Probability of God

The best you could get with an honest answer is 50-50, because there is not evidence for or against the existence. For this reason agnostic is the most logical possition.It is interesting to see that Dawkins has also addressed this issue:http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html The article is much longer and goes into most of the creationist and ID probability arguments to rebute them, he then concludes that having done so that the probability is very low.Now I count Dawkins as truly more of an anti-theist than an atheist, as his position is extreme to the point of an equal certainty of belief of many theists.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why do the physical laws continue to stay in place and work? Dawkins, as smart as he must be, didn't think maybe God was not only the creator but the sustainer of the universe? Of course, from God's perspective they are one in the same. I believe everything exists in the mind of God. Now for there to be a 50/50 chance that God exists, you would have to have two possible outcomes and an event to actualize one of them. God is one possible outcome and no God is the other. What "event" could serve to select God over no God, especially since God is assumed to be the creator of time and space in which all events take place?The best we can do, as I tried to say in my previous post, is to try and find the probability that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Its like walking into a room and seeing a stack of dominoes all pushed over with four people standing in front of the first one and saying there is a 1 in 4 chance guy (A) started the chain going. Guy (A) representing the supreme being. I'm not sure what guys (B),(C), and (D) symbolize since no one has proposed an alternative to a supreme being.

Actually the problem with this {probability question} is the same as all the other "improbable probability" arguments: there is no way to know enough about the systems to properly calculate the probability without knowing enough about the systems to know the answer.For instance, it is easy to calculate the probability of a throw of dice, because you can know all the different combinations.Beyond that you are guessing, and the accuracy of the calculation depends on the validity of the guessing.What event will answer the question? Death. A flip of a coin ...Enjoy your class, I had fun with it. Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The Probability of only one god = 1 minus probability of no god minus the probability of more than one god.That said, probability arguments can be telling. However they can also lead to some truly weird situations. For example, consider the Probability of randomly selecting a given digit value from the infinite number of digits in some irrational number's decimal expansion. Let me construct such a number in this way decimal pnt, one, zero, one, zero, zero, one, zero, zero, zero, etc where each time one occurs it is followed by one more zero than the last time it occurred. In no# form we have .10100100010000... It never starts repeating from any location. Thus, it is irrational. It contains a infinite number of one's and zero's, and yet the probability of randomly selecting a 1 across the whole irrational number is 0!Here's why: take any finite sequence ending in 1 of the irrational number that starts at the decimal and has at least one zero. Count the number of 1's in the sequence and subtract one from that total. So lets say that we count N 1's, our number is thus (N - 1). Because of how the irrational number is constructed, the number of 0's will equal 1+2+3+...+(N-1) in the finite sequence we just studied. Now the sum 1+2+3+...+(N-1) is (N-1)*(N)/2 or (N^2 - N)/2. Adding the number of 1's (N) to the number of 0's (N^2 - N)/2, we get (N^2 + N)/2.The probability of randomly selecting one of the N 1's in the finite sequence we are studying is equal to the number of 1's in the sequence (N) divided by the numbers in the sequence (N^2 + N)/2. Thus the probability of selecting a 1 is equal to 2N/(N^2 + N) or 2/(N+1). This number decreases as N increases. And using a bit of first year calculus: The limit of 2/(N+1) as N approaches infinity which is equal to 0.

Im a 3rd year calc student and I understand your proof but this topic has a much simplier answer then choosing a single digit in an irrational fraction. There are only two possibilities, there either is a god or their isn't, making the probably 50-50.

Just like winning the lottery, you will or you won't. 50-50.

Atheist, eh?
I would say that p(God) = {infinite}
Now that our extremes have been defined, lets get down to some real number crunching.

I have no idea how you would actually crunch the numbers. And I don't think that you do either given that a probability must have a value in the interval [0, 1].And I think you need to work out if you are going for an epistemic probability or the actual probability. The epistemic probability would probably more tractable but is still faced with immense difficulties.

West: probability is never quite as it appears. In my example, there are a transfinite one's and yet the probability of randomly selecting a one is zero. On the other hand say I select with prior knowledge, in that case I choose the 1st digit and I have done the "impossible." Zero probability does not mean impossible in all cases (especially when infinites come into play). I would say that the probability of this universe is more or less exactly zero (indeed I personally believe on faith that if we had all the knowledge needed that it would turn out to be exactly zero with no variance). The same goes for GOD. Sure I believe in God, but I also believe on faith that the probability of God is most likely zero (again given that zero probability does not mean impossible).On your claim that the Probability is "50/50." Probability depends upon more than true/not true relationships. For example, the probability of rolling a sum of 2 on 2 fair dice is 0.0277777777... (1/36th) even through either you roll the sum of 2 or you don't. Indeed it is ever so slightly more likely that choosing a human that rundom from those living in North America would result in a female rather than a male even through those are the only two possible answers.This message has been edited by thgar, 11-26-2004 09:14 PM

butone problem could be that they are all representations of the same god, but the differences is due to human inability to comprehend, from early views to more sophisticated later views we are still ... "limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand"there are certainly many practices in a variety of religions that are similar even though the "mythos" of the beliefs are quite different.just some food for thought?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

In this case since you cant physically toss a dice it isnt a physical probability, is only theoretical and its still 50-50. Probabliity means nothing its just a guess based upon what the possible outcomes are. Even if you say the probability is 100 percent it doesnt mean anything unless you can produce some physical evidence proving there is a God and the bible does nothing to prove the existance of god it just states what God is just like Darwin's Origin of the Species states what evolution is but doesnt really prove it.

God's will is not always followed. Humans have the ability (freedom) to disobey.Beginning in Genesis, there is the disobedience of Adam and Eve and the slaying of Abel by Cain.You can find all manner of examples (in the Bible) of disobedience and wickedness, even by people that had talked with God (directly or indirectly).So the existence of evil or atrocities does not disprove God. On the contrary, it is consistent with the bible.

Perhaps one way you could try to figure out probabilities is to put all the evidence that there is a God on one side and the evidence that there is no God on the other. The problem is that there is no real evidence one way or the other.But for what it's worth, I can tell you why I have sometimes thought that there MIGHT be a God:
1. the fact that we appear to have minds.
2. the fact that I have a vivid conscience.And for what it's worth, I can tell you why I have sometimes thought that there MIGHT be no God:
1. all the events of life appear to be ultimately accidental.
2. the history of religion tells us that legends about the Gods gradually accumulate and grow more extreme over time (legends about Jesus, for example).
3. All the arguments for the existence of God have logical flaws.So I guess 3/2 that there is no God.

I personally don't think one can measure the probability of a God by using the natural. Instead you should use what is supernatural to measure the supernatural and the natural to measure the natural. You can measure the things we can observe and test and study by things like mathematical statistics, but for a supernatural being we would use facts that are not explained by science. Things such as healings and possible sightings of things from the supernatural realm.

which one?and you are also leaving out all the non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-singular, non-gendered, noncorporal, inexplicable, Creators of the various parts of the universe ...that reduces it somewhat.You could argue that most peole are really atheist by (the numbers of gods they do not believe in less the ones they do) being a quantity greater than zero.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}