Sorry for the multiple edits, accidentally hit submit on the last one before I was ready, and I think my brain is half asleep. Kid has been keeping me up…
Why don’t you quote the entire post! You are being dishonest now.
Are you just trying to be an ass? The atheist position is not “God does not exist.” It is simply not believing in god. The position here is … AS STATED ABOVE…
3 Likes
Sorry, I am not trying to be an ass or dishonest, I am tired.
Agreed, I am not saying that god exists at all, the point of this is arguing with a theist who does not understand the concept of unfalsifiable things and defines god a certain way.
I guess I am trying to understand your point. This is an idea I would like to work through, I am not just trying to argue to win a point. I know that we have had zero trials with god as the resulting answer and I agree. The goal would then be to try to put a statistical estimate around something we haven’t measured based on how it is defined. Just as a baseline, Odds = Prob / (1-Prob), and conversely, Prob = Odds/(1 + Odds).
To me, if somebody says the probability of something existing is zero then that is the exact same as saying that the thing does not exist. If I make up something invisible right now, it doesn’t have to be god, it doesn’t mean that it automatically doesn’t exist and the probability is zero. While somebody cannot assign a specific probability to an invisible thing existing, they can assign a potential range. Let’s pick a group of unfalsifiable things:
A new, specific species of bird existing
An alien species existing that is similar to us
A being with significantly greater mental and physical prowess than humans existing
An all powerful, all knowing god existing
I guess my question is: "Do we then assume the probability of these things existing is zero?**
I agree that none of these things should ever just be assumed to exist. I would argue that the probability of each of these existing is very different. We try to put odds around aliens existing based on an estimated number planets like ours existing. We have no idea if a planet like our exists, but I wouldn’t set the probability of aliens existing at zero. Some theists define their god or gods as a more powerful version of us.
I get into all sorts of wild discussions with creationists who say things like god could exist in an alternate universe and that this is where the energy and mass could have come from. Them inventing more and complicated things to explain theoretically simpler things is a self defeating argument.
1 Like
Ahhhh 
you have kids 
AND they keep you up! Love it 
. Something we have in common - or shared - or can relate to - BUT so can most of the geriatrics on this forum (in filtered memory form) …
1 Like
COG leaves a .0000000000001% of aliens
existing …
"Do we then assume the probability of these things existing is zero?**
A new species of bird probably exists. We find them now and again. (Not the same as a God.)
The probability of aliens existing is ZERO. That does not mean they may not be possible. There is no way to compute probability that I know of but I know some scientists have attempted. Their attempts are pure conjecture using Bayesian inference. Life has happened once.
A being with significantly greater mental and physical prowess than human beings? How many possible planets have we found that can support life nowadays and how many can we eliminate? That number would be 1 in (Whichever planets have not been eliminated.) We can put this with the ‘above.’
We have no evidence leading us to a conclusion of a god existing. We have no evidence of a big bang from nothing. WE DON’T KNOW. Your calculation will just have to wait until we know more. How does one assess the possibility of a Gorok existing someplace in the universe. I don’t know what it is but it is all powerful and responsible for the creation of universes. Blue Universe Creating Bunnies are every bit as probable as a God. They are likely just as possible as well.
"Probability is degree of likelihood that whatever being considered shall in fact transpire, presuming it is not an absolute certainty or impossibility. A branch of maths, probability is a science of calculating those degrees, expressed like an odds-making proportion.
A 1:1 probability is 100% certainty it will occur.
A 1:3 probability means that about one of every three times the process is undertaken, whatever it is will happen. Note: A probability is no guarantee that every third time it will occur for sure, it’s just a guess, an estimate based on calculations/estimates.
1:1,000,000 probability is equivalent to .0001%. This is because percentage (1/100ths) moves the decimal two places to the right. In decimal it is .000001.
A possibility is simply an acknowledgment that something can or may occur. No guess is involved, just the recognition that it is not impossible (obviously).
1 Like
We need to be slightly careful about the difference between possibility and probability. Possibility is a binary concept, something is either possible or impossible. Something impossible has a zero probability and something possible has a non-zero probability.
As you say, we cannot make any claims to knowledge about the possibility of God. This means we cannot say if God is possible or impossible, and so we cannot say if the probability of God existing is zero or non-zero. For this reason I think it is a bit misleading to say that there is a zero probability of God, or aliens. Rather I think it is better to simply say that we don’t know what the probability of these things are.
5 Likes
MaxFrenchAtheist
I agree with about 90%. If an alien is defined as a life form not of this world, a probability can be extrapolated from the available data. How many planets are in the Goldilocks zone and capable of producing life? At least one, out of however many, has produced life. We do have a numerator and denominator. A probability can be figured out, not by me obviously, but I did link to a chap who had done it above. We have no such ability with a God concept. The verifiable occurrence of a god is ZERO.
I don’t know how you would do that Max. The claim is un-falsifiable. Your attempt to disprove it would always fall short. This is the same reason we do not allow Christians to shift the burden of proof. You can not demonstrate the non-existence of a god. It is a non-falsifiable claim. The best you can do is keep the burden of proof where it belongs, on the person making the claim. If you make the claim that a god does not exist, you accept the burden of proof.
4 Likes
She’s 20 months and a cutie. She has me wrapped around her finger lol…
1 Like
I do have a good bit of math in my background, and I understand and completely agree that we can’t calculate specific odds for any of these. However, would you at least agree that there are potential ranges, not necessarily numerically, but at least conceptually?
My point is the way somebody defines something unfalsifiable changes the potential probability. I treat god just like any other unfalsifiable thing. There are over 4000 religions which define god very differently. As an example, one interesting phenomenon that has happened at least twice on our planet are cargo cults. The most recent started in World War II on the island of Tanna. The allies needed an island as a staging location for various supplies. Well the locals thought that they were a god, specifically named “John Frum”. Eventually the war ended, and the allies left. The villagers still think that John Frum will come back some day and bring them cargo. On a lark I could change my name, pack a cessna with tequila, grand mariner, and limes, and go party it up with my cargo and new found followers. Compare that with the Abrahamic religion’s version of god, which I agree, the odds, if we could calculate them, would be very close to zero.
As concept, if somebody like a creationist tells me that something like “the universe is too complicated” which is assumed to mean it has a low probability of existing, the more complicated thing they dream up to solve that problem would have even lower odds, if we could calculate them. My point is not to show them specific numbers, but as a concept, their logic makes no sense.
New birds < drunk American with caro < abrahamic god
Well when theists suggest an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic is a more probable cause than as yet unknown natural phenomena. I usually point out that we know as an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible, but we don’t know any deity or anything supernatural is possible.
We don’t even know the universe needed a cause, but even if we accept the concept a cause is needed, I have yet to hear a rational argument why a deity is any more probable than any other concept we can define into existence.
2 Likes
I completely agree. The people I know will just harp on this silly notion. Then I simply point out, if this, then that. In the end, they do not even fully understand the way they are rationalizing it.
In their minds god and its magic are real. This is why I target faith and their epistemology. Faith is what enables all of this nonsense to begin with.
1 Like
That too makes me shake my head. Many theists think that saying “god did it” is a much simpler explanation. But that introduces the god concept, and how do you explain an invisible, undetectable, all powerful entity capable of creating the universe, controlling it, and knowing what the future will be?
How do you explain the mechanism why a god has so much power, explain why a god has so much knowledge… so on and so on, insanely complicated the answers have to be. How does god read my dreams? Does god have a galaxy-wide antennae that can filter out my brainwaves from billions of light years away?
As many know, introducing a bigger mystery to solve a mystery is crazy.
1 Like
conceptually we tend to argue that “anything is possible.” However; if we are going to be honest, possibility still requires evidence. That which can be asserted without proof can be rejected without proof. (Hitchen’s Razor.)
As I have a degree in Sociology, I am quite familiar with Cargo Cults. The cargo cult is a fantasy based on known facts.
I have no idea at all what “too complicated means.” Complexity is not a characteristic of design, “SIMPLICITY IS.”
Certainly, whatever they are calling logic, makes no sense.
1 Like
I don’t know either, this is their silly argument.
The main characteristic of design, is that designed things never occur naturally.
Not Me.
Try making peanut paste back into peanuts.
In the unedited version of “Gulliver’s Travels”, Gulliver comes across a group of scientists trying to turn faeces back into food-
The there’s is the order of monks who eat only cabbages which have died from natural causes.
Nobody is safe from Swift’s biting wit. A good book to read if one finds oneself taking anything too seriously
3 Likes
To me it is all very simple:
Humans are capable of deceit and being deceived. So how do you parse out the potential deceit?
Consider any statement from a person written or spoken to be a claim and nothing but a claim until we can verify the claim from something that is resistant or immune to deceit and deception.
Is the universe ~6000 years old or roughly 13.8 billion years old? Instead of taking someone’s word for it, we use tools to investigate.
In this case, the tools available to us point to one claim and not the other. And with careful use of said tools we can begin to separate various claims into what is useful information about reality.
Every religious/god idea I ever heard of eithir completely avoids the use of tools to separate out a claim, or gets quickly crushed by the same tools.
I have yet to even hear of a god/religion claim that has any more merit then my claim that everyone on the planet owes me 1 million dollars each.
2 Likes
A tough call. Perhaps deceit has evolutionary value?. I certainly have no qualms about being deceitful say to preserve life.
Deceit against non believers is explicitly encouraged in the the Quran. It doesn’t need to be to preserve life.