Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are the odds of God existing?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 304 (307425)
04-28-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-26-2006 9:05 PM


all possibilities are equiprobable
There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for the origin of the universe
You are assuming that whenever there are possibilities each has an equal probability, thus when there are two possibilities the odds of it being one is 50%. I'm not sure there is any justification for this assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-26-2006 9:05 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 04-28-2006 3:31 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 304 (307474)
04-28-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by robinrohan
04-28-2006 3:31 PM


Re: all possibilities are equiprobable
I just meant that, if all we took into account was the fact of creation, we have no evidence that would lean us to one side or the other. There might be evidence, but we don't have it. Now, if we take into account the nature of this creation, we MIGHT be able to say something else.
So its hardly possible to calculate the odds is it? If I rolled a die, I might say the odds of it landing on 6 are one in six, however I would be assuming that all possibilities are equiprobable. If I bought the die from a professional die makers who based their reputation on that, I'd be happy with it. I could even test it to see.
In the case of the creation of the universe itself, there is no reason to assume the possibilities are equiprobable. It doesn't matter about the evidence, if we don't have any evidence either way we can't use that to assume they are equiprobable.
There have been no logical grounds on which to make the assumption, contrary to the die scenario. Consider the Monty Hall problem as an alternate way to illustrate it. There are only two options, but they are not equiprobable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 04-28-2006 3:31 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 04-28-2006 4:20 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 134 of 304 (307493)
04-28-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
04-28-2006 4:20 PM


Re: all possibilities are equiprobable
As far as WE are concerned, they are equiprobable. To us they are, since there's nothing else to go on.
I understand that, but you are simply saying that because we don't know what the probabilities actually are, we'll say they're equiprobable. Therfore the probabilities are....
Its not a particularly inspired line of reasoning is it? You just throw in an assumption which gives you the answer to your problem. It seems almost circular: What is the probability that God exists? Well...if we assume that it has as much probability as any other possiblity then its 50%
Should we start accepting Pascal's wager now?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 28-April-2006 09:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 04-28-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 149 of 304 (307518)
04-28-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
04-28-2006 4:20 PM


Re: all possibilities are equiprobable
As far as WE are concerned, they are equiprobable. To us they are, since there's nothing else to go on.
I remember the name now - its the Principle of Indifference that you are using and it has the problems associated with it as outlined (also the PI only works if the possibilities are intrinsically the same but in name only). It serves a purpose only when its used to build an argument, not as an argument itself. Its validity in this situation can easily be debated.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 28-April-2006 10:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 04-28-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024