ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
You're probably right. Too bad.
What method might that be?
What is the probability that God exists?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
CA,
The inevitable vitriol between the theist and atheist positions is the result of both sides arguing according to different rules. We insist on the use of reason and logic and they have no choice but to refuse. It then becomes impossible to reason with someone who does not accept the tenets of reasoned arguments.
Once you understand this dichotomy you will then see the futility of continuing to insist they are wrong with increasing levels of aggression and frustration, something that is unfortunately a typical and naive tactic by both sides.
The only really dangerous religionists that I have encountered are the Christian apologetics who have taken the skill of rationalization to an incredible degree. Note that the process of rationalization means taking something that IS irrational and deceptively making it appear rational.
One that is different to yours and mine. The ultimate issue in religious debates is the consideration of epistemology. We would argue for reason and logic, but religionists cannot utilize those methods and retain their beliefs and hence they argue for a different method for the determination of truth and knowledge.
The inevitable vitriol between the theist and atheist positions is the result of both sides arguing according to different rules. We insist on the use of reason and logic and they have no choice but to refuse. It then becomes impossible to reason with someone who does not accept the tenets of reasoned arguments.
Once you understand this dichotomy you will then see the futility of continuing to insist they are wrong with increasing levels of aggression and frustration, something that is unfortunately a typical and naive tactic by both sides.
The only really dangerous religionists that I have encountered are the Christian apologetics who have taken the skill of rationalization to an incredible degree. Note that the process of rationalization means taking something that IS irrational and deceptively making it appear rational.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
This impresses me as the cocky and simplistic evaluation of the relatively young. I suspect that folks like Schweitzer and Spinoza handle reason and logic quite well.
ConsequentAtheist:
<i>Since you do not offer "None of the above." as an option, what convinces you that the question is meaningful? Also, what methods/protocols would suggest be employed to ascertain an estimate?</i>
Read the question again:
"Given <b>your knowledge and beliefs</b>, what is the percentage chance that God exists, <b>according to you</b>?"
I suggest that the protocol you adopt to answer this question is to estimate the probability based on your knowledge and beliefs, as the question asks.
The question is looking at belief, not at an objective mathematical probability. I thought that would be obvious.
<i>My guess: it's roughly equal to the average weight of pixie dust found in 1cc of Daoine Sidhe air space times the standard length of the unicorn horn divided by the total weight of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Roman pantheon as measured on Atlantis. If anyone can supply these, or more appropriate, numbers, I'll try to be more specific.</i>
I'll put you down for zero, then, shall I? (There is no category between zero and 1%.)
That wasn't so hard, was it?
<i>Since you do not offer "None of the above." as an option, what convinces you that the question is meaningful? Also, what methods/protocols would suggest be employed to ascertain an estimate?</i>
Read the question again:
"Given <b>your knowledge and beliefs</b>, what is the percentage chance that God exists, <b>according to you</b>?"
I suggest that the protocol you adopt to answer this question is to estimate the probability based on your knowledge and beliefs, as the question asks.
The question is looking at belief, not at an objective mathematical probability. I thought that would be obvious.
<i>My guess: it's roughly equal to the average weight of pixie dust found in 1cc of Daoine Sidhe air space times the standard length of the unicorn horn divided by the total weight of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Roman pantheon as measured on Atlantis. If anyone can supply these, or more appropriate, numbers, I'll try to be more specific.</i>
I'll put you down for zero, then, shall I? (There is no category between zero and 1%.)
That wasn't so hard, was it?
I put certain, NOT because i am a blind follower of religon, but because a few... Mysterious, inconsistent things happened that have me believe that there is a higher power.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Given your beliefs, what is your belief?
I would suggest that you either acknowledge an honest epistemological difference or argue against the viability of noncognitivism. I would not suggest that you attempt further to pass off your suggestion as worthy of the term 'protocol'.
Read the answer again. Repeating the question does absolutely nothing in my opinion to make it more meaningful.
I would suggest that you either acknowledge an honest epistemological difference or argue against the viability of noncognitivism. I would not suggest that you attempt further to pass off your suggestion as worthy of the term 'protocol'.
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
No, it was not hard, nor was it either accurate or respectful.
W#hat is the probability that God exists?
So, Cris, what is the probability that 0 in place denoting a lack of magnitude might in fact denote total magnitude?Originally posted by Cris
CA,
But the topic is about probability, i.e. values between 0 and 1.
You have to stay on topic, it's the rules.
So a probability of 0 is as far as you can go with improbability.
ConsequentAtheist:
I hope you can clear this up for me.
I don't know what you mean by this:
<i>Why waste time contriving denominators in supernatural space?</i>
You go on to say:
<i>Why not simply acknowledge that the supernatural is "out of scope" when it comes to rational enquiry...</i>
Then how can you possible conclude that God doesn't exist? If it is not rational to ask the question, then any answer either way must surely be equally meaningless? Is that your point? If so, it seems that pretty much all philosophical questions would be meaningless for you.
<i>...while the continuing success of methodological naturalism render the explanitory value of 'God(s)' increasingly negligible and belief in 'God(s)' wholly unwarranted.</i>
Now, I read this as equivalent to saying "I do not believe that there are any grounds for saying that a god exists." Why am I therefore not justified in saying that you assign zero chance to the existence of God?
I guess I'm missing something.
I hope you can clear this up for me.
I don't know what you mean by this:
<i>Why waste time contriving denominators in supernatural space?</i>
You go on to say:
<i>Why not simply acknowledge that the supernatural is "out of scope" when it comes to rational enquiry...</i>
Then how can you possible conclude that God doesn't exist? If it is not rational to ask the question, then any answer either way must surely be equally meaningless? Is that your point? If so, it seems that pretty much all philosophical questions would be meaningless for you.
<i>...while the continuing success of methodological naturalism render the explanitory value of 'God(s)' increasingly negligible and belief in 'God(s)' wholly unwarranted.</i>
Now, I read this as equivalent to saying "I do not believe that there are any grounds for saying that a god exists." Why am I therefore not justified in saying that you assign zero chance to the existence of God?
I guess I'm missing something.
two possible outcomes
Yes
or
No
Um, wouldnt that be a probability of 1/2 which would be 50%
Am I wrong?
Yes
or
No
Um, wouldnt that be a probability of 1/2 which would be 50%
Am I wrong?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Where have I done so? I "conclude" that there is no warrant for a belief in God(s).
And I, as well.
As much as I hate aphorisms: because the absense of proof is not proof of absence.
Ok. We're gradually making some progress, CA. Let's proceed to the next step.
It seems you are not, after all, giving God a zero probability of existence. So, we have eliminated at least one of the categories given in the poll.
Given what you said previously, though, it seems to me that your estimate would be considerably less than a 1 in 100 chance, right? So, it would be fair to say that to put you down as a "zero" would be more accurate than any other category.
It seems you are not, after all, giving God a zero probability of existence. So, we have eliminated at least one of the categories given in the poll.
Given what you said previously, though, it seems to me that your estimate would be considerably less than a 1 in 100 chance, right? So, it would be fair to say that to put you down as a "zero" would be more accurate than any other category.
Comments on the poll results so far:
It seems that when we get down to numbers like this, people's views actually <b>are</b> very polarised. Most people either think that God's existence is unlikely (<10%), or practically certain (100%).
What I'm wondering now is what labels people would assign to themselves.
In particular, if you're in the 1-10% category, do you consider yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or what?
It seems that when we get down to numbers like this, people's views actually <b>are</b> very polarised. Most people either think that God's existence is unlikely (<10%), or practically certain (100%).
What I'm wondering now is what labels people would assign to themselves.
In particular, if you're in the 1-10% category, do you consider yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or what?
i put 11-20%. If i had to guess, i would say no god. but i could be wrong. it's happened once or twice before
i would consider myself agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of there being some sort of god. but i would need more conclusive data than i currently have.
i would consider myself agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of there being some sort of god. but i would need more conclusive data than i currently have.
Probability of godhead
Let us Pray: Oh Great Negligence, Oh Limitless Excuse For Diligent Pursuit Of Truth, Oh Wondrous Weapon Of Mass Brainwashing and Bringer of Misery... :bugeye: Shoo! Ooga Booga!
Let us Pray:
Oh Great Negligence, Oh Limitless Excuse For Diligent Pursuit Of Truth, Oh Wondrous Weapon Of Mass Brainwashing and Bringer of Misery... :bugeye: Shoo! Ooga Booga! ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Proceed on your own. You clearly don't seem interested in listening to me. Nevertheless, on the off chance that I have been unclear:
- In my opinion, the poll question sucks. It does not permit a rational answer. I vote 'present'.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
For the record:
CA:
<i>Give me a methodology capable of selecting one and deselecting all others.</i>
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that this is a question exploring <b>beliefs</b>. Sure, you can claim to have no beliefs if you like, but I don't find that very plausible.
Never mind.
<i>Give me a methodology capable of selecting one and deselecting all others.</i>
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that this is a question exploring <b>beliefs</b>. Sure, you can claim to have no beliefs if you like, but I don't find that very plausible.
Never mind.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that I consider this to be a meaningless question for the purpose of exploring my beliefs.
Are you calling me a liar, or simply stupid?
That is unfortunately true.
Originally posted by James R
The problem with terms such as "atheist", and "theist" and "agnostic" is that they delimit categories of belief. In fact, there is a range of beliefs about God, ranging from absolute belief in his non-existence, through to total faith in his existence.
So, let's measure belief on a finer scale. How confident are you that a god (or gods) exist(s)? Or, to put the question another way:
<b>Given your knowledge and beliefs, what is the percentage chance that God exists, according to you?</b>
BEFORE WE CAN EVEN TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WE HAVE TO KNOW WHO OR WHAT GOD IS! he could easily be a goddess or a mixture of both...My God the creator is infinite wisdom, infinite sound Harmonics. HARMONICS ...OCTAVE AND FIFTHS CREATED THE BIG BANG , WHICH CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDING THOUGHT!