The Probability Of God Existing

[UniMatrix]

I have never had any religious beliefs but a friend of mine is trying to convince me of the existence of God.

He believes it is "more probable" that a creator exists than doesn't.

What would you use as evidence for and against God existing and what would you estimate the probability of Him existing to be?

 

[DefSkeptic]

"Evidence" that God exists or doesnt is not available. Its all up to personal interpretation. But I can give you an opinion-

The hypothesis, that it was all started by a supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low probability -- a very improbable being indeed. Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and we don't need it to), it still wouldn't help because it raises a bigger mystery than it solves. Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.

I guess it all depends also on how your friend defines a creator. Is it the Christian God or a force that he labels "God"

 

[ProCop]

REefSkeptic

We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.

I would say the probability is 50% to 50%. Why? We do not know either way. It is intelectually honest to admit that.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: REefSkeptic

Originally posted by ProCop
I would say the probability is 50% to 50%. Why? We do not know either way. It is intelectually honest to admit that.

I respect your view on this. But would you also say that the probability of unicorns existing is 50% as well? We also don't know either way.

 

[ProCop]

RE: Jade Squirrel

But would you also say that the probability of unicorns existing is 50% as well? We also don't know either way.

The (happening of) universe (which factually exists) can be seen in two ways. It is : accidental (science)
or designed (god).

The existence of unicorns (existing mythologically) doesn't belong to this cathegory. (I was answering a post concernig the existence of a creator, not speculating abot the suppernatural.)

We have some (material) proof of the existence of the universe but none of the existence of the supernatural.

Therefore the chance of unicorns existing is less then 50%.

 

[Cris]

Procap,

The (happening of) universe (which factually exists) can be seen in two ways. It is : accidental (science)
or designed (god).

This assumes there was a point where the universe did not exist.

If we talk about the existence of the universe then we have four options –

1. It appeared spontaneously with no apparent cause.
2. It has always existed.
3. It had some natural cause where the causing influence must be considered separate from the universe.
4. It had an intentional cause that would be considered intelligent where the causing influence must be considered separate from the universe.

Assessing the probability of each option appears impossible since we have inadequate information. However, the most likely seems to be (2) since we know it exists and have no indication that at one time it didn't exist.

The big bang tells us nothing about the size of the universe or whether there was a beginning since we don't know if the big bang is unique, is cyclic, or is just one of an infinite number of big bang bubbles.

 

[Cris]

Regarding the probability of God existing seems a fairly simple question to answer. Mathematically it is zero.

The issue of the existence of God is not a matter of observation or detection since most agree that there is no evidence for such a thing and hence the need for faith, or rather the agreement is that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. What we have is a concept based on human imagination, or to be more emotive it is a fantasy.

The question then becomes - what is the probability of the object of a human imaginative concept matching an entity in reality. There are two sets, one is the set of real objects which is clearly a finite set and the second set if the set of imaginative objects which is essentially infinite.

The probability of one of these imaginative objects matching an object from the set of real objects becomes 1/infinity, which is mathematically zero. I.e. the probability of the imaginative concept of God being real is zero.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: RE: Jade Squirrel

Originally posted by ProCop
The (happening of) universe (which factually exists) can be seen in two ways. It is : accidental (science)
or designed (god).

Just because the universe does not have a designer does not mean it was accidental. Theists commonly think that evolution happened by accident, when it in fact happened by a process of natural selection. The same could apply to the universe.

The existence of unicorns (existing mythologically) doesn't belong to this cathegory. (I was answering a post concernig the existence of a creator, not speculating abot the suppernatural.)

The existence of a creator, as far as we can know, is supernatural.

We have some (material) proof of the existence of the universe but none of the existence of the supernatural.

Proof of the existence of the universe is in no way proof of the existence of God.

Therefore the chance of unicorns existing is less then 50%.

As is the probability of God existing.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Cris
The big bang tells us nothing about the size of the universe or whether there was a beginning since we don't know if the big bang is unique, is cyclic, or is just one of an infinite number of big bang bubbles.

Given the latest evidence from WMAP, I'd say we can at least be moderately certain that the universe is not cyclic, as far as we now know.

Regarding the probability of God existing seems a fairly simple question to answer. Mathematically it is zero.

The issue of the existence of God is not a matter of observation or detection since most agree that there is no evidence for such a thing and hence the need for faith, or rather the agreement is that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. What we have is a concept based on human imagination, or to be more emotive it is a fantasy.

The question then becomes - what is the probability of the object of a human imaginative concept matching an entity in reality. There are two sets, one is the set of real objects which is clearly a finite set and the second set if the set of imaginative objects which is essentially infinite.

The probability of one of these imaginative objects matching an object from the set of real objects becomes 1/infinity, which is mathematically zero. I.e. the probability of the imaginative concept of God being real is zero.

I like that!

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Cris
The probability of one of these imaginative objects matching an object from the set of real objects becomes 1/infinity, which is mathematically zero. I.e. the probability of the imaginative concept of God being real is zero.

God as described in the Bible would be mathmatically zero. Even if God existed, there are an infinite number of ways his attributes could vary. However, the probability of a creator is not zero... as I believe that a limited number of 'idea types' exist. I'd guess that it is still close to zero, but man has imagined things which latter came to be 'generally' true... so history tells us that it can't be zero.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Persol
God as described in the Bible would be mathmatically zero. Even if God existed, there are an infinite number of ways his attributes could vary. However, the probability of a creator is not zero... as I believe that a limited number of 'idea types' exist. I'd guess that it is still close to zero, but man has imagined things which latter came to be 'generally' true... so history tells us that it can't be zero.

Hmm... some very good points. It seems I jumped the gun on my enthusiasm.

 

[Cris]

Persol,

However, the probability of a creator is not zero... as I believe that a limited number of 'idea types' exist. I'd guess that it is still close to zero, but man has imagined things which latter came to be 'generally' true... so history tells us that it can't be zero.

Not really.

If we define the measure of probability as: the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes, then the first task must be to determine the set of possible outcomes. If we take two dice then we know that all possible outcomes will range from 2 to 12. A 1 or a 13 would be impossible. We can then precisely determine the mathematical probabilities of each number where in this case 7 has the highest probability.

The issue with the imaginative concept of a creator God is that we cannot even define it as a possibility since it depends on a concept beyond our experience, i.e. supernatural. While you correctly state that many imagined things have been shown to be real they have all been imagined within the set of natural objects. Unfortunately there is no precedent for anything being supernatural so there is no case for suggesting that the supernatural is a possibility.

You cannot therefore assess a probability of a creator God, whether being close to zero or not from a set of a limited set of ideas unless you can show all the ideas are equally likely. The supernatural does not qualify since it has no precedent.

One must first establish that the supernatural is possible before one can attempt to establish that a creator could be an object with the set of supernatural objects. In essence the argument is a non-starter since no one can show the supernatural as a possibility.

 

[ProCop]

RE:Cris

Regarding the probability of God existing seems a fairly simple question to answer. Mathematically it is zero.

The question stands different: Is there a God?

Answer is only 1) yes
2) no


Prove: Am I in my room? posible answers: 1) yes
2) no


Now, you try to put the question differently: In what room he is?

The chance of being in my room from all the rooms of the world is smaller than 50%.

But we don't ask where god is, but if he is at all (metaphorically).

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by UniMatrix
I have never had any religious beliefs but a friend of mine is trying to convince me of the existence of God.

Read and read and read sciforums threads. You'll find a good argument yourself.

Originally posted by UniMatrix

He believes it is "more probable" that a creator exists than doesn't.

That is ridiculous. There is no viable method by which to estimate this. The simplest possible answer to "why does the universe exist" is "because apparently it can". Futher questioning can only be met with conjecture. Nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it for what it is.

Originally posted by UniMatrix

What would you use as evidence for and against God existing and what would you estimate the probability of Him existing to be?

The question is superfluous as there is no real knowledge available regarding the topic. Anyone who tells you there is, is telling you that opinion is fact, and you already know that's wrong. I suggest you read and read and read sciforums. Connect with that which you will.

For fun though.. let's think of it this way. Detach yourself from that wich you "believe" and contemplate the apparent size of the universe. The earth is a small small place in the universe (an understatement). What do you think are the odds that "the bible" or "god" as concieved by humans, has any relevance in that picture? I guess that's another case where there really is no data eh?

 

[SnakeLord]

The existence of unicorns (existing mythologically) doesn't belong to this cathegory. (I was answering a post concernig the existence of a creator, not speculating abot the suppernatural.)

We have some (material) proof of the existence of the universe but none of the existence of the supernatural.

Therefore the chance of unicorns existing is less then 50%.

Procop: There are texts dating back to before the bible speaking of alien beings, unicorns, dragons, giants, (most of these even appear in the bible). As this is the place everyone turns to to try and prove god is real it can also be stated that all of the above mentioned hold the same amount of validity. well, i guess we can say pretty much everything we have no answer for is 50/50.

Saying because we have a universe adds validity to there being a creator is completely groundless btw.

 

[ProCop]

RE:SnakeLord

Saying because we have a universe adds validity to there being a creator is completely groundless btw.

Let's have a situation:

A murdered man (shot wound) with a gun in his hand (universe)
A detective (without balistics kit)
God (with a gun)
Unicord (no gun)

Detective considers chances:

Man killed himself (50%)
God killed the man (50%)
Unicorn killed the man (less then 50%)

We have the universe (there is a corpse)
Is there a creater (murderer) was the question (chance 50% ) universe (could commit suicide 50%)
Unicorn is nice to have around, but it is not essential to the story.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: RE:SnakeLord

Originally posted by ProCop
Let's have a situation:

A murdered man (shot wound) with a gun in his hand (universe)
A detective (without balistics kit)
God (with a gun)
Unicord (no gun)

A more accurate analogy is that we have a murdered man with a gun in his hand, a unicorn with no gun, and God with no gun. There is no evidence of any other guns than the one that the man is holding. Both God and the unicorn are not essential to the story, unless we find a gun with God's fingerprints or the unicorn's hoofprints.

 

[ProCop]

RE: Jade Squirrel

A more accurate analogy is that we have a murdered man with a gun in his hand, a unicorn with no gun, and God with no gun. There is no evidence of any other guns than the one that the man is holding. Both God and the unicorn are not essential to the story, unless we find a gun with God's fingerprints or the unicorn's hoofprints.

If the gun = capacity to create the universe, than god has got it while unicorn doesn't not. I meant the allmighty god, not Poseidon.
The detective (Einstein) found his fingerprints (and declared so: "if you walk along the beach and find a clock then there was a clock maker.." (or something like this)).

 

[everneo]

Procop,

The quote belongs to William Paley. Its true that Eintein stated that he wished to meet the clock maker..! but atheists are allergic to quoting authorities like Einstein... but they are immune to that when they quote Richard Dawkins who invented blind watchmaker..! as a matter of fact Dawkins had great respect for William Paley.

 

[ProCop]

RE:everneo

The quote belongs to William Paley. Its true that Eintein stated that he wished to meet the clock maker..! but atheists are allergic to quoting authorities like Einstein... but they are immune to that when they quote Richard Dawkins who invented blind watchmaker..! as a matter of fact Dawkins had great respect for William Paley

Technical mistake. Aknowledged. But the argument stands.