March 09, 2004

• waiting for god with rod and todd.
• The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing Better put the word "science" in quotes from here on out :)
• "Despite his findings, Dr Unwin maintains that he is personally around 95% certain that God exists." now THAT's science...
• eeny meeny miney mo!
• What a pile of shit. I'm no atheist, but really, what a pile of shit.
• Well, you know what they say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Religion.
• From the web site promoting his book: My reasoning was that a book about math concepts, no matter how simple, has the potential to be dull; a book about theological themes also has the potential to be dull, so a book about math and theology has the potential to be supernaturally dull. Another nice quote, from an interview with him: I would hope people would come away thinking a little differently about what faith is and what faith versus reason is.
• "Over 300 Proofs of God's Existence"
• The amusing thing is, I suppose, that there can never be any proof that God exists. The amusing thing is, I suppose, that there can never be any proof that God doesn't exist. (delete as appropriate)
• "He argues that rather than being a theological issue, the question of God's existence is simply a matter of statistics." Well, there goes all the wonder and mystery of life.
• OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (I) (1) The human spirit exists. (2) Therefore, God exists. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (II) (1) Check out this video segment. (2) Now how can anyone watch that and NOT believe in God? (3) Therefore, God exists.
• SideDish - that's just called faith. Faith is beautiful, but people on both side just have to accept faith is faith. It's not logic or reason or proof, but something entirely different that will not hold up to other tests because it is not subject to those tests. I wish we could just say: there are people with faith in God(s), there are people without faith in God(s) - so long as no one is killing anyone else for it, all's well.
• Oh - I see your source now. wow, there are a lot of different arguments. (Gave up at 57).
• SideDish, that site is awesome! ARGUMENT FROM MONTY PYTHON (1) Graham Chapman appeared in a film that made fun of Jesus. (2) Graham Chapman died of a horrible, incurable disease. (3) Therefore, God exists. (3a) And has no sense of humor.
• ok, I am no statistician but can some one here help me out on this one? isnt the premise "god has a 50-50 chance of existence" inaccurate? flawed, one might say?? and are these various (sometimes amusing) "arguments" not all solipsistic [sic]?? IANAP {I am not a philosopher!!) but aren't some violations of logic going on here?? and yes, I am a goddam atheist :D
• ok, I am no statistician but can some one here help me out on this one? isnt the premise "god has a 50-50 chance of existence" inaccurate? flawed, one might say?? Yep. Its utter nonsense. Like all the maths they ever write about. Things like this would rarely make the papers, for some reason. The "monster group" is the largest "sporadic, finite, simple" group - and one of the most bizarre objects in algebra. It has more elements than there are elementary particles in the universe (approx. 8 x 1053). That hurts even to think about.
• they=British media
• My favorite :-) ARGUMENT FROM MONKEYS (1) If man came from monkeys, there shouldn't be anymore monkeys. (2) There are still monkeys. (3) Therefore, God Exists.
• ok, I am no statistician but can some one here help me out on this one? isnt the premise "god has a 50-50 chance of existence" inaccurate? flawed, one might say?? Look at it this way: Either God exists, or God doesn't exist. Our "scientist" has apparently used that statement to extrapolate that it's a 50-50 chance either way. But we're not flipping coins here. Plug in anything you want into this logic, and you'll quickly see how it's utter nonsense: Either Michael Jackson will be elected president of the United States in November, or he won't be elected president. That statement is accurate in every sense, but it's not a 50-50 proposition.
• There's a 100% chance that I believe in God.
• The Rogue Semiotician punctures the balloon with characteristic acuity: The calculation starts with an assumption that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence. In terms of the Bayes calculation, this means that there is a one in two chance that God "will happen". This, I'm afraid, is the category mistake. God is not a contingent event. God is, depending on your viewpoint, a necessary and permanent fixture, or a phantasm. In other words, God is either necessary or impossible. The only contingent is the amount of certainty you, as an individual, have in either direction. However, I haven't read the book, so I don't know how seriously the author intends us to take his theory. Even if it doesn't stand up to logical examination, it may still have some value as an idea to think with.
• i was lucky enough once to hear stephen j. gould lecture, shortly before he died. one thing he spoke about was that "religion tells us of the rock of ages, while science tells us the ages of rocks." his point being, science and religion are not talking about the same thing, because the fundamental reason for the existence of each is different. trying to use one to explain the other is beyond apples and oranges. it just shouldn't be done. each is wonderfully useful, if you use it appropriately. they just shouldn't be mixed. and mamasaurus, as far as monkeys go, that's funny... but entirely inaccurate (i'm hoping you meant it jokingly...). it's a fallacy derived from the mistaken mixture of bad science (things evolve, and once it evolves every single one becomes entirely something else) with religion (everything is unchangeable, therefore absence of change = proof of religion). pretty simply, evolution = change in gene frequency over time. this happens. we have proof. but changes occur one critter at a time, not universally. the monkey argument is akin to saying that dogs evolved from wolves (we know this is true - we have fossil evidence, and they can still interbreed; selection here was partially [though not completely] human-imposed), but there are still wolves out there, therefore there can't be any dogs. which we know isn't true. ps - if you meant it jokingly, i apologize for taking it so seriously - i'm used to arguing my position with intro biology students, so... i keep my two worlds separate. i wholeheartedly embrace evolution, yet i believe in god (though admittedly in a more "relatedness of all life" sense than a judeo-christian "you only get one god" and "jesus saves" sense). i just don't believe that god went and hand-built people. more like, god made man spirituallyin his own image, and man thought it was such a nice gesture that s/he returned the favor in our common physical representations of god. i also dislike the argument that people (like the guy postulating the proof of god theory that started this thread) make, attributing good things to god and bad things to something else. fact is, if there's an omnipotent god out there and he makes good things happen, then he also either purposefully makes (or cruelly allows) bad things to happen too. some attribute this to human freedom of choice (try that with an earthquake - who chose that?) or the devil (who, if god is omnipotent, allows to exist and wreak havoc - therefore god is still ultimately responsible). therefore i can't believe that all good things come from god, unless god isn't omnipotent. i also think that the attempt to comfort a grieving person with the "it's ok god needed your loved one and called him/her away to be with him" is horrible. to think that the omnipotent god, who has everything, chooses to take someone away from you, for no good reason... if i was this omnipotent being, your deceased cat/grandmother/sister would still be alive and well. i do think that saying "he/she/it is with god now, who will watch over him/her/it until you can be together again" is, of course, fine, as that doesn't imply that god came and took away your loved one just to mess with your head.
• ok, I am no statistician but can some one here help me out on this one? isnt the premise "god has a 50-50 chance of existence" inaccurate? flawed, one might say?? Within the Bayes' theory, such a premise is called the prior and it represents what you can say without any further information. The extra information is put in afterwards and the posterior probability is then worked out. The real flaw in that so-called demonstration is the highly subjective nature of the decisions the guy made assigning what is good/evil and weighting things up. I am simply amazed that it hasn't been spelt out in the Guardian article, which gives the odd some flavour of seriousness, when it actually is utter crap.
• caution live frogs, I think mammasaurus got that deduction from a website that SideDish linked to above. But I'm glad to have someone here who is experienced in arguing against the "Monkey Theory". Although I share the sentiment, I'm terrible at clearly stating a point, and you did it so well. :)
• i also dislike the argument that people (like the guy postulating the proof of god theory that started this thread) make, attributing good things to god and bad things to something else. I thought that was an odd assertion, too. Also, quite often when physicists and cosmologists and the like are talking about God, they really mean the Creator God, as opposed to the Christian God, or any moral being.
• Attributing the creation of good things to God, and bad things to something else, is Manichean Heresy - burn him! NB: this is a joke, this is in no way a statement of support for meeting difference of opinion with large torches and a build your own flaming pyre kit. Because I'd be on the first cart through town ... On Preview: You mean none of my ancestors are monkeys, and any divergent development occurred millions of years ago between humans and the other great apes, of which we are still, of course, a part? Aw, shucks, I wanted to be a monkey.
• Speaking as a Christian Pythagorean, I think you'll find that the probability of God's existence is 61.803%.
• jb - you may not be a monkey, but Homo sapiens still ranks as an ape, order Primates, family Hominidae. as are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. so, i guess, if you consider a chimp to be a monkey (not technically, but in comman usage, maybe), then by all means let the poo-flinging begin.
• Caution Live Frogs pretty much beat me to it. I am an athiest through and through. The problem with religion is that it is based on faith, which ultimately has appealed to the oppressed throughout history (i.e. the majority). The main problem between these "proofs" of god is that they start with the assumption that there is a god and cherry pick pieces from whatever texts to make their point. This, is bad science. Science aims for uncertainty and to provide the best explanation given all of the available evidence. I would like to see any of these "proofs" be submitted to a peer review in an academic historical, archaeological, or religious studies circle. Also, I just listened to a great debate (c/o the infidel guy between Pastor Eric Lounsbery vs Ex-Pastor Dan Barker, (found here) on proofs of God's existance. It is quite long (90minutes, ~14MB). Again, proofs for god are inherently flawed, as science and faith are diametric opposites. Like CLF said above: "its beyond apples and oranges". (As a disclaimer, I have a few christian friends, and various religions running throughout my family, and I have seen it help turn people around who would have lost themselves to all sorts of addictions. If it helps someone on their way, more power to them. That doesnt mean I need it.)
• "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't, q.e.d." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Hey, someone had to put that quote in here
• Certainly the gods exist, each one as mankind has described/discovered it/them/her/him. The tricky part is how each one has been/is/may be defined. And of course, how many of them can glance at the head of a pin. Or something.
• Man goes on to declare black as white and promptly dies at the next zebra crossing. /dry british accent God(s) may as well exist. Gives us something to curse by or at. Plus, they let us have fun with parallel universes. I await with baited breath the day the God from Bizzaro Universe invades.