The probability of God/(s)

[Zhuge_Liang]

I have noticed (much to my extreme irritation) that the arguments of theists always come back to the fact that God can not be disproven. They then come to the conclusion that this automatically results in it being likely, highly possible or certinly true that god exists.

For that I would direct them to the following statement:

You can not disprove anything's existance. You can not disprove hitler is alive, that santa is real, unicorns, butrotters, purple pandas, anything. Using this fact as an argument for the existence of something is not just weak, but idiotic as it has no impact on the probability of existence.

Science can not disprove anything's existance, but can present the likeliness in terms of probability which I will now try to do in terms everybody can understand based on Richard Dawkin's God Delusion.

First we need to consider the following assuming there is a god:

God needs to create the universe, everything in it, design it such that it is precisely the way we observe it to be today, fake scientific findings like dinosaurs, fossils, the advanced laws of physics so that heathens will be mislead into atheism, develop an individual plan for all six billion of us, those who were alive before and those who will follow, (and potentially any other life out there which he would have created as a gimick I presume), exist throughout time but interfere at any time of his choosing, maintain our "free will" and make the whole thing look like it happened naturally. Considering omniscience, god's complexity would have to be infinite. Infinite complexity is infinitely improbable. Then we have to consider the fact that god existing before existance in order to create existance is simply as close to impossible as you can get. Multiply that by the fact that compared to something of finite improbabilty, an infinitely complex being spontaneously coming into existence is essentially impossible.

That means that the probability of god existing in probability terms is essentially impossible to the power of essentially impossible. In short you can be infinately more sure that god doesn't exist than you can that the very universe we are living in exists at all. Put another way, you can't be more sure of anything else.

That is unless of course some proof presents itself , but if I were a theist I wouldn't hold my breath.

I respect people's religious choices (provided THEY choose them), all I am asking is that this is respected as a valid argument for why people are atheists and that they be equally respected.

[Chaigidel]

I am glad you are so caught up in this most simplistic of problems

produce evidence that increases the likely hood that god does not exist

produce any at all.

I am not asking you to prove it does not exist; Im asking you to prove that any scientific theorem decreases the likelihood of a supreme being.

I agree completely if you look at it with the creationist 6k years etc nonesense sure thats disprovable but overall it does nothing to speak for or against the likelihood of a god of some understanding a supreme being so to speak


and how do you know that an infinite is not possible? do you have the math or science to back up that arbitrary declaration?

[Zhuge_Liang]

I am glad you are so caught up in this most simplistic of problems

produce evidence that increases the likely hood that god does not exist

produce any at all.

I am not asking you to prove it does not exist; Im asking you to prove that any scientific theorem decreases the likelihood of a supreme being.

I agree completely if you look at it with the creationist 6k years etc nonesense sure thats disprovable but overall it does nothing to speak for or against the likelihood of a god of some understanding a supreme being so to speak

From this you have misunderstood my post.

A creator such at the christian god is as close to impossible as is possible TO THE POWER of as close to impossible as is possible. Any form of omniscience is just as close to impossible as is posisble.

In either case you can be more sure of that than the universe itself existing right now. These proven probabilities are based on all scientific fact.

[wannaleadguitar?]

im w/ Chaigidel, even though im a noob at this

[Chaigidel]

yes you keep repeating that but you cannot produce the scientific facts; an interesting position to be in.

yes you cannot accept the simplification of the human mind you must understand god with a scientific mind; the creator myths are all legitimate paths of study but only barely scratch the surface of the nature of god; the holy texts are useful in a metaphorical sense for understanding the supreme but still one must endeavor to look deeply to understand anything at all.

God and no God are equally likely within logic--- that the choice of atheism is equal to a choice of faith-- since you have no proof in either direction.

If you can produce even the smallest back up for your arguement I will be impressed; but the fact is no natural law or science; has anything to say about the likelyhood or unlikelyhood of god.(directly and thats what we are dealing with because inferrences are obviously personal)

[Zhuge_Liang]

yes you keep repeating that but you cannot produce the scientific facts; an interesting position to be in.

yes you cannot accept the simplification of the human mind you must understand god with a scientific mind; the creator myths are all legitimate paths of study but only barely scratch the surface of the nature of god; the holy texts are useful in a metaphorical sense for understanding the supreme but still one must endeavor to look deeply to understand anything at all.

Can you present one shread of evidence for god's existance? Scientifically verified evidence? The onus is on you to do so.

Go now and find it, post it here and all of my comments will be withdrawn by myself, I promise.

On the off chance ( ) that you don't find any I'll be waiting here for you to acknowledge that atheism deserves some respect, though I imagine such a simple, civil, logical thing is beyond most theists.

[Chaigidel]

I am not trying too-- I can produce evidence that science does not consider the question though if you would like me too?

I respect atheists fully its the only reason I like to argue with you chaps; but you have no facts to back you up just like the theist; it is all personal choices and inferrences rather than fact is my point.

the facts of science dictate that the question is irrelevant totally, this does not mean god is or is not; just that it doesnt matter to figuring out the processes of the universe.

[Zhuge_Liang]

I am not trying too-- I can produce evidence that science does not consider the question though if you would like me too?

I respect atheists fully its the only reason I like to argue with you chaps; but you have no facts to back you up just like the theist; it is all personal choices and inferrences rather than fact is my point.

the facts of science dictate that the question is irrelevant totally, this does not mean god is or is not; just that it doesnt matter to figuring out the processes of the universe.

On the contrary, if god exists then considering it is intrinsic to understanding the universe itself.

I also disagree with a lack of evidence against, because all of science is against (every scientific fact that explains something and doesn't result in god as the answer is against god becaue god is supposed to be everything) and it will be until something happens that inverts the probability.

I also disagree that it doesn't matter. It is important to question, it is the only way we learn and from the view point of an atheist escpaing religion is one of the most liberating things possible.

It is fun to debate, but what you consider to be facts is questionable at best.

[Lou5je]

Yes, Chaigidel, debating is fun, as long as you don't fall into the trap of using logical fallacies as arguments. Especially when you talk about using logic.

I respect atheists fully its the only reason I like to argue with you chaps; but you have no facts to back you up just like the theist; it is all personal choices and inferrences rather than fact is my point.

This is a logical fallacy known as Ad ignorantiam, or the argument from ignorance, which states that a belief is true just because we can't prove that it isn't true. This is the most serious of the fallacies I have detected in your posts so far.
You see, your theories from faith (beliefs) and scientific theories (theories) don't have the same chance of being true - or even credible - if you can't provide any evidence whatsoever. You seem to know that there is a God. How do you know that? You really can't get to that conclusion by the rigorous application of solid logic on nothing.

So you take your hypothesis ('there is a God') and instead of subjecting it to any sort of logical analysis, you bring to the fore disjointed babble about how only after thousands of years can Man know his Maker, who in your view seems to be a vague compilation of everything. Yes, it becomes a lot easier to defend things that as of yet have not been proven to have a factual basis if you make them obliquely spiritual enough.
God is omniscient, God is everything, the divine truth encompasses everything... You've stretched your definition of the word God so far that you might as well say that 'the Universe is God'. If that is the case, please just call it what rational people call it: the Universe.

That's where your second logical fallacy comes in: confusing the currently unexplained with the unexplainable, also known as the God of the Gaps. In the face of scientific progress that can't be denied, religious moderates (i.e.: don't shun electricity, don't believe the Earth is 5000 years old) water down their convictions to fit the gaps that are still there.

Do not take offence at the contents of this post, but if you present yourself as a logical thinker who wishes to engage in a proper debate, you should know that the logical fallacies in your arguments will be pointed out to you. There were a few more, as there were bound to be, but I shall not bore you with those. I think my point has been made.

As a side note: 'atheism' isn't a doctrine. 'Atheists' aren't a homogenous group of people with a shared set of moral convictions. The only binding factor, and the only sense in which the word can be used to classify them as a group, is the fact that they don't believe in a god or gods.

Finally, I would like to leave you with the following; a picture that illustrates rather clearly the differences between the scientific approach and the religious approach. It expounds on things like hypotheses and theories and I believe it could be of use to you.

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png

[Chaigidel]

I agree its fun to debate. I do not think you have a proper grasp of facts, as is obvious since you disagree with me ;

so you think that god would be so simple as to be an answer in the form of = this guy

this is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of god-- if something is all knowing etc; it would necessarily be outside of your limited perception and understanding

so limited as to take thousands of years and thousands of minds to even begin to sort out the nature of the divine( and the nature of the divine is being revealed in theoretical physics)

I agree you must first shake all religion and be without to understand your place in this world and what it is exactly that you are.

I simply think that a third step exists in that mental process of liberation; and atheism does not take that proper and logical step.

no if god is the foundation of the universe then it will Eventually become intrinsic to understanding but as it sits; there is no logical need or ability for beings within an infinite being to properly divulge the nature of that being; until we have reached the pinnacle of all our understanding --- because you do not understand the root of a thing at the outset-- the root of a thing is only found when you dig until your fingers bleed( you can also use a shovel or ho perhaps a small trowel)

In addition if something was the Ultimate of Ultimates so to speak then it would necessarily be infinitely outside of our understanding -- there fore it must be existing somewhat before us ; a moment that precedes the moment --- God is the Crest of a Moment-- we exist just behind its Wake folding space time in the void of voids :x

[Zhuge_Liang]

I agree its fun to debate. I do not think you have a proper grasp of facts, as is obvious since you disagree with me ;

so you think that god would be so simple as to be an answer in the form of = this guy

this is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of god-- if something is all knowing etc; it would necessarily be outside of your limited perception and understanding

so limited as to take thousands of years and thousands of minds to even begin to sort out the nature of the divine( and the nature of the divine is being revealed in theoretical physics)

I agree you must first shake all religion and be without to understand your place in this world and what it is exactly that you are.

I simply think that a third step exists in that mental process of liberation; and atheism does not take that proper and logical step.

no if god is the foundation of the universe then it will Eventually become intrinsic to understanding but as it sits; there is no logical need or ability for beings within an infinite being to properly divulge the nature of that being; until we have reached the pinnacle of all our understanding --- because you do not understand the root of a thing at the outset-- the root of a thing is only found when you dig until your fingers bleed( you can also use a shovel or ho perhaps a small trowel)

I actually largely agree with this (except the start), because this is how science works, though you do seem to be leaning well away from god in it's traditional definitions.

Right now the "big questions" science is asking can be answered in a number of ways, the leading theories (with the proof) or god (no proof). Science takes the theory with the most proof and goes with it until something better comes along and discounts the theories which are disproven.

It still doesn't change the real facts.

Although god is one posible answer it has no evidence in its favor. Given that it may not exist at all then it can never be discounted or disproven (not an argument which increases the likelihood), this means it can only be measured in terms of probability. As I demonstrated the porbability is as low as can be. This will remian the case until evidence in favor of god's existence is discovered, if ever.

So this all demonstrates my stand point all along. The proof backs up the scientific theories and the probability of god existing is infinately low.

I am open minded and look forward to a discovery that goes beyond our comprehension, but a god, as defined in this day and age is as close to impossible as we can ever be sure of.

[Chaigidel]

god will not be a necessity of proof until we have long ago broken the bonds of gravity and beyond-- and by then we will likely know it differently, but the facts will remain as you say and even though we rename God--- It remains God.

again you have proven nothing because you cannot postulate on the existence of god in any form-- now you can say the probability of FSM is infinitely low because you have applied a form to contextualize its existence

gods being will necessarily be outside of our ability to calibrate with our minds-- thus any characteristic you assign will be a misnomer, or rather improper because for something to be everywhere and all powerful it cannot have a form that we would likely understand. other than the form of the universe; again fitting the definition -- this is beside the point though.

let me reiterate-- I am not asking for proof god does not exist; I am asking you to prove that science gives any support to the idea-- and you cannot because it does not --- when something is labeled "indeterminate" that does not mean "indeterminate with low probability" it means simply indeterminate.

and science is indeterminate on the question of god.--- thus atheism is an equal belief to thinking god exists
you must remain totally neutral in order to support the scientific position-- and that is pure agnosticism.

[Zhuge_Liang]

god will not be a necessity of proof until we have long ago broken the bonds of gravity and beyond-- and by then we will likely know it differently, but the facts will remain as you say and even though we rename God--- It remains God.

again you have proven nothing because you cannot postulate on the existence of god in any form-- now you can say the probability of FSM is infinitely low because you have applied a form to contextualize its existence

gods being will necessarily be outside of our ability to calibrate with our minds-- thus any characteristic you assign will be a misnomer, or rather improper because for something to be everywhere and all powerful it cannot have a form that we would likely understand. other than the form of the universe; again fitting the definition -- this is beside the point though.

let me reiterate-- I am not asking for proof god does not exist; I am asking you to prove that science gives any support to the idea-- and you cannot because it does not --- when something is labeled "indeterminate" that does not mean "indeterminate with low probability" it means simply indeterminate.

and science is indeterminate on the question of god.--- thus atheism is an equal belief to thinking god exists
you must remain totally neutral in order to support the scientific position-- and that is pure agnosticism.

I'm glad you are starting to agree. I have finally made my point, however you neglect the probability and due to the paradox of anti-proof, it is all we need to go on.

With regards to contextualising, of course I must! It is not right that religions change the definition of god to suit what is possible, soon it will become something other than god, which is actaully what you are talking about now.

[Chaigidel]

again like everyone else you miss the simplest of points --- I am only saying the position of agnosticism is the only one that can claim science, yet you all blindly proclaim it in favor of atheism.

It is no such thing; I did not make an arguement from ignorance I am making the arguement of Science, of the Facts--- if you dont have facts you dont make a choice.

but I disagree atheism is another mind trap like religion and it will claim many people-- it is pure idiocy.

I am glad that we can agree that there is a God then.

[Lou5je]

Yes, in principle, no truth can ever be fully known, and nothing can ever be fully disproved. What a cheap trick.

However, this would make a completely unfounded belief in a deity into what is known as idle speculation.

I'm guessing a lot of religious people wouldn't be very happy with that.

[Zhuge_Liang]

again like everyone else you miss the simplest of points --- I am only saying the position of agnosticism is the only one that can claim science, yet you all blindly proclaim it in favor of atheism.

It is no such thing; I did not make an arguement from ignorance I am making the arguement of Science, of the Facts--- if you dont have facts you dont make a choice.

but I disagree atheism is another mind trap like religion and it will claim many people-- it is pure idiocy.

I am glad that we can agree that there is a God then.

Hardly,

You are simply shifting the defintion of god into possible realms where is looses all properties associated with being a "god". If anything you have agreed with the fact that it is virtaully impossible and are searching for some form of alternative to a god (which I am open to, such as evolving into nothingness). But unfortunately I am mortal and have grown tired, I hope to continue this tomorrow.

I would also advise you not to choose when and when not to use science to suit you. Saying it is measurable, then unmeasurable, you have made a large number of contradictions.

[Chaigidel]

lol you dodge the point yet again
I am not making the arguement that you seemed prepared to defend against.

you have an equation a+b=c now you dont know a and you dont know b and you dont know c, is it logical to say you have any idea what the answer is or even what its likely going to be? atheists seem to think so and science doesnt ( so do theists but im arguing you are equally illogical)

[Lou5je]

Word games. It's now become clear that you've been steering this thing ever so subtly towards the unknowability argument, and logically speaking, this would mean you're correct.

Still, you're playing word games around how many atheists choose to phrase their disbelief: "There is no God".

Fine, I will bite and define my own atheism.

Based on the lack of evidence for the God hypothesis, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a supreme deity. I can not prove conclusively that there is no such being, but I consider myself to have reasonable doubts. Furthermore, I see much scientific evidence that contests specific core- and other beliefs of different religions.

And now, I'm going to bed. Had no idea that I had stumbled into an ongoing live-debate here.

[Chaigidel]

and I completely support your choice in that matter and respect it-- this was merely a discussion of equality of choice-- as a theist I know I have chosen my belief given the evidence I think I have-- I know that I could be wrong, im not worried about that; I have made a choice.

the god I believe in is based on my understanding of the facts of science because I believe them to be the greatest things mankind has ever created; or rather discovered--so I like to base my beliefs on them ( scientific theorems)
good arguements all, highly productive in my mind

and in context is is unmeasurable to my mind now; but I acknowledge the perspective can change and it may come to be known as measurable ( both the universe and god)

[Zhuge_Liang]

and I completely support your choice in that matter and respect it-- this was merely a discussion of equality of choice-- as a theist I know I have chosen my belief given the evidence I think I have-- I know that I could be wrong, im not worried about that; I have made a choice.

the god I believe in is based on my understanding of the facts of science because I believe them to be the greatest things mankind has ever created; or rather discovered--so I like to base my beliefs on them ( scientific theorems)
good arguements all, highly productive in my mind

and in context is is unmeasurable to my mind now; but I acknowledge the perspective can change and it may come to be known as measurable ( both the universe and god)

Yes, productive and enjoyable debate, we must continue some time as i think we still have much more to discuss, but this time i really am away to bed.

p.s. it makes me very happy to hear a theist say what you say about respecting other's choices and being open minded, it was all i asked for at the beginning of the debate. Others could do with following suit.