There's Probably No God...

[falcone 2]

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.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

 

Thoughts?

[ikester7579 19]

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.

[Guest Nemo_Utopia]

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.uk/1/hi/england/london/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.

[falcone 2]

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.

[deadlock 3]

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.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

 

Thoughts?

20365[/snapback]

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.

[MRC_Hans 0]

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.

20391[/snapback]

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

[deadlock 3]

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

20399[/snapback]

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.

[A.Sphere 6]

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.

20403[/snapback]

 

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.

[A.Sphere 6]

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

20391[/snapback]

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.

[jason78 0]

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.

20385[/snapback]

The reason why they used the word probably

[deadlock 3]

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.

20405[/snapback]

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

[deadlock 3]

The reason why they used the word probably

20408[/snapback]

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

[MRC_Hans 0]

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.

20403[/snapback]

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

[deadlock 3]

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

20443[/snapback]

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.

[Guest 92g]

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

[falcone 2]

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

20454[/snapback]

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.

[Guest 92g]

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.

20456[/snapback]

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

[A.Sphere 6]

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

20438[/snapback]

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.

[falcone 2]

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?

[jason78 0]

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

20439[/snapback]

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.

[Guest 92g]

Could you present some?

The existance of Moral Law. (requires a moral law giver)

The existance of "Information". (Requires a source of Information, which is not matterial).

 

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

With my own ears in an interview in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled". He absolutely said it, watch the movie......

 

Terry

[jamesf 1]

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

 

With my own ears in an interview in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled".  He absolutely said it, watch the movie......

 

Terry

20496[/snapback]

Hi Terry.

I don't believe Dawkins ever said that he believed in the alien theory. My apologies if you intended to correct this (I see the original quote was removed).

 

Here is the clip from the movie

hxsQrBa0ECE

 

 

Dawkins states that "we know the kind of event that must have happened for the origin of life"

"It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule."

 

Dawkins never states that "life was probably put here by aliens".

 

After this statement Ben Stein asked what the chance was that intelligent design might be the answer to some issues in genetics. In response to this, Dawkins stated one scenario where such an event might be true. He then mentions the alien scenario. He mentions it as a "possibility". He never mentions it as probable or likely or his belief.

 

There is a currently a great deal of research on the origins of self-replicating molecules and a number of competing hypotheses that are being tested in the lab. Such experiments are never "proof". They are simply demonstrating that some pathways towards life are more likely than others. For those interested, there is a great book out there that summarizes this growing literature. It is called

 

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins by Robert Hazen

http://www.google.com/products?q=Genesis:+...snum=1&ct=title

 

The basic facts accepted by most scientists in this field (and Dawkins no doubt) are:

 

The first signatures of life start around 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago

The first clear evidence of cellular life around 3.5 billion years ago

Eukaryotic cells around 2 billion year ago.

All life remain single cell life until about 1 billion years ago

600 million years ago, the first large life forms (Ediacaran life forms)

580-500 million years ago, the origins of the major phyla (the Cambrian)

 

When Dawkins states that we do not know how it started, he is referring to how the first self-replicating molecules developed. He is not questioning the basic timeline.

 

James

[deadlock 3]

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.

20485[/snapback]

The article does not explain why they think there´s probably no God.

[falcone 2]

The existance of Moral Law. (requires a moral law giver)

 

Why?

 

The existance of "Information". (Requires a source of Information, which is not matterial).

 

What is "Information" and why does it require a sourse that is not material?

 

With my own ears in an interview in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled".  He absolutely said it, watch the movie......

 

Expelled was never released in the UK, but I'm aware of the controversy surrounding it. No-one other than creationists and id proponents give it any credibility.

 

The following is an extract from http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lyi...Richard-Dawkins. Dawkins clearly does not believe life was probably put here by aliens.

 

"Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)."

[scott 3]

The basic facts accepted by most scientists in this field (and Dawkins no doubt) are:

 

The first signatures of life start around 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago

The first clear evidence of cellular life around 3.5 billion years ago

Eukaryotic cells around 2 billion year ago.

All life remain single cell life until about 1 billion years ago

600 million years ago, the first large life forms (Ediacaran life forms)

580-500 million years ago, the origins of the major phyla (the Cambrian)

 

When Dawkins states that we do not know how it started, he is referring to how the first self-replicating molecules developed. He is not questioning the basic timeline.

 

James

20498[/snapback]

You mean the basic fantasies accepted by most evolutionist in this field, Alas never straying too far from the imaginary Geological Time Column.