SpheresOfBalance wrote:Prove it. Show me your probability calculus for that. It's only fair, if you make such a claim.
If we are sitting in the park, feeding the ducks, and suddenly you point to thin air and say, "see that alien probe." And I and your fellow friends, twenty of us, look in the direction you're pointing then say, "there is nothing there;" it's you that has the burden of proof, not us! So prove it's not the case. My point is not the number of people that say otherwise, rather that the probe in not visible! You speak of an invisible god, so it's your burden of proof.
That's not a probability calculation...it's just an analogy. It's not a particularly good one, either, because it artificially tilts the table. Let's take a more equitable example. You and I are sitting in the park feeding the ducks.
I say, "I really loved Paris this summer."
You say, "I wasn't IN Paris this summer. I've never seen Paris. I don't even believe it exists. Who do you think you're fooling? Prove to me Paris is real."
I say, "I didn't say you were in Paris. I said I was."
You say, "Look, you can't expect me to believe in some city I've never been to."
I say, "Why don't you go look for it yourself?"
You respond, "I'm not going to do that! I'm an A-Parisist. I don't believe Paris exists, and if you do, you're a fool."
That's what Atheists are saying. They're saying, "If I haven't seen it, then it doesn't exist, and everybody who thinks it does is a superstitious moron." That's not an argument...it's just an attitude.
But I still don't see how you derive probability from the admission that you personally have not seen any evidence for God. That's a silly as saying that if you've never seen Paris it cannot exist. Paris may or may not exist...your lack of experience with Paris is completely irrelevant to whether or not it does, or whether there is any evidence it does.
You don't know anything about scientific method, it seems. You actually think it's something that can be "compared" to belief in a God. It cannot.
Yes it can, as it deals in probablities!
No, it is not, and it cannot. Scientific method is just a pattern of inquiry, not an ideology about the probability of God. As such, it is neutral as to the probability of its subject matter. It treats them all the same way.
That's a probability calculus, and you owe me yours now.
Incorrect, see above, 'my and your visit to the park!'
That's not what a "probability calculus" is. You need to show me how you generate the numbers that indicate the relative probability of the two proposals: i.e. that God exists, and that He does not. You have not even tried to do that...
It's you that owes me, and everyone else that oppose you in this matter. The opposite would be true if it were you pointing to something that visually exists, and we said it didn't.
You are the owner of the claim about the relative probabilities. Unless you were full of hot air, you said it because you know exactly what the probabilities are. That's why you owe us the calculus now: you claimed...I didn't.
I'm very bright, just not an English major!
I didn't say you weren't. However, Bacon's a pretty important guy, whether you're into history, science, theology, literature, philosophy or whatever. He's one of the biggies.
