How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Smidlee]

You do realize that the probability of any specific god being real is exceedingly low, right? Here is how the reasoning for that works, and I am being exceedingly generous with these numbers, it is just using probability in a way that doesn't spark any issues about what evidence exists or what various observations mean, it is neutral. Probability deities exist: 50%. Probability only 1 exists: 50% probability of deities existing X limited number 50% = 25% and so on in that manner. Probability that the 1 deity that exists is relevant to our lives in any regard: 12.5%. Probability that this deity cares about our actions: 6.25%. Probability that this deity rules over an afterlife in addition to all the other things: 3.125%. Already getting pretty low, and I haven't brought up any bible specifics yet, such as Jesus. The more specific one gets, the lower the probability goes.

You can't use probability when there are too many unknown variables. For example what is the probability of intelligent life on another planet? How many other universes exist besides our own? What is the probability of an animal becoming a scientist?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can't use probability when there are too many unknown variables. For example what is the probability of intelligent life on another planet? How many other universes exist besides our own? What is the probability of an animal becoming a scientist?

Well, since humans are animals, I could probably look up an approximation of how many scientists there are in the world, and divide it by the number of people in total in the world, and give a rough percentage of the probability of any given person being a scientist, but that would be pointless. But, the probability of intelligent life, or any life for that matter, is accounted for as 50%, because my thought experiment here is meant to avoid bickering about evidence. Besides events that we know to have a certain probability, everything else is treated as 50%. But even if we rendered 1000 of your choice details as 100% deity derived, including the existence of deities, it would barely increase the chances of any given specific deity existing. In fact, it would make so little of a difference as to be irrelevant.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, since humans are animals, I could probably look up an approximation of how many scientists there are in the world, and divide it by the number of people in total in the world, and give a rough percentage of the probability of any given person being a scientist, but that would be pointless. But, the probability of intelligent life, or any life for that matter, is accounted for as 50%, because my thought experiment here is meant to avoid bickering about evidence. Besides events that we know to have a certain probability, everything else is treated as 50%. But even if we rendered 1000 of your choice details as 100% deity derived, including the existence of deities, it would barely increase the chances of any given specific deity existing. In fact, it would make so little of a difference as to be irrelevant.

We are all scientist by born. We are born to try find meaning to everything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok,

We are all scientist by born. We are born to try find meaning to everything.

that's 1. 999 to go. My point really wasn't the probability of deities existing, in my deal, that one just counts as 50%. My point was the probability of specific deities as described in most religions.

 

[Smidlee]

ok,

that's 1. 999 to go. My point really wasn't the probability of deities existing, in my deal, that one just counts as 50%. My point was the probability of specific deities as described in most religions.

I think Jones explains it better than I could :

Distinguishing Intent
I asked Sam how to tell the difference between intentional similarity and accidental similarity. It would be unfair of me not to answer the question myself.

First of all, I must state my belief that it is possible to differentiate purpose from accident. Again, this belief is rooted in my former employment, some of which involved target recognition. A smart bomb needs to be programmed to distinguish a man-made structure (a bridge or an armored vehicle) from a natural feature (a tree or a rock). Algorithms do exist for making the distinction, which I am not at liberty to share.

The game of poker, however, is not subject to security restrictions, so let’s see if you can recognize purpose from accident in a friendly game of poker. The photographs below show four hands dealt during a poker game. The hands were dealt twice. The first time was Deal A, and the second time was Deal B.

In Deal A, West was dealt a flush, North was dealt a full house, East was dealt four-of-a-kind, and I (South) dealt myself a straight flush (the highest hand).

Do you think I dealt those hands from a shuffled deck, or a stacked deck? If you think those hands (which encourage my three opponents to bet large sums of money, only to lose to my straight flush) were honestly dealt from a shuffled deck, I would like to invite you to my high-stakes poker game next Wednesday night.

Now consider Deal B.

Could those cards have been dealt from a shuffled deck? Yes, they could. In fact, they were.

Why might you believe that Deal B came from a shuffled deck, but Deal A came from a stacked deck? Your first response might be, “The odds against Deal A are so small that it could not possibly have happened by chance.” That’s the wrong answer. Yes, the odds against Deal A are very small indeed, but it could possibly have happened by chance. I would not bet on it—but it could happen.

But it isn’t really a question of probability. The probability that those 20 cards in Deal A were dealt in that order is exactly the same as the probability that the 20 cards in Deal B were dealt in that order. Let me say that again a different way to make sure I make myself perfectly clear. Deal A is no less probable than Deal B. If you shuffle a deck and deal out 20 cards, it is just unlikely that those 20 cards will match Deal B as Deal A.

But you were able, instinctively, to know that Deal A came from a stacked deck, and Deal B came from a shuffled deck, even though both hands are equally unlikely. Since probability has nothing to do with it, how were you able to recognize my nefarious purpose in Deal A?

It all comes down to “meaning” or “purpose.” The four hands in Deal A have meaning, and serve a purpose. (Their purpose is to beat a less powerful hand.) Because it has meaning, there is a name for South’s hand in Deal A. It is called “a straight flush”—but there is no name for South’s hand in Deal B because it has no meaning, value, or purpose.

It's not probability that point toward it's purpose which is "wired" into us so we may know Him.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think Jones explains it better than I could :

Sure, I get that point, but that relates to purpose, not existence. And purpose isn't even a factor in my deal here. I am not looking really at the probability of us being created by a deity, I am evaluating the likelihood of any specific deity existing, which, as it happens, is exceedingly low, even when I err on the extremely generous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Things are not as they appear of course. To claim design is evident in all aspects of life fits the facts as observed. Then to claim the top of the supposed evolutionary ladder is a thinking creature - and then imply it doesn't mean that same element of design is self contradictory. It sure wasn't our physical power that got us here.

See, the part I put in bold is how I know that you simply ignore everything "evolutionists" tell you.

One of the most common misconceptions concerning evolution theory is that is a "ladder". It's NOT a ladder. We humans are not "more evolved" then chimps.

There's no choice IMO that thought is just as much an element of design as is life itself. As is the entire infinite universe.

There's no reason to think the universe is infinite. In fact, there's lots of reason to think that it is NOT infinite.
Secondly, what you said about "thought and design" is just a bare assertion that you can not (and, I'm guessing, will not) support.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This thought experiment has been revised, but still needs more revisions, as I've learned much more since this iteration. If you read through that forum I linked to you will see how much deeper it goes and how atheists have no answer to the questions I'm posing. All they seem to do is contradict themselves, which I find very interesting.

I for one, would appreciate if you would actually make your point in a post instead of linking to some images and leaving it upto us to decipher it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree completely. I also believe we humans are reaching a point of knowledge through science that is leading us to question reality. Quantum physics is a good example of how far science has come, but still not able to explain anything about our existence, in fact the closer we look the more confusing it seems to become.

This is simply not true.
We understand quite a lot about our existance. Just because lots of you ignore the natural sciences like biology, genetics, etc... doesn't make it any less true.

However, if we consider the idea of God having no reference to time and space it could easily explain what we see at the very smallest of scales in our universe.

How exactly?
Through the magically deep statement "god-dun-it"?

Particles behave like waves because when they were created there was no reference to time and space, so they didn't need to be either a particle or a wave. Only when we view them from our subjective point of view (restricted by time and space) do they appear to be both simultaneously.

This makes no sense.

These are quick thoughts because all of this goes much deeper, but it takes time and an honest open mind/heart to really grasp everything.

Nicely set-up. So... in other words, if someone doesn't agree with your assertions, then they apparantly are by definition "dishonest and closed minded". Great.

I believe God wants His truth spread in whatever way possible and I think He could use science to do that, more importantly He uses us to do that, but your right it's up to the person who hears the truth to decide to believe in it.

Science is a human undertaking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a great question. I believe we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil. In other words I believe the only option will be to choose a perfect existence, why would you want anything else? The devil was stupid enough to think he could choose something better than a perfect existence, he thought he could be like or better than God, which is why he fell and which is why God will and has destroyed him. Unfortunately for the devil, he must suffer for eternity because of God's absolute judgment.

You know what stands out in your posts?
The amount of times that you begin sentences with "i believe...."

However, since God is absolute mercy he had to sacrifice himself to save the rest of us mortal humans from having to experience what the devil will experience, but it requires belief in the sacrifice God made which is Jesus Christ.

What sacrifice? And to whom? Himself?

If god was absolute mercy, then he couldn't be just.
Mercy is the suspension of judgement.
You can't have both.

Also, why would an all-powerfull god have to create such a loophole to fix a system he himself created to save us from himself?

The whole thing reeks like something being dreamed up by desert dwellers who didn't understand the world at all - and who didn't bother to really think all this through.

If an all-powerfull god wanted to forgive anyone, he'ld just do it... and not demand a human sacrifice first.

 

[[serious]]

Sorry for the low quality graphic. When I uploaded it this site must of downgraded the quality. Here is a link to dropbox where the file should be good quality.

Absolute truth conversation tree:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3xdrfjpsaxm4dw/Absolute-Truth 3.png?dl=0

Concept of the existence of absolutes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1buj01993fs332x/Concept-of-the-Existence-of-Absolutes.png?dl=0

I created these graphics myself, but the knowledge is from God as all knowledge originates from Him.

your arguments don't follow though. Let's walk through a hypothetical conversation:
You: Does objective reality exist?
Atheist: Sure, I think so.
Y: Well, if the universe came from nothing, the universe wouldn't exist, but it does exist! It seems impossible for the universe to have come from nothing. Also, that means that our consciousness must continue to exist after death.
A: Why would objective reality preclude things beginning and ending? Also, that isn't really what the big bang model says.

 

[Chriliman]

I for one, would appreciate if you would actually make your point in a post instead of linking to some images and leaving it upto us to decipher it.

Sorry, we're all learning as we go

 

[Chriliman]

your arguments don't follow though. Let's walk through a hypothetical conversation:
You: Does objective reality exist?
Atheist: Sure, I think so.
Y: Well, if the universe came from nothing, the universe wouldn't exist, but it does exist! It seems impossible for the universe to have come from nothing. Also, that means that our consciousness must continue to exist after death.
A: Why would objective reality preclude things beginning and ending? Also, that isn't really what the big bang model says.

I think we can all agree that objective reality exists even though we can't be absolutely certain because of the barrier of our brains, would you all agree with this statement? If you agree then you can say with certainty that you believe there is an absolute unchanging reality that exists and is not dependent on your subjective mind to exist, agree? If there is an absolute unchanging objective reality then how could it be possible for our universe to once be an absolute objective singularity and then become an absolute objective non-singularity without any outside force acting on it? My argument is that it's impossible for this to happen because as we're all aware any action in our objective reality requires energy. There could never be any energy in a singularity. My argument is that there is an absolute mind (God) that isn't confined to time and space that is the force/energy/action (which we can't comprehend because this force is beyond our time and space) that created all we observe and experience. This makes sense to me which is why I believe it, just like we all believe in an absolute unchanging objective reality even tho we can't be absolutely certain it's there, it makes complete sense that it must be there even when our minds are unconscious of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think we can all agree that objective reality exists even though we can't be absolutely certain because of the barrier of our brains, would you all agree with this statement?

Sure, but no one can really claim they know what that objective reality is and be honest about it. We can aim to get as close as humanly possible though.

If you agree then you can say with certainty that you believe there is an absolute unchanging reality that exists and is not dependent on your subjective mind to exist, agree?

No, the world in fact is constantly changing. Heck, some people have hypothesized that even items such as time might change in certain ways. Depending on what sort of time you are talking about, something as simple as temperature can change it.

If there is an absolute unchanging objective reality then how could it be possible for our universe to once be an absolute objective singularity and then become an absolute objective non-singularity without any outside force acting on it?

Reality is constantly changing, even with our inevitably subjective views, the question isn't if it changes, but rather how much and how quickly at this point.

My argument is that it's impossible for this to happen because as we're all aware any action in our objective reality requires energy. There could never be any energy in a singularity. My argument is that there is an absolute mind (God) that isn't confined to time and space that is the force/energy/action (which we can't comprehend because this force is beyond our time and space) that created all we observe and experience. This makes sense to me which is why I believe it, just like we all believe in an absolute unchanging objective reality even tho we can't be absolutely certain it's there, it makes complete sense that it must be there even when our minds are unconscious of it.

Why couldn't there be energy in a singularity? Seeing as that singularity was before our universe's physics even applied, how could you possibly make that claim? Even if that were true (and you haven't provided evidence that it is) in the context of the physics of our universe, the singularity didn't have those same physics. Things like time and space were not a thing with the singularity, their existence started after the Big Bang.

 

[Chriliman]

Sure, but no one can really claim they know what that objective reality is and be honest about it. We can aim to get as close as humanly possible though.

Exactly!

No, the world in fact is constantly changing. Heck, some people have hypothesized that even items such as time might change in certain ways. Depending on what sort of time you are talking about, something as simple as temperature can change it.

You've misunderstood what I meant by unchanging. Obviously our reality is always changing, what I meant by unchanging is that the objective reality we live in does not depend on our subjective minds to exists, meaning it's absolute and does not depend on our minds to exist.

Why couldn't there be energy in a singularity? Seeing as that singularity was before our universe's physics even applied, how could you possibly make that claim? Even if that were true (and you haven't provided evidence that it is) in the context of the physics of our universe, the singularity didn't have those same physics. Things like time and space were not a thing with the singularity, their existence started after the Big Bang.

Is energy a singularity? I don't think so, so how could a singularity have energy in it? Did the singularity absolutely exist forever before our universe came to be? If the singularity absolutely existed how could it ever not absolutely exist? If you think it's possible for it to both absolutely exist and not absolutely exist, then you've rendered the word "absolute" meaningless. My belief is that this "singularity" we observe is actually the creation point from a being beyond time and space who's existence we can't comprehend. Our conscious minds are required to realize our truths/reality, so why doesn't it makes sense for an absolute conscious mind that has always existed and who experiences 0 time as well as eternity all at once to have "realized" (for lack of a better human term) absolute truth/reality?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You've misunderstood what I meant by unchanging. Obviously our reality is always changing, what I meant by unchanging is that the objective reality we live in does not depend on our subjective minds to exists, meaning it's absolute and does not depend on our minds to exist.



Is energy a singularity? I don't think so, so how could a singularity have energy in it? Did the singularity absolutely exist forever before our universe came to be? If the singularity absolutely existed how could it ever not absolutely exist? If you think it's possible for it to both absolutely exist and not absolutely exist, then you've rendered the word "absolute" meaningless. My belief is that this "singularity" we observe is actually the creation point from a being beyond time and space who's existence we can't comprehend. Our conscious minds are required to realize our truths/reality, so why doesn't it makes sense for an absolute conscious mind that has always existed and who experiences 0 time as well as eternity all at once to have "realized" (for lack of a better human term) absolute truth/reality?

I would view it as rather self-centered to view the fact that anything can exist without humans as being relevant to whether or not deities exist. We aren't that exceptional, really.

How could a singularity have energy? I don't know, but just because as a biomedical sciences major I couldn't answer that physics based question mean a deity must have done it. That would be the god of the gaps fallacy. Personally, since we have no idea how physics, if any, applied to that singularity, we can't claim any limits on it. Maybe it wasn't even energy before the big bang?

 

[[serious]]

I think we can all agree that objective reality exists even though we can't be absolutely certain because of the barrier of our brains, would you all agree with this statement?

At least in a general sense I agree. If we get into particle physics I might have to add some nuance to that, but at the scales we generally experience, yes, there is an objective reality as far as I'm concerned.

If you agree then you can say with certainty that you believe there is an absolute unchanging reality that exists and is not dependent on your subjective mind to exist, agree?

Woah, hold on there. Unchanging? I'm going to have to add some specifications there. I would suspect that the universe operates under an unchanging set of natural laws at some level. I would accept that. However, the universe is certainly changing. Specifically, entropy is increasing.

If there is an absolute unchanging objective reality then how could it be possible for our universe to once be an absolute objective singularity and then become an absolute objective non-singularity without any outside force acting on it?

same way if I drop a coffee cup it goes from objectively being absolutely a functional coffee cup to being objectively absolutely a pile of broken ceramic.

My argument is that it's impossible for this to happen because as we're all aware any action in our objective reality requires energy.

Not quite. Processes that increase entropy can result in a release of energy.

There could never be any energy in a singularity.

Why would you say that? As you approach the singularity, energy density would become HUGE. Lots of energy for doing stuff. Average energy density of the universe now is about 10^-27 kg/m3. Average energy density in the very early universe was on the order of 10^90 kg/m3. The universe is continuing to slowly cool.

 

[KCfromNC]

My argument is that there is an absolute mind (God) that isn't confined to time and space that is the force/energy/action (which we can't comprehend because this force is beyond our time and space) that created all we observe and experience.

What evidence do you have for this claim? What observed mechanisms does this whatever use to do whatever you're claiming it does?

Seems like you're making a rather large jump here, and I don't see it as justified in any way other that "it seems" OK to you. Most people are going to have a higher standard of evidence than that.

 

[Chriliman]

Woah, hold on there. Unchanging? I'm going to have to add some specifications there. I would suspect that the universe operates under an unchanging set of natural laws at some level. I would accept that. However, the universe is certainly changing. Specifically, entropy is increasing.

You miss understand what I meant by unchanging, I mean absolute, or not dependent on our minds to exist. Have you read
The last question" by Issac Asimov? It's a brilliant thought that goes as far as we humans can go in thinking about entropy. Read it, if you wish and get back to me.

same way if I drop a coffee cup it goes from objectively being absolutely a functional coffee cup to being objectively absolutely a pile of broken ceramic.

This would makes sense if the universe were a coffee cup. As we all know this is not the case. Someone made that coffee cup and an outside force had to act on that cup to make it break. The atoms and molecules within the cup still exist even though it is broken. In essence the coffee cup has existed since the beginning of our objective universe and will exist until the end of our objective universe. This objective universe has no effect on absolute reality, but only an effect on objective reality which we perceive with our subjective minds, which is why a coffee cup can appear to be absolutely a cup and them absolutely not a cup, but really its just a rearrangement of particles that comprise the "coffee cup".

Why would you say that? As you approach the singularity, energy density would become HUGE. Lots of energy for doing stuff. Average energy density of the universe now is about 10^-27 kg/m3. Average energy density in the very early universe was on the order of 10^90 kg/m3. The universe is continuing to slowly cool.

Hmm...you said "as you approach the singularity" Are we actually approaching the singularity or just observing it? We're just observing it correct? We're observing a massive amount of energy released which "created" our universe we observe today. Our universe can never revert back to that state of mass energy because it would take even more energy to do so. It can only move forward in time and space from that massive amount of energy released. Can energy come from nothing? No, all energy that exists in our objective universe has always existed and will continue to exist until our objective universe comes to an end, you can't add or take energy away. So, if the universe absolutely existed as a singularity with infinite energy, how did that infinite energy get there? If it absolutely existed as infinite energy, why would it all of the sudden not absolutely exist as infinite energy? How could a singularity ever not be a singularity? What would cause it to not be a singularity anymore? The only logical answer I can think of is an outside force caused the universe to exist and this singularity we observe is actually the creation point.

 

[Chriliman]

You miss understand what I meant by unchanging, I mean absolute, or not dependent on our minds to exist. Have you read
The last question" by Issac Asimov? It's a brilliant thought that goes as far as we humans can go in thinking about entropy. Read it, if you wish and get back to me.



This would makes sense if the universe were a coffee cup. As we all know this is not the case. Someone made that coffee cup and an outside force had to act on that cup to make it break. The atoms and molecules within the cup still exist even though it is broken. In essence the coffee cup has existed since the beginning of our objective universe and will exist until the end of our objective universe. This objective universe has no effect on absolute reality, but only an effect on objective reality which we perceive with our subjective minds, which is why a coffee cup can appear to be absolutely a cup and them absolutely not a cup, but really its just a rearrangement of particles that comprise the "coffee cup".



Hmm...you said "as you approach the singularity" Are we actually approaching the singularity or just observing it? We're just observing it correct? We're observing a massive amount of energy released which "created" our universe we observe today. Our universe can never revert back to that state of mass energy because it would take even more energy to do so. It can only move forward in time and space from that massive amount of energy released. Can energy come from nothing? No, all energy that exists in our objective universe has always existed and will continue to exist until our objective universe comes to an end, you can't add or take energy away. So, if the universe absolutely existed as a singularity with infinite energy, how did that infinite energy get there? If it absolutely existed as infinite energy, why would it all of the sudden not absolutely exist as infinite energy? How could a singularity ever not be a singularity? What would cause it to not be a singularity anymore? The only logical answer I can think of is an outside force caused the universe to exist and this notion of a singularity is us observing that creation point.