Jump to content


Photo

There's Probably No God...


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#1 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 30 October 2008 - 05:34 AM

The British Humanist Association has raised funds to promote the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" on London busses.
http://news.bbc.co.u...don/7681914.stm

Thoughts?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:30 AM

This just confirms what the Bible says will happen. There will be a huge falling away (people rejecting God). Then a big revival. Then the rapture. These events just show how close we are. What you are now wittnessing, is prophecy being fulfilled. This part of the predicted prophecy has never happened in history.

#3 Guest_Nemo_Utopia_*

Guest_Nemo_Utopia_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:57 AM

The British Humanist Association has raised funds to promote the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" on London busses.
http://news.bbc.co.u...don/7681914.stm

Thoughts?


I think it is a nice little sign. Its meant to be uplifting and cute. Many people are stressed about religion and hellfire and damnation, and none of that is worth worrying about if it is not real.

Just as you won't be damned to Hades if you don't offer up goats to the gods, you wont be thrown into Hell for not worrying constantly. Besides, Britain is already very secular (as is all of Europe) with only a few pockets of extremely religious folks. So the signs will go on along without problem, and bring a smile to the faces of many.

This just confirms what the Bible says will happen. There will be a huge falling away (people rejecting God). Then a big revival. Then the rapture. These events just show how close we are. What you are now wittnessing, is prophecy being fulfilled. This part of the predicted prophecy has never happened in history.


This is what the signs are targeting, this irrational belief that brings undue worry to many who should be enjoying their lives peacefully and happily without that burden. And historically people becoming more secular has been a continuing and constant cycle. And it brings better and better societies as well.

#4 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:54 PM

A few newspapers here were commenting that it was a bit of a cop out. Shouldn't it have read, "There is no God..." or "there is almost certainly no God"?

I would go along with some of the comments in the article though and think the intention is to try and get people to consider that there are options, not to simply 'preach' athiesim.

#5 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:52 AM

The British Humanist Association has raised funds to promote the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" on London busses.
http://news.bbc.co.u...don/7681914.stm

Thoughts?

View Post


It´s only a rethorical allegation. It´s impossible to prove no existence of anything.People like using the word 'probable' all the time, but it never comes with a equation like p = 1/n beside.

Ask them what is the source of Big Bang if they can answer.

#6 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 03 November 2008 - 01:42 AM

It´s only a rethorical allegation. It´s impossible to prove no existence of anything.People like using the word 'probable' all the time, but it never comes with a equation like p = 1/n beside.

Ask them what is the source of Big Bang if they can answer.

View Post

I don't think you can qualitfy the probability of God's existence. However, if "God exists" is a legitimate claim (and I kind of assume Christians think so), then obviously, the claim "God does not exist" is an equally legitimate claim.

Hans

#7 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 03 November 2008 - 12:31 PM

I don't think you can qualitfy the probability of God's existence. However, if "God exists" is a legitimate claim (and I kind of assume Christians think so), then obviously, the claim "God does not exist" is an equally legitimate claim.

Hans

View Post


If you cannot quantify the probability , how can they say that "there´s probably no God" ? They must say "We think there´s no God", or "We believe there´s no God". It would show that it´s only their opinion.

#8 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 November 2008 - 12:49 PM

If you cannot quantify the probability , how can they say that  "there´s probably no God" ? They must say "We think there´s no God", or "We believe there´s no God". It would show that it´s only their opinion.

View Post



Probably does not equal probability. Probably and probability come from the same root words but obviously have different, even if related, meanings. I've never heard a scientist use the word probably when referring to favorable probabilities.

#9 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 November 2008 - 12:52 PM

Ask them what is the source of Big Bang if they can answer.

View Post


One's inability to answer a question such as this says nothing in favor of the existence of a God. Currently, a description of reality prior to the Big Bang is simply outside the scope of scientific methodology - it isn't however outside the scope of scientific speculation.

#10 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:18 PM

A few newspapers here were commenting that it was a bit of a cop out. Shouldn't it have read, "There is no God..." or "there is almost certainly no God"?

I would go along with some of the comments in the article though and think the intention is to try and get people to consider that there are options, not to simply 'preach' athiesim.

View Post


The reason why they used the word probably

#11 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:59 AM

One's inability to answer a question such as this says nothing in favor of the existence of a God.  Currently, a description of reality prior to the Big Bang is simply outside the scope of scientific methodology - it isn't however outside the scope of scientific speculation.

View Post


I´d like knowing those speculations. Without methaphisics Please. Only using the Nature laws.

#12 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 05 November 2008 - 04:01 AM

The reason why they used the word probably

View Post


I saw no reason at all. Why do they think there is probably no God ?

#13 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:46 AM

If you cannot quantify the probability , how can they say that  "there´s probably no God" ? They must say "We think there´s no God", or "We believe there´s no God". It would show that it´s only their opinion.

View Post

How does "there is probably not" not show it is an opinion?

If I tell you, "I'll probably be home for Xmas", will you then demand that I state the exact percentage of probability?

Hans

#14 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 05 November 2008 - 02:57 PM

How does "there is probably not" not show it is an opinion?

If I tell you, "I'll probably be home for Xmas", will you then demand that I state the exact percentage of probability?

Hans

View Post


When you use it this way, you are using it as a synonymous of "I Intend to be".So, you are confident in your capacity of guiding your life.Perhaps if you do the real calculation you will discover you are wrong, but you are doing some kind of subjective calculation in your mind, giving more weight to your capacity of being where you want.In their case, they have nothing to support their "probably" assertion and their intention is to create the illusion that they have something to support it.

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2008 - 04:16 PM

When pushed by Ben Stein, even Richard Dawkins could not definitely say there was no God, only that it was a very low probability....

Again this shows the inconsistency of atheistic thinking. If there is any possibility, no matter how low, that life started on its own, "it must have". If there is any possibility that God exists, "he must not".

Terry

#16 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 05 November 2008 - 04:44 PM

When pushed by Ben Stein, even Richard Dawkins could not definitely say there was no God, only that it was a very low probability....

Again this shows the inconsistency of atheistic thinking.  If there is any possibility, no matter how low, that life started on its own, "it  must have".  If there is any possibility that God exists, "he must not".

Terry

View Post

There is probably not an invisible dragon in my garage, or a china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. But if insist there is, can you prove me wrong? Probably not.

And so it is with God. Since He can't be proved or disproved, He must remain a probability. To me and other athiests, He's extremely improbable. Therefore, there is probably (very probably) no God.

#17 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:59 PM

There is probably not an invisible dragon in my garage, or a china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. But if insist there is, can you prove me wrong? Probably not.

And so it is with God. Since He can't be proved or disproved, He must remain a probability. To me and other athiests, He's extremely improbable. Therefore, there is probably (very probably) no God.

View Post


There are logical arguments that God exists, so using the "invisible dragon" argument is silly.

Abiogenesis is more improbable than the existence of God, but I'm sure you probably accept it as a fact. Well, maybe not, even Richard Dawkins has come to the conclusion that life was probably put here by Aliens which is an intellectual cop out if there ever was one.....

And of course we cannot forget the world renown Atheist Antony Flew, who after decades of raging against God finally came to the conclusion, based on the complexity of the living cell that the probability is 1, and not very low, whatever that is....

Terry

#18 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:39 PM

I´d like knowing those speculations. Without methaphisics Please. Only using the Nature laws.

View Post

Quantum physics suspends the commonsense rules of cause and effect. Particles pop into and out of existence all of the time. These are real experimentally verifiable effects and are inherit to reality. Nature does not restrict spontaneous processes from occurring. Connecting this to the cause of the Big Bang is the tricky part but the implication exists. Many physicists are trying to do just that – they are quantum cosmologists (like Stephen Hawking). Hawking, with James Hartle, is trying to calculate Feynman's path integral for the Hartle-Hawking state (the wave function of the universe). It has problems of course but it is scientific speculation that uses quantum field theories and general relativity to answer the question what caused the Big Bang. It doesn't rely on metaphysics (not sure which physics speculations do) but it is speculation none the less.

#19 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 06 November 2008 - 02:27 AM

There are logical arguments that God exists

Could you present some?

Well, maybe not, even Richard Dawkins has come to the conclusion that life was probably put here by Aliens

I very much doubt he said anything of the sort. Where did you hear this?

#20 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 November 2008 - 10:35 AM

I saw no reason at all. Why do they think there is probably no God ?

View Post


I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. It's a link to an article. You have to click on the link and read the article behind it to discover the reason. If the link doesn't work for you then I can post the raw url.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users