.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".
Questions for debate:
1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?
2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?
Is "god" LIKELY to exist?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25141
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Is "god" LIKELY to exist?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #61
Doesn't the term 'origin' contain within it the meaning of 'a coming into being'? So it seems reasonable to hold that there was a cause that brought those molecules into existence.AkiThePirate wrote:Regardless of their origin, it is an example of an event which is uncaused, as is the decay of a neutron.[color=orange]ksed[/color] wrote:But where did the molecules come from in the first place? Are they eternal? Surely a common sense questioner would ask the first question,no? and isn't that the point of the Cosmological argument?
And even if we can't detect a cause, it may be that it is simply hidden from human observation (for now).'
Post #62
More or less.[color=green]ksed[/color] wrote:Doesn't the term 'origin' contain within it the meaning of 'a coming into being'?
Seems, but isn't.[color=orange]ksed[/color] wrote:So it seems reasonable to hold that there was a cause that brought those molecules into existence.
There are innumerable examples of events that, as best we can tell, are completely uncaused. Until cause can be shown to hold universally, it cannot be considered universally binding.
This is true.[color=blue]ksed[/color] wrote:And even if we can't detect a cause, it may be that it is simply hidden from human observation (for now).
However, a cause of such a nature as that which events we observe would necessitate would be a strange cause indeed, and would in turn lead to an infinite regress of probabilistic cause, which for all purposes would be 'uncaused' anyway.
Post #64
But then why might it never decay? Why is it so unpredictable?[color=green]ksed[/color] wrote:To AkiThePirate:
Regarding the radioactive decay being uncaused, could one not simply say that the instability in the nucleus of the atom was the cause of the emission of the radioactive particle?
