Probability of the existence of God

I am new to this community so I am not sure if this topic has been discussed extensively in the past. My internet connection is very slow so it is difficult for me to do an effective search.My query is basically "Can we assign a probability to the existence of God?"Although I am not a mathematician or a scientist, I have had an interest in statistics since I was in college numerous years ago. I have been reading about different theories related to the "origin of the universe," and the "origin of life." It seems that most of these theories have been assigned different probabilities. Some of them with astronomical chances!When I review these theories, I see that that many times the assumptions are not based upon the natural laws of science. For example, different theories related to the origin of life teach that life arose from non-living matter. However the "law of biogenesis" teaches that life can only arise from existing life. Therefore, probabilities are being assigned based upon a deviation from the natural laws of science. In other words the event seems to have been supernatural, or outside the laws of nature. If this is not the case, then the probabilities must be calculated based upon the assumption that the "law of biogenesis" is invalid, and that life can arise from non-living matter. In other words, the probabilities are being assigned based upon the assumption that the law (of biogenesis) will be found invalid when the theory is proven to be true.It seems that the same is true of the origin of the universe. It seems that some of the theories that I have reviewed make the assumption that the energy and matter in existence today came from nothing. This is in contradiction to the natural law that no energy or matter is being created or destroyed. The natural law says that all energy and matter in existence today had to always have been in existence. Therefore, if they assign probabilities to any event that uses an assumption outside of this natural law of science, the assumptions are supernatural.My question is not related to the validity of the probabilities being assigned to the theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. My point is that scientists seem to be using assumptions that contradict the natural laws of science in existence today to assign these probabilities. Therefore, it would seem to me that science allows the use of supernatural assumptions in the field of statistics.I have reviewed numerous theories which have attempted to calculate the probability of the existence of God. Anyone familiar with this field will know of Bayes Theorem, and some of the people who have advocated and criticized its use for the purpose of making these calculations.Having laid a brief foundation for this thread, I would like to reiterate the primary subject that I have placed up for discussion.Is there a chance that God exists? If there is a chance, what is it?Can we assign a probability to the existence of God?

I think that it is correct that we must start with an either/or proposition. Without any additional evidence or information, and with only two possibilities (God exists / God does not exist) then I believe the probability would have to be 50%.Since we do have additional evidence and information, it appears that we need to adjust the probability based upon this evidence. I do not see how the question of whether you can or cannot prove the existence of God would result in a probability of zero. Why could we not use a probability of 100% just as easily in that situation? Is the argument valid that, "if you cannot prove that something exists, then it does not exist?"Thanks

You state regarding the existence of God. It appears that would put the probability somewhere above zero and below 50% in your opinion.Therefore, it would seem that the calculations are not completely indeterminable. I really do not see what fairies, goblins, and trolls have to do with the existence of God! Is this what you guys call a strawman.Thanks

As I said in my original post, I am not a scientist or a mathematician. I am also not a debater. However, I can understand your reasoning related to these calculations.I have read much information on the internet.Stephen Unwin who would assign a probability of 67%.Stephen D. Unwin - Wikipediaor Dawkins who would assign a probability of zero.The God Delusion - WikipediaThere is a model that was designed by a man from Stanford based upon the Bayes Theorem that can be found here:http://xastanford.org/messages/ProbabilityOfGod.xlsAll of these calculations appear to be based more on the probability that a person will believe in God versus whether God exists.I think that my question has been answered. We cannot empiracally calculate the probability of the existence of God. We can subjectively calculate the probablility of whether someone will believe in God. However, I do not think we can place an absolute number on His existence. (Thanks for all of your help in bringing my long forgotten statistics back to my memory.)I believe there are only two possibilities. Either God exists or He does not exist. I also believe there is evidence for the existence of God. I look at the expanse of the universe, I look at the design of even a simple cell, I look at the morality that is within all of us, and I look at how limited and constrained our thoughts are in this physical world that we find ourselves in, and I see evidence that God exists.Based upon this evidence, I would estimate the probability that God exists at very, very close to 100%. I would even say infinitely close.Thanks for your input

Hello ICANT,Sorry it took so long to reply to you! My internet is not very good in this part of the world. Thank you for your welcome to this forum. From all the replies that I received to my question, yours was the most rational. I agree with you completely that God exists! Anyone who denies the existence of God has been deceived by Satan!It is quite interesting that many people who spend a lot of time digging into the complexities of the physical world can become convinced that there is nothing outside of their natural existence. They seem to be blinded by Satan! In Africa where I live it would be very uncommon to find an individual that does not believe in the spiritual world. This would include those who consider themselves intellectuals.You are entirely correct that we are not allowed to doubt the existence of God. God Himself has told mankind that we are without excuse. We cannot deny the evidence! (Romans 1; 14:23)I am sure someone will respond with something about fairies, and trolls, and Santa Claus, and maybe Superman, I don't know.My original question was "can we assign a probability to the existence of God?" My question was not what is the probability that trolls, fairies, or Santa Claus exists? Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for me to use a dichotomy. Either God exists or he does not exist. I do not have to address each and every other possibility.For example, if I have a deck of cards I can address the probability that the card that I draw will be an ace. If I draw one card either it will be an ace or it will not be an ace, those are the only two options. The probability is about 7.7% that I will draw an ace. The probability is therefore 92.3% that I will not draw an ace. Since I am only dealing with aces, I do not need to break that 92.3% down into all of its component possibilities. The same is true with God. Either God exists or He does not exist.It appears that those who choose to deny the evidence would assign a probability close to zero related to God’s existence. Those who can see that there is some evidence but who are not convinced would assign a probability between zero and 100% depending upon how convincing they view the evidence. And those such as myself and ICANT who have become convinced by the evidence would assign a probability of 100%. We know that God exists! There are no other possibilities.My question has been answered. Scientists do not have the ability to assign a probability to the existence of God! It seems that science is limited to those things that can be observed with the senses, and it appears that science attempts to deny the existence of everything else. Maybe if they would close their eyes and look around them they may see a whole world that they have missed!Is there a chance that God exists: YesIs there evidence to prove the existence of God: YesCan we determine the probability of God’s existence: YesProbability of God’s existence based upon the evidence: 100%Thanks a lot for your input

Has science proven that life can arise from non-living matter? Or is abiogenesis an unproven theory? It seems that these theories always take the position that given enough time, even the miraculous can occur! It would be much easier (and much safer) to attribute the miracle to God!May God get the glory!

Bluejay writes: You obviously read my entire post because you pick and choose the points that you want to address. However in addressing the points you ignore the portion of the post that contradicts your response. The probability of drawing an ace or not drawing an ace is 7.7%/92.3%. Not 50/50. I do not need to say that the probability of drawing a deuce instead of an ace is 7.7%, etc. The probability of not drawing an ace is 92.3%. Therefore, there is a dichotomy if I am only dealing with aces! The same is true with God.The selection of desirable evidence, and ignoring that evidence that contradicts the theory seems to be the same scientific method that is being used in a number of vaious fields, including the orgin of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution. Picking and choosing the evidence that fits the model.Based upon the evidence, I believe there is only one possibility. God exists! With only one possibility, the probability is 100%.Bluejay writes: By failing to take God into consideration in various scientific models, this is in effect what science is accomplishing in various fields. Preventing themselves from ever learning "the truth."Thanks for your input.

John6zx writes: Actually, I don't get the point.You copy a lot of defintions to prove that God is not real, and then you attribute numerous characteristics to God as if He is real. You say God teaches us, He makes us, He punishes us, and He watches us! You say that God has a special place and a special list, and that He is content.So what do you believe? Is God real or is He not real?

Straggler writes: You are correct that what I beleive has no bearing on the probability of God existing. Although, my reasons for believing what I believe could have a bearing on the probability of His existence. You are incorrect that my whole argument boils down to one of design. It is correct that if you have something that is designed than you must have a designer. It definitely appears that there is design in this universe where we live. Therefore, a portion (not whole) of my argument would be based upon this fact. Design requires a designer! You are incorrect that I am willfully ignoring all other possibilities. If design was my only argument, then you would be correct that there could be other explanations besides the God of Abraham. However, as I said before, there is much additional evidence that points towards the diety where I place my faith! That is how I come to the 100% figure. I do not base this calculation completely upon a design argument!Maybe the discussion of this additional evidence could be the topic for a different thread.Thanks for your input.

Could you give me the scientific evidence to show that abiogenesis is a proven theory as you state?I cannot locate any scientific breakthrough that proves that spontaneous generation of life has been achieved or is even possible under natural conditions! Has someone spontaneously generated a living cell?Maybe the real question is "what is life?" Surely not a few amino acids or proteins! I understand that there must be some order to the genetic instructions.Thanks

Let us say you have a two sided coin. You are trying to calculate the probability that the coin will land on either one side or the other. For discussion purposes let us imagine that both sides are the same, heads. Are you saying that you must consider the possibility that you are delusional and you or the coin do not exist? I must have been asleep that day in statistics class!Of course not! The probability, if the coin lands on one side or the other, that it will come up heads is 100%. How do you suppose that natural selection can be responsible for the design that we see in living things? Can natural selection design a reproductive system? When would this design occur? If the original living organism, or any subsequent species, did not have a fully functional reproductive system then we would not be having this converstation. There would be no continuation of life for us to talk about. That requires a designer.Thanks for your input.

Actually, God did exactly that. He took on the form of a man, claimed to be equal with God, was crucified, buried, and resurrected from the dead. After this, there was over 500 witnesses who saw Him, and then He ascended into heaven. Jesus Christ, the Son of God.That is evidence! I believe Him! Generally in calculation of probabilities, we do not set aside some percent for the possibility that we are delusional. See my previous post. We often calculate probabilities that add up to 100%. For example in election polls, we do not hear that 99% of the people are voting for this or that candidate, and then hear that there is a 1% probability that we are all delusional and an election is not even taking place.Thanks

Straggler writes: I tried what you have suggested and the google search (evolution reproductive system) came up with 1,920,000 hits. Since this entire field of study seems to have been invented after I went to school, I really did not know where to start. So I began reading some of these articles. I truly believe it takes more faith to believe in abiogenesis, and the evolution of the reproductive system than it does to believe in creation. For example, one research paper that I have reviewed, since it seemed to be related to the topic, was found at the following link:http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0701/0701023.pdfIt is titled:"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life: The possibility of chance emergence of the replication and translation systems, and the protein superfolds"by Eugene V. KooninIt appears from this paper that work on the subject in question has not yet shown how RNA could produce a reproduction system which is faithful enough to generate the complexity that the natural selection process requires. He resorts to a multiple universe theory which seems to promote that in an infinite number of universes anything is possible. (I would assume that means anything except God). His paper mentions that somewhere in the universe Elvis is alive, and Al Gore is president. It seems that it would be possible in some universe that molecules could by chance form human beings, and they would just pop into existence fully formed.Now I don't want to appear skeptical, but how do these theories take any less faith than mine. I actually believe there is more evidence for my theory that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that God created man fully formed." It is my opinion that Elvis is not alive anywhere in the universe.Maybe I wandered into the wrong theory. Although Koonin seems to be a respected member of the scientific community. He has a lot of letters after his name, and is the Senior Investigator, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.Here is a link that gives more information about him:Eugene Koonin - WikipediaDo you have a better theory than this one? If you supply a link, I will be happy to read up on the subject.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I am not a scientist, so the scientific minds can correct me if I am wrong (I am sure they will.) I believe that the answer which dictates what is living matter would be the genetic code. Living matter contains genetic instructions which tells it what it is, and how to replicate or reproduce. Without this code, it is nothing but matter.Here is a link that gives a layman's description of DNA:DNA - Wikipedia

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I have the intellectual honesty to not attempt to ride the fence. Jesus is either God or He is not God.In John 8:24, He said, "Except you believe that I am He you will die in your sins." That means that there is no room for doubt.Paul tells us in the book of Romans, that we are without excuse if we deny the existence of God:Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.With faith, there is no room for doubt.Whether my faith is based upon objective or subjective evidence is irrelevant. Whether I am delusional is irrelevant. Whether everyone in the world disagrees with me is irrelevant. Based upon the evidence, I have complete assurance that the God of Abraham exists. I have complete assurance that there is a spiritual realm that exists in the world today that cannot be seen or understood by those who think only in physical terms.Complete assurance means 100%.Probability that God exists based upon my faith: 100%Because of this faith, all of the decisions that I make in my life will be in accordance with the will of this deity that I believe to exist. And God does not allow those who truly believe in Him, to doubt His existence. Even if that doubt is only 1% or less.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce