Probability of the existence of God

I've studied probability theory and I'm still pretty good at the really basic stuff like this.To validly get an estimate of 50/50 by your method you need to :a) Produce an exhaustive list of all the possiiblities (certain idealisations might be permitted, but only when they don't significantly affect the results)b) Show that all those possibilities are equally likelyc) Only then, can you group together the possibilities into the outcomes you are interested in. To get 50/50 in that case you would have to show that half of the possible options fell into the result you want.For instance if you wanted to calculate the probability of winning the lottery you couldn't just say "either I will win or I won't so the chance of winning is 50/50". To do it right you would need to look at all the possible results of the draw individually and see how many of those would get your ticket the win.The problem is that since your probability is based only on how you choose to look at the outcomes, you have to look at the outcomes in the right way.You haven't even managed to do the first. There is the possibility that something other than God gave rise to energy and matter.I'll take this just a little further to show what I mean about how you look at it. We could just say that there are three possiiblities and give them all a probability of 1/3. Or we could say either energy/mass is an uncaused first cause or it isn't. And if it isn't then either the cause of energy/matter is God or it isn't which gives a probability of 1/4 for God existing. At least one of them has to be wrong - and in fact it's highly unlikely that either is any more use than your 50/50. Which is to say, not at all.

Unwin's calculation is hopelessly subjective, I'm not even sure that his values are even tenable.
(I doubt that I can do anything with the Excel spreadsheet, but I bet that it has similar flaws).

quote:

---

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.

---

It's hard to see mere size - even the size of the universe - or human limits as evidence for God. Indeed they could be used as arguments against that existence just as easily, if not more so. And if the complexity of a cell and human morality require an outside source then surely God's complexity and morality also require a creator. Seen in this light then your evidence suggests that God does not exist.

Science has shown that there is no inherent difference between living and unliving matter. There is no theoretical basis for an absolute claim that life must "come from life". While working out how such a thing occurred is very difficult, it is fa too early to assert that the scientific research into abiogenesis must fail.The best you can claim on this point is uncertainty. The very fact that you have to use this point shows that your claims to have strong evidence of God are less than entirely true. As does the very existence of the highly subjective probability calculations referred to earlier in the thread. If there was good evidence nobody would bother with such poor arguments.

A carbon atom that is part of a living being is no different from a carbon atom that is not. An atom of carbon may be part of a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere - unliving matter. It may be absorbed by a plant and incorporated into the plant's structure - living. The plant may be burned and the carbon atoms within it returned to CO2.I really suggest that you try reading the definition you quote and seeing how it actually applies to the situation. It is quite clear that the difference between life and death is not that living matter is inherently different from unliving matter.

It seems that you have agreed with my point - that there is no inherent difference between living matter and dead matter. Nobody has found anything special about living matter. Its properties are explained by the same physics and chemistry as unliving matter.The difference between living and unliving matter is that living matter is participating in the processes that we call life. And that is really all that there is to it.

I already gave you the answer: Did you not see it ? In Message 50 ?I see that you didn't. To answer your new question: physics and chemistry. As I said in Message 50 living matter has no special properties.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The reason why people don't believe in the supernatural is that the evidence is just not good enough. We've seen that from the earlier discussion here. The probability arguments relied on highly subjective assessments which could easily point the other way. Despite that they are still used because those who want to argue that there is evidence for God don't have anything better.It really is that obvious. And if - as you claim - the Bible says otherwise then the Bible is wrong.

quote:

---

...doesn't deal with it. You seem to be overlooking the fact that if I am to suppose my wife-to-be not to exist I must also suppose everyone else not to exist. Which kind of renders the empirical currency you set so much stall by...worthless

---

So what you are telling us is that your ONLY reason for believing that your "wife-to-be" exists is that you think of her. You have never seen her with your eyes, touched her or heard her voice. And that you would rather deny the existence of everybody else than accept that this imaginary woman does not exist.Or perhaps your argument is in fact wrong and you just don't want to admit it. People can and do think of fictional and inaginary characters. Therefore simply thinking of someone is NOT evidence that they exist.

quote:

---

'm not posing it as evidence of her existance. I'm posing it as demonstration of the fact that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence. A narrow point spreadeagled by you...

---

Since the "demonstration" only works if it IS evidence then you are admitting that your argument fails.But in fact you went even further. You implicitly claimed that unless it was accepted as solid evidence of her existence you would have to deny the existence of everybody else, too. Which means that either you reject all other evidence of her existence or you have none (and hence she really does not exist).So this latest statement only makes your argument even crazier than it was before.

quote:

---

Now that the demonstration has been transmitted empirically, the recipient is in a position to look to the nature of his own non-empirical thoughts and judge that they do indeed help bring him to conclusions. And he would agree that his non-empirical thoughts are, as per definition, evidence. Non-empirical evidence.

---

Your "definition" includes reasoning, but reasoning is not evidence. Thoughts help us reach conclusions through reasoning, they are not evidence in themselves for anything external.

quote:

---

I implicitly did nothing of the sort (assuming I understand what you mean by 'it'). I did explicitly reject the notion that some arbitrary notion of "solid" could assume the higher ground.

---

Rubbish. I've read your posts. In Message 114 you started asserting that thinking of your wife-to-be was evidence of her impact on your life. Had you stopped there you would have been just about OK (provided you accepted that non-existent people could also have such an impact) but in Message 118 you insisted that it was her very existence that was the question - and something that you simply assumed.So far as I can tell you assume that this imaginary woman exists because you think of her and you would rather deny that everyone else exists than accept the fact that she is purely imaginary. If that isn't what you mean then Message 118 is appallingly badly written

quote:

---

My definition wasn't based around reasoning

---

I didn't say that it was. I said that it included reasoning. i.e. that reasoning fit the definition and thus the definition was wrong.

quote:

---

Correction: "thoughts turning towards..."

​

I'd insert "perfectly fine" for "just about ok". A minor and subjective quibble.

---

Your "correction" is a minor and insignificant quibble. And "perfectly fine" is wrong, since it must be admitted that an imaginary person does not truly have any impact because they do not exist. It is the concept of such a person that has the impact.

quote:

---

Your probably referring to msg 119. I do assume she exists given that assumption is the basis for my supposing anything exists outside me. Given that non-existant things can have an impact as well as existing thing I don't see that it matters much whether she does or doesn't. Exist.

---

On the contrary, this thread is about the EXISTENCE of God. Not of the subjective impact that your idea of God has on your life. And if you simply assume that your wife-to-be exists - if you truly have no evidence that leads you to that conclusion - then it seems overwhelmingly likely that she does not truly exist. Yet if you do have such evidence then rejecting your "non-empirical" evidence as evidence for her existence does not even entail rejecting her existence. Which ever way you cut it your "non-empirical" evidence has not been shown to be of any use in determining the existence of a person - and thus it does not support the idea that equivalent "evidence' is of any use in determining the existence of God (which is, I remind you, the subject of this thread).

quote:

---

Assuming an imaginary person exists would mean I'm aware she is imaginary but somehow assume she is real. And you tell me I'm appallingly badly written

---

Do you know that your God is only imaginary ?After all, if it were the case that your God did not exist and your "non-empirical evidence" were really your imagination at work would you not be arguing that an imaginary person exists on the basis of your imagination ?