Highly Implausible = Nonexistent?

[vijeno]

implausible... not accurate ... highly improbable... does not exist?

There might be an issue with those words. I don't think one should use them interchangably. "Not accurate" would be about the definition, "does not exist" would refer to the actual thing. And I'm fairly certain that there is a difference between plausibility and probability, the former implying some logical state, the latter being a stochastic term.

Apart from that, if something is improbable, that means that it "most probably", as the word suggests, does not exist. It still might. As to whether you think the probability is high enough to still believe the thing does exist, that is subjective, but if you say that "x is very improbable, but I still believe it exists", that would raise some eyebrows and at least get people to ask you for your reasons.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

For all intents and purposes, this is a religious question, but I felt it would fit more into philosophy? If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate? Here's another example: If, say, a quantum computer is highly improbable, could one safely conclude that it does not exist? Thanks in advance.

I'd say its a matter of relative probabilities, apply the same question to both explanations

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we suspect cheating, no matter how improbable security has made it. Because the odds of chance are even more improbable.
If we see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, with NO EVIDENCE of people ever being there, we still suspect intelligent agency - over the chance that the waves washed them up that way..

So if we allow that both chance and ID are 'improbable' but 'possible'. ID, God, for me, is by far the less improbable explanation logically

 

[Kuzcotopia]

For all intents and purposes, this is a religious question, but I felt it would fit more into philosophy? If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate? Here's another example: If, say, a quantum computer is highly improbable, could one safely conclude that it does not exist? Thanks in advance.

How improbable are we talking about here?

A 49.9% chance of something occurring is technically improbable.

Theists tend to play with the concept of possibility. Apologetics likes to establish the remotist possibility of a god's existence, and then equivocate the atheist and theist positions as being equally probable. Then, "let's consider evidence of both" nonesense.

It's a mistake that preys on the cognative bias humans have about probability in general. . . Our intuitions about statistics are often wrong.

It's like claiming that since there's a possibility that you will win the lottery, then you should play, regardless of odds. . . Because "you never know."

So on your part, establishing that odds are important. . . Then we can know how foolish or wise the theist position is.

 

[George-ananda]

For all intents and purposes, this is a religious question, but I felt it would fit more into philosophy? If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate? Here's another example: If, say, a quantum computer is highly improbable, could one safely conclude that it does not exist? Thanks in advance.

No, there's a difference between improbable and impossible.

 

[Quintessence]

If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate?

No. Probabilities have nothing to do with accuracy. Probabilities are derived from measured observations and describe reality as it is. If your "probabilities" are not based on measured observations, they are not probabilities at all, but speculations. As far as I'm aware, given the nature of the Abrahamic one-god, there can be no measured observations and therefore no assessment of probability. Besides, probability assessments are really not intended as tools to answer ontological questions anyway. As said, probabilities are derived from measured observations, so you aren't going to ask "does X exist" when assessing probabilities, you are going to ask something like "what are the odds of observing X in Y space or during Z time." If those odds are zero, that's not saying "X does not exist."

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'd say its a matter of relative probabilities, apply the same question to both explanations

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we suspect cheating, no matter how improbable security has made it. Because the odds of chance are even more improbable.
If we see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, with NO EVIDENCE of people ever being there, we still suspect intelligent agency - over the chance that the waves washed them up that way..

So if we allow that both chance and ID are 'improbable' but 'possible'. ID, God, for me, is by far the less improbable explanation logically

This universe is an extremely hostile place to human life. Only very few places on the universe is known to support it. Humans adapted to live on earth, and this is proven by the fact that we can't live anywhere else. Heck, even 4/5 of the surface area is uninhabitable for human flourishing.

It's like saying that the reason we have oxygen to breathe is because a deity put it there to perfectly fit the fact that humans need to breathe oxygen. In reality, it shows how poor a designer was to limit humans to survival in places where that specific proportioned oxygen is available to breathe.

It's much simpler to say that oxygen existed in this specific location, and life adapted to use it (with glucose) to break and make ATP bonds that produce cellular energy. Life looks that way because of the conditions on earth that it adapted to survive.

If you teleported randomly to any single location in the universe, what are the odds you would survive more than a few seconds? Does that location in the universe have specifically proportioned oxygen? The likelyhood of that is near zero.

If life truly were a series of royal flushes and not a product of environmental conditions, we'd be able to live anywhere in the universe, and at bare minimum, the proportions of oxygen, food, and conditions for human flourishing would be expected to be found everywhere, instead of just right here.

This planet wasn't created for us, we grew and adapted to the conditions of the planet. If an intelligence made the universe to support life and expected that life to flourish anywhere, then as far as we know, that intelligence is grossly incompetent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This universe is an extremely hostile place to human life. Only very few places on the universe is known to support it. Humans adapted to live on earth, and this is proven by the fact that we can't live anywhere else. Heck, even 4/5 of the surface area is uninhabitable for human flourishing.

It's like saying that the reason we have oxygen to breathe is because a deity put it there to perfectly fit the fact that humans need to breathe oxygen. In reality, it shows how poor a designer was to limit humans to survival in places where that specific proportioned oxygen is available to breathe.

It's much simpler to say that oxygen existed in this specific location, and life adapted to use it (with glucose) to break and make ATP bonds that produce cellular energy. Life looks that way because of the conditions on earth that it adapted to survive.

If you teleported randomly to any single location in the universe, what are the odds you would survive more than a few seconds? Does that location in the universe have specifically proportioned oxygen? The likelyhood of that is near zero.

If life truly were a series of royal flushes and not a product of environmental conditions, we'd be able to live anywhere in the universe, and at bare minimum, the proportions of oxygen, food, and conditions for human flourishing would be expected to be found everywhere, instead of just right here.

This planet wasn't created for us, we grew and adapted to the conditions of the planet. If an intelligence made the universe to support life and expected that life to flourish anywhere, then as far as we know, that intelligence is grossly incompetent.

"If you teleported randomly to any single location in the universe, what are the odds you would survive more than a few seconds"
what are the odds anything much could survive in any form? Yes the more we learn about the universe, the more special we realize Earth is


If the galaxy had turned out to be teaming with ETs, all 'adapting' to whatever conditions existed on their planet, and all asking the same questions- I'd acknowledge the implication of that, that the universe was not necessarily created primarily for our benefit.

But I'm also willing to acknowledge the opposite implication, that of observed reality- the great silence. We are the only means we know of by which this universe can ponder it's own existence.


I once spent a summer teaching sailing on a lake, a young camper expressed the opinion that the lake was there so we could sail on it, I said it's the other way around. we sail on the lake because it's here.

Who was correct?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

"If you teleported randomly to any single location in the universe, what are the odds you would survive more than a few seconds"
what are the odds anything much could survive in any form? Yes the more we learn about the universe, the more special we realize Earth is


If the galaxy had turned out to be teaming with ETs, all 'adapting' to whatever conditions existed on their planet, and all asking the same questions- I'd acknowledge the implication of that, that the universe was not necessarily created primarily for our benefit.

It seems like you are willing to use improbability both ways.

It's improbable that life should exist on earth, so therefore intelligent design.

It's improbable that life should exist anywhere outside of earth, so therefore intelligent design.

Which is it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It seems like you are willing to use improbability both ways.

It's improbable that life should exist on earth, so therefore intelligent design.

It's improbable that life should exist anywhere outside of earth, so therefore intelligent design.

Which is it?

Both, life is improbable anywhere, it only exists here, in one place we know of, by virtue of countless 'royal flushes'. many hands of cards perfectly played to bring this about.
And among millions of species, just one that can ponder these questions, appreciate the scope of creation, deduce a creator for it all and give thanks..

Chance is not impossible, I just don't see it as the most likely explanation

 

[Kuzcotopia]

both

So you think it's ordered enough to be designed for the possibility to support some life (but not all, considering that about 3500 infants alone died in their sleep last year), but unordered enough for 99.999% of the rest of it to be extremely hostile to that same life (except those infants, of course)?

Why would a diety design it so poorly? And why did he create conditions that allowed the deaths of 3500 infants/year*?

* Appeal to Emotion Disclaimer: te author is not responsible for any adverse emotional appeals construed above, and would prefer an objective response to the fact that 3500 infants seemed to not be able to use the plentiful oxygen for a few minutes on a given night in the year 2016, causing their deaths. Since that same oxygen, created for them to breathe and therefore respirate, who's responsible for those deaths? Design flaw or problem with infant free will?

 

[psychoslice]

I wasn't trying to prove a damn thing. I've explained this. I'm trying to better understand the mind of someone who says straight-out "God doesn't exist".

What's the difference of me saying there is no god to you who says there is a god, you can't have it your own way.

 

[Animore]

What's the difference of me saying there is no god to you who says there is a god, you can't have it your own way.

Name one time in this thread I said that there is a God.

I don't believe. You appear to be under the false conclusion that an atheist is ONLY someone who claims there is no God. It doesn't work that way.

 

[psychoslice]

Name one time in this thread I said that there is a God.

I don't believe. You appear to be under the false conclusion that an atheist is ONLY someone who claims there is no God. It doesn't work that way.

An atheist is just a label, it is simply someone who has no belifs in a god, simple.

 

[JerryL]

For all intents and purposes, this is a religious question, but I felt it would fit more into philosophy? If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate? Here's another example: If, say, a quantum computer is highly improbable, could one safely conclude that it does not exist? Thanks in advance.

Almost by definition: a consistant but improbable concept is unlikely, not categorically untrue.

Though the difference between those two terms may end up being very slight (it scales with the improbability)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you think it's ordered enough to be designed for the possibility to support some life (but not all, considering that about 3500 infants alone died in their sleep last year), but unordered enough for 99.999% of the rest of it to be extremely hostile to that same life (except those infants, of course)?

Earthquakes, meteors, volcanoes used to be arguments for 'bad design' until we understood their vital role in supporting life on Earth.

There will always be things we don't understand, shadows where the light of science has not yet shone, where one can point and say 'bad design'

atheism of the gaps?

Remember that the scale of the construction of the universe was determined by the math, not the credit limit on God's home depot card!

i.e. if for the same 'price' you can have a 'space saver'- Truman show dome reality, just big enough for us to fit in... or a vast beautiful awe inspiring cosmos to draw us out, beyond ourselves. I know which I'd go for.

I'd rather think the former would be more consistent with a bizarre fluke. Many cosmologists, including atheists have remarked on how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our observation and understanding.


Likewise, perhaps God could make children utterly indestructible for the first couple of years, so they don't need looking after at all. That sure sounds nice, but I think he probably thought this through a little further also.

 

[dust1n]

For all intents and purposes, this is a religious question, but I felt it would fit more into philosophy? If something such as a God concept is highly improbable, could it be concluded that such a concept is not accurate? Here's another example: If, say, a quantum computer is highly improbable, could one safely conclude that it does not exist? Thanks in advance.

It's pointless to talk about the likelihood of God. It's sort of a meaningless affair. The word God doesn't mean anything and it's impossible to apply attributes to something that is indefinable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm surprised, after reading the OP, that nobody has actually mentioned that quantum computing has actually been demonstrated, here, on Earth, in the real world. It's in its infancy, to be sure, but it is happening, and in 20 years or so, none of us will recognize computing as we do now. (I'm old, and started programming in the 1970's, and if you told me what I'd be using every day now, I'd have called you insane!)

So the OP comparison was God and quantum computing -- the latter is happening, and we're STILL waiting for anything to confirm the former.

 

[Willamena]

I want to know the reasoning behind the claim of God not existing. Should it be considered not a claim, but a conclusion, or what?

One argument has it that there is a certain point at which we (conscious mind) say "enough" in the regression of supporting ideas, and just buy the conclusion for practical reasons, either to get on with life or to support an image of the world that already suffices. Let's call it the conclusion of sufficient reason.

 

[Willamena]

Who is going to determine if such concepts are highly improbable?

Hopefully, each of us

 

[Willamena]

I'm surprised, after reading the OP, that nobody has actually mentioned that quantum computing has actually been demonstrated, here, on Earth, in the real world. It's in its infancy, to be sure, but it is happening, and in 20 years or so, none of us will recognize computing as we do now. (I'm old, and started programming in the 1970's, and if you told me what I'd be using every day now, I'd have called you insane!)

So the OP comparison was God and quantum computing -- the latter is happening, and we're STILL waiting for anything to confirm the former.

Some of us don't know quantum computing.

We're just Internet posters.