ok , so you're back into selective blindness mode , sad .

My statement is that the inexistence of fairies cannot be applied God simply because God is validated by analogic . And that by going trough pure logic God has a 50% chance of existance , while your fairies don't because they're invalidated by analogic . You keep bringing up the fallacy of logic to a subject that cannot resolved by logic . Eider you can't understand what I'm saying (unlikely) or you refuse to understand my words (typical) .

Don't act smart gargling about Big Bang and that laws are not theories . Any idiot knows that . Either let it go or bring up something interesting .

 

So, again then, what makes the assertion that god exists more likely that the assertion fairies exist (without using the logical fallacy of appeal to numbers this time).

You seem to be attempting what most theists usually end up attempting, you keep trying to move the goalposts. Every time someone gives an example of your reasoning being used to justify a belief in something equally spurious you just try, and fail, to find a way of making the reasoning only apply to your spurious assertion. At best that tactic could be described as intellectually dishonest.

Even if we accept your fatuous logic that the fact that a lot of people believe it inherently makes it more likely that should have resulted in you believing in islam, but it hasn't. Which leads me to suspect that not only are you wanting your view given special treatment simply on the grounds that it is your view, but you don't even actually hold your own view to be true. What a mess you have got yourself in to.

 

You are assuming that I actually care for this polemic and how it is view . But it is nothing but a polemic , enjoyable as it is but nothing more . And how in the world you managed to identify me whit Islam ? Even if you apply my thinking to only one God it will still result in me being Christian .

I have approached the thread's question from an analogical point of view . Because when it comes to the existence of deity logics cannot provide an answer . Since analogic doesn't follow the rules of logic it is not subjected to fallacies .

We are analyzing the question though human minds and we think : logically , analogically and illogically . Again logic cannot provide a valid answer to this question . If it makes you any happier fairies have the same chances as God from a fully logical point of view . But then again you yourself are not a fully logical being , and nor is any human . A fully logical answer might be of use to a computer , but to a human is irrelevant (don't generalize this).

 

I'd rather spend the rest of my life thinking so than doubting it.

 

Because, according to you, "In order to say that the crushing majority is wrong you'd have to be a genius". ergo, by the standards you claim to hold, islam is correct.

Oh ok, same with my sock-draw-fairies then. By the way, they also exhibit any other characteristics you invent which you will claim them lacking will exclude them from your logic. Is there a 50/50 chance that invisible fairies live in my sock draw?

 

Islam is not the majority and being a Muslim doesn't not make you a genius . So how on earth did you came up whit that conclusion ?

From a logical point of view ? There are no arguments to support it and there are no arguments to invalidate it so you get a irrelevant 50% . From a analogical/human point of view there's not a chance since the majority of people don't believe in fairies . But they do believe in God