Probability of God's Existence.

[Jeremiahcp]

OK this needs to be cleared up.

Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. A random event in this context is random sampling or random assignment.

Arguments about the probability of God's existence are nonsensical. Remember that probability is a measurement, and it is not the same thing as possibility.

So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist. If God does not exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God does not exist. So the argument makes no sense at all

Remember that it is possible outcomes; generally the debate is not about the outcome of God's existence, instead the debate is about whether or not God already exist.

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

Just because someone assigns a chance or suggest there is a chance to one of their beliefs, that alone does not prove that belief is or could be true. Probability does not define existence, it is tool with limitations, and is only useful when applied within its proper context and support by empirical data and rational thought.

 

[Sanmario]

This is a very interesting OP to yours truly, for I have always wanted to know about probability and randomness, in particular as applied tp the existence of God, or to the issue of God existing or not existing.

Now, right away I like to inquire from you dear author of the thread, what is your concept of God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a very interesting OP to yours truly, for I have always wanted to know about probability and randomness, ...

Probability
Randomness

..., in particular as applied tp the existence of God, or to the issue of God existing or not existing.

It doesn't.

Now, right away I like to inquire from you dear author of the thread, what is your concept of God?

I'd offer mine instead, but it would likely be unhelpful.

 

[psychoslice]

Zero !.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This is a very interesting OP to yours truly, for I have always wanted to know about probability and randomness, in particular as applied tp the existence of God, or to the issue of God existing or not existing.

Now, right away I like to inquire from you dear author of the thread, what is your concept of God?

I have no personal concept of God, and I generally tend to leave the definition of God up to others. My main concern is not so much what people believe but that we remain rational in our beliefs. I don't feel that belief in God in and of itself is irrational but I do think many people hold irrational beliefs about God. Such as the belief you can assign probability to God's existence.

 

[David T]

The problem with the post Its understanding God as a definition. I hate to point out but you can't have both a universal set and an infinite amount of sets be the same thing. That creates a paradox or contradiction according to the Russell paradox in naive set theory. This was already commented on 2,600 years ago. The problem I know Lays in perceptions and I speculate it has to do at least partially with perception of scale and the primacy of thought over experience as a "normal" behavior. Definitely evolution is at work here somewhere, because Its really curious that this was clearly addressed 2,600 years ago in two different set of writings. Yet here we are, 2600 years later confused. One writer was in China and the other in ancient Greece at the same time. For all the doubters, ignoring antiquity is a form of intellect design and just as confused as religion which likes to pretend it totally understands antiquity! Clearly that is not true.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The problem with the post Its understanding God as a definition. I hate to point out but you can't have both a universal set and an infinite amount of sets be the same thing. That creates a paradox or contradiction according to the Russell paradox in naive set theory. This was already commented on 2,600 years ago. The problem I know Lays in perceptions and I speculate it has to do at least partially with perception of scale and the primacy of thought over experience as a "normal" behavior. Definitely evolution is at work here somewhere, because Its really curious that this was clearly addressed 2,600 years ago in two different set of writings. Yet here we are, 2600 years later confused. One writer was in China and the other in ancient Greece at the same time. For all the doubters, ignoring antiquity is a form of intellect design and just as confused as religion which likes to pretend it totally understands antiquity! Clearly that is not true.

I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are diving at, perhaps you should be more specific.

 

[siti]

A 50% probability would equate to statistical agnosticism - i.e. we have no reason to believe one way or the other. If you start from there (as the prior probability) and apply Bayesian computation of the probability then you could factor in the things that you think might be indicators of God's existence - such as the fact that humans are altruistic (this being a positive indicator of God's likely existence) or the presence of evil and suffering (this being an indicator making God's existence less likely). Of course you have to assign numbers to all these to calculate the resulting probability after admitting all the known positive and negative indicators. Stephen Unwin (did this in his 2004 book The Probability of God and concluded that God's existence was more likely than not - a probability of 0.67 or 67%.

On the other hand, Bob Seidensticker did the same calculation but with different assessment of the "divine existence indicators" and got a probability of 10^-36 or 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001.

And Michael Shermer got 0.02 or 2%.

So it seems that God is far more likely to exist if you believe in God's existence and not if you don't.

I decided to use the Bayesian method to compute the probability of getting any sense out of attempting to compute the probability of God's existence. Turns out there is a 99.99% probability that the whole idea of computing a probability for God is a load of old bollocks.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

A 50% probability would equate to statistical agnosticism - i.e. we have no reason to believe one way or the other. If you start from there (as the prior probability) and apply Bayesian computation of the probability then you could factor in the things that you think might be indicators of God's existence - such as the fact that humans are altruistic (this being a positive indicator of God's likely existence) or the presence of evil and suffering (this being an indicator making God's existence less likely). Of course you have to assign numbers to all these to calculate the resulting probability after admitting all the known positive and negative indicators. Stephen Unwin (did this in his 2004 book The Probability of God and concluded that God's existence was more likely than not - a probability of 0.67 or 67%.

On the other hand, Bob Seidensticker did the same calculation but with different assessment of the "divine existence indicators" and got a probability of 10^-36 or 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001.

And Michael Shermer got 0.02 or 2%.

So it seems that God is far more likely to exist if you believe in God's existence and not if you don't.

I decided to use the Bayesian method to compute the probability of getting any sense out of attempting to compute the probability of God's existence. Turns out there is a 99.99% probability that the whole idea of computing a probability for God is a load of old bollocks.

"A 50% probability would equate to statistical agnosticism - i.e. we have no reason to believe one way or the other. If you start from there (as the prior probability) and apply Bayesian computation of the probability then you could factor in the things that you think might be indicators of God's existence - such as the fact that humans are altruistic (this being a positive indicator of God's likely existence) or the presence of evil and suffering (this being an indicator making God's existence less likely). Of course you have to assign numbers to all these to calculate the resulting probability after admitting all the known positive and negative indicators. "

This would be essentially what I said here:

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

"I decided to use the Bayesian method to compute the probability of getting any sense out of attempting to compute the probability of God's existence. Turns out there is a 99.99% probability that the whole idea of computing a probability for God is a load of old bollocks"

I think you may be 00.01% off.

 

[David T]

I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are diving at, perhaps you should be more specific.

The problem was discovered in naive set theory at the turn the last century called the Russell paradox. You can't in a sense say here what is the likelihood of the universal set based on a definition of a set. Its like saying based on the definition rock, or cow what is the likelihood of God's existence. The question loops into itself (which is normal linguistic recursion) and asks based on itself asks a question that it assumes is valid. Its not a valid question literally if nature is objective, and the questioner is subjective to that. Is the questioner perceived they are objective and nature is subjective then it appears to be completely valid. There are presuppositions or assumptions in order for that to be true. But because of those presuppositions even exist it is not a valid question. You have to eliminate all the presuppositions which are shared by both the does exist and does not exist opinions which tend to reinforce each other's shared presuppositions. .

 

[siti]

...there is 100% chance that nature exists.

Is there? How do you know that 'nature' is not an illusion in your immaterial 'mind'? The honest answer is you don't - you can't know that for sure. So you could argue that this makes no difference and even if it is all an illusory figment of your imagination, the illusion, at least, exists (in some sense) - ergo 100% probability that nature exists (in some sense). And if I can make that argument about nature, I can surely make the same argument about the "fantasy" of God's existence. In a way, this would be nothing more than a slightly twisted version of Anselm's ontological "proof". But the reality is that I can no more prove/disprove the actual existence of 'nature' than I can prove/disprove the actual existence of God. And I especially can't do either by applying statistical probabilistic analysis. I think @Jeremiahcp was right - my previous calculation about the usefulness of probabilities in these discussions was out by precisely one hundredth of one percent. It is all (including both of my comments in this thread) unquestionably, indubitably and most assuredly, a load of old bollocks! But nonetheless mildly entertaining for a wet and otherwise uninspiring Wednesday afternoon.

 

[David T]

I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are diving at, perhaps you should be more specific.

My fault and the forum format as well. So

I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are diving at, perhaps you should be more specific.

I am not slamming you btw i appreciate your stuff even if i at times seem obtuse or difficult.
I will try and simplify my other writing by saying there is 100% chance that nature exists. You may protest but, asking a question based on ken ham brain isn't actually a question. You asked specifically does God exist I said yes 100% proof God exists. Or do you think ken hammites actually even understand the topic of either nature or god and you agree with on anything?

There is 0% evidence of them understanding nature about 1% understanding god, maybe. If there is already 1% understanding to begin with how can one Have anything but 1% or less probability of the likelihood of the fantasy being true? It's a question that is starting out not even wrong. Therefore the question is invalid as its framed unless you agree with ken ham NER (not even wrong) On anything which I do no, t especially nature and or God.

I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are diving at, perhaps you should be more specific.

 

[David T]

Is there? How do you know that 'nature' is not an illusion in your immaterial 'mind'? The honest answer is you don't - you can't know that for sure. So you could argue that this makes no difference and even if it is all an illusory figment of your imagination, the illusion, at least, exists (in some sense) - ergo 100% probability that nature exists (in some sense). And if I can make that argument about nature, I can surely make the same argument about the "fantasy" of God's existence. In a way, this would be nothing more than a slightly twisted version of Anselm's ontological "proof". But the reality is that I can no more prove/disprove the actual existence of 'nature' than I can prove/disprove the actual existence of God. And I especially can't do either by applying statistical probabilistic analysis. I think @Jeremiahcp was right - my previous calculation about the usefulness of probabilities in these discussions was out by precisely one hundredth of one percent. It is all (including both of my comments in this thread) unquestionably, indubitably and most assuredly, a load of old bollocks! But nonetheless mildly entertaining for a wet and otherwise uninspiring Wednesday afternoon.

Siti I am not objective nature is. Its big I am little. I am an experientialist not an ideaist. My thinking doesn't effect the trees they effect me. I am pretty grounded I have to be in nature not in the brain. I hike do music drawing and live away from cities near the ocean and forests on the oregon coast, but I build the city as a job I am a general contractor. . I am only on here to work on a science fiction story working through perceptions of various people. The story Its a science fiction story where a woman destroys all of life on earth.. maybe!! If it gets written I will send a copy should be 12 pages long!! So really i am sort of working through other stuff related to perceptions rather than the specific debates. Its more related to perceptions of nature than anything.

 

[siti]

My thinking doesn't effect the trees they effect me.

But that's exactly what I am saying we don't know. I am not an idealist either, but there is no way I can know for sure that the world I experience is not just an idea in my mind - that the trees are even really there. Not saying it is an illusion...don't think it is...like you, I think it is fundamentally a real, (pan-)experiential and naturally evolving physical world - but I can neither prove it nor assign a rational probability to it. Ditto (to bring my off-topic excursion back to some semblance of relevance) God's existence/non-existence.

 

[David T]

But that's exactly what I am saying we don't know. I am not an idealist either, but there is no way I can know for sure that the world I experience is not just an idea in my mind - that the trees are even really there. Not saying it is an illusion...don't think it is...like you, I think it is fundamentally a real, (pan-)experiential and naturally evolving physical world - but I can neither prove it nor assign a rational probability to it. Ditto God's existence/non-existence.

Sometimes I think (not well) that nature is more like the cobra lilly to the fly, than either a wimpy delicate, or a dumb inert resource "obeying" laws. I might say, experience and create an expression of that experience!!! Art. I have a great story (a very short story) of on of the worlds most famous story teller who is totally illiterate. Someone you may know who one day was surrounded by the most highly educated and world class trained actors who wrote everything down that he said but he was completely and totally illiterate!!! They were there to tell his stories, he was not there to tell their stories, because he, is very very famous story teller. I promise very short if you are interested.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Jeremi, if I may, when you ask what is the probability of bird's poop landing on your head as you stroll in a park, you do have a concept of bird's poop.

You see, and forgive me or forbear with me, don't you see that you must have a concept of God, to ask about the probability of God existing or not existing: otherwise I can't see you to be talking logically.

And also the person taking the task to exchange thoughts with you on the probability of God existing or not, he must also have a concept of God.

What I want to tell you that anyone taking the care to to talk with you at all about probability of God existing, both sides must have the same concept of God.

Just as both sides talking about the probability of bird's poop landing on a person's head.

So also with the question on which side a twirling coin will land on.

I like very much to exchange thoughts with you further; please, can we keep to logic as we talk about the probability of God existing?

I have no personal concept of God, and I generally tend to leave the definition of God up to others. My main concern is not so much what people believe but that we remain rational in our beliefs. I don't feel that belief in God in and of itself is irrational but I do think many people hold irrational beliefs about God. Such as the belief you can assign probability to God's existence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Dear Jeremi, if I may, when you ask what is the probability of bird's poop landing on your head as you stroll in a park, you do have a concept of bird's poop.

You see, and forgive me or forbear with me, don't you see that you must have a concept of God, to ask about the probability of God existing or not existing: otherwise I can't see you to be talking logically.

And also the person taking the task to exchange thoughts with you on the probability of God existing or not, he must also have a concept of God.

What I want to tell you that anyone taking the care to to talk with you at all about probability of God existing, both sides must have the same concept of God.

Just as both sides talking about the probability of bird's poop landing on a person's head.

So also with the question on which side a twirling coin will land on.

I like very much to exchange thoughts with you further; please, can we keep to logic as we talk about the probability of God existing?

"You see, and forgive me or forbear with me, don't you see that you must have a concept of God, to ask about the probability of God existing or not existing: otherwise I can't see you to be talking logically."

I didn't ask about the probability of God, I explained how probability works, you could stick the Flying Spaghetti Monster in for God and it would still be the same.

 

[Curious George]

OK this needs to be cleared up.

Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. A random event in this context is random sampling or random assignment.

Arguments about the probability of God's existence are nonsensical. Remember that probability is a measurement, and it is not the same thing as possibility.

So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist. If God does not exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God does not exist. So the argument makes no sense at all

Remember that it is possible outcomes; generally the debate is not about the outcome of God's existence, instead the debate is about whether or not God already exist.

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

Just because someone assigns a chance or suggest there is a chance to one of their beliefs, that alone does not prove that belief is or could be true. Probability does not define existence, it is tool with limitations, and is only useful when applied within its proper context and support by empirical data and rational thought.

Have you noticed that you are begging the question?

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't really make sense to ask about the odds of existence of God.

God exists. But not as a (rather vague, and intentionally so) concept, not a literal entity. For that it would have to be defined first, and much of the point of the concept is that it is not supposed to be defined.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Have you noticed that you are begging the question?

Please feel free to explain how.