How probable is the existence of God?

[Collecemall]

The "There was probably someone that Jesus story was based on" claim is as bad as the undefined concept of god one.

Give a definition of this person that Jesus was based on so we can examine that scenario. Is that scenario necessary and consistent with reality. Does it outweigh the scenarios for producing the story without the real person at all.

The entire book does just that. Richard Carrier: On The Historicity Of Jesus.

 

[leroy]

Ok, since you all have problems with the question, let’s change “God” for life on Mars….how probable do you think life on Mars is? At what point would you bet your money? If the bet goes 10 to 1 would you bet in favor of the existence of life on mars?

 

[Mugnuts]

Would I make a bet on it willy nilly? NO, because that would be stupid. I would read about people who actually look then present evidence of this/that phenomena. Why don't you just get to the point of your 'thought experiment'.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/life-mars-–-evidence-mounts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-finds-evidence-of-life-on-mars-9929510.html

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ok, since you all have problems with the question,

It's not the question there's a problem with, it's the piss-poor job you did of presenting a question that real thought can make contact with, by virtue of you not properly defining the parameters.

let’s change “God” for life on Mars….how probable do you think life on Mars is? At what point would you bet your money? If the bet goes 10 to 1 would you bet in favor of the existence of life on mars?

I don't do gambling but if I did, I'd bet that you don't have anything better than this crap.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am 85% confident that there was once life as we know it on Mars.

 

[leroy]

I am 85% confident that there was once life as we know it on Mars.

Thanks for your clear and direct answer,

What about the existence of God? how confident are you that he doesn´t excist.
Lets use a general definition for God
God = an intelligent creator of the universe.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am 85% confident that there was once life as we know it on Mars.

Thanks for your clear and direct answer,

What about the existence of God? how confident are you that he doesn´t excist.
Lets use a general definition for God
God = an intelligent creator of the universe.

Well, thank you for defining what you mean by god, was that so hard when everyone else asked you to do it earlier? As for what you have defined as god, I would give it a >.01% chance.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I am 85% confident that there was once life as we know it on Mars.

Thanks for your clear and direct answer,

What about the existence of God? how confident are you that he doesn´t excist.
Lets use a general definition for God
God = an intelligent creator of the universe.

Obviously this God requires that the universe started at some point and that an intelligence can exist outside it. What definition of universe are you using (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Synonyms_and_definitions for some options)?

For example, would an intelligent entity that triggered the creation of a bubble universe from something like a De Sitter universe meet your definition of "God"?

 

[Deleted member 619]

What about the existence of God? how confident are you that he doesn´t excist.
Lets use a general definition for God
God = an intelligent creator of the universe.

Given that definition, and using my standard definition of 'universe', meaning 'all that exists', I assign a probability of zero, because any reasonable conception could only be a subset if it exists. If your god is creator of everything that exists, it doesn't exist.

Next!

 

[Visaki]

Another thought; apart from defining what kind of god we are betting on, we also need to some stadards on how we can decide if the bets conditions are met. For trivial bets the standard of evidece to decide the bet are trivial, but for god they are exeptional.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I noted earlier, there's no possibility of knowing this side of death.

And the only way of knowing is if there's life-after-death - if there isn't, then we'll never know.

So how can you bet given that you can't guarantee you'll find out whether you won or not?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Obviously this God requires that the universe started at some point and that an intelligence can exist outside it. What definition of universe are you using (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#S ... efinitions for some options)?

For example, would an intelligent entity that triggered the creation of a bubble universe from something like a De Sitter universe meet your definition of "God"?

Yes that would count as a God.

hackenslash...Given that definition, and using my standard definition of 'universe', meaning 'all that exists', I assign a probability of zero, because any reasonable conception could only be a subset if it exists. If your god is creator of everything that exists, it doesn't exist.

Next!

Ok lets change the definition of universe for “all space time and mater/energy”

This is frustrating, obviously I will never ever provide a definition for God or universe, that is 100% accurate, no matter what definition I use, you will always find and expectation or a point where it is hard to say if something would count as god or not. But the same is true with 99.99% of all the words that exist in your dictionary. I mean can you define dog? Can you define cat? Can you define chair? Can you define computer? No matter what definition you use, you will always find and exception or something.

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

As I noted earlier, there's no possibility of knowing this side of death.

And the only way of knowing is if there's life-after-death - if there isn't, then we'll never know.

So how can you bet given that you can't guarantee you'll find out whether you won or not?

Kindest regards,

James

This is why I call it a thought experiment,

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ok lets change the definition of universe for “all space time and mater/energy”

That has no material effect on whether or not your celestial peeping-tom exists, because it's substantively synonymous with the definition I gave, so your masturbation fantasy remains a fantasy.

This is frustrating, obviously I will never ever provide a definition for God or universe, that is 100% accurate, no matter what definition I use, you will always find and expectation or a point where it is hard to say if something would count as god or not.

Well, aside from the question being begged there, namely that there is a '100% accurate definition', suggesting that you're working backwards form your idiotic conclusion that the entity whose knob you seem so keen to suck actually exists, if you can only pin him down accurately, you're entirely missing the point, which is that it's up to you to define your original question by pinning down the subject of the question, to whit, whichever fucking absurdity you want to jack over. Until you do that, you haven't actually asked a valid question.

But the same is true with 99.99% of all the words that exist in your dictionary.

Complete wank. Allow me to demonstrate:

I mean can you define dog?

A carnivorous quadruped of the family Canidae.

Can you define cat?

A carnivorous quadruped of the family Felidae.

Can you define chair?

A piece of furniture designed to provide seating for a single person.

Can you define computer?

A machine for counting.

No matter what definition you use, you will always find and exception or something.

Except, no, you're talking shit, and exposing just what an ignorant position yours is. You won't find a single exception to any of the definitions I provided. because they cover the principles of sufficiency and necessity, which ensure the covering of all the bases when constructing a definition.

Seriously, that you could even raise this easily checkable objection without checking it just shows that you're not ready for this discussion. You can't define your question, your assertions are all full of holes and, moreover, holes that an attentive 4 year-old could fuck over without breaking a sweat.

You're massively out of your depth here.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This is why I call it a thought experiment,

You wouldn't know thought if it anally raped you wearing a razor-wire condom.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Dandan Leroy, are you just abandoning this thread?

 

[Collecemall]

If I had decent odds on life being on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn I would take them. I can't wait to see what becomes of the probes we are sending to a couple of them.

 

[surreptitious57]

The first thing to do when attempting to answer a question pertaining to the probability of something existing is to clearly define what the some
thing in question is. In the case of God that word has multiple meanings and so there is no single universal definition. The three main ones are
theistic and deistic and pantheistic and there are multiple definitions of theistic too. All of these are equally valid from a descriptive perspective

But if one limits oneself to the traditional definition then the probability is as close to zero as it is possible to be. And there are two fundamental
reasons why. The first is science which is the most objective methodology for investigating observable phenomena within this universe. And the
more it discovers the less valid is the possibility that a metaphysical being exists because alternative explanations which are entirely credible can
be provided instead. The second is that God provides emotional comfort to many because of their fear of death. But the fear itself has zero logical
basis because the state itself is not one that can be experienced as sense perception is non existent. Which then negates the need for God to exist

I am an apatheist for it matters not to me whether he exists or not as I can not prove it one way or the other though that does not automatically mean
there is a fifty / fifty possibility as is sometimes falsely assumed. It just means there is not a demonstrable one hundred per cent possibility either way

 

[tuxbox]

The first thing to do when attempting to answer a question pertaining to the probability of something existing is to clearly define what the some
thing in question is. In the case of God that word has multiple meanings and so there is no single universal definition. The three main ones are
theistic and deistic and pantheistic and there are multiple definitions of theistic too. All of these are equally valid from a descriptive perspective

But if one limits oneself to the traditional definition then the probability is as close to zero as it is possible to be. And there are two fundamental
reasons why. The first is science which is the most objective methodology for investigating observable phenomena within this universe. And the
more it discovers the less valid is the possibility that a metaphysical being exists because alternative explanations which are entirely credible can
be provided instead. The second is that God provides emotional comfort to many because of their fear of death. But the fear itself has zero logical
basis because the state itself is not one that can be experienced as sense perception is non existent. Which then negates the need for God to exist

I am an apatheist for it matters not to me whether he exists or not as I can not prove it one way or the other though that does not automatically mean
there is a fifty / fifty possibility as is sometimes falsely assumed. It just means there is not a demonstrable one hundred per cent possibility either way

Maybe I'm not understand probability correctly, but doesn't probability require more than one outcome based on actual data? For example flipping a coin in which the probability is 50% whether it will land on heads or tails. God, not God, does not seem to fit that type of outcome due to the lack of verifiable data.

 

[surreptitious57]

The lack of evidence is not actually a problem as hypotheses can be constructed instead with regard to the existence / non existence of God. For
so long as they are compatible with existing knowledge then they are entirely valid propositions even if they are untestable. Unfortunately though
given the nature of the subject matter the odds are stacked in favour of those advocating existence because they can always claim belief without
having to justify it as it is an article of faith and nothing more. They also do not have to have any understanding of physics so can claim that God
exists outside of time and space without having to demonstrate it. And that he cannot be understood so is completely useless trying to attempt it
Unfortunately one cannot use logic to defeat emotion so providing logical arguments to disprove the emotional basis for belief in God is no good
if someone refuses to stop believing in him. Another problem is that he is defined as being metaphysical which means he transcends physicality
and as such is incapable of detection. This is the most obvious example of God Of The Gaps. And if I still believed in him I would use it to justify
such a belief. Of course if the factors pertaining to the probability of him existing or not existing could be tested the question would be academic
Unfortunately that cannot be which is why less rigorous methodologies have to be employed instead. Although it is probably unfair to imply that
logic is less rigorous than science since a sound syllogism is as absolute as any mathematical equation. And mathematics is the most rigorous
discipline as it is deductive by default. Meaning its conclusions are definitely true