Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samael
I think you have missed the point. If God exists outside our framework, and we can't know he exists, then he is irrelevant. If there is no way for us to detect his influence (ie we can't know he exists) then he has no influence. There is no point considering a influence which, well, isn't.
|
an observer influencing reality is not outside science - nor consciousness creating reality is merely psychological -
'the universe itself is god, the creation is the creator, and we are all but a part of it. people feel a connection to our world and the universe, which i would describe as god.'
Theists 'God exists' & Atheists 'God doesn't exist' - are the same thing
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samael
Also, a binary choice does not imply an equal chance. Either I am 30 metres tall, or I am not. Its not 50/50, the chances of me being 30 metres tall are pretty bloody slim. Hell, the chance that I am the tallest man in the world is 6,602,224,175 to 1.
|
As you identified above - we are not even in a position to make the relevant comparative probability judgment. We have no idea whether G (God) is more probable than ~G (not God) given there is no evidence.
and by the way - the idea of 'probability' is based on the assumption that our perceptual beliefs are accurate - it is logically possible that our perceptual beliefs are false (the 'matrix' is possible) - this possibility of 'the matrix' means we can never exclude all chance of error in our perceptual beliefs - however improbable the 'matrix' seems to us or not is irrelevant as our experience in or out of the 'matrix' are exactly the same (our brain knows no difference) - in reality you can never know whether you are 30 metres tall or not - you can only make a decision within the assumed foundation (ie probability holds only within a preferred framework)