God is 67% Likely?!

[RyuOni1989]

Just got sent these, feel free to read and rage.

http://www.stephenunwin.com/media/ChicagoSunTimes(US).pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Is+there+really+a+67%+probability+that+God+exists?-a0125955099

 

[MaliceJones]

Just got sent these, feel free to read and rage.

http://www.stephenunwin.com/media/ChicagoSunTimes(US).pdf

That one doesn't work, you should check it.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Is+there+really+a+67%25+probability+that+God+exists%3F-a0125955099

... well, another spin artist. Doesn't make me rage exactly, but it's a pity the critic deems it well-written. I like my religious books boring and hard to read, makes it more fun for the believers.

 

[RyuOni1989]

Just got sent these, feel free to read and rage.

http://www.stephenunwin.com/media/ChicagoSunTimes(US).pdf

That one doesn't work, you should check it.

The LoR forum has cut out the .pdf part, just copy and past the link instead of clicking it. It should work.

 

[obsidianavenger]

lol i really want to read that to see how he butchers the statistics to get such a result

 

[RyuOni1989]

lol i really want to read that to see how he butchers the statistics to get such a result

Go for it, it's physically impossible but apparently 67%. I disagree, as would everyone else here.
I was wondering if anyone here could help destroy this argument (despite it being impossible)

 

[Aught3]

Dawkins addressed this calculation in The God Delusion. It's basically a piece of guess work relying on five guestimates, in other words completely worthless.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

The first problem is of course that he starts with a 50% probability, claiming that it represents "maximum ignorance".
Well, I'm ignorant on whether I'm going to die today. Guess that means I have a 50% chance of waking up tomorrow.

 

[Durakken]

The conclusion is true using logic alone... but his premises are wrong... at least to me with my brief scan of the second page as i just woke up...

If you start with Cogito Ergo Sum then the next question is am I alone or not? This question also then leads to an explanation of how come I perceive other things the way I do and you get the following 4 possibilities....

1. I am alone and am imagining everything else through, creating sub-personalities, but I'm the dominant.
2. I am alone and am a sub-personality of the imagination of a dominant personality.
3. There are multiple entities, each with more or less control of the other entities around them.
4. There are multiple entities all with equal influence on each other.

1-3 all propose a god and through math that somehow works out be around a 66% chance that there is a God.

Unfortunately for those arguments we know what we should expect from a consciousness that would be trying to do those things and the evidence doesn't point to them AND the evidence does point to 4.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

The "evidences" pro and con PRO AND CON. For and against. For example, affidavits are taken pro and con. as identified by the author are:

1. The recognition of goodness

2. The existence of moral evil

3. The existence of natural evil

4. Intra-natural miracles

5. Extra-natural miracles

6. Religious experiences

fail

 

[borrofburi]

If you start with Cogito Ergo Sum then the next question is am I alone or not?

Descartes was wrong, but the wikipedia page does the conversation more justice than I will

 

[Durakken]

If you start with Cogito Ergo Sum then the next question is am I alone or not?

Descartes was wrong, but the wikipedia page does the conversation more justice than I will

Actually none of what is used as a defense against DesCartes is anything more than semantic bullshit that says the exact same thing that the cogito says, but that is neither here nor there for this argument as all the defenses end up with the same exact 4 propositions coming up for how the world is.

 

[Demojen]

I like this part.

50% probability towards his god's existence by arguing that 50% is an expression of maximum ignorance (p. 58). I found this position astounding. What of other speculations? Are we merely brains in vats hooked to computers? Do magic elves steal socks from the dryer? Do Space-Penguins live in the center of the Moon? To be consistent the author would also have to assign an a priori 50% probability that each of these claims is true.

Basically statistically speaking based on his assumption you can break it down to a 50% probability that the 50% probability that the 50% probability and so on and so forth, is true. The argument collapses on itself because it's based entirely in probability without any frame of reference to find true value. Hence you can not assign a number to a value that is inherently FALSE.

Using the same logic I can prove that you can not walk from point A to point B.

In order to get from A to B you must first get half way between A and B. In order to get half way between A and B you must first get half way of half way between A and B...and so on and so forth indefinately. Therefore, you can not get from A to B.

However, since you can, or at least perceive as much we've determined there exists an indivisable unit of measurement called a quantum....however, in the rules of probability based without value, there are no quantums to grant this article any merit what so ever.

You can not apply probability to illogic and conjecture and get a true(in the sense that it has merit) value. I suppose if you wanted to argue semantics you could say that for the purpose of propaganda, this argument has merit.

On the issue of Descartes...I agree. He is wrong.
I think therefore I am? bullshit.
I think therefore you are.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I woulsdn't be so worried since 50% chance of sucess = random guess while being complete ignorant of anything what so ever (which is a higher probability then what the reality is since we already know stuff about the dexcription of God which are absurd and drags it back to the 0% mark)