The Agnostic Thread

[The1exile]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (one of Arthur C. Clarke's "laws" of prediction)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo." --Enoch the Red

[Nephilim]

i would like to respond here, but i'm not sure if this thread actually exists.....

bart ehrman: "i'm an agnostic"

steven colbert: "isn't that just an atheist without balls?"

Do you share these thoughts?

nope. i affirm the existence and sovereignty of the LORD; i trust him to save me even though my hypocrisy and selfishness appear limitless.

but i'm not equivalent to the offensive fundamentalist that colbert portrays either

about the verbal vitriol that often accompanies religion/atheism: it doesn't seem much different than many other subjects. people get very angry about lots of things. politics, sex, race, football, etc.

[OnlyAmbrose]

flashleg, I think what he's saying is that since you can't prove what you believe (and yes, you do believe there is no God- don't dance with words and say that you don't believe in anything because it's the same damn thing ), then it's faith.

There are an infinite amount of possibilities as to who or what the supernatural is. I choose one of those infinite possibilities- God as he is portrayed in the Christian faith. You choose just another one of those possibilities- nothing. In a purely statistical sense, you're just as likely to be right or wrong as I am.

Let's take the ever-famous "Evil Spaghetti Monster" analogy that atheists are so fond of. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that I believe in said Spaghetti Monster from outer space. My friend, Abdul, doesn't believe in the Spaghetti monster, but believes in the ooze monster from another galaxy. You, on the other hand, don't believe in any monster at all.

There are an infinite amount of monsters I could come up with, and the chances of their existence (statistically) are one in infinite- mathematically, zero. HOWEVER, the existance of a monster in the at all- in any form- is, mathematically, infinite out of infinite- mathematically undefined. Why? Because there are an infinite amount of monsters I could come up with, but there are also an infinite amount of monsters that could possibly exist.

Atheism, on the other hand (or a-monsterism), is merely one of those possibilities. One in infinite. Zero. So we have zero and undefined as the numbers we can work with. You'll have a tough time proving anything with those statistics. As such, you have faith that there is no God, or any monster of any kind.

[flashleg8]

flashleg, I think what he's saying is that since you can't prove what you believe (and yes, you do believe there is no God- don't dance with words and say that you don't believe in anything because it's the same damn thing ), then it's faith.

My previous posts argues against what you say.

There are an infinite amount of possibilities as to who or what the supernatural is. I choose one of those infinite possibilities- God as he is portrayed in the Christian faith. You choose just another one of those possibilities- nothing. In a purely statistical sense, you're just as likely to be right or wrong as I am.

ohh I feel a house of cards logic coming...

Let's take the ever-famous "Evil Spaghetti Monster" analogy that atheists are so fond of. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that I believe in said Spaghetti Monster from outer space. My friend, Abdul, doesn't believe in the Spaghetti monster, but believes in the ooze monster from another galaxy. You, on the other hand, don't believe in any monster at all.

There are an infinite amount of monsters I could come up with, and the chances of their existence (statistically) are one in infinite- mathematically, zero. HOWEVER, the existance of a monster in the at all- in any form- is, mathematically, infinite out of infinite- mathematically undefined. Why? Because there are an infinite amount of monsters I could come up with, but there are also an infinite amount of monsters that could possibly exist.

Atheism, on the other hand (or a-monsterism), is merely one of those possibilities. One in infinite. Zero. So we have zero and undefined as the numbers we can work with. You'll have a tough time proving anything with those statistics. As such, you have faith that there is no God, or any monster of any kind.

And there it is.
The basic flaw in your argument is you are weighting the possibility of each of the possible outcomes being equal. They are not. You are quite correct that there is an infinite amount of monsters that could be thought up, and indeed that atheism is only one in all these possibilities. But the possibility of one of these options existing is not the same as it existing. If you factor in the likelihood of the event occurring (ie the monster existing) as well as the option that it could occur I think you'll find the mathematics vastly different. In fact from my point of view they would be No God = 1 all other options = 0.

Typical for religious people to try and co-opt science to baffle people. Why not be more honest about your faith, like others here, and give the real reason why you believe that descend into pseudo science? I am prepared to accept that some people have experienced something that they can only attribute to the divine that has given them faith. I, personally, have never experienced anything that cannot be explained in a rational way but I can't possibly speak for other people and won't be so condescending to deny what they themselves felt.

[OnlyAmbrose]

The basic flaw in your argument is you are weighting the possibility of each of the possible outcomes being equal. They are not.

Equal or no, the statistical probability is finite- if you have no definite proof of the nonexistance of a monster, then the probability that you are correct is a finite amount out of an infinite amount- still zero. 1,000,000,000,000 out of infinite still equals zero.

In fact from my point of view they would be No God = 1 all other options = 0.

And how do you figure that?

Typical for religious people to try and co-opt science to baffle people. Why not be more honest about your faith, like others here, and give the real reason why you believe that descend into pseudo science? I am prepared to accept that some people have experienced something that they can only attribute to the divine that has given them faith. I, personally, have never experienced anything that cannot be explained in a rational way but I can't possibly speak for other people and won't be so condescending to deny what they themselves felt.

I am certainly NOT stating why I believe what I do, I'm qualifying the agnostic viewpoint. There's nothing Christian about what I just wrote. It's basically logic- atheism is one possibility, however large that possibility may be, out of an infinite amount of other possibilities. The chances of any one possibility being totally correct are statistically minuscule - zero, in fact. Which is why from a statistical standpoint, agnosticism actually makes a whole lot of sense.

[n8freeman]

i believe what flashlegs is saying this
there is more evidence backing up the non existence of a supernatural being
so the probability should be higher

ambrose is saying that there are so many possibilities, that the extra evidence means practically nothing

am i right?






EDIT: my 600th post, yeah pretty awesome right
anyways, carry on

[heavycola]

Ambrose, your argument doesn't work here because presumably an ooze monster from another galaxy doesn't have any effect on our actions or thoughts here - unless your friend believes it is a supreme being, in which case it's the same argument as before: Does a supreme being exist, or not?
Even Dawkins admits that agnosticism is the only rational position: 'I am agnostinc in the sense that i am agnostic about the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden' - i.e. i can't PROVE they don't exist.

[ksslemp]

...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

Saying this is the same as saying I don't believe in a God! Therefore Atheism IS a Belief!

[CrazyAnglican]

To fellow Christians:

Hey guys. Why not let these folks have this thread? We already have a debate thread.

[ksslemp]

It comes down to the Fact that you may someday Prove that God exists, but you can Never Prove that God doesnt exist.

I am Agnostic and I like the idea that God may exist but i cant believe in something just because i'd like it to be true. I believe what i see and not the other way around.

[Pico]

Too me, there is no way to prove god exists. And...
There is no way to prove god doesn't exists.

In order to make either one of my statements false, and the other true... would be the end of the world. And whether it happens by God's "Divine Intervention" or we blow it up ourselves, we all lose.

[Riao]

...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

To me faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. When you believe something that cannot be proven, then you take it on faith that it is so. There is no way to prove the existence of a supernatural being one way or the other. You take it on faith that supernatural entities do not exist. You take it on faith that the various religions of the world are incorrect.

I see where you’re coming from, but I disagree. The burden of proof should be on the believer to convince the non-believer. I do not accept that there should be a presumption that the supernatural/divine exists and in needs to be disproved. This is not how science/law acts - why should this be a special case?
For a good example of an extension of your argument to the ridiculous, look into the other thread "Pastafarians" where they examine the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Another famous philosophical example of this is Russell’s tea pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

@ flashleg8:

Sorry I have to go to work right now, but I will answer this when I get back.

Alright I'm back. I quoted everything from where we left off to avoid back paging and scrolling.

I have 2 points here: One is what I would call the WYSIWYG faith (that comes from my history in programming in web design. It stands for what you see is what you get). It's not that you believe in nothing (that would be nihilism) but you do believe that the world is what you see. It is faith to say that there isn't anything beyond the material.

The second point is where this will get interesting. You obviously have a vested belief in science. This is faith too. (For the vast majority of people anyway. For the few scientists actually performing experiments, this may not apply, but for the layman -- most definitely).

Religion is learned, right? Everything Christians know about their faith they have been taught by priests, nuns, pastors, etc. and also have read in books. Faith comes from these teachings. Well the question is how do you know about the science that you speak of? Other than perhaps the childish experiments in school (light refractions, radio wave experiments, mathematical formulas) the rest of what most people know about science comes from being told in school and reading in books. So we are told for instance that the atom exists, and if you split it open a tremendous amount of energy is released. How do you really know this is true? No one has ever seen an atom! The closest you can get to looking at one is through an electron microscope, but then you are not really seeing it, any more than an ultra-sound truly lets you see a gestating fetus. You see an image that is supposedly an atom.

And I for one haven't even seen an electron microscope. I'm told that they exist and what they do. You choose to believe in it or not. But the teaching of this and the expectation that you will believe it, I contend, is no different from the same expectations coming from religious leaders in churches. Both teachings come from books and through oral lessons. It's the same.

Personally I hold that certainly one is more likely true than the other, but who am I to really say who is right or wrong. I haven't seen any more proof in science than I have in any religion. If you hold that you believe in scientific theories, that is no less of a faith than believing in a religion.

[flashleg8]

The chances of any one possibility being totally correct are statistically minuscule - zero, in fact.

Once again I must question your application of statistics to this problem. At the risk of repeating myself, you are weighing each possible option equally when their probable outcome is not. For example toss a coin: one option is that the coin will come down heads, one is that it will come down tails: but there are other options; the coin may come down on its side, not come down at all or even magically change into a flower on the way down. In fact the options are infinite! Do you really argue that all these options have equal weighting? If so the chances of the coin coming down heads is...well "statistically minuscule - zero, in fact"! Hmm, put that one to the test and come back with the result, I'm interested to see what the result will be(!).

@ksslemp: I've addressed your question before, my viewpoint doesn't change. Disbelief /= belief.

@Riao Point 1: I disagree, it takes faith to believe in something that is not seen. I don't believe it takes faith to believe that something doesn't exist that cannot be seen. This is the lack of faith.

Why do you all insist that a negative must be equal to a positive? Take Matter and Void for example. Matter (air, earth etc) exists and so does Void (space). No Matter exists in a void. It is the lack of Matter that creates the void. Is the Void Matter? Of course not, it is the lack of Matter!

and Point 2:

The second point is where this will get interesting. You obviously have a vested belief in science. This is faith too. (For the vast majority of people anyway. For the few scientists actually performing experiments, this may not apply, but for the layman -- most definitely).

Religion is learned, right? Everything Christians know about their faith they have been taught by priests, nuns, pastors, etc. and also have read in books. Faith comes from these teachings. Well the question is how do you know about the science that you speak of? Other than perhaps the childish experiments in school (light refractions, radio wave experiments, mathematical formulas) the rest of what most people know about science comes from being told in school and reading in books. So we are told for instance that the atom exists, and if you split it open a tremendous amount of energy is released. How do you really know this is true? No one has ever seen an atom! The closest you can get to looking at one is through an electron microscope, but then you are not really seeing it, any more than an ultra-sound truly lets you see a gestating fetus. You see an image that is supposedly an atom.

And I for one haven't even seen an electron microscope. I'm told that they exist and what they do. You choose to believe in it or not. But the teaching of this and the expectation that you will believe it, I contend, is no different from the same expectations coming from religious leaders in churches. Both teachings come from books and through oral lessons. It's the same.

Personally I hold that certainly one is more likely true than the other, but who am I to really say who is right or wrong. I haven't seen any more proof in science than I have in any religion. If you hold that you believe in scientific theories, that is no less of a faith than believing in a religion.

First of all I am a scientist (of sorts) and I have studied science based subjects all my student and working life. The problem with people arguing against science is really one of misunderstanding I find. What is science? It is not the technology, the laws, the theories. It is the scientific method. Science is a way of gaining knowledge through observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. Scientific evidence should be treated in exactly the same way as evidence brought before a legal court. It must be tested for validity, repeatable and stand up to stringent tests.

The main thrust of your argument is perhaps condensed to "if I haven't seen how can I know its true" and "they taught me it how can I know what they say is true".
For the first part: All this evidence is reproducible (or it would not be accepted by the scientific community), you can either do it yourself - or see another do it (it may be expensive, difficult but it is possible). I seriously doubt any religion in the world can demonstrate a single miracle on demand. Or in fact any divine/supernatural act.
For part two: I don't know what level of education you have in science so I won't guess, but at higher levels of study in any science, the pupil is often presented with the evidence (the observable results) and is able to work through the proof (both mathematical and empirical) to prove the accepted idea to themselves. It is possible to mathematically prove certain laws of physics. All this takes a high understanding of the subject and so it is often not worthwhile to go into such strenuous detail for high school lessons.

Go down tomorrow to your local Uni and tell them you don't believe there is such thing as an electron microscope - I'm sure they'll be happy to prove you wrong

[ksslemp]

Atheism IS a belief, just as Christianity is a belief and Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc. Atheists BELIEVE that God doesnt exist. You can play semantics with it, but it doesnt change this fact.

Your viewpoint doesnt change because you are intellectually dishonest.
I suppose i could have sommized this just by looking at your avatar.

Che, HA HA HA Give us a break!

[Stopper]

I don't accept that atheism is a "belief" in the same category that believing in a God is, if that's what people are arguing.

Everyone "believes" they shouldn't walk in front of speeding cars if they don't want to hurt themselves, mainly from everyday experience. The same goes for all sorts of everyday experiences - we believe kettles will boil water if filled and switched on, we believe washing ourselves will keep us clean, etc. Atheism is in that category of "belief" - there is no reason to suppose, either from everyday life, from scientific observations, or anything else, that god(s) exist.

Also, an experience which contradicts one of those beliefs would normally cause us to change our "belief" - ie we'd learn from experience.

On the other hand, to hold a religious belief is to go against all the evidence in front of your eyes, your everday life, and any other evidence you may care to look at. In principle, there is probably nothing that anyone could say or do to shake this belief.

That takes "faith", which isn't necessary for not walking in front of cars, or not believing in god(s).

[Riao]

@Riao Point 1: I disagree, it takes faith to believe in something that is not seen. I don't believe it takes faith to believe that something doesn't exist that cannot be seen. This is the lack of faith.

Why do you all insist that a negative must be equal to a positive? Take Matter and Void for example. Matter (air, earth etc) exists and so does Void (space). No Matter exists in a void. It is the lack of Matter that creates the void. Is the Void Matter? Of course not, it is the lack of Matter!

I am going to concede this point, actually. Perhaps it is not faith, but I will contend that to disregard any theory of reality out of hand is foolish, because you simply cannot know for sure.

and Point 2:

The second point is where this will get interesting. You obviously have a vested belief in science. This is faith too. (For the vast majority of people anyway. For the few scientists actually performing experiments, this may not apply, but for the layman -- most definitely).

Religion is learned, right? Everything Christians know about their faith they have been taught by priests, nuns, pastors, etc. and also have read in books. Faith comes from these teachings. Well the question is how do you know about the science that you speak of? Other than perhaps the childish experiments in school (light refractions, radio wave experiments, mathematical formulas) the rest of what most people know about science comes from being told in school and reading in books. So we are told for instance that the atom exists, and if you split it open a tremendous amount of energy is released. How do you really know this is true? No one has ever seen an atom! The closest you can get to looking at one is through an electron microscope, but then you are not really seeing it, any more than an ultra-sound truly lets you see a gestating fetus. You see an image that is supposedly an atom.

And I for one haven't even seen an electron microscope. I'm told that they exist and what they do. You choose to believe in it or not. But the teaching of this and the expectation that you will believe it, I contend, is no different from the same expectations coming from religious leaders in churches. Both teachings come from books and through oral lessons. It's the same.

Personally I hold that certainly one is more likely true than the other, but who am I to really say who is right or wrong. I haven't seen any more proof in science than I have in any religion. If you hold that you believe in scientific theories, that is no less of a faith than believing in a religion.

First of all I am a scientist (of sorts) and I have studied science based subjects all my student and working life. The problem with people arguing against science is really one of misunderstanding I find. What is science? It is not the technology, the laws, the theories. It is the scientific method. Science is a way of gaining knowledge through observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. Scientific evidence should be treated in exactly the same way as evidence brought before a legal court. It must be tested for validity, repeatable and stand up to stringent tests.

The main thrust of your argument is perhaps condensed to "if I haven't seen how can I know its true" and "they taught me it how can I know what they say is true".
For the first part: All this evidence is reproducible (or it would not be accepted by the scientific community), you can either do it yourself - or see another do it (it may be expensive, difficult but it is possible). I seriously doubt any religion in the world can demonstrate a single miracle on demand. Or in fact any divine/supernatural act.
For part two: I don't know what level of education you have in science so I won't guess, but at higher levels of study in any science, the pupil is often presented with the evidence (the observable results) and is able to work through the proof (both mathematical and empirical) to prove the accepted idea to themselves. It is possible to mathematically prove certain laws of physics. All this takes a high understanding of the subject and so it is often not worthwhile to go into such strenuous detail for high school lessons.

Go down tomorrow to your local Uni and tell them you don't believe there is such thing as an electron microscope - I'm sure they'll be happy to prove you wrong

If you indeed are a scientist, then as quoted above, this does not apply to you. And no need to guess, the furthest I studied in science was OAC physics (Ontario Academic Credit -- highest level of high school here 15 years ago). So I at least know about the scientific method. But for the layman, the scientific method doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. We don't go through the scientific method to learn. We read about other's experiments who are using the scientific method. We take for granted that what we read is true and accurately reported. This is generally through media such as the scientific journal or news media on the Internet. I think we can all agree that the major media outlets these last couple of years have been off the mark to say the least. The scientific journal needs to be under similar skepticism as they need to satisfy their sponsors just as any other media outlet does. One does not have to be agnostic to suffer this sort of skepticism.

For people in University studying the various sciences, this may be different, but I'd like to share a story regarding this. I know a gentleman named Shawn whose father is a professor at MIT. I've had this very same discussion with him. I'd like to relate it to you (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea):

Me: <everything I've explained thus far>

Shawn: Well my father is a professor at MIT and has shown me a lot in his lab that would refute what you say.

Me: Give me an example.

Shawn: Well this will take some explaining to set it up. O2 is made up of a pair of oxygen particles. If you separate the 2 particles they will move together identically no matter how far apart they are.

Me: Okay. I have learned about that...

Shawn: okay. Well they have this machine in the MIT labs that separates the pair, and moves them to separate parts of the machine. It then moves the one and the other moves with it.

Me: Okay, exactly what did you do and what did you see?

Shawn: <goes into a lengthy lecture about the physics behind the feat of one oxygen particle causing the other to move>

Me: Again, what did you do and what did you see?

Shawn: Well I'm not sure that's important, it's the results that are important, and knowing exactly what the machine does.

Me: Yes it is important. How do you know what the machine did? Did you actually see the particles moving synchronously?

Shawn: No but but you can see the results.

Me: Okay... WHAT DID YOU SEE??

Shawn: I flipped a switch and a little light came on.

Me: <flicks a light switch> I can do that... How do you know the light you turned on has anything to do with oxygen particles?

Shawn: My dad told me, and he's an MIT professor. He wouldn't lie to me...

Me: Did he make the machine?

Shawn: No.

Me: Well then how does even he know?


You get the idea I'm sure. And I could go somewhere to find an electron microscope I'm sure, but does that mean that the image it produces is actually what the lab technicians there tell me it is? Probably, but how can I possibly know for sure?

From this standpoint, OnlyAmbrose is correct:

It's basically logic- atheism is one possibility, however large that possibility may be, out of an infinite amount of other possibilities. The chances of any one possibility being totally correct are statistically minuscule - zero, in fact. Which is why from a statistical standpoint, agnosticism actually makes a whole lot of sense.

(It is actually my feeling that there is no current theory of reality that is correct. Everyone is wrong, and I base this on the statistics that OnlyAmbrose pointed out. And the irony that this comes from a Christian is not lost on me ).
There is a logic behind science and atheism given equal possibility as any other theory, no matter how far science has tested its own theories. This is where existentialism comes out to play. But that is, perhaps, for another post.

And for the record, there are some religions that claim to be able to perform acts which can only be described as supernatural during specific times of the year or month.

[Riao]

about the verbal vitriol that often accompanies religion/atheism: it doesn't seem much different than many other subjects. people get very angry about lots of things. politics, sex, race, football, etc.

LoL. Well I suppose you're right about that. But the only time I've seen people get as pissed off about football as religion is when copious amounts of alcohol are involved.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Once again I must question your application of statistics to this problem. At the risk of repeating myself, you are weighing each possible option equally when their probable outcome is not. For example toss a coin: one option is that the coin will come down heads, one is that it will come down tails: but there are other options; the coin may come down on its side, not come down at all or even magically change into a flower on the way down. In fact the options are infinite! Do you really argue that all these options have equal weighting? If so the chances of the coin coming down heads is...well "statistically minuscule - zero, in fact"! Hmm, put that one to the test and come back with the result, I'm interested to see what the result will be(!).

If you tossed a coin for all of eternity, and given an endless amount of trials, then yes- I have no doubt that it would eventually turn into a flower on the way down. In the words of Isaac Asimov, when you are dealing with the infinite, "Anything can happen... anything MUST happen..." Yet at the same time the chances of one specific thing happening are absolutely nil, because given an infinite amount of trials, an infinite amount of different things will occur, which means that statistically the chances of any one thing occurring are zero.

Anywho, all this confusion is what has always made the agnostic viewpoint make at least a bit of sense to me. When we're dealing with eternities and infinities (which both religion and atheism tend to deal with), it makes very little sense to take simply one route. Because really, none of it makes much sense.

Add a spiritual conversion into the equation, though, and you get theism. But that's another thread.

[Riao]

If you tossed a coin for all of eternity, and given an endless amount of trials, then yes- I have no doubt that it would eventually turn into a flower on the way down. In the words of Isaac Asimov, when you are dealing with the infinite, "Anything can happen... anything MUST happen..." Yet at the same time the chances of one specific thing happening are absolutely nil, because given an infinite amount of trials, an infinite amount of different things will occur, which means that statistically the chances of any one thing occurring are zero.

You have a gift of eloquence which I think I will always envy.

[WalrusesRN]

If you tossed a coin for all of eternity, and given an endless amount of trials, then yes- I have no doubt that it would eventually turn into a flower on the way down. In the words of Isaac Asimov, when you are dealing with the infinite, "Anything can happen... anything MUST happen..." Yet at the same time the chances of one specific thing happening are absolutely nil, because given an infinite amount of trials, an infinite amount of different things will occur, which means that statistically the chances of any one thing occurring are zero.

I don't really follow your logic. There are an infinite number of possibilities of what I could do tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the chance of me eating is zero. The chance can't be zero because if there is zero% chance of something happening, it can't happen, and there are things that happen. For instance, I will eat tomorrow. The chances of any one thing happening cannot be zero because at least one thing will happen. If I am missing something please explain it, because this just seems ridiculous to me.

[Riao]

If you tossed a coin for all of eternity, and given an endless amount of trials, then yes- I have no doubt that it would eventually turn into a flower on the way down. In the words of Isaac Asimov, when you are dealing with the infinite, "Anything can happen... anything MUST happen..." Yet at the same time the chances of one specific thing happening are absolutely nil, because given an infinite amount of trials, an infinite amount of different things will occur, which means that statistically the chances of any one thing occurring are zero.

I don't really follow your logic. There are an infinite number of possibilities of what I could do tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the chance of me eating is zero. The chance can't be zero because if there is zero% chance of something happening, it can't happen, and there are things that happen. For instance, I will eat tomorrow. The chances of any one thing happening cannot be zero because at least one thing will happen. If I am missing something please explain it, because this just seems ridiculous to me.

OnlyAmbrose will most likely give you an answer, but here's mine:

There isn't an infinite number of things that you could possibly do tomorrow. You are limited in what you can do. Moreover, you are driven to eat, therefore you will most likely eat. In the infinite possibilities of reality, there is no drive, and the possibilities are not limited. Given an infinite number of possibilities, the probability of a single theory being true is virtually zero.

Finding the absolute truth of reality in an infinite number of possibilities is like searching for a needle... not in a haystack, not in a farm, not in a county, not in a city, a territory, a country, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy or even the universe. Statistically speaking, if the the needle was hidden "somewhere in the universe," and there was a race to find the needle verses the absolute truth, the needle would be found first.

[WalrusesRN]

OnlyAmbrose will most likely give you an answer, but here's mine:

There isn't an infinite number of things that you could possibly do tomorrow. You are limited in what you can do. Moreover, you are driven to eat, therefore you will most likely eat. In the infinite possibilities of reality, there is no drive, and the possibilities are not limited. Given an infinite number of possibilities, the probability of a single theory being true is virtually zero.

Okay, so say I had said what HAPPENS tomorrow, instead of what I do. By the way, VIRTUALLY, is a word that can't be left out of that. Virtually zero and zero are practically opposites, the way existance and nonexistance are opposites.

[Riao]

OnlyAmbrose will most likely give you an answer, but here's mine:

There isn't an infinite number of things that you could possibly do tomorrow. You are limited in what you can do. Moreover, you are driven to eat, therefore you will most likely eat. In the infinite possibilities of reality, there is no drive, and the possibilities are not limited. Given an infinite number of possibilities, the probability of a single theory being true is virtually zero.

Okay, so say I had said what HAPPENS tomorrow, instead of what I do. By the way, VIRTUALLY, is a word that can't be left out of that. Virtually zero and zero are practically opposites, the way existance and nonexistance are opposites.

I say virtually only because I think that there does have to be a single truth. So that truth is one in an infinite number of possibilities. And saying what happens tomorrow is extremely vague. If you mean "on this earth," then there is a finite number of possibilities. But statistically the guess will be wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation and instead enjoying my lottery winnings.

[WalrusesRN]

I say virtually only because I think that there does have to be a single truth. So that truth is one in an infinite number of possibilities. And saying what happens tomorrow is extremely vague. If you mean "on this earth," then there is a finite number of possibilities. But statistically the guess will be wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation and instead enjoying my lottery winnings.

But if there are an infinite number of things we don't understand the workings of that could interfere with this world, (God, Spaghetti Monsters, alternate dimensions, etc,) then the possibilities of what could happen on this Earth are endless. If you eliminate what is improbable (in my opinion God, and Spaghetti Monsters), then the possibilites are finite. If you don't, they are infinite.

[OnlyAmbrose]

If you tossed a coin for all of eternity, and given an endless amount of trials, then yes- I have no doubt that it would eventually turn into a flower on the way down. In the words of Isaac Asimov, when you are dealing with the infinite, "Anything can happen... anything MUST happen..." Yet at the same time the chances of one specific thing happening are absolutely nil, because given an infinite amount of trials, an infinite amount of different things will occur, which means that statistically the chances of any one thing occurring are zero.

I don't really follow your logic. There are an infinite number of possibilities of what I could do tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the chance of me eating is zero. The chance can't be zero because if there is zero% chance of something happening, it can't happen, and there are things that happen. For instance, I will eat tomorrow. The chances of any one thing happening cannot be zero because at least one thing will happen. If I am missing something please explain it, because this just seems ridiculous to me.

Yes, there are an infinite amount of things you could do tomorrow. However, the time in which you may do them is limited.

If tomorrow was infinite, then an infinite amount of different things would happen. Given an infinite amount of time, everything MUST happen.

Though I must admit that I misspoke when I said that the probability of any one thing happening are zero. A better way of putting it would be that the probability of any one thing happening at a given moment are zero. Because that is one thing out of an infinite of things which could conceivably happen in an infinite timeframe, and one divided by infinite is mathematically zero. But the chances of them eventually happening are 100%, because given an infinite amount of time... an infinite amount of things must occur! And that infinite amount of things must therefore include anything we can think of.

Given that the universe, multiverse, or whatever-you-call-it-verse has existed for eternity (I'll explain that later), or that ANYTHING has existed for eternity, everything must have happened before now. Everything. Because it, whatever it (it being the Universe, or everything that exists in EVERYTHING, in the broadest sense of the word) is or was, has existed forever. And still, everything must continue to occur, forever, because even if this universe (the one we live in) ends, it's presumable that whatever else exists will carry on (it's a logical fallacy to assume that we came from nothing, which is why most atheists I've talked with resort to the theory of parallel universes to explain the existence of matter. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that's true).

In any event, infinite itself is a logical fallacy for this very reason. It's really a fascinating question no matter how you look at it, from a theist, atheist, or agnostic viewpoint: Where did matter come from? And where did the place that matter came from come from? And back and back and back. Yet... there can scientifically be no origin point. Infinite itself is a logical fallacy. Some of us refer to that logical fallacy as God.

Anyways, that was quite a ramble. Sorry if it didn't make much sense, I'm trying to put the long-considered philosophical musings of a teenager into writing. I would certainly appreciate a rebuttal.