For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: ...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...
Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true and factual.
Moderator: Moderators
For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: ...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...
It's been explained that it's grossly improbable. The proposition being discussed has only been supported so far as being possible in the sense that "anything" is. If we're going to leave it on the table, then leaving the other contenders (anything that can't be disproven, even in principle) off the table is nothing more than unfair favoritism. If we set some lower threshold for acceptable probability to assure a place at the table and things like "mindful creation" don't make the cut, theists get upset. Make no mistake, though, it's not because we aren't being fair to theism, but because we are being fair. They're welcome to make a case for probability, but at least in this thread have chosen not to.William wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:14 pmIt is not really a 'problem.'
What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.
They have thus eliminated that possibility by behaving as if it is an impossibility... without explaining why that should be the case.
This is not true, I've never ever seen such an "explanation" please show the calculation that leads to this conclusion? what is the probability (that mind created the universe) exactly in your opinion?Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:54 pmIt's been explained that it's grossly improbable.William wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:14 pmIt is not really a 'problem.'
What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.
They have thus eliminated that possibility by behaving as if it is an impossibility... without explaining why that should be the case.
Why not talk about what's impossible rather than what's improbable? Because even if some event were highly improbable that is much more attractive as a potential explanation than something that's impossible.Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:54 pm The proposition being discussed has only been supported so far as being possible in the sense that "anything" is. If we're going to leave it on the table, then leaving the other contenders (anything that can't be disproven, even in principle) off the table is nothing more than unfair favoritism. If we set some lower threshold for acceptable probability to assure a place at the table and things like "mindful creation" don't make the cut, theists get upset. Make no mistake, though, it's not because we aren't being fair to theism, but because we are being fair. They're welcome to make a case for probability, but at least in this thread have chosen not to.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my quoted post as I made no mention of gods, mindful creation, etc. I was simply commenting that Sherlock's signature quote is not accurate. Discarding all things that are "impossible" (that category itself being subjective) does not allow the conclusion that what remains truth when more than one possibility remains. This is independent of any notions of mindful creators or how the universe came into existense.What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.
It is not really a 'problem.'
What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.
They have thus eliminated that possibility by behaving as if it is an impossibility... without explaining why that should be the case.
Rather it has been claimed to be "grossly improbable" - not explained.It's been explained that it's grossly improbable.
It is not independent of the idea of this universe being the creation of mind, because that has not been shown to be an impossibility.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:22 pm [Replying to William in post #110]
I'm not sure what this has to do with my quoted post as I made no mention of gods, mindful creation, etc. I was simply commenting that Sherlock's signature quote is not accurate. Discarding all things that are "impossible" (that category itself being subjective) does not allow the conclusion that what remains truth when more than one possibility remains. This is independent of any notions of mindful creators or how the universe came into existense.What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.
I agree that a mind behind creation has not been eliminated (however improbable it might be), but I was commenting on the Doyle quote in general without any reference to a particular subject. It seems to be intended to apply to any subject, particularly crime investigations given who wrote it, and not specific to gods or minds, etc.A mind behind the creation has not been shown to be impossible, therefore should not be eliminated.
A mind behind creation is therefore part of what 'must be truth' or 'left at the table' as I put it.
Whereas I was applying it to the thread heading idea, which I thought Sherlock Holmes [the forum member] was also doing.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:48 pm [Replying to William in post #116]
I agree that a mind behind creation has not been eliminated (however improbable it might be), but I was commenting on the Doyle quote in general without any reference to a particular subject. It seems to be intended to apply to any subject, particularly crime investigations given who wrote it, and not specific to gods or minds, etc.A mind behind the creation has not been shown to be impossible, therefore should not be eliminated.
A mind behind creation is therefore part of what 'must be truth' or 'left at the table' as I put it.
Indeed.William wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:58 pmWhereas I was applying it to the thread heading idea, which I thought Sherlock Holmes [the forum member] was also doing.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:48 pm [Replying to William in post #116]
I agree that a mind behind creation has not been eliminated (however improbable it might be), but I was commenting on the Doyle quote in general without any reference to a particular subject. It seems to be intended to apply to any subject, particularly crime investigations given who wrote it, and not specific to gods or minds, etc.A mind behind the creation has not been shown to be impossible, therefore should not be eliminated.
A mind behind creation is therefore part of what 'must be truth' or 'left at the table' as I put it.
Furthermore, I think any great detective would apply the same principle to any subject, not just solving crime.
Indeed, what is even improbable about the idea of there being a mind behind the creation of this universe?
I read that and realised that I had seen similar scenarios described by many former Christians who had fought hard but eventually had to abandon their beliefs.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:39 pm When I abandoned atheism many years ago, the difficult part of that was not the reasoning, the science, the rationalizing, it was my own stubborn unwillingness to admit I might have been wrong, might have been misled, that was where all resistance stemmed from, preservation of existing belief had been my priority, I even lied to myself about it, that was the hard part, fighting myself.