Probability of theism (multiple choice)

[Davin]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

[Whitney]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

I think probable and possible are too often used interchangeably in contexts where they can't be.   I'm not sure if the OP realizes they mean two different yet similar things or not.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

The probability is 0 because it was made up in somebodies head. Just because somebody thought it up doesn't mean it has to have any probability at all.

[Tank]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

The probability is 0 because it was made up in somebodies head. Just because somebody thought it up doesn't mean it has to have any probability at all.

General Relativity was 'made up in somebodies head'. All ideas are 'made up in somebodies head' to start with.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

The probability is 0 because it was made up in somebodies head. Just because somebody thought it up doesn't mean it has to have any probability at all.

General Relativity was 'made up in somebodies head'. All ideas are 'made up in somebodies head' to start with.

General relativity was more than an idea just dreamt up, as it is demonstrable for a start.

I've just made up in my head an invisible kingdom of blubberwobbles, that only come out when you're not looking, reside in an invisible realm and know your thoughts. Probability of them existing? Nil.

See what I mean?

[Heisenberg]

Yea, I would say there is no chance that Yahweh or any of the other Gods exist (theism). Zilch.

It is within the realm of possibility that there was some type of creator (deism), but people who think that the Universe NEEDED a creator are just ignorant of scientific fact. And even here I find the probability extraordinarily low because after all, who created the creator? It's really not an answer as it just raises more questions.

As for people who refer to nature as God (pantheism), I don't even know what it means. Seems to me they're atheists in disguise.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Yea, I would say there is no chance that Yahweh or any of the other Gods exist (theism). Zilch.

It is within the realm of possibility that there was some type of creator (deism), but people who think that the Universe NEEDED a creator are just ignorant of scientific fact. And even here I find the probability extraordinarily low because after all, who created the creator? It's really not an answer as it just raises more questions.

As for people who refer to nature as God (pantheism), I don't even know what it means. Seems to me they're atheists in disguise.

If there was no need for a creator, then the probability of a creator = 0. And like you say, if there was a creator, who created the creator? If so, if nothing can spring a creator into being, nothing can spring a big bang into being. Aaaaaand we're back to no need for a creator.

[Tank]

There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.

The probability is 0 because it was made up in somebodies head. Just because somebody thought it up doesn't mean it has to have any probability at all.

General Relativity was 'made up in somebodies head'. All ideas are 'made up in somebodies head' to start with.

General relativity was more than an idea just dreamt up, as it is demonstrable for a start.

It started as an idea. That has proven to be an efficatious descriptive model of observed reality. When Newton conceived of gravity it was a good model, that proved deficient in the detail. At one time it was considered absolutely correct. That is no longer the case. The speed of light once considered inviolate is now being questioned. Placing ones faith in absolutes has always been illogical.

I've just made up in my head an invisible kingdom of blubberwobbles, that only come out when you're not looking, reside in an invisible realm and know your thoughts. Probability of them existing? Nil.

See what I mean?

But your 'kingdom of blubberwobbles' is a device to explain a position and you don't really believe it.. However the idea of God does have some descriptive value, it could be the cause of reality, simply because one can't prove a negative, thus assigning a probability of 0 is illogical and ultimately un-scientific to my mind. Don't get me wrong I don't think god exists and I've explained my logic behind this in the thread Why God. I just don't like absolutist assertions, which is one of the reasons I have no time for institutionalised superstitions and the ideas they enshrine in dogma.

[Norfolk And Chance]

To me, admitting a possibility of god is just.... There is no need for one, therefore there isn't one, and it's blatantly obvious how and why god/gods were made up in the first place - it was our first attempt at making sense of our surroundings. It was a guess, it was wrong, the probability of god is nil. The only reason we are even considering the possibility of a god is because someone made him up in the first place.

Yes, I guess my absolutist non belief statements can be compared to the theistic absolute belief. But I don't care because I'm not trying to win any prizes.

However, my absolutist non belief could be changed by evidence. It would have to change in the face of evidence.

Of which there is no possibility of such evidence ever being forthcoming 

[Tank]

To me, admitting a possibility of god is just.... There is no need for one, therefore there isn't one, and it's blatantly obvious how and why god/gods were made up in the first place - it was our first attempt at making sense of our surroundings. It was a guess, it was wrong, the probability of god is nil. The only reason we are even considering the possibility of a god is because someone made him up in the first place.

Yes, I guess my absolutist non belief statements can be compared to the theistic absolute belief. But I don't care because I'm not trying to win any prizes.

However, my absolutist non belief could be changed by evidence. It would have to change in the face of evidence.

Of which there is no possibility of such evidence ever being forthcoming  

Well only 0.000,000,000,000,1% appear to separate our world view then  

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Why didn't you have a 0.5 choice?  That's what I would have chosen, but I had to choose another one.

[Heisenberg]

Well only 0.000,000,000,000,1% appear to separate our world view then  

Agreed. I don't agree that God doesn't exist because he doesn't need to. We can come up with much better reasons for why God doesn't exist.

[Asmodean]

Agreed. I don't agree that God doesn't exist because he doesn't need to. We can come up with much better reasons for why God doesn't exist.

Can we? The thing is, a combination of reasons is better than a single reason standing alone. For instance, neither the lack of evidence nor the lack of necessity by itself speak against the existence of gods, but combine the two and you have a much stronger reason.

So what would be the lone reason that by itself is better than "Because he doesn't need to"?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Agreed. I don't agree that God doesn't exist because he doesn't need to. We can come up with much better reasons for why God doesn't exist.

Can we? The thing is, a combination of reasons is better than a single reason standing alone. For instance, neither the lack of evidence nor the lack of necessity by itself speak against the existence of gods, but combine the two and you have a much stronger reason.

So what would be the lone reason that by itself is better than "Because he doesn't need to"?

I can't think of a better reason than "he is not needed"!

If men weren't needed to impregnate women, there would be no men - simple as that.

No reason for being is actually a great reason not to exist, and the fact that 7 billion people can't come up with a single shred of evidence between them to support that he exists, that is another reason to strengthen the case.

[Heisenberg]

I was speaking tongue in cheek. I just mean that the fact that we don't need a God shouldn't be considered conclusive evidence that he doesn't exist. A religious person might tell you some bs like god made the universe to look like he wasn't there. I'm certainly not saying I agree with it, but it is POSSIBLE, however ridiculously unlikely.