An Argument FOR the Existence of God (or at least Agnosticism)

I meant read the manual I have just written !!! it was a joke


Look the poster called "common sense" is trying to assert proof apriori of god - thats impossible for the reasons I outlined in the post above (the manual post) that you commented on

I am saying why frege and wittgenstein wld say he's wrong
he can only reason aposteriori of anything existant or non existent

 

But

Why do YOU say he is wrong?

occam

 

Because I believe Frege Wittgenstein Russell are right

He brought Frege into it not me !!!!

 

No No

Why do YOU say it...?

Wittgenstien and russel are profound thinkers...
Occam has read over the years many of their works..
But i'm far more interested in YOU.

What YOU think

All of occams ideas are yes...based on others before him... there is little that has not been thought..
But.. His specific statements are HIS.. not any others..

It's a mater on confidence in ones method.. occam is damn confindent in his.
Occam cannot even trace apath to specific thinkers...Its all general knowledge.

Occam

 

Here is the mathematical probability that God exists:

1/∞:∞

This is 0.00000000(for infinity) To infinity.

So if infinity does exist, then God can never exist.

There will never be an ending (.00000000000000000001). This 1 will never show up = no God.

 

if i believed that a god would have to exist in order to do so, i'd be a complete athiest, however, my belief is rather that nothing has to exist in order to do so. case in point; our own human species. and since we can exist without having to, i see no reason one or more 'god' or 'god like' nontangable beings can't as well.

the tangable universe is itself a room we will likely never be able to completely explore, it's that big. it is quite possible for there to be nontangable 'rooms' beyone it (as well perhapse, as additional tangable ones). when we begin speculating about what's in them though, and getting into conflicts over disagreeing on our assumed speculations, well that IS kind of rediculous.

i guess i've probably said all of this before. what gets me is that, well to me it seems, that with even a little thought most of this ought to be pretty obvious. i think a lot of people just want to believe something without having to think about it.

which would be ok if that were as harmless a thing to do as they insist on immagining it. too bad it isn't. the heavin we could be living in is the hell that it is only because they do.

and that of course, is in no way dependent on what else besides ourselves, our planet, and the diversity of life and other phenomina on it our own lives are ultimately dependent upon, may or may not happen to exist.

(relaxx: actualy that is the mathimatical probability of what anyone thinks they know about it being accurate. the probability of one or more 'gods' existing is 50/50).

=^^=
.../\...

 

I can never tell whether you are talking about occam or yourself - ?
What do you want me to say ??? I'm not going to write an entire essay or tract to let you know what I think - yet if I do not write an essay you can just sit there picking apart a soundbite it dont really work like that - if you got a problem with Freges work SAY WHAT YOU THINK
I've told you what I fuckin think
To me it just sounds like you aint got a clue what "common sense is on about"
"common sense" is trying to bullshit us that a priori you can postulate existence and I am telling him that notion is false - REASON TELLS YOU SO
IT IS AGAINST LOGIC AND REASON TO SAY OTHERWISE IF YOU DONT THINK SO LET ME KNOW - I dont even need to re-invent the wheel to prove he is wrong it is wrong and provable in the words of other people - who would reinvent the wheel when an existing wheel will do ?? Nothing has been written, since the constructivists argued the case I presented, that would dispute it
besides which I havent seen you say one thing in a philosophical debate that was your own work either

I was taught philosophy by the trustee executor of Richard Ayers
intellectual estate, Ted Honderich AMONGST OTHER LEADING PHILOSOPHERS(google the name ted honderich) at University College London, - I could tell you a few things about my thoughts but need to know if its worth it - so - - WHAT DO YOU THINK
based on the fact that "commonsense" was merely talking of this
from wikipedia

now look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege

(a good place to start)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constructivism

Very brief synopsis of mathematical constructivism

Very brief synopsis of frege

The theory of justification

 

Columbo

You speak much of logic
Yet in your 'legislation' thread you say this.

"that god is a complete fantasy"

On what premis do you base this statement?
Occam has often mentioned that it cannot be logically proven.
[athiesm]

Are you saying that you can logically prove there is no god or gods?
[classified as any 'entity/race' that can manipulate mater/energy into
any form and modify/create laws that govern such]

why not just say 'absolute fantasy' and make the hole u are in a few inches deeper


Occam

 

PS

Goldbachs conjecture is irrelevant.

A god/gods may exist.
It requires PHYSICAL verification...NOT theoretical.
You cant make an omlete without breaking eggs.

As a god/gods may exist..but require physical evidence to support such.
Evidence that humanity cannot yet provide..

Then agnosticism is the dfault logical position..

As all of us KNOW.. but most wont admit.. ego

Occam

 

That much was obvious from the start that is what I tried to tell "common sense" that he cannot bring the philosophy of mathematics into a proof of god since no logical disposition will move us toward a better understanding of whether god actually exists in the sense that we would have empirical evidence from which to reason inductively. It was "common sense who brought Goldbach
into it, and "common sense that raised the question of Frege

Thats right so I dont need to write an entire thesis about the whole episode since most of the analytic tradition of philosophy would tell you this

Maybe, however it means that Goldbach isnt wrong after all since there would be some relevence in us saying that "well, we havent found a god in the last 2000 years - how long do you want us to test this hypothesis that there is a god???

I mean we've looked for god every day for 2000 years the evidence seems startlingly clear to me - theres no god
Last time I heard Jesus was gonna do a news broadcast on the eve of the year 2000 - six years on since then ...... twiddles thumbs ,,,, joins internet forum ... "anyone seen any evidence of god - he's late for an appointment"

Not really since it would seem that the two theories are not equal - it is not for those who say there is no god to prove it - you cannot prove a negative - and since the theists cannot provide the evidence it would seem they are unable to say there is a god - I do not have to prove there is no god - they have to prove there is one. I have looked and cant find one - if still people insist there is a god - show me - if I had found a god I would be in church trying to save my soul HA HA - I wouldnt be sitting here saying there is no god - that bastard is evil if you find him and turn your back on him - supposedly - ha ha ha - so erm if anyone out there finds a god - be a good christian let me know and prove it and I will repent

Nothing in philosophy is about ego - its about demanding the tennets of good justification theory where we have

Whole schools and universities developed around the idea of preserving good knowledge - sound and inviolable knowledge - UCL Philosophy dept was founded by Jeremy Bentham - his body is still on display in a vaccuum cabinet at ucl - he insisted on that and just to show how sane philosophers are they still wheel his body into highly secretive meetings of a certain society at UCL HA HA HA !!
(I can tell you for real - that is no mere rumour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London
more abou the body
http://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/jb.html

Thats why I chose UCL not Oxford or Cambridge

However I chose to build a computer company rather than remain in philosophy and an academic world - its a hard game in philosophy

 

I don’t know how you reason 50/50 but I’ll try to reason another ratio without using infinity because it’s hard to prove.

First off, lets look at the common conception of one God. Most religious people that believe in one God believe he is a conscious and all encompassing creator of the universe. A hope of a conscious God that can actually monitor, process, and influence the nature of anything in the universe is the precise reason why billions of people on earth pray every day

One look at the state of this world will tell you that these religions are not receiving any guidance from any God. Unless of course God or Gods love to sit back and watch bloodshed, starvation and misery. So using this actuality I will I’ll try to produce some reasonable numbers.

30Billion People, we’ll say conservatively that 50% pray every day.

Multiply that by 365.24 days times 12 Million (I’m certain man’s been praying his whole existence).

Multiply by 0.3 for population growth:

And you get a grand total of 19,722,960,000,000,000,000

That’s a very modest 19.7 Quintillion unanswered prayers to god in the history of man.

So I’ll inverse that number to give me my new probability of God:


0.0000000000000000000507:19722960000000000000

Not quite infinity, but its way up there.

 

No, it is not.
Certainly not for Orthodox Christianity and I can safely speak for most other faiths in saying its not true for them either.
You really fucked up again with your false premises Relaxx.
Wow,
No wonder its all looking so foolish to you antitheists - you start with foolish presumptions.
Ones of your own making.

Really?
Wow, you are probably the winner of the absolute intellectual dishonesty award if there ever was one.
Consider this, Im living in a nice warm apartment, eating delicious food and looking forward to a nice hot bath.
Tomorrow I will visit with people I love and love me.
The sky is beautiful and most of the time I have opportunity after opportunity to help out, make people smile and call bullshit when I see it.

Misery, Bloodshed and Starvation.
Gimme a break.
I did see two cats in a wicked fight outside.

 

Well relaxxx is certainly good for a laugh
must have ambitions to run for office I expect
lets find out
relaxxx - show whether god prefers democrats - or republicans using mathematical proofs

 

Congratulation for being in the 5% of the worlds population that lives in such conditions.
I noticed how your post is all insult with absolutely no intellectual insight. That’s actually quite pathetic!

 

Im all intellectual insight.
The very point of my entire post was that most of us have food, shelter and clothing,
AND,
Most of our days are filled with family, friends,
AND
Opportunity after opportunity to laugh, love, share, enjoy each others company, learn something new, improve just one tiny thing.

A that speaks directly to YOUR blatantly ignorant analysis of the world and the point of your 'formula'.

Even if your premise wasnt entirely flawed and your formula had its numbers straight,
Even by your bizarre 'calculation' you would have 50% of the planet with everthing they need... and most of what they could want.

Thats no insult.
Thats directly engaging your 'theory'.


But seriously, there has been a new and wacky movement of Christianity that has been teaching that we pray to 'get stuff done, to get things' and along the lines of your misunderstanding.
They call their version 'Intercessary Prayer' (which they pour meaning into) and all I know is that:
-They dont like us Christians challenging it.
-Richard Dawkins 'scored' when their head Pastor didnt offer evidence for it and it went in his antitheism documentary.
- Last week their head Pastor was fired for a 'gay prostitute/meth' scandal.

But for normal Christians its not a case of 'praying things' into being, solutions or bringing good events on the world.
We also have this whole 'free will' thing we gotta live with.

Maybe you should look into the basics of Christian teachings before trying to post anything about it again.
Thats a tip for you.
That way you dont fuck up in front of everyone again.

 

ur a dick haha. I may not know what the hell most of you are talking about half the time, but i can tell that you, elproximo sir, are an ass. At least when relaxxx makes his points, theyre free of condescension and insult. well thats my two cents.

 

Working things out for ones-self is the only real freedom any of us have.

Being told .. no.. follow christ or burn in hell forever.
Sort of makes that last bit of free will a joke...

So really all we can do is accept christ as our saviour..
or burn in hell forever.

So wheres the free will?

Occam

 

...it all had to start somehow, and that's something the science books ain't gonna teach.

 

Grim

Soz.. but reality has no beginning. [proposition]

Occam

 

Surely youre just there to lead the horses to water - if they dont want to drink - thats their problem.