What is the probability that God exists?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Originally posted by Cris
young,
LOL.
Firstly we were not discussing possibilities but probabilities. The criterion for establishing a possibility is quite a different debate.
See my original post, but it's like this - Given an infinite number of ideas with only a comparatively miniscule finite subset mapping to real entities then the probability of randomly selecting an idea from the entire set that matches a real entity is mathematically zero, i.e. 1/infinity.
The idea that there is no God can never map to an entity, since the complete finite set of real entities does not include anything that is absent. I.e. the concept of selecting nothing from a set is a null and redundant choice.
To consider the absence of something rather than the existence then simply take the inverse of 1/infinity and the result will be a 100% probability that god does not exist.
I just hope no real mathematicians show up any time soon.
My mistake. I know how probabilities work.
I just saying, if there is probability A and probablility C, out of an infinite number of probabliites, they both have the same probablity of being chosen.
Did I get it? If not, you can PM me.
Edit: Did I mention that I'm bad at math?
young,
Not quite. Don't think of infinite probabilities since that doesn't really make sense in this context. Think more along the lines of an infinite number of ideas from which you must choose just one. When the vast majority of the ideas are about things that do not exist then the practical probability of choosing an idea about something that does exist is extremely small.
Now if you make a second choice then technically, since you have already eliminated one choice then the probability would improve. However, when we are talking about an infinite set of choices then the difference in probability remains effectively zero.
For example if there were only 5 things to choose from then the probability of making the right choice is 20%. Once you have eliminated one item then the next choice would be 25%, then 33%, then 50%, then 100%.
The fewer items you have then the better the probability of finding what you want. However, going the other extreme with an infinite set means your probability is always zero until you have made an infinite number of choices which you can never achieve since infinity has no bounds. That means the probability will always be zero no matter how many choices you make, well almost.
The flaw of course is that in our example there is a small finite set of things that do exist. Think here about choosing a particular grain of sand among all the grains in the Sahara Dessert. And then consider that the desert is infinite in size.
Not quite. Don't think of infinite probabilities since that doesn't really make sense in this context. Think more along the lines of an infinite number of ideas from which you must choose just one. When the vast majority of the ideas are about things that do not exist then the practical probability of choosing an idea about something that does exist is extremely small.
Now if you make a second choice then technically, since you have already eliminated one choice then the probability would improve. However, when we are talking about an infinite set of choices then the difference in probability remains effectively zero.
For example if there were only 5 things to choose from then the probability of making the right choice is 20%. Once you have eliminated one item then the next choice would be 25%, then 33%, then 50%, then 100%.
The fewer items you have then the better the probability of finding what you want. However, going the other extreme with an infinite set means your probability is always zero until you have made an infinite number of choices which you can never achieve since infinity has no bounds. That means the probability will always be zero no matter how many choices you make, well almost.
The flaw of course is that in our example there is a small finite set of things that do exist. Think here about choosing a particular grain of sand among all the grains in the Sahara Dessert. And then consider that the desert is infinite in size.
Since none of the theists are pointing this out I guess I will
This all assumes that you have no evidence that god exists. There are many documents which talk about accounts of god. The evidence in these documents can narrow the realm of ideas in which god exists to a finite set. This is assuming you don't get too picky about how detailed the idea has to be.
CA -
Would this adequately summarize your position?
What is the point of discussing beliefs that are logically invalid (since no methodology can discern a more probable model (since the question is beyond the scope of science (particularly statistics?))) since they were reached irrationally?
I don't see any way to dent that reasoning, besides for entertainment value. I think this is almost a proof though - that it is irrational to claim theism as logically valid. I must have missed something?
Would this adequately summarize your position?
What is the point of discussing beliefs that are logically invalid (since no methodology can discern a more probable model (since the question is beyond the scope of science (particularly statistics?))) since they were reached irrationally?
I don't see any way to dent that reasoning, besides for entertainment value. I think this is almost a proof though - that it is irrational to claim theism as logically valid. I must have missed something?
Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
Date: 14th century
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> c Greek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable : having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot : containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>
- ir·ra·tio·nal·i·ty /-"ra-sh&-'na-l&-tE/ noun
- ir·ra·tio·nal·ly /-'ra-sh(&-)n&-lE/ adverb
While I concur that your assessment of the definition is exactly accurate, I am just stipulating (somewhat superflously) that I recognize that one might validly argue from a secondary definition, or a secondary definition for one of the words (such as "reason") that comprises the definition of the word.
That got confusing there at the end.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Absolutely not:
- I love discussing beliefs.
- There are many God-constructs that are not logically invalid.
Isn't calling statistics "science" a little like calling the tape measure "carpentry"?
I simply feel that, by using the term "probability", we are pretending to know more than we know.
Probability comes in two flavors, subjective and what's called "relative frequence". The latter measures the relative frequency of some event over an 'event space', and then seeks to make predictions based on the result. This is not the type of 'probability' being referenced here - unless, of course, someone can suggest a method for populating both the numerator and the denominor of the ratio.
On the other hand, for me to say something like
- "the probability of God is 0.008127%"
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
The probablity of god is 100%, exactly figure it out!! 100%
DWAYNE D.L.RABON
DWAYNE D.L.RABON
Dwayne,
But I guess you meant to say probability.
So does "of god" mean -
1 of god not existing, or
2 of god existing.
And as for 100% exactly: Is it possible to have 100% inexactly?
Or since the comma is before exactly then what does "exactly figure it out!!" mean?
I guess this depends on what is meant probablity.
But I guess you meant to say probability.
So does "of god" mean -
1 of god not existing, or
2 of god existing.
And as for 100% exactly: Is it possible to have 100% inexactly?
Or since the comma is before exactly then what does "exactly figure it out!!" mean?
Comment on state of the poll so far.
Note that 23 are certain that a god exists and only 10 are certain that a god does not exist.
Since both extremes are pretty much impossible to prove except through some very highly dubious reasoning then to vote for either extreme is to admit to being technically irrational. But I guess that supports the case made by both sides that the other side is irrational.
But of course since 23 is over double 10 then we can also conclude that theists are twice as irrational than atheists. This is further supported by the next category at each extreme where 99% certain has 2 votes (8% of theist votes) and 1% certain of existence is 11 (50% of atheist votes).
Only 8% of theists are aware of their potential irrationality and admit they can't be certain, but 50% of the atheists understand the irrationality trap.
Isn't it wonderful what can be learnt from statistics?
Note that 23 are certain that a god exists and only 10 are certain that a god does not exist.
Since both extremes are pretty much impossible to prove except through some very highly dubious reasoning then to vote for either extreme is to admit to being technically irrational. But I guess that supports the case made by both sides that the other side is irrational.
But of course since 23 is over double 10 then we can also conclude that theists are twice as irrational than atheists. This is further supported by the next category at each extreme where 99% certain has 2 votes (8% of theist votes) and 1% certain of existence is 11 (50% of atheist votes).
Only 8% of theists are aware of their potential irrationality and admit they can't be certain, but 50% of the atheists understand the irrationality trap.
Isn't it wonderful what can be learnt from statistics?
Originally posted by Cris
Isn't it wonderful what can be learnt from statistics?
Especially when the poll says "Error of 5-10%"
James , I agree with the above statement god cannot be explained in numbers
..our view of god is subjective and based on our senses,reason and metaphysical thought and intuition ...therefore, our notion of god is based on past knowlege.......cogito ergo sum..I think therefore I exist implies that god has come from "thought "only......therefore the notion of god was created by man...negate thought and god does not exist anymore!!!!
where does that leave all the Theists
What do you think?
Dominic
Last edited:
mr. Bwoondewops
Registered Member
using mathematical computations for this question does and will not work, therefore 0 probobility, or 100% probobility are the only answers. But if you measure Gods existance using our existance as the source method, then it would go something like this.
- I think therefore I am
- I am means I exist
- I am God
- therefore God exists
[/list=1]