Which is more likely, theism or atheism?

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it.

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

I think the post has shown that neither position is more likely to be true or correct. Damn individuality! What is more than likely to be true is everyone living now will be long dead before the answer is ever "discovered" and placed into common knowledge (If the answer is ever discovered).

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

I posted my reasoning for atheism being more likely. Nobody bothered to respond.

0 Replies

@mikeymojo,

Giving consideration on how language evolves overtime I don't think getting an answer will turn things around all that much...

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Sorry for the delay chap, Had a nice break on the broads.

Jimmy wrote:

How do you know that thermodynamics applies? Clearly the normal laws of physics do not govern black holes, and if theoretical physics is to be believed, the universe was essentially a singularity similar to a black hole.

The theoretical possibility of the universe being a singularity does not negate causality, for a even black hole requires the collapse of a star to exist.

Quote:

For the universe to come into existence, a law somewhere MUST have been broken. But just because a law has been broken does not mean that a deity was involved.

my friend, a law only needs to be broken if an intelligent cause (or deity as you put it) does not exist. Thus I do not believe it illogical to accept Intelligent intervention as a best guess.

3 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Sorry for the delay chap, Had a nice break on the broads.

Huh?

But, as for your post:
Could it be we just don't fully understand 'natural' law?

I perceive time according to a succesion of events. Jesus is referred to as Jehovah's first creation. That, from a Biblical perspective, gives time a beginning. Or, time as I perceive it.

I should go away now.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Quote:

The theoretical possibility of the universe being a singularity does not negate causality, for a even black hole requires the collapse of a star to exist.

I'm just highlighting that the universe COULD have always existed in one form or another. We don't know everything about physics yet.

Food for thought, we have postulated that time would stop at absolute 0 degrees Kelvin (though we can never reach it). That proves that time does not necessarily ALWAYS exist.

Quote:

my friend, a law only needs to be broken if an intelligent cause (or deity as you put it) does not exist. Thus I do not believe it illogical to accept Intelligent intervention as a best guess.

The classic mistake that most IDers make is assuming that lack of proof for something means a deity must be the only answer available for an explanation. That's what gave rise to the idea of a deity in the first place.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

View my post on the likelihood of theism/atheism when you get the chance, please.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

You have a simplistic explanation for a far more complex phenomena then you think when you try to justify why common sense developed an idea of God...

First we are naturally selected to assume "agenticity" in nature... we are programmed to think the wind whistling in the Savannah grass is probably an agent, a lion trying to hunt us down...that's our heritage since the ones that doubted it probably went extinct from the human gene pool.

Second, primitive calculus, the idea of larger sets, and the rational perception that there are patterns at play in nature, naturally lead to an idea of a final unifying force, a final set of sets which commands all...not very different at its base from the T.O.E. dream scientists now have today...

What we need is not to debunk the natural instinct in people from seeing and trying to perceive patterns everywhere...that would go as far as trying to convince people to stop drinking water...mildly speaking that is the biggest most naive mistake the new atheist movement can be faulted with, and a proof of lacking intellectual clarity among the ranks...what we need is to rationalize a tangible not folklorist idea of God through science and philosophy !

"God" is the Set of all sets, the unifying causal force in Nature, the unfolding of mathematics made historical process, God is structuring. (and thus not a person)

1 Reply

@neologist,

Neo: The Norfolk Broads my friend, quite the delightful breakaway in the FREEZING COLD ON A STUPID BOAT.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAwi13dsnGoNDcPWhx1AlRMm_-s49OxXloF5WpcQPwCsS8wU5bNA

Jimmy wrote:

View my post on the likelihood of theism/atheism when you get the chance, please.

From your perspective and knowledge I think your arguments are sound. What you appear to be debating is the christian god rather than theism. I'd suggest that would be for another thread my friend, but I would happily discuss it with you. There is nothing there I haven't considered myself in my younger days (mind you, I'm not that old)

Quote:

We don't know everything about physics yet.
Food for thought, we have postulated that time would stop at absolute 0 degrees Kelvin (though we can never reach it). That proves that time does not necessarily ALWAYS exist.

Your postulation would only hold weight if radioactive decay was heat sensitive, in order for time to have stopped, decay would stop also. You are right though, in that we do not know everything about physics, but while the scientific community accept the laws of nature, it is not illogical to apply them to theory.

Quote:

The classic mistake that most IDers make is assuming that lack of proof for something means a deity must be the only answer available for an explanation. That's what gave rise to the idea of a deity in the first place.

It is not the only explanation, for you yourself have given reason to believe that natural laws do not need to apply, however theoretical physics is all about taking the knowledge we have and finding a mathematical model that can rationalize and explain natural phenomena. You imply that it is irrational to believe that there is an intelligent cause. My theoretical model for universal existence works, without challenging natural law. You do not have to accept my model for I make no claim that it is empirical, just work on yours my friend Wink

When I am given new evidence to consider, I will consider it. I am not the most intelligent chap here, just don't think me ignorant

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Atheism is more likely.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

likelihood: the state or fact of something's being likely

^hm... Don't see anything about figures or quantification in there.
Nice try, Frank. You have failed once again. Stick to golf and poker.

If you keep avoiding my statement, I'll keep reposting it. Please look a few pages back to see my evidence for why atheism is more likely in the world we live in.

If you are going to say that one is more likely than the other...you have to quantify the both, Jimmy...no matter what that particular definition says.

But you can't...and your assertion that one is more likely than the other is an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion that you know holds no water...so continue to post repeats as often as you like...and I will continue to address them.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank Apisa.

1 Reply

Which is more likely, theism or atheism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know