From your perspective, what's the probability of bare theism (not rooted in any religion, just belief that there exists a God who created all things)?
a. 0
b. infinitesimally small (less than any positive, finite real number)
c. finite and less than 0.5
d. finite and greater than 0.5
e. 1
That would be Deism not Theism then?
Quote from: Tank on November 05, 2011, 08:50:29 PM
That would be Deism not Theism then?
Deism would add the unnecessary premise that said God "stepped back" after the act of creation. Bare theism is even simpler than this.
Quote from: bandit4god on November 05, 2011, 08:53:10 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 05, 2011, 08:50:29 PM
That would be Deism not Theism then?
Deism would add the unnecessary premise that said God "stepped back" after the act of creation. Bare theism is even simpler than this.
No. Your going to haveto refine that please.
Quote from: bandit4god on November 05, 2011, 08:48:10 PM
From your perspective, what's the probability of bare theism (not rooted in any religion, just belief that there exists a God who created all things)?
a. 0
b. infinitesimally small (less than any positive, finite real number)
c. finite and less than 0.5
d. finite and greater than 0.5
e. 1
B
Although I cannot disprove a god you propose (why I cannot say 'zero'), the lack of evidence renders your question to no practical value or meaning.
A deist god is possible; but there is no evidence of one nor would I expect evidence of one even if it did exist. A involved god is possible; but once that involved god starts being described via religion it goes down to impossible again. I also think something either is possible or it isn't...not sure what b,d,d answers are for.
As for probability....we have no other universes to compare to at this point so I don't think it's possible to determine probability.
Isn't theism some belief in some personal god? I would say close to zero.
The probability is zero, let's face it. ZERO.
I consider the chances, that
a. the God of the Bible exists - 0%
b. a God exists that created everything - 0%
c. we might develop into God-like creatures ourselves - 50%
As worded, naught, or as close to as it gets.
Quote from: AsmoAs worded, naught, or as close to as it gets.
I agree. It's clear to me that no deity is making any detectable difference to me or anything else, so the small decimals become irrelevant.
Pretty much what everyone else said.
The propability of "gods" described and definded by any and all theistic religions, ZERO.
Though, I hasten to add that that doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings that we might consider "gods" (depending on ones defenition), but they would and never could be those depicted and named by human religions.
Hypothetically, I suppose any race advanced enough to create life and possibly destroy a solar system or two could be considered a "god-race"...
But gods who want to be worshipped..? I don't think so. I couldn't care less whether or not woodlice bow down before me - they are far beneath my notice.
I vote "meh"
There is currently no way to tell what the probability is and I don't care to speculate what the probability is.
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 08:20:07 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 08:20:07 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 07, 2011, 08:44:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 08:38:35 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 08:20:07 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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.
QuoteI'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.
To me, admitting a possibility of god is just.... :o 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 ;)
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 09:10:06 PM
To me, admitting a possibility of god is just.... :o 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 ;)
Why didn't you have a 0.5 choice? That's what I would have chosen, but I had to choose another one.
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 09:17:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 07, 2011, 11:25:36 PM
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"?
Quote from: Asmodean on November 07, 2011, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 07, 2011, 11:25:36 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 08, 2011, 05:29:55 AM
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.
It isn't possible, because the religious person has just made it up.
Quote from: Whitney on November 07, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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
I understand full well that they represent ways to describe states of the world in two different types of decisions.
Quote from: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In any decision problem, the way the world is, and what an agent does, together determine an outcome for the agent. We may assign utilities to such outcomes, numbers that represent the degree to which the agent values them. It is typical to present these numbers in a decision matrix, with the columns corresponding to the various relevant states of the world, and the rows corresponding to the various possible actions that the agent can perform.
In decisions under uncertainty, nothing more is given — in particular, the agent does not assign subjective probabilities [only possibilities] to the states of the world. Still, sometimes rationality dictates a unique decision nonetheless. Consider, for example, a case that will be particularly relevant here. Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality surely requires you to perform A1.
In decisions under risk, the agent assigns subjective probabilities to the various states of the world. Assume that the states of the world are independent of what the agent does. A figure of merit called the expected utility, or the expectation of a given action can be calculated by a simple formula: for each state, multiply the utility that the action produces in that state by the state's probability; then, add these numbers. According to decision theory, rationality requires you to perform the action of maximum expected utility (if there is one).
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 07, 2011, 09:41:59 PM
Why didn't you have a 0.5 choice? That's what I would have chosen, but I had to choose another one.
You can choose 0.5 if you like, Ecurb, my choices should have included this. :)
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 09:17:19 PM
Well only 0.000,000,000,000,1% appear to separate our world view then ;)
Curious, Tank--thanks for your even-handedness and scientific response. Incedentally, if you assign a probability of 0.000,000,000,000,1, rationality would dictate that it's worthwhile to believe in God given the utility of being right (infinite happiness). See here for more: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 01:24:52 AM
Quote from: Whitney on November 07, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
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
I understand full well that they represent ways to describe states of the world in two different types of decisions.
Quote from: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In any decision problem, the way the world is, and what an agent does, together determine an outcome for the agent. We may assign utilities to such outcomes, numbers that represent the degree to which the agent values them. It is typical to present these numbers in a decision matrix, with the columns corresponding to the various relevant states of the world, and the rows corresponding to the various possible actions that the agent can perform.
In decisions under uncertainty, nothing more is given — in particular, the agent does not assign subjective probabilities [only possibilities] to the states of the world. Still, sometimes rationality dictates a unique decision nonetheless. Consider, for example, a case that will be particularly relevant here. Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality surely requires you to perform A1.
In decisions under risk, the agent assigns subjective probabilities to the various states of the world. Assume that the states of the world are independent of what the agent does. A figure of merit called the expected utility, or the expectation of a given action can be calculated by a simple formula: for each state, multiply the utility that the action produces in that state by the state's probability; then, add these numbers. According to decision theory, rationality requires you to perform the action of maximum expected utility (if there is one).
ok...then why did you say probable instead of possible?
Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 01:34:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 09:17:19 PM
Well only 0.000,000,000,000,1% appear to separate our world view then ;)
Curious, Tank--thanks for your even-handedness and scientific response. Incedentally, if you assign a probability of 0.000,000,000,000,1, rationality would dictate that it's worthwhile to believe in God given the utility of being right (infinite happiness). See here for more: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
I knew with a probability of very close to 1 that you would abuse my response by taking it literally and not alogorically. But then you are much more worried about winning your point than exploring reality.
Quote from: Tank on November 09, 2011, 07:48:34 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 01:34:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on November 07, 2011, 09:17:19 PM
Well only 0.000,000,000,000,1% appear to separate our world view then ;)
Curious, Tank--thanks for your even-handedness and scientific response. Incedentally, if you assign a probability of 0.000,000,000,000,1, rationality would dictate that it's worthwhile to believe in God given the utility of being right (infinite happiness). See here for more: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
I knew with a probability of very close to 1 that you would abuse my response by taking it literally and not alogorically. But then you are much more worried about winning your point than exploring reality.
Yup, pretty much.
Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 01:34:39 AM
Curious, Tank--thanks for your even-handedness and scientific response. Incedentally, if you assign a probability of 0.000,000,000,000,1, rationality would dictate that it's worthwhile to believe in God given the utility of being right (infinite happiness). See here for more: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Yea we're all familiar with Pascal's wager and pretty sure no one takes it seriously.
Your initial question was if we believed in a God that created Earth. Now you're asking about a God who can grant infinite happiness? Now you understand why your question was unclear.
Which is it? Because if the question is whether Yahweh exists, I'm confident that just about every single person would have said zero chance.
It's probably also good to point out here that you have to be careful in philosophy to not jump ahead of yourself by running with a false premise.
We can make up possible situations all day long but if at the end of the day you choose action based on a false situation then you are still wrong even if it appeared to be the most beneficial option....and by choosing the false option you end up missing out on the path that is truly beneficial.
Pascal's wager...lol...I'm surprised that any person even partially versed in critical thought ever thought that was a good argument. Hint....one can't magically start honestly believing in something they are not convinced of just because they want to hedge their bets.