The truth about Atheism?
- Thread starter Fluidity
- Start date
Fluid,
Here is part of a post I made in another thread concerning the probability of the existence of a god.
The application of probablility in that thread was generally considered subjective, which is why I replied to Consequent in that manner.
At the mathematical level the calculation is as follows -
Language is infinitely generative. I.e. given enough time a person can come up with an infinite number of ideas expressible through language. God is just one of those ideas -- one out of infinity.
Take 1 and divide it by a very large number, say 1 billion. You'll get an answer very close to 0. Divide 1 by an even larger number and you'll get even closer to 0. If you now take what's mathematically called a "limit" of this process -- let the divisor approach infinity, then your answer approaches 0 to any arbitrary degree of precision.
Given that there are infinitely more ideas than entities in the universe, we can see that the chance of any one randomly chosen (e.g. the existence of a god) actually corresponding to an entity in the universe is 1 over infinity, or 0.
From this we can state confidently that the probability of any god whatsoever existing is mathematically 0.
Now can you state a mathematical case for the existence of a god?
Here is part of a post I made in another thread concerning the probability of the existence of a god.
The application of probablility in that thread was generally considered subjective, which is why I replied to Consequent in that manner.
At the mathematical level the calculation is as follows -
Language is infinitely generative. I.e. given enough time a person can come up with an infinite number of ideas expressible through language. God is just one of those ideas -- one out of infinity.
Take 1 and divide it by a very large number, say 1 billion. You'll get an answer very close to 0. Divide 1 by an even larger number and you'll get even closer to 0. If you now take what's mathematically called a "limit" of this process -- let the divisor approach infinity, then your answer approaches 0 to any arbitrary degree of precision.
Given that there are infinitely more ideas than entities in the universe, we can see that the chance of any one randomly chosen (e.g. the existence of a god) actually corresponding to an entity in the universe is 1 over infinity, or 0.
From this we can state confidently that the probability of any god whatsoever existing is mathematically 0.
Now can you state a mathematical case for the existence of a god?
Not sure if language is infinitely generative, it's but close enough
.The obvious question is "What differentiates god in that equation from any other idea?" It would state that the probability of any idea existing is mathematically 0, and we know that it is false.
It sounds like I missed an interesting post.
Fluid,
You have been one of the most pleasant and tenacious theists we have had here for a while.
I hope you have learnt something.
You have my respect for your courage to debate here.
But threads never close, they just fade away when everyone has exhausted whatever they want to say.
So come back here and add some more if you think of more to say.
You have been one of the most pleasant and tenacious theists we have had here for a while.
I hope you have learnt something.
You have my respect for your courage to debate here.
But threads never close, they just fade away when everyone has exhausted whatever they want to say.
So come back here and add some more if you think of more to say.
Interesting...
Now can you state a mathematical case for the existence of a god?
<HR>
I am doing this out of respect for Cris' intelligent and logical response.
Please, do not flame me...anyone.
If you feel the mathematical argument I am about to model is dysfunctional, I welcome your input.
I felt Cris argument was logical in its mathematical terms, but I would not equate the idea of 'sausage' with the idea of a diety, entity, or being. In as much, I will build a model based on the precision of human perception.
The degree of error in the human mind is relatively high. We start with a 90 percent probability of error in the human mind for defining our own environment with accuracy. If we look at the dawn of civilization, taking Matzatlan or Egypt as a culture, we can see an inverse proportion of theism to education, or probability of error. I arrive at this rough figure based on these two cultures observing only 10 percent of their natural environment with credibile perception. We will assume they believed the world was flat, the Sun was part of the Earth...so on. But, they were successful at agriculture, basic technologies, and simple astronomy, to include accurate calendars.
We will also cross-section this error with the 100 percent belief in dieties, with only a 10 percent probability of being correct.
Given the raw 50-50 chance there is a God, based on a simple permutation of True or False, we are left with about a 5 percent probability of God at a time on Earth when every culture believed in dieties.
We have taken the quality of human perception, multiplied that by the percentage of believers, then multiplied that times the 50 percent rule.
The accuracy of data collected on the percentage of theists to atheists, and the percentage of educated persons throughout the World could be skewed or incorrect. I suggest we take a fair estimate of our own population, and agree on figures that are reasonable.
Let's assume that 75 percent of the world population has a degree of 85 percent accuracy about the world we live in,
to include knowing we have traveled to the moon, been exposed to some degree of atheistic and theistic beliefs, understand to some degree the physical make up of our Universe...etc...
However, in the United States, there is a much larger population of educated people than the base line. I dont want to waffle here and suggest we include the nation of Islam, or China. These two countries have inversely proportionate belief in God and education.
We will now take a stab at determining the ratio of belief in God in the modern world, taking into consideratsion the uprising of agnosticism and atheism in recent years. We might assume subjectively that the poll taken here on this web site is a cross-section of educated people.
I recall about 33 percent believers, 27 percent atheist, and a relatively smooth curve between. I will take a dare and say about 43 percent of the World's educated population has some degree of belief in God. This is likely on the low side, but we threw the extreme variants out.
If we have an 85 percent reliability in our perception, with 43 percent of the population beieving in God, we can state we have 85 percent of a 43 percent opinion, on a 50-50 chance. This would yield about a 20 percent probability that or educated segment of God believers is correct.
If after careful observation, we all agreed at some time in the future that we have a 95 percent accuracy about the Universe we live in, and only 30 percent of the population believes in God, we arrive at a 14 percent probability God exists.
Given this equation, the peak of probability that God exists in all of human civilazation on a time line would not exceed 40 percent. Some cultures would obviously score very near the 50 percent mark, but globally this is not likely.
If at no time we find any evidence of God, and the population of Earth reaches a 99 percent accuracy of human perception and a 99 percent belief, the maximum chance of there being a God is 50 percent. This is certainly not likely to occur.
Thank you. I hope you find this at least more logical than a + b = c
Now can you state a mathematical case for the existence of a god?
<HR>
I am doing this out of respect for Cris' intelligent and logical response.
Please, do not flame me...anyone.
If you feel the mathematical argument I am about to model is dysfunctional, I welcome your input.
I felt Cris argument was logical in its mathematical terms, but I would not equate the idea of 'sausage' with the idea of a diety, entity, or being. In as much, I will build a model based on the precision of human perception.
The degree of error in the human mind is relatively high. We start with a 90 percent probability of error in the human mind for defining our own environment with accuracy. If we look at the dawn of civilization, taking Matzatlan or Egypt as a culture, we can see an inverse proportion of theism to education, or probability of error. I arrive at this rough figure based on these two cultures observing only 10 percent of their natural environment with credibile perception. We will assume they believed the world was flat, the Sun was part of the Earth...so on. But, they were successful at agriculture, basic technologies, and simple astronomy, to include accurate calendars.
We will also cross-section this error with the 100 percent belief in dieties, with only a 10 percent probability of being correct.
Given the raw 50-50 chance there is a God, based on a simple permutation of True or False, we are left with about a 5 percent probability of God at a time on Earth when every culture believed in dieties.
We have taken the quality of human perception, multiplied that by the percentage of believers, then multiplied that times the 50 percent rule.
The accuracy of data collected on the percentage of theists to atheists, and the percentage of educated persons throughout the World could be skewed or incorrect. I suggest we take a fair estimate of our own population, and agree on figures that are reasonable.
Let's assume that 75 percent of the world population has a degree of 85 percent accuracy about the world we live in,
to include knowing we have traveled to the moon, been exposed to some degree of atheistic and theistic beliefs, understand to some degree the physical make up of our Universe...etc...
However, in the United States, there is a much larger population of educated people than the base line. I dont want to waffle here and suggest we include the nation of Islam, or China. These two countries have inversely proportionate belief in God and education.
We will now take a stab at determining the ratio of belief in God in the modern world, taking into consideratsion the uprising of agnosticism and atheism in recent years. We might assume subjectively that the poll taken here on this web site is a cross-section of educated people.
I recall about 33 percent believers, 27 percent atheist, and a relatively smooth curve between. I will take a dare and say about 43 percent of the World's educated population has some degree of belief in God. This is likely on the low side, but we threw the extreme variants out.
If we have an 85 percent reliability in our perception, with 43 percent of the population beieving in God, we can state we have 85 percent of a 43 percent opinion, on a 50-50 chance. This would yield about a 20 percent probability that or educated segment of God believers is correct.
If after careful observation, we all agreed at some time in the future that we have a 95 percent accuracy about the Universe we live in, and only 30 percent of the population believes in God, we arrive at a 14 percent probability God exists.
Given this equation, the peak of probability that God exists in all of human civilazation on a time line would not exceed 40 percent. Some cultures would obviously score very near the 50 percent mark, but globally this is not likely.
If at no time we find any evidence of God, and the population of Earth reaches a 99 percent accuracy of human perception and a 99 percent belief, the maximum chance of there being a God is 50 percent. This is certainly not likely to occur.
Thank you. I hope you find this at least more logical than a + b = c
Last edited:
Wait, let me pull a nail out of the coffin.
If, on the other hand you more rationally assert that the idea of god corresponds something that a possibly exists or not, then all you can conclude from your argument is 'The odds that what can be spoken of or thought about God being correct is mathematically 0. I'd agree with that.
Your unspoken assumption is that God-the-thing-that-exists-or-doesn't-exist is equivalent to the idea of God. If you are equivalent to someones idea of you, then by your reasoning the probability that you exist to someone who has no evidence of your existence is 0. :m: Try again.
If, on the other hand you more rationally assert that the idea of god corresponds something that a possibly exists or not, then all you can conclude from your argument is 'The odds that what can be spoken of or thought about God being correct is mathematically 0. I'd agree with that.
To unconsequent... from an old post
Fluidity is right,
Not only are you acting like a jerk, but you can't even show us that you, yourself, know what you are talking about.
Quotting Alice in wonderland is fine in high-school, but do you have anything else than literature for us?
As for your reply to the comment of Fluidity :"To call God the universe or not is a personnal choice"
(Which all can read at page 1)
It truly said nothing. I'm sorry. I encourage the respect of others self-esteem, but I'll make an exception here: if you don't have an intelligent reply, think about it and then type it... not the other way around.
Atheists worry me sometimes :bugeye:
Prisme
Fluidity is right,
Not only are you acting like a jerk, but you can't even show us that you, yourself, know what you are talking about.
Quotting Alice in wonderland is fine in high-school, but do you have anything else than literature for us?
As for your reply to the comment of Fluidity :"To call God the universe or not is a personnal choice"
(Which all can read at page 1)
It truly said nothing. I'm sorry. I encourage the respect of others self-esteem, but I'll make an exception here: if you don't have an intelligent reply, think about it and then type it... not the other way around.
Atheists worry me sometimes :bugeye:
Prisme
my two cents
Don't know if this has already been posted but eh...
"A" means "No" and "thiest" means "God"
and "gnostic" means "knowledge"
So athiest means, no god
Agnostic means, no knowledge, or no knowledge of the existence of a god.
Got this from a Josh Macdowell book, I recomend his writtings (even though most people here would hate them)
Don't know if this has already been posted but eh...
"A" means "No" and "thiest" means "God"
and "gnostic" means "knowledge"
So athiest means, no god
Agnostic means, no knowledge, or no knowledge of the existence of a god.
Got this from a Josh Macdowell book, I recomend his writtings (even though most people here would hate them)
answers,
Not quite.
From Webster: theist = belief in the existence of a god or gods.
so [a][theist] = no belief in the existence of a god or gods.
From Webster:
Gnostic = an adherent of gnosticism.
Gnosticism = the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.
Gnosis = esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation.
So an agnostic becomes one who is not an adherent of gnosticsm.
Or put another way an agnostic is one who has no esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth.
And Josh Macdowell is a master at twisting the truth to his own desires.
Not quite.
From Webster: theist = belief in the existence of a god or gods.
so [a][theist] = no belief in the existence of a god or gods.
From Webster:
Gnostic = an adherent of gnosticism.
Gnosticism = the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.
Gnosis = esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation.
So an agnostic becomes one who is not an adherent of gnosticsm.
Or put another way an agnostic is one who has no esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth.
And Josh Macdowell is a master at twisting the truth to his own desires.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What determines meaning: etymology, history, formal definition, or vernacular usage? What, for example, is the meaning of Positivism?
CA,
I suspect politics plays the major role.
But does something become correct because of common usage or do we maintain that most people are wrong for not using the strict definition (from some formal source)?
The objective should be the effective and accurate communication of ideas. But many stick to an obstinate stance and maintain that what they think a word means is what everyone else should accept.
The reference I made to agnosticism and the Webster definitions will be unrecognizable to most, I suspect. And we know atheism and agnosticsm can be interpreted many ways. The article you posted on noncognitivism gives perhaps a good pragmatic approach but how do you make everyone read the article so we can all share the same concept?
It would be safer to not use the terms atheist or agnostic whatsoever, or if when stated a set of links are also pasted to explain the multiple possible interpretations. That would be ugly and I'm not proposing that.
But posters will post their personal interpretations and if they are so far out from one's own then do you ignore it or start the inevitable discussion about meanings each time?
I don't have an answer to this. Suggestions are welcome.
I suspect politics plays the major role.
But does something become correct because of common usage or do we maintain that most people are wrong for not using the strict definition (from some formal source)?
The objective should be the effective and accurate communication of ideas. But many stick to an obstinate stance and maintain that what they think a word means is what everyone else should accept.
The reference I made to agnosticism and the Webster definitions will be unrecognizable to most, I suspect. And we know atheism and agnosticsm can be interpreted many ways. The article you posted on noncognitivism gives perhaps a good pragmatic approach but how do you make everyone read the article so we can all share the same concept?
It would be safer to not use the terms atheist or agnostic whatsoever, or if when stated a set of links are also pasted to explain the multiple possible interpretations. That would be ugly and I'm not proposing that.
But posters will post their personal interpretations and if they are so far out from one's own then do you ignore it or start the inevitable discussion about meanings each time?
I don't have an answer to this. Suggestions are welcome.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Precisely.
The "truth about Atheism", is that atheism is a label referencing a class of positions and predispositions with respect to theology. The 'truth about Agnosticism', is that agnosticism is a label referencing a class of positions and predispositions with respect to epistemology. And the 'truth about Words' is that the map is not the territory.