Do the Gods Probably Exist or Probably Not Exist?

[lewisnotmiller]

How would anyone even being to calculate such a possibility either way? All I have ever seen are arguments from ignorance at best.

Ignorance would be my argument against God's probable existence. If he's there and sentient, he hasn't seemed too concerned with my lack of belief to this point.
So many common perceptions of God seem unlikely. God is such a vague concept, I gave up 'knowing' whether such a thing exists many years ago.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster probably exists. If he doesn't, then when I die, I'm not going to get to swim in the beer volcano and visit the stripper factory.

So...I like both women and beer, but that somehow still sounds awful.

 

[Milton Platt]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

I don't think I understand your post.....
Are you saying you want to discuss whether a god exists without using any arguments for either side? How do we do that?

 

[Curious George]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

Well the most reasonable place to start is with a definition in whole or in part of a god or gods. From there we can proceed. As it is your thread, I will defer to your definition first. Failing that I will use mine. But I hold that God probably does not exist (the use of the word probably to reflect the manner in which you used it).

 

[Polymath257]

*The other half of the reason chiefly being my sane hope that someone will think to lavish upon me fine microbrewed beers in honor of my efforts to get a discussion going. But that's always been a reason for my threads. Always.

I'll share a bourbon or scotch if you don't mind those.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ignorance would be my argument against God's probable existence. If he's there and sentient, he hasn't seemed too concerned with my lack of belief to this point.

First of all, I honestly do not understand how the above two sentences relate to one another. But let me try to address them one at a time ...

Ignorance would be my argument against God's probable existence.

There are those things that we know, those things that we feel we know, those things that we can imagine, and (presumably) those things as yet unimaginable. Each set is dynamic, and the set of the unimaginable seems to shrink in fits and starts thanks to an almost magical combination of curiosity, ingenuity, and scientific method. But it's simply hubris to think that everything should bend to human inquiry. Ignorance isn't an argument but, rather, the absence of one.

If he's there and sentient, he hasn't seemed too concerned with my lack of belief to this point.

Therefore?​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

First of all, I honestly do not understand how the above two sentences relate to one another. But let me try to address them one at a time ...

Fair enough!

There are those things that we know, those things that we feel we know, those things that we can imagine, and (presumably) those things as yet unimaginable. Each set is dynamic, and the set of the unimaginable seems to shrink in fits and starts thanks to an almost magical combination of curiosity, ingenuity, and scientific method. But it's simply hubris to think that everything should bend to human inquiry. Ignorance isn't an argument but, rather, the absence of one.

Therefore?​

Hmm...
Your point is well made, and my post was (admittedly) pretty clumsy. I'll try and articulate it more clearly.

As per the OP, I'm not making a knowledge claim.

Perhaps God exists. If so, then I am ignorant of him. Based on my best efforts, I've been unable to find such a being, nor evidence I'd see as sufficient to assume he exists. God is obviously defined in myriad ways, some of which could broadly approach my beliefs about the universe, if you squint enough. But not in any direct sense, and I'd personally see the use of the word God when referring to non-sentient processes as more confusing than enlightening anyway.

I am left to assume that God doesn't exist. Or that he is not interested in humanity generally or me specifically in terms of my day to day life, much as some deists believe. And further, I would assume I am not personally subject to any sort of unique treatment from this potential God, for that would appear hubris.
Or he exists, but not in the form, or with the aims we suppose, maybe.

In any of those cases, I'm uncertain how or why I should change how I act, and do I choose to act as if God does not exist.

Ultimately, I'm agnostic, but given that I find God unlikely, it seems better shorthand to describe myself an atheist, or an agnostic atheist if dealing with people to whom such a label would make sense.

Hopefully that helps clarify my meaning somewhat, but either being questioned or challenged on it is more than fine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am left to assume that God doesn't exist. Or that he is not interested in humanity generally or me specifically in terms of my day to day life, much as some deists believe. And further, I would assume I am not personally subject to any sort of unique treatment from this potential God, for that would appear hubris.
Or he exists, but not in the form, or with the aims we suppose, maybe.

In any of those cases, I'm uncertain how or why I should change how I act, and do I choose to act as if God does not exist.

I generally agree. Thanks.

 

[David1967]

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

I think so. But I think in a way far beyond our pathetic attempts to define.

 

[Quintessence]

To me, there's no "probably" about it. All things, gods or otherwise, that humans can name, experience, or identify.... exist. The word "exist" doesn't just mean "has some physical, corporeal form in the apparent world that can be studied by empirical naturalism," in spite of the word being used that way in common discourse. To me, the question to ask is never "does X exist," but to ask "in what way do I or others experience and know X?" as well as the ever-important "how do I conceptualize X?" (which usually derives from experience and culture).

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that there are no gods.
There's no sign of them, & they aren't need to explain anything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Don't know - which is why I tend to agnosticism in this area. And I can live with the doubt.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To me, there's no "probably" about it. All things, gods or otherwise, that humans can name, experience, or identify.... exist. The word "exist" doesn't just mean "has some physical, corporeal form in the apparent world that can be studied by empirical naturalism," in spite of the word being used that way in common discourse. To me, the question to ask is never "does X exist," but to ask "in what way do I or others experience and know X?" as well as the ever-important "how do I conceptualize X?" (which usually derives from experience and culture).

I get that you mean conceptually, but it's not just 'common usage' that defines exist as corporeal rather than conceptual.
Indeed, unicorns are provided as a counter-example in the Merriam Webster, ghosts in the Cambridge and the Collins offers this;

If something exists, it is present in the world as a real thing.

 

[Quintessence]

I get that you mean conceptually, but it's not just 'common usage' that defines exist as corporeal rather than conceptual.

I feel like it should be. Setting aside that it's highly likely that so called "nonexistent" things exist in the corporeal sense somewhere in the universe (and certainly in a multiverse), using "exists" to refer only to corporeal existence is problematic. It suggests that something has to be corporeal to be "real" or have a significant influence. This is simply not the case. Nay, I would say the power of idea is among the most significant forces of all in terms of human cultural development. It does not make sense to me to call something that has such an obvious and significant impact on human affairs "not real" or "does not exist."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Whether "probably" or "probably not" - what ends up being the real difference to the "here and now" in either case?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

If the god of a given religion exists, then one of two possibilities exists. Either:

1. the god-claim of the religion was rooted in knowledge of the god, or
2. the god-claim wasn't rooted in knowledge, but coincidentally turned out to be a correct guess.

Personally, I'm okay with treating the odds of option 2 as negligible. It strikes me as so unlikely that I can treat it as certainly false for all practical purposes... though I admit that I don't have any math to back up this assumption. Still, I've never met soneone arguing for a god who argues it on this basis of their arguments being rubbish but serendipitously arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

So that leaves me with option 1 as the only option I need to seriously consider... and for every religion I've ever investigated, I've found that other conclusions generally fit the facts better than the conclusion that the religion is actually based on knowledge of an actual god.

So that leaves me in the "gods probably don't exist" camp.

 

[idav]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

If you want to go by odds and you wanted to wager on someone being correct I would bet on Einstein being correct.

""I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."" (Albert Einstein)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I feel like it should be. Setting aside that it's highly likely that so called "nonexistent" things exist in the corporeal sense somewhere in the universe (and certainly in a multiverse), using "exists" to refer only to corporeal existence is problematic. It suggests that something has to be corporeal to be "real" or have a significant influence. This is simply not the case. Nay, I would say the power of idea is among the most significant forces of all in terms of human cultural development. It does not make sense to me to call something that has such an obvious and significant impact on human affairs "not real" or "does not exist."

I think tying 'real' and 'of value' together is the problem, to be honest.
Speaking from a personal viewpoint, Greek and Norse myths are interesting to me, and in some ways educational. I don't see the Gods depicted in them as real, but nor do I think this impacts on their message. The myth is real in the sense that it exists, even whilst the characters are fictional, or representative.
The Catholic Church is obviously real, and impactful, despite the Catholic God not being so (again, speaking from a personal viewpoint here).

Indeed, religion is of interest to me alongside my study of history as it's massively impactful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If the god of a given religion exists, then one of two possibilities exists. Either:

1. the god-claim of the religion was rooted in knowledge of the god, or
2. the god-claim wasn't rooted in knowledge, but coincidentally turned out to be a correct guess.

Personally, I'm okay with treating the odds of option 2 as negligible. It strikes me as so unlikely that I can treat it as certainly false for all practical purposes... though I admit that I don't have any math to back up this assumption. Still, I've never met soneone arguing for a god who argues it on this basis of their arguments being rubbish but serendipitously arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

So that leaves me with option 1 as the only option I need to seriously consider... and for every religion I've ever investigated, I've found that other conclusions generally fit the facts better than the conclusion that the religion is actually based on knowledge of an actual god.

So that leaves me in the "gods probably don't exist" camp.

Hi...
Deism might be an example where (2) on your list could come into play. A less specific belief set, combined with a non-interventionist God could easily be 'right' and also be the result of a belief in some sort of first-cause being required.

For me, that would fit clearly in the bucket of 'not impacting on my behaviour/thoughts', but was interested in your opinion.

 

[Ponder This]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

If I understand you correctly, you are asking for the basis upon which a person either suspects or does not suspect the existence of gods. While evidences do not provide irrefutable proof (you cannot use them to prove or disprove the existence of a deity), they remain as reasons a person might or might not believe in gods.

A. There is a lot of literature on gods.
While the amount written about them does not irrefutably prove that gods exist, it does suggest that the authors are talking about something that does exist. Hence, gods probably exist.

B. There are religions practiced today that use a god or gods as the basis for their existence and functioning.
While it is possible that these religions are not based upon those things which they claim to be based upon and do not function in the way that they claim to function. It seems likely that those religions do exist and function based on the things that they claim for their existence and functional basis. Hence (even if some of them are wrong), gods probably do exist.

C. On the other hand, there is a significant portion of the population that claims not have experiences related to gods, not to see them, and not to have any reason to believe they exist. Those claims suggest that gods are not found everywhere. Hence, gods probably don't exist everywhere. We can't say from this that 'gods probably don't exist' because the portion that makes that claim is not significant enough to support the likelihood that they are correct.

Hence, gods probably exist. They probably don't exist everywhere. And it's fair to say that they are rare enough that not every person has a meaningful encounter with them in the course of a lifetime.

I believe I have avoided the stipulation in the OP to avoid arguments that prove or disprove the existence of gods definitively.