[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I agree. You can't prove a negative. & in this case, proving the positive is also impossible. Allow me to kindly point out that nowhere have I advocated you believing in God. What a non-Jew believes or does not believe is again, above my pay grade.

[Rama Set]

I agree. You can't prove a negative. & in this case, proving the positive is also impossible. Allow me to kindly point out that nowhere have I advocated you believing in God. What a non-Jew believes or does not believe is again, above my pay grade.

Proving the positive is not impossible and of course for God, it would be trivially easy to do so. For example he could rearrange the stars before my eyes to say "sup"? Or he could destroy the universe before my eyes, while keeping me alive, and then recreate it perfectly. Both of these things would make me believe.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

God could prove His existence. I can't, was the point I was trying to make. Why God doesn't do that is also above my pay grade. I have heard various answers by Jewish & non-Jewish authorities, & by non-religious authorities. None of them have ever satisfied me. @ my age, & the life I've lived, I'm prepared to take some things on faith. I understand people who don't, though.

[Snupes]

Since theism is the default position of most people in the world, the onus is on the atheist to prove us wrong.

That's not true, though. You want us to prove something doesn't exist. That's not how it works; you need to prove something does exist, otherwise we shouldn't simply assume it does.

That's the equivalent of "I have superpowers", "prove it", "you can't prove I don't!"

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I agree. You can't prove a negative. But I don't feel in any sense obligated to prove that God exists. I can give you reasons to think it possible, even likely, that God exists. But not certainly.

[Vindictus]

People are born believing in nothing, so I would say that the default position is agnosticism.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, babies also don't know algebra, but not knowing it (or even that it exists) does not leave one to say, 'I don't know if algebra exists.'

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Granted, analogies only work so far. Algebra does exist in a logical format. I believe God does, too. But we get back to the 'Who caused God?' question. The answer, to exist is better than not to exist. But the Ontological Argument, while perhaps the best, is not foolproof.

[Saddam Hussein]

The ontological argument is just a silly word game.  It doesn't prove anything, and I've never understood why the academic world treats it as anything more than a joke.

And Yaakov, for what has to be the tenth time, would you please stop fucking multiposting?  And don't try that bullshit line about your phone not being able to do it again, because your posts are all different lengths.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Yes, I admit, I did double post unnecessarily there. You can tell when its due to phone limitations when a message gets chopped mid-sentence. This was not the case here. As re: the Ontological Argument, your opinion that it is a word game doesn't make it such. Opinions are like a--holes. Everyone's got one & they're all different. The argument can be used in a variety of ways. For example, lack of belief in hell as firey torment largely comes from this. If hell is non-being rather than firey torment, then the more evil you do, the less existence you have. Too much of that means that upon your death, your soul ceases to exist. Far worse than hell as firey torment, that.

[Rama Set]

Just so I am on the same page, is the ontological argument the same as the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[spank86]

I didn't make up a statistic. I merely said the odds are about as likely as winning the Iowa lottery (please play responsibly).   If I'd wanted to make that up, I'd have used real numbers.

the thought occurs that someone wins almost every week.

Well, babies also don't know algebra, but not knowing it (or even that it exists) does not leave one to say, 'I don't know if algebra exists.'

You go to school and a teacher proves to you that algebra does exist and how it works.

You go to church and the man tells you to trust him without evidence.

[DDDDAts all folks]

Accidents are unanticipated. If you have a set of laws that can predict the set of possible outcomes and each one in the set I s arrived at by a causal set of events then it would be an anticipated possibility.

Why do laws have to predict the set of possible outcomes?

The theory of quantum mechanics relies on the fact that you can't predict it's outcome but it's bounded by a set of laws.

Quantum mechanics does not predict a single outcome, but it definitely predicts the set of possible outcomes.

Explain to me the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It's premise is based on the fact that you can't be certain.

A 'set' of possible outcomes. What is that set? There is a probability, within quantum mechanics, that I could transport  and sit beside you while your reading this. That probability is extremely small to the point where it's never gonna happen, but the possibility is still there.

[Vindictus]

Well, babies also don't know algebra, but not knowing it (or even that it exists) does not leave one to say, 'I don't know if algebra exists.'

That would be the default position of someone who never encountered algebra, yes.

[Rama Set]

Accidents are unanticipated. If you have a set of laws that can predict the set of possible outcomes and each one in the set I s arrived at by a causal set of events then it would be an anticipated possibility.

Why do laws have to predict the set of possible outcomes?

The theory of quantum mechanics relies on the fact that you can't predict it's outcome but it's bounded by a set of laws.

Quantum mechanics does not predict a single outcome, but it definitely predicts the set of possible outcomes.

Explain to me the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It's premise is based on the fact that you can't be certain.

It's more about there being an amount of uncertainty in the relation between two quantities; the most famous being position and velocity. The most accurately you know the position of a quanta, the more uncertain you will be regarding its position and vice versa. But it is possible to know an approximate value of these two quantities.

A 'set' of possible outcomes. What is that set? There is a probability, within quantum mechanics, that I could transport  and sit beside you while your reading this. That probability is extremely small to the point where it's never gonna happen, but the possibility is still there.

The set, if completely counted would be extremely large, no doubt, but countable nonetheless. I am not sure what you are getting at.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, this part of the argument is beyond me. I did the minimal science & mathematics studies in college, & none in grad school. So I shall simply watch this part of the debate, & try to look informed.

[DDDDAts all folks]

It's more about there being an amount of uncertainty in the relation between two quantities; the most famous being position and velocity. The most accurately you know the position of a quanta, the more uncertain you will be regarding its position and vice versa. But it is possible to know an approximate value of these two quantities.

There's a big difference between velocity and momentum in quantum mechanics.

The Heinsberg uncertainty principle is similar to what you've describe however it's the measurement of momentum and position that's uncertain. The more you know the likely position of a particle the less you know the likelihood of it's momentum.

Quantum mechanics deals with probability, not certainty, you can't 'predict' it.

The set, if completely counted would be extremely large, no doubt, but countable nonetheless. I am not sure what you are getting at.

I'm trying to explain that there are an infinite number of 'sets' that could apply to a quantum system, it's unpredictable. Schrodingers cat is a prime example, until you 'measure' the system you can't predict weather the cat is alive or dead. It's unpredictable.

Turbulance and a chaotic system is another example of a system that's unpredictable within the laws of physics.

[spoon]

a chaotic system isn't unpredictable. There is no randomness in chaos theory.

[DDDDAts all folks]

a chaotic system isn't unpredictable. There is no randomness in chaos theory.

You've got to elaborate here, because I always thought deterministic chaos was unpredictable.

I don't think I've said anything about randomness being in chaos theory.

[spank86]

I'm trying to explain that there are an infinite number of 'sets' that could apply to a quantum system, it's unpredictable. Schrodingers cat is a prime example, until you 'measure' the system you can't predict weather the cat is alive or dead. It's unpredictable.

Turbulance and a chaotic system is another example of a system that's unpredictable within the laws of physics.

That's just because the science isn't refined enough yet.

(or at least that's my take on it)