Darwinsbulldog wrote:So a creator could be Natural selection or chemical selection then

But why spell it with a capital "C" if it was one, the other, or both of those? The Language being English (or thereabouts), not German

tnjrp wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:So a creator could be Natural selection or chemical selection then

But why spell it with a capital "C" if it was one, the other, or both of those? The Language being English (or thereabouts), not German

Spelling Nazi!

natural Selection!

Moonwatcher said: I would propose that propositions for which no evidence exists are not exactly equal.

Seth said: Now you have to explain why your proposition is true. Here, I think, is a place for an expert in math and probability to chime in to answer the question "what are the relative probabilities of truth for a series of propositions for which no evidence exists?"

No answer?

Just a quick note on this part for now. Since your premise is 'propositions for which NO evidence exists', the mathematical probability of any one of them being true would be precisely the same as the mathematical probability of any other being true. This assumes there is genuinely no evidence. There are other factors a mathematician might or might not consider such as the sheer number of claims based upon no evidence that are included in any particular proposition.

Bertrand Russell answered this question nicely when he was asked if he thought there was zero chance that the biblical god really existed. Even though he felt there was no evidence that he would consider to be any evidence and there was serious evidence against the claims of the actions of this god, he said he would not go as far as to say that anything had an absolute zero chance of being true, at least mathematically though the practical level was another story. Regardless of the lack of evidence for and the evidence against, there was still a remote chance it could be true. It was exactly the same chance as it might be that the 12 Olympians were sitting on their mountain. In the purest mathematical sense, it isn't impossible as in a remote fraction of a percent chance it could be true but it is so remote that on the practical level it isn't worth bothering with.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Spelling Nazi!

Not really, just wondering about if there is an implication of something involved. And anyway I'm more of a Grammar Fascist

tnjrp wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Spelling Nazi!

Not really, just wondering about if there is an implication of something involved. And anyway I'm more of a Grammar Fascist

Well at least they got the Trains running on time.

John

tnjrp wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Spelling Nazi!

Not really, just wondering about if there is an implication of something involved. And anyway I'm more of a Grammar Fascist

Hmmm, why Do we wooory aboot speelling ande grammer

Maybe to prevent language from evolving too fast

Hmmm, so DB is the variation generator and tnjrp the purifying selector? Hmm, where have I seen that before

I know, artificial selection! But there is natural selection as well.

Therefore, for imaginary sky daddy to be believed, he has to provide evidence for his existence, else baby-eating atheists will be impressed with evolution because of its evidence.

Cod ZERO

Evilootion- atheist- devilry ONE!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Hmmm, so DB is the variation generator and tnjrp the purifying selector? Hmm, where have I seen that before

I have no idea but I do believe you mistook my original meaning. I'm wondering about why rainbow (spelled in lower case BTW) writes Creator (and Religion, incidentally) with upper case intial letter -- I don't think that's an error, the author being rainbow -- and how, if in any way, that would work with your "[cC]reator is 'natural selection' (spelled any which way)" suggestion.

tnjrp wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Hmmm, so DB is the variation generator and tnjrp the purifying selector? Hmm, where have I seen that before

I have no idea but I do believe you mistook my original meaning. I'm wondering about why rainbow (spelled in lower case BTW) writes Creator (and Religion, incidentally) with upper case intial letter -- I don't think that's an error, the author being rainbow -- and how, if in any way, that would work with your "[cC]reator is 'natural selection' (spelled any which way)" suggestion.

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Why call it god then? We have already decided a definition for god and god has to be supernatural.

I prefer the term Creator.....

As a label for what exactly'?

John

Read it in context.
general-faith/atheists-why-should-god-provide-evidence-for-his-existence-t3667-970.html#p128572

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Why call it god then? We have already decided a definition for god and god has to be supernatural.

I prefer the term Creator.....

As a label for what exactly'?

John

Read it in context.
general-faith/atheists-why-should-god-provide-evidence-for-his-existence-t3667-970.html#p128572

I did but I am still not clear what you mean by 'creator'.

John

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Why call it god then? We have already decided a definition for god and god has to be supernatural.

I prefer the term Creator.....

As a label for what exactly'?

John

Read it in context.
general-faith/atheists-why-should-god-provide-evidence-for-his-existence-t3667-970.html#p128572

I did but I am still not clear what you mean by 'creator'.

John

Like a god, but not necessarily supernatural.

tnjrp wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:But anyway, I hear what you are saying. The problem is, how can our minds, grounded in a finite reality, naturally conceptualise such an idea? To me, this is the very definition of supernatural.

Arguing from personal incredulity, I find it extremely hard to conceptualize a 4-dimensional object. Should I consign the timelike dimension to the realm of the supernatural because of this?

Maybe a fair point. But it's still not evoking the same weirdness in my head as infinity does. I suspect that might be because we can experimentally test for a 4th dimension, whereas we can never test for infinity (and that's not because of lack of technology, it is because of the very definition of infinity).

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

rainbow wrote:
I prefer the term Creator.....

As a label for what exactly'?

John

Read it in context.
general-faith/atheists-why-should-god-provide-evidence-for-his-existence-t3667-970.html#p128572

I did but I am still not clear what you mean by 'creator'.

John

Like a god, but not necessarily supernatural.

In what way specifically, is it like a God and which God in particular. What sort of things can it do?

John

1/0

byofrcs wrote:1/0

Not sure whether you are suggesting that is a test for infinity, or whether you are just having a bit of fun. I'll go with the later unless you say otherwise....

z8000783 wrote:In what way specifically, is it like a God and which God in particular. What sort of things can it do?

That would be more like the Deist 'god' in particular.
A Creator creates stuff.

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:In what way specifically, is it like a God and which God in particular. What sort of things can it do?

That would be more like the Deist 'god' in particular.
A Creator creates stuff.

How does the creator come into existence?

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:In what way specifically, is it like a God and which God in particular. What sort of things can it do?

That would be more like the Deist 'god' in particular.
A Creator creates stuff.

Is that it?

Where does it stop creating. at the Big Bang or later?

John

rEvolutionist wrote:

byofrcs wrote:1/0

Not sure whether you are suggesting that is a test for infinity, or whether you are just having a bit of fun. I'll go with the later unless you say otherwise....

With computer programs you test if the denominator is zero before you divide. Effectively testing to avoid infinity.

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:In what way specifically, is it like a God and which God in particular. What sort of things can it do?

That would be more like the Deist 'god' in particular.
A Creator creates stuff.

Where did the deist god come from?

How did a deist god create the universe? What did he actually do?

If you don't have a scientifically credible detailed answer to those questions, then the suggestion of any deist god (or any unexplained god) is just a "place holder " equivalent to admitting you have no idea what you yourself are proposing.

Ian.

!	MODNOTE Continued at: general-faith/atheists-why-should-god-provide-evidence-for-his-existence-t5027.html