I was challenged by Cris to come up with a mathmatical argument for evidence or theory that God(s) exist. The results are interesting. As the quality of human perception improves, our tendency to believe in God persists with inverse relationship to modernization. This persistence in belief in God(s) results in the increasing possibility that God(s) exist, based on the quality of human perception. I hope you all enjoy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Attached is a simple graph of the results. What the graph indicates, is that currently, based on these criteria, the probability that God(s) exist is about 13~14 percent. In contrast, as we go back in time, our belief in God(s) was disproportionate to our education, and thereby quality of perception. At that time, the probability that people were correct in believing in God(s) was less than 2 percent.
A bit of an inconsistency.... if you assume human perception and belief in god to both be 100 you get 100^0=1.
Perhaps you should first substantiate your contention regarding "a well voiced atheist tenet". I'm an atheist, and I can't even prove the absence of white ravens.
It's a pain. The function does behave oddly at extremes. I will admit some inadequacy. Here's the problem. I want the implied limit of 50 percent probability, because it would be irrational for a population that was 100 percent cognitive of the universe to believe in something they have no evidence for. At the extremes of belief, 0 and 100, it makes no sense at all. It would actually take more math skill than I remember right now to model this perfectly. However, the function models a relationship between human perception an beliefs. If human cognitive abilities approach 100 percent, and belief in dieties is 50 percent across a spectrum of educated people, it reflects 50 percent probability. The relationship is flawed, I agree. But, it can be fixed. It needs to be a proper Bell curve plotted as a function of human perception. I do know that. I'll hit the books to find the right function. It has no credibility if the thing is wrong at extremes. Meanwhile, I'll leave the graph up for other criticism about the base of the argument.
What could the phrase "persists with inverse relationship to modernization" possibly mean? Let's pretend that you actually meant to say something like: "persists in the face of, and in spite of, modernization". Who made up that rule? So, you maintain: persistence in belief in ghosts results in the increasing possibility that ghosts exist? persistence in belief in Nessie results in the increasing possibility that the Loch Ness monster exists? persistence in belief in reincarnation results in the increasing possibility that reincarnation exists? persistence in belief in alien abductions results in the increasing possibility that alien abductions exist? persistence in belief in astrology results in the increasing possibility that effective astrology exists? And the list could go on and on. The "persistence in belief in God(s) results in the increasing possibility that" humans are not always rational, a fact confirmed by your argument in this thread. Extraneous fluff ...
I think it would very simply be (societies chance of being right) x (societies belief in a god) = probability where each vairable ranges from 0 to 1 (the %/100). The number for societies belief could just be a poll that find the percentage believing in god. The problem is that you can't calculate the chance of them being right, and an estimate would just be a guess. You can't base it on the amount we know about the universe because the existance of God is a unique problem. We know much more about science then we used to, but not much more about philosophy(or the existance of God). I think it might be easier to prove that you can not prove or disprove god. I'll try later. Just for entertainment, ways not to mathematicall prove thisPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! : http://www.nwinfo.net/~ahtanum/Proof.html http://www.angelfire.com/az2/submission/proof.html http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~eet23/godproof.html http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/els/tsld010.htm
pers What could the phrase "persists with inverse relationship to modernization" possibly mean? Let's pretend that you actually meant to say something like: "persists in the face of, and in spite of, modernization". <HR> Then, let's pretend you knew what the sentence meant the first time. "Not all this could have happened without God," is the basis of too many arguments. There are ways to deduce the odds of our solar system being so intricately balanced for human life, that it must have been designed or created. The basis of my argument is to face the music based on human perception. Fluff. Well, OK. It is kind of fluffy, and that is part of the argument. Hence, the increasing domain of human perception; is it all its cracked up to be? And, what does our perception have to do with belief in anything? Everything, or nothing?
Re: pers In its most auspicious incarnation it was used to argue against evolution and plate tektonics. What are your favorites? The assertion that the persistence in belief in ( X ) results in the increasing possibility that ( X ) exist is flawed. Get over it.
If I understand your 'model' properly, you are simply stating that the probability of "God" being true is increasing because belief in God is not decreasing as rapidly as 'perception' is increasing. Frankly, it's a rather tenuous and absurd proposition. One critical flaw is that it assumes human belief is rationally based. You're also ignoring the education levels of the entire population. Through science 'human perception' has increased rapidly, however, the bulk of humanity remains ignorant of these developments. Of course, we might also consider that if the Universe, Meta-verse, or God is infinite then human perception will always and evermore remain at 0%. In which case; the probability of God being true is simply dropping all by itself. ~Raithere
"Our Tendency" or "Your Tendency" As noted: I wonder what the differential between mathematicians and life scientists is all about? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh boy... If I understand your 'model' properly, you are simply stating that the probability of "God" being true is increasing because belief in God is not decreasing as rapidly as 'perception' is increasing. Frankly, it's a rather tenuous and absurd proposition. One critical flaw is that it assumes human belief is rationally based. You're also ignoring the education levels of the entire population. Through science 'human perception' has increased rapidly, however, the bulk of humanity remains ignorant of these developments. <HR> <B> You certainly do understand my model. It is at least coherent. Thank you. I never assumed human perception is rational, only increasingly rational. The reason you see the sharp decline in belief in God in the model, is because I tried very hard to be realistic about who I threw into the equation: i.e., a more educated class. If not, the belief numbers would be about 90 percent, which I can prove by throwing in the Nation of Islam. (population: billions) But, we were trying to be rational. The bulk of humanity was tossed out of the cross-section. For you to call my argument tenuos and absurd is an irrational statement based on your own perception of what is relative in this situation. I find human perception to be the most fundamental part of human nature, because it is so flawed. If we find the very flaws of human nature to be irrelavent, we must also find the positive traits we possess irrelavent. There is no such thing as an objective argument. All human intervention, especially data collected about something as subjective as human beliefs, is by nature of degrees, irrational and flawed. We cannot separate theism and atheism from humanity; we cannot separate rational or irrational thought from humanity. In doing so, we would inhibit our own perception of the world around us by limiting our range of study and exploration. I could apply some very tired and overused examples of mathematical probability already laid down before me. I'm not going to hash any of this over, anymore. You can take with you get out of this. I'm done.
One studies life, and one is about as far removed as possible. Does it say something that the people who study life are less likely to believe in god then those who study mathmatics? I think it is because those who study life sciences are more likely to believe in evolution, and they believe that this somehow disproves God.
CA "Our Tendency" refers to the cross-section of society, to which we all belong. You are human, aren't you? In 1916, the most educated of scientists probably held very similar beliefs to scientists today. There was more pressure and prejudice in those days, and those people feel more free to express their personal beliefs today than they would have even 20 years ago. The same is true of homosexuals, who finally feel the burden of their 'secrets' lifting in a more liberal society. I bet the mathematicians have a better imagination. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
