real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:real life wrote: timberlandko wrote:
Rex, while your God is among the possibilities encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum, no matter how improbable[/size][/i] - the chain of assumptions required to get there, remember - the universe as we know it and any deity, let alone your specific deity, are not logically concommitant. Interesting is that while strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistently independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data, may be made for the existence of a universe independent of a deity, the converse is not true; no strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistantly independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data may be made for your God. The argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning.
Hi Timber,
You continue to mischaracterize the Christian view of God.
Christians do NOT believe in a God who is encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum.
God transcends the things He created including matter, energy and time. He cannot be contained by them or measured in comparison with them.
It is like trying to smell the color "9".
"9" is not a color. And even if it was, you cannot smell colors, my friend.
You bring another straw man to the party.
I do not characterize the Christian view of their God as encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum - plainly, if absurdly, key to their proposition is that such be not the case, as you point out. I say that nothing within the time/matter/energy continuum precludes the possibility of a god or gods. The existence of a deity or deities, while improbable and unnecessary, is neither proven nor disproven. I state again the argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning
I won't go to the trouble of highlighting in bold your statement in your previous post which contradicts this. Folks can read it for themselves.
To save time and trouble, I did it for you.
Quote:Also your continual use of the word 'improbable' implies mathematical calculations that neither you nor anyone else has made. Yeah, we noticed. Busted again, eh?
Assumption 1) There may be a deity or deities. Either-or: 1 of 2 possibilities. Assume there may be a diety or deities, stipulating the point per arguendo.
Assumption 2) There is a deity or deities. Either-or again, 2 possibilities.
Assumption 3) There is but one deity. Now we have 4 possibilities:
- There is a diety or deity (25% chance)
- There is not a deity or deities (25% chance)
- There are multiple deities (25% chance)
- There is but one deity (25% chance)
OK - so, one of those 4 possibilities fulfills the condition necessary to support your proposition, while requiring the coincidence of another of the possibilities; there's a 50% chance that the one answer of the four possible answers fulfills your condition, or, to put it differently, you're at 12.5%.
Assumption 4) That deity is independent of time and existence - now we have 2 more possibilities, one of which is a deal-breaker. You are at 6.25% probability, provided your original 12.5% made the 50/50 cut.
Assumption 5) That deity is omnipotent. OK , 6.25%/2 = 3.125%
Assumtion 6) There was a creation which resulted in the current state or condition. Now we have 1.53125% probability of things going your way, again provided a 50/50-either/or cut went your way. that puts us at .765625% probability.
Assumption 7) That deity soley and independently was causal to whatever you term creation. We're at .3828125%
Assumption 8) That deity is the deity of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia. So far, there is a .19140625% probability for your proposition.
Assumption 9) That Abrahamic deity is in specific the Judaeo-Christian God of The Bible. Now we're at .095703125% for your side.
Assumption 10) All the foregoing assumptions are, despite total lack of independent corroboration, given as pertaining to the current state or condition; another either/or, 50/50 cut. By my calculations, that comes out to a probability of .04785156255 for your proposition, or, to put it differently, a probability of 99.9521484375% some other state or condition pertains. Your proposition is not impossible, statistically, but it is not likely. As I said earlier, in order for your proposition to be valid, an unbroken, interdependent, concatenating chain of assumptions are required to get to where you'd have to be. There is a huge, functional difference between possibility and probability; that a thing, state, or condition be possible does not entail that thing, state or condition be probable.
Quote:As for circular reasoning, you certainly should know.
Your refrain of 'A transcendant Being such as God probably doesn't exist because we cannot see empirical evidence of Him. We cannot see empirical evidence of a transcendant Being such as God because He probably doesn't exist.' is a classic.
I submit it appears you present yet another straw man; I have made no such statement. I maintain that while your proposition is not impossible, I see no reason to conclude it is probable, and challenge the proponents of your proposition to establish their case in forensically, academically, scientifically valid manner. Not only has no such validation been presented, the proponents of your proposition seek to exempt the proposition from fulfilling the accepted definitions of "truth" or "validity", resorting to the paired "You can't test God"/"You must have faith" dodges. I submit once more the sole foundation of the argument for your proposition lies within your proposition; your proposition may be validated only through circular, internally referential reasoning, while linear, externally referential reasoning leads inexorably to the conclusion that the probability matrix does not favor your proposition.
You - and anyone else - may believe as you find convenient and satisfying. I find the concept of the Protestant Christian Patristic God neither conveniently probable nor philosophically satisfying.
On the other hand, I do derive great entertainment from watching the proponents of your proposition chasing their own tails. I figure there's no harm done encouraging them to do so, as they seem to enjoy it so much they consider no alternative to the practice. Near exceptions include Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Richard Swinburne, and Alvin Plantinga (among a very few others); they argue well, and powerfully, but all proceed from the assumption of the validity of the Abrahamic deity concept.
