nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again. What's meaningless drivel is subscribing all of God's attributes to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief. You can replace all the words in my belief with " :):rolleyes: "if you like its still yet another failed misrepresentation.

I'm not trying to represent the theistic position, let alone misrepresent it.

I've been doing one thing, and one thing only: showing how your "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't a God (infinitely) possible", or any varient of the same, in and of itself, isn't a valid or a sound logical argument.

That's all I've been doing this whole time. Nothing more, nothing less. That you're reading more into the argument that is actually there is your own problem, not mine.

lmaopml

I think ALL Christians believe in miracles JammyDodger, not just Catholics.

Part of Jesus ministry according to scripture was that he performed miracles and managed to inexplicably change the natural order of a persons makeup..

- there are disclaimers of course, but it's part of having 'faith' too, that the reason for that miracle is because one had faith and was inexplicably healed, either spiritually or physically depending on how we 'believe' God chose for us as individuals.

I don't think the arguement for who is reponsible or not responsible for the 'proof' of Gods existence will ever seperate itself from the simplicity of taking a leap of faith at some point - and that's a turning point. Nobody will show God to anybody in a naturalistic sense, they can perhaps point towards examples of his work, or the beauty of the person and creation etc. and also to moral imprints - but reductionists will always reduce and the very odd time you will find that some of them will find the beauty of God hidden in nature too and the most miniscule particle or cell and how it behaves.

It's how we're 'wired' in some ways, but if we only go the reductionist route than we are 'ALL' wired really, and only act randomly within our given choices like some kind of chemical junkies with no 'human spirit' as such - I'm not convinced this is the case at all either. In fact, knowing a 'person' is hard to define in a scientific way, or defining a 'person' and their value etc.

Also it's a huge and exciting question for some God's existence or lack thereof, as can be seen from the interest people have in this thread that was created only today, even for those without faith.

There's hope yet :P

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What are you talking about? You just said that miracles were something which Catholics used as evidence among themselves. I said that this is fine, but under that condition don't use them as evidence of your God to unbelievers.

This is somehow a misrepresentation? I'd love to know how.

Who here is doing that ? Why would I care what you believe or don’t ? I'm only interested when you attempt to misrepresent what I believe.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This is getting tiresome. I'm using the argument you've used here and in other places "in an infinity is it infinitely possible that God exists". (here and here, for example). I'm replacing the word "God" in your argument with the words "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God". Doing this shows the argument to be what it is: meaningless drivel.

It's not my problem that you're unable to see why this is the case.

More argumentum ad nauseam.

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again. What's meaningless drivel is subscribing all of God's attributes to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief. You can replace all the words in my belief with "

:):rolleyes: "if you like its still yet another failed misrepresentation.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Same old misrepresentation argument of what Catholics believe.

What are you talking about? You just said that miracles were something which Catholics used as evidence among themselves. I said that this is fine, but under that condition don't use them as evidence of your God to unbelievers.

This is somehow a misrepresentation? I'd love to know how.

Same old failed misrepresentation of the theistic argument again, when has anyone stated this universe is the same as infinity ? There could be an infinite number of universes, never mind what is outside of them.

This is getting tiresome. I'm using the argument you've used here and in other places "in an infinity is it infinitely possible that God exists". (here and here, for example). I'm replacing the word "God" in your argument with the words "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God". Doing this shows the argument to be what it is: meaningless drivel.

It's not my problem that you're unable to see why this is the case.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's perfectly fine. For all that I care Catholics can believe every single event in their life is a miracle. But, if you abide by the above, you can no longer use miracles as evidence for the existence of your god.

Same old failed misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere.

Again, let me stress, we're talking about possibilities and not probabilities. It doesn't matter which one you believe to be more likely to exist: that has nothing to do with possibilities, that has to to with probabilities.

For example. If I play the lotto there are, with regards to winning, two possibilities: I'll either win the lotto or I won't win the lotto. That's a 50:50 possibility. Does that say anything for the probability that I'll win or won't win? No, not at all. The probability that I'll win is tiny. The possibility of an event occuring is not synonymous with the probability of that event occuring, and vice versa.

So, you admit, under your conditions of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities (again, not probabilities) that it's possible for a unicorn which, upon sneezing, gave birth to your God.

Given that the event is possible, in an "infinite universe with infinite possibilities" it can be argued that the event will occur. If it occurs we've to arrive at one of two conclusions:

The unicorn, by sneezing, gave birth to your God. This removes the uniqueness of your God and makes the whole argument kind of pointless.

Or, the unicorn can't exist. If it can't exist then there's something not possible. If there's something not possible we're not really talking about "infinite possibilities". This renders the argument useless.

You've one possible recourse: to say that God exists outside of the universe. This is what most (all?) theists say. If you admit this then can you please stop using that "infinite universe, infinite possibilities" argument? It's completely and utterly pointless and meaningless, especially under the condition that one of the possibilities you want to speak about is God.

Same old failed misrepresentation of the theistic argument again, when has anyone stated this universe is the same as infinity ? There could be an infinite number of universes, never mind what is outside of them.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You see the problem is you're pretending that Catholics believe it is irrefutable poof for non Catholics, when they make no such claim. It's more evidence (not proof) for Catholics for their own spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

That's perfectly fine. For all that I care Catholics can believe every single event in their life is a miracle. But, if you abide by the above, you can no longer use miracles as evidence for the existence of your god.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Where has anyone claimed is not possible, in theory for a unicorn to exist in infinity ?

You tried presenting the unicorn argument as an equivalent strawman argument to the theistic one when its not.

I believe it more likely that an infinite sprit exists, nature unknown, that was the uncaused cause.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Again, let me stress, we're talking about possibilities and not probabilities. It doesn't matter which one you believe to be more likely to exist: that has nothing to do with possibilities, that has to to with probabilities.

For example. If I play the lotto there are, with regards to winning, two possibilities: I'll either win the lotto or I won't win the lotto. That's a 50:50 possibility. Does that say anything for the probability that I'll win or won't win? No, not at all. The probability that I'll win is tiny. The possibility of an event occuring is not synonymous with the probability of that event occuring, and vice versa.

So, you admit, under your conditions of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities (again, not probabilities) that it's possible for a unicorn which, upon sneezing, gave birth to your God.

Given that the event is possible, in an "infinite universe with infinite possibilities" it can be argued that the event will occur. If it occurs we've to arrive at one of two conclusions:

The unicorn, by sneezing, gave birth to your God. This removes the uniqueness of your God and makes the whole argument kind of pointless.

Or, the unicorn can't exist. If it can't exist then there's something not possible. If there's something not possible we're not really talking about "infinite possibilities". This renders the argument useless.

You've one possible recourse: to say that God exists outside of the universe. This is what most (all?) theists say. If you admit this then can you please stop using that "infinite universe, infinite possibilities" argument? It's completely and utterly pointless and meaningless, especially under the condition that one of the possibilities you want to speak about is God.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ok, you're obviously either incapable of or unwilling to understand my argument.

Under your argument "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists" it's equally possible (not equally probable, equally possible) that a sneezing unicorn capable of creating your God exists. If it's not possible for this unicorn to exist, then an infinite number of possibilities (a premise in your argument) do not exist. That's the flaw, right there.

I'm not equating anything. I'm not assessing probabilities. I'm simply pointing out the major error with that argument. That you're incapable of seeing that fatal error isn't my problem.

Where has anyone claimed is not possible, in theory, for a unicorn to exist in infinity ?

You tried presenting the unicorn argument as an equivalent analogy to the theistic one when its not. Analogically referencing unicorns doesn't disprove anything.

I could equally try to pretend the atheistic argument is that only matters verified physically to date can exist.

Regarding theism, I believe it is possible and probable an infinite sprit exists, nature unknown, that was the uncaused cause. Nothing more, nothing less.
Claiming I believe anything else is a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I have one problem with this kind of thinking. It's introducing a false dichotomy; it's fallacious bifurcation.

The only options aren't: a) explanable by medicine, and b) unexplainable by medicine, there for a miracle. There are plenty of other options; it's not an either or scenario.

If something could (however remote that possibility is. You have to remember we've a very large sample size with almost 7 billion people) have naturally healed itself then I neither feel nor see the need to introduce the idea of divine intervention. I can't see how it makes sense to complicate the matter any more than it need be; "don't multiply entities beyond necessity", and all that.

You see the problem is you're pretending that Catholics believe it is irrefutable poof for non Catholics, when they make no such claim. It's more evidence (not proof) for Catholics for their own spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

They are your examples, where you attempted a straw man fallacy of making them equivalent arguments, and now your wrapping yourself in knots trying to defend it.

You’re still attempting to equate the two arguments as equivalent in the hope we don't notice or forget about your origional straw man error. Top Tip : when you're in a hole, stop digging.

How is the claim that an infinite sprit created the universe, equivalent to a unicorns sneeze created a God that created the universe ?

Ok, you're obviously either incapable of or unwilling to understand my argument.

Under your argument "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists" it's equally possible (not equally probable, equally possible) that a sneezing unicorn capable of creating your God exists. If it's not possible for this unicorn to exist, then an infinite number of possibilities (a premise in your argument) do not exist. That's the flaw, right there.

I'm not equating anything. I'm not assessing probabilities. I'm simply pointing out the major error with that argument. That you're incapable of seeing that fatal error isn't my problem.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How can you assess which one is more probable (you seem to be interchanging the words possible and probable: they're not synonymous)? You have no way to, I'm afraid. So your first assertion is meaningless.

Now, to deal with the argument we're talking about. You said that "in an infinte universe of infinite possibility isn't it possible that God exists". I just need one counter example which you deem to not be possible (not probable) to nullify the whole argument. Such a counter example is, for example, a unicorn which, upon sneezing, created your God. If you say that this isn't possible, then your original argument is invalid, as infinite possibilites then don't exist. If you admit that it is possible, then you remove the whole purpose of your argument.

And before somebody says "but God is outside of the universe", that wasn't included as a premise in the argument being used.

I just wish you could see how pointless and meaningless an argument it is.

Read the reply I gave to philologos above.

They are your examples, where you attempted a straw man fallacy of making them equivalent arguments, and now your wrapping yourself in knots trying to defend it.

You’re still attempting to equate the two arguments as equivalent in the hope we don't notice or forget about your origional straw man error. Top Tip : when you're in a hole, stop digging.

How is the claim that an infinite sprit created the universe, equivalent to your claim that it is equally possible a unicorns sneeze created a God that created the universe ?

Prove for us that they are equally probable and equal claims, or drop the straw man, and we can disuss the infinate spirt claim.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

To qualify as a miracle, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent - as well as signed off as inexplicable by medical doctors. You can read the reports yourself, and I'm sure you can always find an excuse to disagree with them.

I have one problem with this kind of thinking. It's introducing a false dichotomy; it's fallacious bifurcation.

The only options aren't: a) explanable by medicine, and b) unexplainable by medicine, there for a miracle. There are plenty of other options; it's not an either or scenario.

If something could (however remote that possibility is. You have to remember we've a very large sample size with almost 7 billion people) have naturally healed itself then I neither feel nor see the need to introduce the idea of divine intervention. I can't see how it makes sense to complicate the matter any more than it need be; "don't multiply entities beyond necessity", and all that.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, firstly, I don't believe he has healed anybody of anything. And, secondly, you can get part of an answer for this from the other post: "No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense."

Any miracle that I've heard about has been some ailment which, given time or chance, could have healed itself naturally.

To qualify as a miracle, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent - as well as signed off as inexplicable by medical doctors. You can read the reports yourself, and I'm sure you can always find an excuse to disagree with them.

Onesimus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?

I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?

You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.

And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?

Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

Yes Sister brieges occurance has been verified as a miracle.

Jesus works in the ordinary and extroadinary form. so when I have a headache Jesus comes to me in the form of Panadol. He therefore works through mens hearts believers and non-believers and finds medicine. He also works in the extroadinary form in which he can heal someone instantly beyond the confines of the human mind. So yes all healings are done by Jesus. But the extroadinary that go beyond the confines of scientific explanation when done in the name of Jesus Christ and calling upon his mercy directly, is a ''miracle''.

Google sr.briege and listen to her story.

her story is not an anencdote. as I've already explained all who knew her including her doctors were baffled, as were those thousands who witnessed it with their own eyes.

Onesimus now exiting the debate.

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

The amputee argument is one of the poorest objections I've ever heard to Christianity. You're much better than that argument JammyDodger. It is riddled with assumptions for a start.

The argument itself isn't great, I know. But the main point behind it is a very good one, I think:

I've not been made aware of any miracle which claims to have cured a condition that is definitely incurable. Not a condition which we're currently unable to cure or prevent; a condition that, by it's very nature, is incurable inside of the natural world. Amputees are just the most obvious example of such a condition.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I'm interested in the one that is more possible, not less possible, and I have very little interest in unicorns with the flu.

A few points on this:

How can you assess which one is more probable (you seem to be interchanging the words possible and probable: they're not synonymous)? You have no way to, I'm afraid. So your first assertion is meaningless.

Now, to deal with the argument we're talking about. You said that "in an infinte universe of infinite possibility isn't it possible that God exists". I just need one counter example which you deem to not be possible (not probable) to nullify the whole argument. Such a counter example is, for example, a unicorn which, upon sneezing, created your God. If you say that this isn't possible, then your original argument is invalid, as infinite possibilites then don't exist. If you admit that it is possible, then you remove the whole purpose of your argument.

And before somebody says "but God is outside of the universe", that wasn't included as a premise in the argument being used.

I just wish you could see how pointless and meaningless an argument it is.

I've read about lots of cases where Doctors could not explain the cure naturally. You should do your own research.

Read the reply I gave to philologos above.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know they're not equivilant claims.

Good. Bad idea to allude that they might be so.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Using this argument: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists", can you not admit that it's possible a sneezing unicorn capable of creating gods exists. If it's not possible he exists, then that's one possibility that doesn't exist under your conditions (infinite possibilities), meaning there aren't really infinite possibilities. So, with that, your whole argument falls apart.

Now, can you see why it's a silly argument? It's a nice argument to use when it appears it's backing up your claim. But, when it backs up a counter claim it suddenly gets very inconvenient.

I'm interested in the one that is more possible, not less possible, and I have very little interest in unicorns with the flu.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense.

I've read about lots of cases where Doctors could not explain the cure naturally. You should do your own research.

philologos

The amputee argument is one of the poorest objections I've ever heard to Christianity. You're much better than that argument JammyDodger. It is riddled with assumptions for a start.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What minor ailments has he healed people from ?

Well, firstly, I don't believe he has healed anybody of anything. And, secondly, you can get part of an answer for this from the other post: "No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense."

Any miracle that I've heard about has been some ailment which, given time or chance, could have healed itself naturally.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Why wouldn't he heal an amputee yet he would heal somebody of some other minor ailment?

What minor ailments has he healed people from ?

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

No, I asked why would he ? Any ideas yet ?

Why wouldn't he heal an amputee yet he would heal somebody of some other minor ailment?

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How ? They are not equivalent claims ?

I know they're not equivilant claims. I'll try to clarify:

Using this argument: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists", can you not admit that it's possible a sneezing unicorn capable of creating gods exists. If it's not possible he exists, then that's one possibility that doesn't exist under your conditions (infinite possibilities), meaning there aren't really infinite possibilities. So, with that, your whole argument falls apart.

Now, can you see why it's a silly argument? It's a nice argument to use when it appears it's backing up your claim. But, when it backs up a counter claim it suddenly gets very inconvenient.

I doubt that would be irrefutable proof. I'm sure if you research the miracles you'll find Doctors have already recorded that conclusion in some cases.

No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I will deal with the modern form. It is correct(-ish) to say the universe began to exist if we define "universe" as our spacetime manifold. It is incorrect to say it began to exist if we define the universe as all of natural existence. Much of the structure of the universe is atemporal. Time and space themselves are products of this atemporal structure. When you hear a scientist say the universe arose from nothing, it must be stressed that there is a difference between a scientist's "nothing" (which has a structure described with a Hilbert-space and definable creation and annihilation operators, and can produce universes), and a theologian's ex nihilo.

You might think the scientist's nothing is a silly notion. But remember that this notion is the bedrock of quantum field theory, and has been used extensively in superconductor physics.

Morbert, is this tied in with the many worlds / parallel universe or multiverse theory and the graviton boson?

Sorry, I have a very lay understanding of theoretical physics, but I find it interesting - and was wondering are the creation and annhilation operators, mathematical operators for equations in the realms of that area of theoretical physics?

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You said God wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a life threatening condition, did you not? This is where all of this argument has come from.

No, I asked why would he ? Any ideas yet ?

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Can you not follow, though, that using that "infinite possibilities" nonsense then both claims are equally possible?

How ? They are not equivalent claims ?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Objective. Incapable of being explaned by naturalistic means.

I doubt that would be irrefutable proof. I'm sure if you research the miracles you'll find Doctors have already recorded that conclusion in some cases.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I have made no claim about miracles, I’m challenging what you claim Christians believe about miracles.

You said God wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a life threatening condition, did you not? This is where all of this argument has come from.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?

I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?

You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.

And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?

Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

I have made no claim about miracles, I’m challenging what you claim Christians believe about miracles.

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You were the one trying to equate them in your original claim. They are not equal propositions.

Can you not follow, though, that using that "infinite possibilities" nonsense then both claims are equally possible?

Evidence - define evidence, what type of evidence would you accept ?

Objective. Incapable of being explaned by naturalistic means.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Philologos: I'll get to your post when I've a little more time.

Can you work out the probability for either? If you can't then trying to weigh up probabilities is pointless.

You're getting sidetracked, though. You use the argument that "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that a god exists?". My argument is that, using that very same logic, isn't it possible that a sneezing unicorn exists? If we're talking about infinite possiblities here then the relative probabilities of either (which are impossible to work out anyway) are meaningless.

Which is why my original conclusion (that "infinite possibilities" argument is nonsense) is valid.

You were the one trying to equate them in your original claim. They are not equal propositions.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I see no evidence for either. So, effectively, the probability for either's existence, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be.

Evidence - define evidence, what type of evidence would you accept ?

[Deleted User]

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Why were you thinking Christians believe he has no conditions for his cures, and cures everyone’s sneezes ?

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?

Onesimus wrote: »

And when has Arthritis/cancer ever been known to go away on its own without medicine? and when has it ever been known that someone was healed of this illness save that in the name of Jesus Christ?

I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?

You have not yet disproved the miracle therefore cannot claim it does not work.

You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.

Sr.Briege mc kenna is living proof of someone who was instantly healed of her life long arthristis in Newry when she was touched by the Blessed Sacrament, thousands saw it with their own eyes, many knew her, there was no deception and her doctors were baffled.

And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Define objective irrefutable proof ?

Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

[Deleted User]

Philologos: I'll get to your post when I've a little more time.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How's does creation by an infinite unicorns sneeze, have the same probability as creation by an infinite sprit ?

Can you work out the probability for either? If you can't then trying to weigh up probabilities is pointless.

You're getting sidetracked, though. You use the argument that "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that a god exists?". My argument is that, using that very same logic, isn't it possible that a sneezing unicorn exists? If we're talking about infinite possiblities here then the relative probabilities of either (which are impossible to work out anyway) are meaningless.

Which is why my original conclusion (that "infinite possibilities" argument is nonsense) is valid.

Good job you don't work for Paddy Power if you think both have the same odds of existance.

I see no evidence for either. So, effectively, the probability for either's existence, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be 0.

Which is more probable ?

(1) Alien life exists ?
(2) Alien space unicorns exist ?

Using your argument of infinite possibilities then it doesn't matter which is more probable. But, doing what you're doing in equating alien life to god is fallacious as best and disingenuous at worst.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I wish somebody could give me objective proof of a miracle. If it's such a compelling reason for belief then surely that exists?

Define objective irrefutable proof ?