Probability of the existence of God

I'm going to figure the probability that you personally know someone named "Rudolphus." Since the options are (1) you do, or (2) you don't, I will assume that there is a fifty percent probability that you know someone with this name. Using this logic, if I surveyed the world, I should expect half of the people I ask to say that they do know somebody named "Rudolphus."Now, I'm confident that most people in the world will actually say they do not know anybody named "Rudolphus." So, the probability that you, specifically, know somebody named "Rudolphus" is quite low, and the probability that you do not know somebody named "Rudolphus" is quite high. Yet, this example provides a simple yes/no dichotomy.The fact that an example exists in which a yes/no dichotomy does not yield a 50-50 probability shows that you cannot assume 50-50 for any yes/no situation based on the fact that there are only two options. There are more factors than number of alternatives. If, by miraculous, you mean "amazing, wonderful, really neat, exciting": yes, you're right. But, like in the opening post, you seem to be suggesting that science allows the supernatural under assumptions of a long time. This is not true: even things that happen over billions of years happen by natural processes. As for "easier": What difference does "easy" make? Calculus isn't easy, but, if you use it right (i.e., the hard way), you come to the right answer.As for "safer": It's only safe if you're right that God exists: if you're wrong, not only will you have wasted your life following nothing, but you'll have effectively prevented science from ever learning the truth.Edited by Bluejay, : GrammarEdited by Bluejay, : Added "based on the fact that there are only two options."

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Let's see if I've got it. "Faith" can mean:(1) Belief in Something (in this case, God)
(2) Non-Empirical Evidence for the BeliefFirst off, it's completely unfair to use two definitions for a word that is in such hot contention on this forum (I mean "faith"). Second, it's unfair to use two definitions of the word "evidence," which, to scientists, only encompasses empirical evidence. Therefore, for the sake of the various discussions on this website, I submit that your second definition for "faith" is irrelevant, because, being immaterial, it fits better in a category with the "belief" definition of faith than it does in a category that includes empirical evidence. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion on many "science is faith"-type discussions on this website, and has made a lot of mostly-sane people got bananas.But, that's not the point. This is:In the #2 definition, the "evidence" referred to is, no doubt, a spiritual witness or manifestation that lends credence to the definition-#1 type of faith.This brings up an interesting dilemma in my mind: I have such a spiritual witness/manifestation/conviction concerning the truthfulness of my specific religion, and you have the same for your religion. I assume that your "spiritual" manifestation was, essentially, an emotional experience (simply because that's what most believers claim). So, the type or "substance" (forgive the poor terminology) of our convictions is essentially the same. Yet, from our past discussions, the object of our convictions is clearly very different.Surely this must raise some sort of questions in your mind? How can our convictions or manifestations be the same, yet be about different (even contradictory) things? This must automatically lower the "probability" factor for the truthfulness of any given religion (and of the very existence of God) at least a notch? Doesn't the "evidence" just boil down to "my word against yours," anyway? How does this constitute evidence, then?Essentially, for any one of our spiritual convictions to be "true," we would necessitate millions of other peoples' spiritual convictions to be at least partially false. How could anybody be so sure of their personal emotional (or "spiritual," if you prefer) witness as to simply shrug off everyone else's essentially equal spiritual convictions as false?From the get-go, it is an assumption on my part that my feelings are more reliable than yours. I've seen, through your arguments, that your convictions are at least as solid as mine, so there is no reason for me to assume what I feel is superior. But, my entire argument for the veracity of my religion is that my own feelings trump yours, even though mine are clearly not superior to yours or, indeed, special in any particular way.How is this enough evidence for ICANT and Wumpini to declare 100% probability of God's existence?Edited by Bluejay, : Better wording in a few places

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hello, ICANT. Then, what are they based on? My understanding is that the Spirit communicates through emotions (or something similar to emotions). Without the emotional content, what on Earth makes you choose to follow the Bible, instead of Webster's Dictionary or the Guinness Book of World Records?There is nothing of religious value in the Bible if there is no emotional witness of the Spirit. The only reason the Bible is worth anything is because of the witness people get from it. And, if you don't even have that witness, how can you be so certain that there is 100% probability of a God? But, why? And, how does this give you 100% probability of being right? How do you feel the Spirit, if not by your feelings? I don't want to mess with your beliefs (I agree with you on this), but we only know this because He told us. This is circular logic. We believe Him, because He can't lie, and we know He can't lie because He told us He can't, and we believe Him when He says this because... it won't stop.There's got to be something behind your belief in God, other than just a belief: otherwise it's completely foolish--you might as well base a religion on National Geographic as the Bible without an emotional conviction. And, if it's just a belief, with no supporting conviction, how could it possibly stand up to empirical evidence and manage even a couple percent probability of being right? Is this an admission that you might be wrong? If you might be wrong, you can't say the probability that you're right is 100% (as you did earlier in the thread).

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I knew I could count on you to deliver the goods. Now, if only I had the brains to understand them. This is true: I have no contention with this.My contention is that the "substance" of the term is more important in defining it than is its usage. I want to ask you this question: What is the difference between believing in something non-empirical based on non-empirical evidence, and just believing in something non-empirical?At their roots, both require me to believe in something non-empirical to begin with. That makes them more similar to each other than to "empirical evidence." But, I only see the necessity of putting an adjective before the word "evidence" when I'm talking about science with people who claim that faith is also "evidence." Outside of this circle, I never have to say "empirical" before "evidence." What you've got is a tautology: it uses your own argument (that faith is evidence) to validate your argument (that faith is evidence). There are actually three factors in this analogy though: the "information," the "mechanism," and the "source." The source is, of course, the thing from which the light is reflecting into our eyes. In your analogy, the reason we receive different information is because the information has two different sources, not because the information is different (if we had the same source, we would likely receive the same information).But, under the assumptions of our Western, dualism-based worldviews, there are only two possible sources of spiritual "information": God and Satan. In my analogy, we (all Christians) purport to share the same source (i.e. the Bible or God) and signal-transmission mechanism (i.e. spiritual manifestation), but get different information from it.The fact that we get different information could be because the information is coming from multiple different sources (God vs. Satan vs. Whatever Else). Maybe, the "spiritual" information's source is just a Hallmark tear-jerker movie (I'm man enough to admit I've been "touched" by one of those before--but, not man enough to admit it to my wife ).The point that I have is not that I think you're mistaken for your spiritual beliefs (I actually respect you for your conviction), but that this sort of "information" or "evidence" cannot be the basis of actual, solid "knowledge" about God (unless you have an alternate definition of "knowledge," too--which would also be a red herring), so it shouldn't be factored into any attempts at identifying probabilities.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I have no contention with this at all: this is not what bothered me. What bothered me was this: We only have to add the adjective because some people think there are other forms of evidence, so this statement does not establish the fact that evidence can be non-empirical: it only establishes the fact that some people think faith is evidence. That shouldn't have been word "non-empirical," because the phrase "empirical" refers to the way you get something, not to the something itself. I was trying too hard to keep uniform terminology, and it fell apart on me.I'll try again:What's the difference between believing in something immaterial based on immaterial evidence, and believing in something immaterial?It's the same thing. Just like believing in something material based on material evidence is the same as believing in something material. Since both definitions of faith describe things that are immaterial, they are more like one another than either is like "material evidence."

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Iano. First off, I apologize for the last message: I wrote it in an incredible hurry, and my mind was all over the place as I did. I promise to never again post something important while I'm in that much of a hurry.Somehow, these discussions always manage to get back to defining faith. The point that I had with this was that, when we get into those debates about "science is faith-based," and a scientist defines faith as "belief without evidence," they mean "empirical evidence." And, this always gets creationists in a tizzy. Then, the evolutionists try to correct their blunder by tacking "objective" or "empirical" before the word "evidence." Neither can I. But, ICANT said it just a few messages back (#108). I'm sure he's talking about something that simply doesn't fit in my mindset, rather than something that is completely nonsensical, but it still sounds strange to me. This was the way to tie it back into the topic. Since probabilities are assigned based on material evidence (I've never heard of immaterial evidence used for figuring probabilities--although they'd probably be good for determining immaterial probabilities ), I was trying to make the point that faith (of either definition) is not useful in determining the probability of God's existence (I'm not sure why I was trying to make it to you, though--maybe because you were the most liable to help me state it clearly ).Since most Christians seem to think of God as at least quasi-material, using immaterial evidence as proof is problematic. Since immaterial evidence is more akin to immaterial belief than it is to material evidence, it isn't equatable with material evidence. For this reason, I submit that material evidence trumps immaterial evidence when dealing with material subjects, just as immaterial evidence trumps material evidence when dealing with immaterial subjects.So, the only evidence that could realistically be considered as support for God's physical, material existence, would be material evidence, of which there is none.Maybe I should have directed this more toward Wumpini: I hope he's still reading this.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Iano. You have repeated evidence that slamming on the brakes makes the car stop. In fact, this becomes ingrained so much in you that you instinctively try to stomp on the brakes in emergencies, even when you're not in the driver's seat and have no brake pedal in front of you. Because of this, you know that it's not the act of stomping that stops the car, but the act of stomping on the brake pedal.Compare this with God: you have probably had countless inspirations or spiritual manifestations in your life that have resonated with you somehow and convinced you that God is real. But, you don't have any way of knowing whether it's your belief or the object of your belief that is doing what you are attributing to God. It could just be your belief in the myth that makes the myth resonate with you.Maybe proverbially "stomping on the pedal" has some sort of influence on your spiritual wellbeing and belief system, but you don't have a way to distinguish between stomping on the pedal and just stomping. This is because you have plenty of "evidence" of the effects of stomping, but you can't show whether or not it's that you're actually stomping on anything in particular, or if it's just that you're stomping.For example, I feel inspiration when I pray to God. I have no evidence that this is because God or the Holy Spirit is inspiring me. But, I do have evidence that it is somehow connected to the act of prayer. So, I can say that praying to God makes gives me inspiration, but I cannot actually state that God is giving me inspiration based on the available evidence.That's what makes it blind: you are concluding an underlying cause that is not distinguishable by the available evidence from other possible underlying causes.That's what Straggler means when he says, "evidence of everything is evidence of nothing."

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Doubletime.Welcome to EvC! This is not helpful. It's called "equivocation": basically, it means using a term such that it doesn't specify anything in particular, which makes it easy for you to dodge rebuttals, and difficult for your opponent to figure out what you mean when you're talking.And, I don't know anybody who obeys a cross or money.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.