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>

Please answer in the poll.

God who?

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?

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.

Title:"THE GROWING OF THE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE"
by Renato L. Porchetta

At the time when the nomad man was worshiping the moon he also sought protection from the
arcane thundering sky.
And while being forced to migrate in search of seasonal food the primitives, for not knowing how
to grow regularly apple trees, fed on others of their own kind.
That was the time when two stones were beaten one against the other evoking the deity.

Time passed and the idolatry of the marble statues of the Greek and Roman gods was replaced
by a spiritual Direction attempting to justify the inner-self with more conscious information.
Then the word "intelligentsia" was mentioned for the first time.

The growth of the human intelligence was slow but at least stopped the torturing of religious
believers in Spain and unlocked the shackles chaining human slaves.

Reading and writing were needed, and the art went from marking tablets of dried mud to paper
and ink. The Gutenberg press later had its way.
Meanwhile branching out from what was originated at the core of the Mediterranean culture
freewill was reinforced in central Europe and the worshiping of the moon was left to
astronomers and poets.

The moon itself scared no more. Then the lightning rapidly passing through the thunderstorm was
caught with a flying kite and made to travel through the wire to a metal key and then to the
ground.
Theatrical representations become comparable but some religious quarrels carried the spark of
inflammatory debates from one place to the other in the known world harvesting corpses rather
than sanctity.

The human intellect continued the search and tracing some historical facts went from
worshiping the moon to the stone statues and from the statues to the attempt to empower the
Self. It seems that what propels this movement is: "religious impulse."

Then the sky was no longer thought -arcane- but was joined in its heights. And came the time
when man went on the moon and walked those very paths that were one time thought magic.
The human "intelligentsia" conquered the silvery goddess which was worshiped in the past.
And perhaps received some sacrificial lives here and then.

Also came the time when it was discovered that it is easier to talk on the phone than exert the
fatigue of carrying messages on horse back riding for days. And today messages can directly
reach one's jeans' s pocket in electronic version trying to replace the responsibility of mail delivery
and which ink and paper were doing during the Gutenberg time.

The "search" of the human intelligence went on together with freewill discovering that this mental
faculty could be a messenger or, perhaps a physiological agent responsible to break the occult
powers of superstition and mysteries.


NASA thinks of the moon differently nowadays than what an Mayan witchcraft did but a few
centuries ago. Man can play with dolphins but still some religious differences remain unsettled.

And the West also discovered the whisper of Zen saying that there are in existence spiritual
dimensions to be conquered and with committed love dreams come true.

God for many is a beautiful dream, will Zen be right?
If one thinks that the power of human intelligence itself can replace dreams-catchers then the
amplification of the intelligence will succeed.

Renato L. Porchetta

www.pennswoods.net/~cosmo/USPC.SWF
www.pennswoods.net/~cosmo/contact/apples.swf
:D

How rude! :rolleyes:

CA,

How rude! ?

Originally posted by Cris
CA,

? Precisely. How do you suppose our 'author' voted and why?

There is no phenomenon, that we can't explain, that must be attributed to the concept of a god instead of a vastly simpler and more credible speculation.

Of all the past unexplained phenomena, that were attributed to gods, and that are now explained, not one was ever found to be attributed to a god.

The overwhelming trend of new knowledge and discovery is in the direction away from supernatural speculations and towards the natural.

By simple projection, based on the above, there will be a point where the speculation for the supernatural becomes a null consideration.

There is no rational deduction that results in a requirement for a god to exist.

Therefore in the absence of any contradictory evidence, the mathematical probability for the existence of a god must be zero.

Mathematical probabilities are not built on historical projection. It sounds good, but I'm really not sure there's a 'there' in your 'therefore'.

CA,

OK Try this.

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.

All of this relates to the nature of knowledge. Out of an infinite number of ideas there are only a finite number of useful ones that correspond to reality. The only non-futile route to the discovery of such ideas is by examining the universe itself and forming the ideas based on what you observe. By any other approach, you stand mathematically no chance at all of coming up with even 1 useful idea no matter how much time you spend.

Note that all the ideas that are useful so far have been discovered or formed in the course of direct observation or interaction with the universe. Which is as it should be. But the idea of a god does not originate from an observation or interaction with the universe but rather from an imaginative combination of individually useful concepts (like cause, effect, actor, universe, origin, person, etc.) in a new, arbitrary way. Which is why the idea is inconsequential and useless, with 0 probability of being correct. Just like monsters under the bed, like witches flying around on brooms, like Hades, etc.

For an idea to be at least potentially valid some evidence must be provided to go with it, otherwise we are all entirely justified in summarily dismissing the idea that a god exists as improbable.

Originally posted by Cris

... we are all entirely justified in summarily dismissing the idea that a god exists as improbable. You are mixing metaphors. Furthermore, you know it, as demonstrated by your 'conclusion' of improbable vs impossible.

Why do you insist that the poll question is valid? Why waste time contriving denominators in supernatural space? Why not simply acknowledge that the supernatural is "out of scope" when it comes to rational enquiry, while the continuing success of methodological naturalism render the explanitory value of 'God(s)' increasingly negligible and belief in 'God(s)' wholly unwarranted.

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.

:D

CA,

And yeah that other stuff you said works OK as well.:)

Of course God exists, how could you hold baby or watch a sunset and doubt it? The very fact that we exist at all is too great a thing to dismiss as a big accident or coincidence. Or scientifically, the world was made to be perfect for us, the perfect distance from the sun, with just the right amount of each kind of elements in the air for us to live- you must realize that if the calculations were just the smallest part of a fraction off, life on earth would not be possible. There isn't a thing in the entire universe that someone didn't create, be it man or god.

Valentino,

You didn't add a smiley so I guess your response was serious.

Of course God exists, how could you hold baby or watch a sunset and doubt it? Or watch someone die in agony of cancer, or see someone live the life of a vegetable due to growth defects while in the womb. Reality is both grotesque and beautiful, and nothing about it need imply or indicate a supernatural component.

The very fact that we exist at all is too great a thing to dismiss as a big accident or coincidence.That's correct and explains why evolution is so important.

Or scientifically, the world was made to be perfect for us, the perfect distance from the sun, with just the right amount of each kind of elements in the air for us to live- you must realize that if the calculations were just the smallest part of a fraction off, life on earth would not be possible.It's a nice idea but you have it back to front. It is because those conditions occurred that we exist. The conditions were not created to suit us, we just happened to be the result of the conditions.

There isn't a thing in the entire universe that someone didn't create, be it man or god.Unless you have a way to detect a universe being created then you have nothing but one of countless speculations.

Originally posted by Cris


It's a nice idea but you have it back to front. It is because those conditions occurred that we exist. The conditions were not created to suit us, we just happened to be the result of the conditions.

Even if it was just conditions, I will make those conditions my god and worship accordingly. What are the odds that matter would explode and just happen to form in the perfect way so that life is brought into existance? You realize the incredibly extremely high odds there must have been against this just happening. I could type out the smallest fraction possible for the rest of my life and that still wouldn't cover the odds of this "coincidence" from happening. No thing beautiful or terrible just exists, everything was started by something or someone.


Unless you have a way to detect a universe being created then you have nothing but one of countless speculations.

My speculations are only as countless as yours are

Originally posted by valentino
Of course God exists, how could you hold baby or watch a sunset and doubt it? I would much prefer that you confine preaching to some other thread, perhaps HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16446), or,perhaps one of your own creation. In the context of this discussion, it amounts to little more than pollution in my opinion.

Originally posted by Cris
But the topic is about probability, i.e. values between 0 and 1. You have to stay on topic, it's the rules. I didn't realize that expessing a noncognitivist position was against the rules. Mark me as properly chastised. ;)

Valentino,

My speculations are only as countless as yours areYes exactly. And until there is some form of observation or detection then your fantasies about gods are as useless as any other fantasy.

CA,

Originally posted by valentino
Of course God exists, how could you hold baby or watch a sunset and doubt it?

From CA -
I would much prefer that you confine preaching to some other thread, perhaps HERE, or,perhaps one of your own creation. In the context of this discussion, it amounts to little more than pollution in my opinion.That's a little over the top I think. From Valentino's method of thinking that conclusion is inevitable, and is a valid part of the debates here. I think it would have been preaching had the supportive clause been omitted, and the statement had only read "Of course God exists". The issue here is the invalid claim that a god exists because of the emotional appeal of holding babies and watching sunsets.

Valentino,

From your claim it follows then that if we were all blind and also suffer from a total loss of proprioception (no sense of touch), then a god would not exist.

Originally posted by Cris

That's a little over the top I think. You're probably right. Too bad. ;)
Originally posted by Cris

That's a little over the top I think. From Valentino's method of thinking that conclusion is inevitable, ... What method might that be?

CA,

What method might that be?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.

Originally posted by Cris
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. 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 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.

Originally posted by James R
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. 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'.

Originally posted by James R
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? No, it was not hard, nor was it either accurate or respectful.

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.

:D
So, Cris, what is the probability that 0 in place denoting a lack of magnitude might in fact denote total magnitude?

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.

two possible outcomes

Yes

or

No

Um, wouldnt that be a probability of 1/2 which would be 50%

Am I wrong?

Originally posted by James R

... how can you possible conclude that God doesn't exist? Where have I done so? I "conclude" that there is no warrant for a belief in God(s).
Originally posted by James R
...while the continuing success of methodological naturalism render the explanitory value of 'God(s)' increasingly negligible and belief in 'God(s)' wholly unwarranted.Now, I read this as equivalent to saying "I do not believe that there are any grounds for saying that a god exists." And I, as well.
Originally posted by James R

Why am I therefore not justified in saying that you assign zero chance to the existence of God? 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.

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?

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.

Let us Pray: :o 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! :mad:

Originally posted by James R
Ok. We're gradually making some progress, CA. Let's proceed to the next step.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'.Not every viable epistemic stance fits into one of your little boxes. Give me a methodology capable of selecting one and deselecting all others and I will reconsider. Note that "Golly gee whiz, my best guess is X%" does not constitute a methodology.

Originally posted by Grey Seal
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)For the record:I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

-- Stephen Roberts, quoted from Rob Fenton, in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 29, 2000)

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.

Originally posted by James R
CA:Give me a methodology capable of selecting one and deselecting all others.Once again, you're ignoring the fact that this is a question exploring beliefs Once again, you're ignoring the fact that I consider this to be a meaningless question for the purpose of exploring my beliefs.
Originally posted by James R
Sure, you can claim to have no beliefs if you like, but I don't find that very plausible. Are you calling me a liar, or simply stupid?
Originally posted by James R
Never mind. That is unfortunately true. :mad:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James R
[B]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!

:cool:

If I look outside myself, I can see but a fraction, infintesimal in dimension, to the myriad of dimensions that exist in this plane of existence.

All the Universe came before me. I am a moment in time, a being, aware of this moment and small moments gone by.

The Universe, its many dimensions, its causes and effects, its energy and its entropy, are the cause of my being.

I am but the effect of many eons of cause and effect.

This Universe, its causes and effects, the entropy of random nature or a design of its intent, created me.

I look deep into the atom, so ordered, so beautifully perfect, repeated perhaps infinitely in the same design, and I cannot forget my own smallness. Of things from chaos born, this atom so well defined betrays all chaos, and it betrays entropy by its multitude and domain, in its perfection.

The laws that define this Universe are the cause of its design. In those laws are the laws of entropy, allowed by laws of order. All we see is born of these laws, by the entropy they encompass, so very near chaos. But, entropy is not chaos.

The source of these laws is God, because I define this to be my God, my Creator, the beginning and the end of all the Universe. And there is nothing we will find to deny this is God, because if this should all cease to exist, so will we. So be it.

The source of all laws of the Universe is God, and all we will percieve of the Universe is the work of those laws, the work of God.

I am 100 percent certain.

<b>CA:</b>

<i>Once again, you're ignoring the fact that I consider this to be a meaningless question for the purpose of exploring my beliefs.</i>

Then why respond?

Funny as it may seem, CA, I'm actually not that interested in exploring YOUR personal beliefs in isolation. This thread is intended to get a broad overview of the beliefs of posters on this forum. And, judging by the number of responses so far, few people have had any difficulty answering the question as posed.

<i>Are you calling me a liar, or simply stupid?</i>

Neither. Whatever gave you that idea?



<b>IXL777</b>:

<i>BEFORE WE CAN EVEN TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WE HAVE TO KNOW WHO OR WHAT GOD IS! ... My God the creator is infinite wisdom, infinite sound Harmonics. HARMONICS ...OCTAVE AND FIFTHS CREATED THE BIG BANG , WHICH CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDING THOUGHT! </i>

Well, you seem to know what your God is. I assume you also believe he exists.

Shall I put you down for 100%?

Originally posted by James R
..., judging by the number of responses so far, few people have had any difficulty answering the question as posed. So there! :D

look at that wonderful distribution of votes. split like a banana.
everyone seems so sure of themselves. i wonder how everyone found such certain answers that enables them to vote 0% or 100%

either way there's going to be egg on someone's face...:p

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
look at that wonderful distribution of votes. split like a banana.
everyone seems so sure of themselves. i wonder how everyone found such certain answers that enables them to vote 0% or 100%

either way there's going to be egg on someone's face...:p


Nahh...God doesn't throw eggs, not even at atheists <b>;)</b>

Nahh...God doesn't throw eggs, not even at atheists He'd rather slap us with a wet fish;)

I'm curious, what was your vote James R? Sorry if I missed it somewhere in this long thread.

haynewp:

Does it matter what my vote was?

I am interested in the overall statistics - the patterns. Individual data points aren't important except in that they contribute to give an overall picture - which is what this thread is about.

Originally posted by James R
haynewp:

Does it matter what my vote was?

I am interested in the overall statistics - the patterns. Individual data points aren't important except in that they contribute to give an overall picture - which is what this thread is about.

James,
If GOD ..the creator is sound harmonics from the big-bang ..does this not make all other GODS..NULL AND VOID..
AND WOULD NOT THE CREATOR BE MORE FEMININE TO MEET THE ARCHETYPAL PATTERN .....
:cool:

I figured that would be your response. James, no it doesn't really matter in the point of the thread, like I said I was just curious. I had just guessed it wasn't 100% or 0%. Trying to see if I had guessed right or not. Sorry if I have deviated from the almighty thread.
hehe almighty get it

haynewp:

You're right. It wasn't zero or 100%.

God is Spirit in all things and the entirity, without God there would be no creation and without God then neither of us here would have come to be. For even in science the Primary source of all things cannot be pin pointed, but the divertion of Spirit to matter brings the duality which creates all things. Nothing is beyond God as God is the beyond. The present tense, reality is God, but then even these words have gone from God; they are now past. For God is silence and beyond words. Hisd Word is the concept of God's being. Remember God is within and out. For within we know God and those of us that dont know God, dont know that God is brought within us, by faith and love.

The Nazarenes called God in Aramaic, that name was Allah.

I too notice that the vote is a clean split for the most part. It is a very polarized issue. It just goes to show you how polarized our society as a whole is becomming. Note too that the overall effect of the vote is that the voters are split 50/50 in terms of who said God exists and who doesn't.

What I basically picked up from your post is that their is one chance of there being a god, but an infinite number of other possibilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't two of those possibilites:

A. There is a god.
B. There is no god.

So therefore, there is the exact same probability for there being a god, and there being no god.

Or do those both have seperate theories?

I wish there was a less than 1% option, but given the choices I picked 1-10% because I thought it was more important to denote the possibility...

In particular, if you're in the 1-10% category, do you consider yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or what?
Atheist. I lack belief in god.

Originally posted by YoungWriter
What I basically picked up from your post is that their is one chance of there being a god, but an infinite number of other possibilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't two of those possibilites:

A. There is a god.
B. There is no god.

So therefore, there is the exact same probability for there being a god, and there being no god.

Or do those both have seperate theories?

None of this discussion makes any sense if we do not establish..Who or what god is?
:cool:

young,

What I basically picked up from your post is that their is one chance of there being a god, but an infinite number of other possibilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't two of those possibilites:

A. There is a god.
B. There is no god.

So therefore, there is the exact same probability for there being a god, and there being no god.

Or do those both have seperate theories?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.
:(

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.
<HR>
<B>
But, if God is everything, your pointless point is null and void, and the set of reality you have defined, is zero.

Originally posted by IXL777
None of this discussion makes any sense if we do not establish..Who or what god is?
:cool:
That's what I was thinking. Some people are probably thinking of God as the Christians believe, but wouldn't any higher power count as a god?

Things God could be:

God from the Christian religion
the colective powers of all spirits in the universe
destiny
aliens that created humans by cloning something
Zeus, Hades, Hera, and other Greek gods
Jupiter, Neptune, Mars, and other Roman gods


The possiblities are endless. Someone somewhere might look at a floating log and say "Look it's God!"

I am sure that someone's God exists.

IXL,

None of this discussion makes any sense if we do not establish..Who or what god is?It doesn't matter for the math to work since the concept of any god with any definition will include an alleged supernatural component and that has no factual basis but is just an imaginative concept, i.e. just one imaginative idea from an infinite set of such ideas.

But James's original post specifically did not restrict the definition of what god meant. The question covers any definition that people might decide to believe.

Fluid,

But, if God is everything, your pointless point is null and void, and the set of reality you have defined, is zero.If God is everything then we can safely dispense with the term God and lose nothing and still have everything. In your scenario the concept of God is truly null, void, and redundant.

Spears,

The possiblities are endless. Someone somewhere might look at a floating log and say "Look it's God!"

I am sure that someone's God exists.I think it reasonable to assume that people would at least assume the dictionary definition where a god has properties beyond nature. It is that distinction that makes the idea of a god so different to anything else.

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.

Originally posted by Cris
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. 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.

Persol,

This all assumes that you have no evidence that god exists.Yes that is true.

There are many documents which talk about accounts of god. Correction - Talk about an alleged god.

The evidence in these documents can narrow the realm of ideas in which god exists to a finite set. If there were any real evidence then we wouldn't be having this debate. There is no real evidence there is only alleged evidence.

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?

Okay, I can see how "irrational" might be a tad harsh, I think "incorrect" is more appropriate.

wes,

Okay, I can see how "irrational" might be a tad harsh, I think "incorrect" is more appropriate.No, irrational is correct. Incorrect implies you definitely know they are wrong which implies you can prove a god doesn't exist, and you can't do that.

Irrational means to reach a conclusion not based on a logical construct.

Originally posted by Cris
wes,

No, irrational is correct. Incorrect implies you definitely know they are wrong which implies you can prove a god doesn't exist, and you can't do that.

Irrational means to reach a conclusion not based on a logical construct.

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.

Originally posted by wesmorris

CA - Would this adequately summarize your position? What is the point of discussing beliefs that are logically invalid ...Absolutely not: I love discussing beliefs. There are many God-constructs that are not logically invalid. I suspect that the view you're addressing is called "noncognitivism". See, for example, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) by Teodore M. Drange (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html).
Originally posted by wesmorris
...since the question is beyond the scope of science (particularly statistics?) 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%" is, in my opinion, simply pretentious. If someone were to ask me "What do you think is the likelihood of God(s)?", my answer might be: "I haven't a clue, and neither does anyone else, but I know of absolutely nothing warranting the belief in such a deity."

The probablity of god is 100%, exactly figure it out!! 100%

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

It was worth a shot. *shrug*

Dwayne,

The probablity of god is 100%, exactly figure it out!! 100%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?

CA,

I finally found time to look at your posted article by Drange. You've mentioned noncognitivism several times recently and I didn't pick up on the term.

Nice artcle. I believe it will change my approach to those terms.

Thanks.

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?
:) :) :) :)

Originally posted by Cris


Isn't it wonderful what can be learnt from statistics?
:) :) :) :)

Especially when the poll says "Error of 5-10%"

Hey James R
"What is the probability that God exist?" is not good formed question.
God cannot be explained in numbers.
We BELIEVE that God exist , but we cannot prove it.
Science cannot prove that God doesnt exist...

Originally posted by Vacui
Hey James R
"What is the probability that God exist?" is not good formed question.
God cannot be explained in numbers.
We BELIEVE that God exist , but we cannot prove it.
Science cannot prove that God doesnt exist...

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:cool:

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.[list=1]
I think therefore I am
I am means I exist
I am God
therefore God exists
[/list=1]

Dominic , you must learn a lot...

I realise that the poll is not strictly mathematically solid.

To get a real proability that a particular god exists, you'd need to sample from a population of many gods, and determine for sure which ones existed and which ones did not. Obviously, this is impossible, so the question can't be about that kind of probability.

Really, the question is about posters' degree of confidence in their belief (or non-belief) in god(s).

On the whole, I agree with Cris's analysis of the results so far.

There is only one God,but there are many names for him.
For example Allah,Visnu,Brahma,Siva,Jehova.
Allah in arabic means God...

There has never been a reliable sighting of god or of god's actions. This being supposedly created the earth and mankind and possibly controls everything. No reports of existence together with the large powers attributed to this force results in an unfavourable statistical analysis.


probability that gods exist: zero.

Originally posted by IXL777
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
I THOUGHT i WOULD EXPOUND ON THIS IDEA...NEGATE MAN AND THOUGHT..."where does that leave God!!!!
Dominic:cool: :cool:

Originally posted by IXL777
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
I thought I would expound this idea..if you negate mankind and thought where would that leave god!!!

Dominic:cool: :cool:

Originally posted by Vacui
Dominic , you must learn a lot...
Vacui, Thank you for the compliment..wisdom takes a little longer to find.:cool:

Originally posted by mr. Bwoondewops
using mathematical computations for this question does and will not work, therefore 0 probobility, or 100% probobility are the only answers.Actually, I find 50% to be the only possible answer for an undefined 'God'. Consider that our knowledge is finite and either the Universe or God is infinite. With infinity on either side the only possible answer is 50%.

:)

Of course, IMNSHO, the probability that any God exists or behaves in a manner defined by any human is 0%.

~Raithere