Probability of God

[mr friendly guy]

Since a lot of Creationist likes to use probabilities in a failed attempt to disprove evolution, I was wondering if you can't use some of their own "logic" and rhetoric against them.

For example

1. Since we don't have absolute knowledge, those who believe in God do so on faith. Atheists however also take their beliefs on faith (despite failure of the other side to provide evidence) because one needs absolute knowledge to be sure God doesn't exist, and if you had absolute knowledge you would be God (standard Christian rhetorical bullshit).

2. However the next best thing to do is to take probabilities.

3. Since we don't have absolute knowledge and with lack of evidence for atheism or theism, they are given equal probabilities. Since there is no possibility of a 3rd option as they are mutually exclusive, each one has 50% probability (if new evidence came about supporting one side or the other, the probabilities would obviously change).

4. The option of theism is broken down into several "suboptions". This simply represents the multitude of religious beliefs with differing Creator myths eg Aboriginal tribal myths which don't have a God like equivalent and Judeo-Christian-Islam omnipotent, omniscient God.

In fact I can break this down into as many suboptions as the human mind can conceive (ie approaching infinity). I can conceive of myths where God gets killed by a human as his body is used to make the universe (ripping off the killing of the dragon Tiamat story), or God gets eaten by Rye's magic dragon, or God gets killed by a Saint of Killers like entity.

In short, the theism option can be broken into several suboptions in which God exists or which God doesn't (because he never did or was killed). Since we don't have more evidence to support one myth over the other, they are assigned equal probabilities.

5. The probability of God (as defined by the Bible) is infintessimally small (50% divided by the vast number of other possible religious beliefs). Even if we were generous and worked out the probability of God as defined by the multitude of different Christian interpretations (ie moderates, Fundies, those who vaguely belief in a higher power), the probability would still be small.

6. Probability of atheism greater than probability of God (which is so small it doesn't happen <using that Creationist line about evolution>). Thus atheism is taken on our best logical reasoning while those who believe in God do so on faith - after all, if you flipped a coin you would guess it lands on either heads or tails and not on its edge.

Comments.

[Zero]

The major flaw is saying that the atheist and theist position are equally likely, and then going on to claim that all subsets of belief in God fell into the same 50%. I see no reason, following the 'each possibility has an equal probability' logic, to seperate atheism from the infinite theistic beliefs.

I don't think you can actually assign a probabalistic value to beliefs which have no basis at all. I don't see how it can be measured.

[The Guid]

Since a lot of Creationist likes to use probabilities in a failed attempt to disprove evolution, I was wondering if you can't use some of their own "logic" and rhetoric against them.

For example

1. Since we don't have absolute knowledge, those who believe in God do so on faith. Atheists however also take their beliefs on faith (despite failure of the other side to provide evidence) because one needs absolute knowledge to be sure God doesn't exist, and if you had absolute knowledge you would be God (standard Christian rhetorical bullshit).

2. However the next best thing to do is to take probabilities.

3. Since we don't have absolute knowledge and with lack of evidence for atheism or theism, they are given equal probabilities. Since there is no possibility of a 3rd option as they are mutually exclusive, each one has 50% probability (if new evidence came about supporting one side or the other, the probabilities would obviously change).

4. The option of theism is broken down into several "suboptions". This simply represents the multitude of religious beliefs with differing Creator myths eg Aboriginal tribal myths which don't have a God like equivalent and Judeo-Christian-Islam omnipotent, omniscient God.

In fact I can break this down into as many suboptions as the human mind can conceive (ie approaching infinity). I can conceive of myths where God gets killed by a human as his body is used to make the universe (ripping off the killing of the dragon Tiamat story), or God gets eaten by Rye's magic dragon, or God gets killed by a Saint of Killers like entity.

In short, the theism option can be broken into several suboptions in which God exists or which God doesn't (because he never did or was killed). Since we don't have more evidence to support one myth over the other, they are assigned equal probabilities.

5. The probability of God (as defined by the Bible) is infintessimally small (50% divided by the vast number of other possible religious beliefs). Even if we were generous and worked out the probability of God as defined by the multitude of different Christian interpretations (ie moderates, Fundies, those who vaguely belief in a higher power), the probability would still be small.

6. Probability of atheism greater than probability of God (which is so small it doesn't happen <using that Creationist line about evolution>). Thus atheism is taken on our best logical reasoning while those who believe in God do so on faith - after all, if you flipped a coin you would guess it lands on either heads or tails and not on its edge.

Comments.

I like it? . My gosh, the Fundies aren't going to have to have FAITH are they?

Of course they will come back with evidence that God does exist: Anything from Bible quotations, miracles around the world, Occam's Razor (no... seriously... I wish I was kidding), even Intelligent Design to prove their point that God definitely does exist. Therefore you don't start from the 50:50 position.

Make me chuckle though.

[petesampras]

3. Since we don't have absolute knowledge and with lack of evidence for atheism or theism, they are given equal probabilities. Since there is no possibility of a 3rd option as they are mutually exclusive, each one has 50% probability (if new evidence came about supporting one side or the other, the probabilities would obviously change).

I would disagree that it follows from theism / athiesm being an either or choice that you can thus assign 50 percent to each possiblity.

Am I holding a red marble? Either I am or I am not. Two possibilities. Mutually exclusive, so by point (3) we assign 50 percent to each.

Am I holding a marble? Either I am or I am not. Two possibilities.
Mutually exclusive, so by point (3) we assign 50 percent to each.

Thus if I am holding a marble it must be red.

[mr friendly guy]

The major flaw is saying that the atheist and theist position are equally likely,

I based this on the claim by Christian apologist that both theism and atheism are taken on faith because neither has absolute knowledge and neither has evidence to support it. If each has no evidence to support themselves, but no 3rd option is available, then we should assign equal probabilities until more evidence comes out.

We deal with probabilities because we don't have enough information to make it certainties.

Keep in mind though, such people don't care about evidence and inductive reasoning. A claim to them is possible even if no evidence supports it, but its only impossible if we can disprove it. So by even assigning a probability to it, I am already being generous.

and then going on to claim that all subsets of belief in God fell into the same 50%.

They can't fall under the atheism subset since atheism is the absence of any religious belief. They fall under the theism.

Or to put it another way either a supernatural creator exists or he/she/it/they don't. If a supernatural creator does exists, which one. Either its zeus, God, Odin etc.

I see no reason, following the 'each possibility has an equal probability' logic, to seperate atheism from the infinite theistic beliefs.

Ok, I will try and explain it then. Each theistic possibility has an atheistic equivalent, ie Odin is the creator, Odin doesn't exist. For atheism it needs all supernatural creators to not exists, so each of these small probabilities is added up to make the probability of atheism.

Let me use a casino analogy. Think of a roulette wheel (European roulette has 37 numbers, 18 odd numbers, 18 even numbers and 0). For the sake of argument lets pretend you got sold a defective wheel without the zero. Now each odd number has an even equivalent ( I will define the even equivalent as the number one more than its odd equivalent).

The probability of getting the number 3 is 1/36. The probability of getting its even equivalent (4) is also 1/36. If the odd numbers represent various theistic possibilities and the even represent its atheistic equivalent each number has a 1/36 chance of occuring. However if I chose to bet on even numbers only, my odds of winning are 18/36 = 50%. The odds are much higher than if I chose a specific number.

Now imagine the wheel has much higher numbers (but the total number of even numbers = the total number of odd numbers). The chance of getting a specific odd number approaches 0 the more numbers we have. But the chances of getting even numbers remain at 50%.

I don't think you can actually assign a probabalistic value to beliefs which have no basis at all. I don't see how it can be measured.

But you see, apologists don't care about evidence. No evidence is good enough because they will use the " you can't have absolute knowledge therefore it might be possible" bullshit. I am assigning a probabililty because "it might be possible" and I don't have "absolute knowledge" (If I did I wouldn't be dealing with probabilities. Instead I would be dealing with certainties). I assign an equal probability because I have no evidence one is more probable than the other.

[mr friendly guy]

3. Since we don't have absolute knowledge and with lack of evidence for atheism or theism, they are given equal probabilities. Since there is no possibility of a 3rd option as they are mutually exclusive, each one has 50% probability (if new evidence came about supporting one side or the other, the probabilities would obviously change).

I would disagree that it follows from theism / athiesm being an either or choice that you can thus assign 50 percent to each possiblity.

Am I holding a red marble? Either I am or I am not. Two possibilities. Mutually exclusive, so by point (3) we assign 50 percent to each.

Am I holding a marble? Either I am or I am not. Two possibilities.
Mutually exclusive, so by point (3) we assign 50 percent to each.

Thus if I am holding a marble it must be red.

That's why we have to take the broadest "umbrella" you can. For example using your "ired marble analogy". You should use either I am holding something in my hand or I am not. If I am holding something in my hand what is it? A red marble perhaps (in which case the probabily of holding a red marble is less than the probability of holding something, anything in your hand).

You should be comparing something to nothing, not a specific something to nothing. That would be like me saying either God is the supernatural creator or he doesn't exist. So if we did have a supernatural creator it must be God (why not zeus, odin or vishnu?).

Keep in mind that the probabilities for your red marble analogy would not be arbitarily assigned 50% because unlike atheism vs theism, there are other factors that can change the probability - for example if you are a marble collector, the odds of a red marble would increase.

[petesampras]

They can't fall under the atheism subset since atheism is the absence of any religious belief. They fall under the theism.

Or to put it another way either a supernatural creator exists or he/she/it/they don't. If a supernatural creator does exists, which one. Either its zeus, God, Odin etc.

But supernatural creator beliefs (theism if you will) fall under the subset of general supernatural beliefs. Presumably there is also a split between those that adhere strictly to the scientfic method and those who hold some supernatural beliefs. If we apply 50 percent rule to both we run into an issue, in that there is a 50 percent chance of creator supernatural being true and 50 percent chance of any supernatural being true.

I guess the question is - at what levels of classification do you allow the 50/50 split and where do you deny it. Why would Christian / Non-Christian not be a 50/50 split and Athiest / Thiest be one?

[mr friendly guy]

But supernatural creator beliefs (theism if you will) fall under the subset of general supernatural beliefs.

True, however since theism vs atheism is only primarily interested in supernatural beliefs which involve some form of Creator, the other supernatural beliefs (eg say ghosts) need not be considered.

Presumably there is also a split between those that adhere strictly to the scientfic method and those who hold some supernatural beliefs.

How the supernatural being helps with creation is irrelevant to this issue. For example if you are a theistic evolutionist, one who believes God gave evolution a helping hand to create humans, you would still be classified as a theist. If you are an atheist who acknowledges abiogenesis and evolution, then you would still be classified as an atheist. Both acknowledge evolution, but they are still classified as a theist or atheist respectively.

I should clarify that the atheist/ theist split is concerned with 1) is there a supernatural creator and by extension this supernatural being must have had a hand in our creation.

If we apply 50 percent rule to both we run into an issue, in that there is a 50 percent chance of creator supernatural being true and 50 percent chance of any supernatural being true.

I guess the question is - at what levels of classification do you allow the 50/50 split and where do you deny it. Why would Christian / Non-Christian not be a 50/50 split and Athiest / Thiest be one?

The reason I can split theism and atheism 50/50 is that for every theistic possibility eg God, Zeus, Flying sphaghetti monster, there is also an equal number of atheistic possibility eg no God, no Zeus etc.

If I tried splitting it with Christian / non Christian, there will not be equal possibilities on each side. For example the Christian side will have God. The non Christian side will have zeus, FSM, Odin as well as the no God option.

[wolveraptor]

The problem is, many creation myths have direct evidence against them. For example: in the Norse belief system, clouds are presumed to be the brains of the father of the frost giants. However, we know that clouds are merely condensed water vapor, and that their number constantly changes. How can the amount of cranial matter increase and decrease at a whim? You can't say magic since the Norse made no explanation of this whatsoever, and giving a supernatural explanation would be your own extrapolation, not the Norse's.

They also said that Frost Giants lived in the South: however, it can be shown that none exist. Asgard is also thought to lie to the North: it does not.

The Bible says that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. This can be objectively shown to be false. God would not be God as defined by the Bible if he did not do that. Another myth knocked down.

[mr friendly guy]

Keep in mind though, various interpretations of God exists. Arguments like Wolveraptors which knock down fundies, may not affect apologists who can try to reconcile (poorly) the blatant contradictions.

However the "probability of Go"d argument is designed for those apologists who cry "no absolute knowledge" line, and who shout that line despite the fact overwhelming evidence suggests against God's existence. But remember, you can't be absolutely sure that God isn't playing a trick on you to test your faith. Therefore atheism is also taken on faith, after all, if you had absolute knowledge you would be God.

[Ariphaos]

When christians whip out Pascal's Wager I whip out Gnosticism.

I honestly find the Gnostic branch of Christianity far more salient than the Unitarian/Trinitarian branches.

[wolveraptor]

Keep in mind though, various interpretations of God exists. Arguments like Wolveraptors which knock down fundies, may not affect apologists who can try to reconcile (poorly) the blatant contradictions.

But then you can just say that they aren't describing the God of the Bible, who clearly did this. Then you must create a separate probability interpretations of the Bible, ranging from inerrancy to an almost total rejection of the OT. Of course, all those interpretations that clash with modern science must be discarded. That was my point: the idea of God does not direclty contradict science unless it intervenes in the universe. Basically, the only God which deserves a probability is one that created the universe and then sat on his ass for 15 billion years.

However the "probability of Go"d argument is designed for those apologists who cry "no absolute knowledge" line, and who shout that line despite the fact overwhelming evidence suggests against God's existence. But remember, you can't be absolutely sure that God isn't playing a trick on you to test your faith. Therefore atheism is also taken on faith, after all, if you had absolute knowledge you would be God.

That's not true: almost every ancient God was not omniscient. Notice how in the scriptural writings of every religion, gods become angry, or ask questions. Emotion can only occur with the input of info: gods know all, and knew it an infinite number of years ago. They cannot possibly have fear or desire or anything. And of course, they shouldn't ask questions.

Gods are always omnipotent though (Norse "gods" were really half-giant, and so don't count).

I was just saying that if you want to do an honest intellectual excercise with that counter, and not just a rebuttal which is obviously just as flawed as the apologist's, then you need to consider what I said.

I understand that the rebuttal is supposed to be flawed, as it reveals the theist mindset, just so you know.

[Kuja]

Gods are always omnipotent though (Norse "gods" were really half-giant, and so don't count).

Bzzzt. Off the top of my head is Diomedes from The Illiad stabbing Aphrodite in the hand and forcing her off the battlefield. I think he got away with it, too.

[wolveraptor]

Wasn't that Athena stabbing Ares? What with the "mighty yell that silenced all." when the wuss was hurt? Seriously, Mars kicks so much more ass than Ares. The Romans were more warlike.

Anyways, yeah, I guess polytheistic gods have are omnipotent except when it comes to other Gods, where they have a limited power.

[Kuja]

Wasn't that Athena stabbing Ares? What with the "mighty yell that silenced all." when the wuss was hurt? Seriously, Mars kicks so much more ass than Ares. The Romans were more warlike.

That was another event in the war. Diomedes did it all on his own, though Athena (IIRC) told him he could do it.