50/50

[IATIA]

There is no 50/50 chance of a god.  There either is a god or there is not a god.  One may consider that they have a 50/50 chance of being correct (or incorrect).

I have a nickle in one hand.  Which hand is it in?  A 50/50 chance of picking the correct hand, but there is a nickel.

Not quite how it works. Sure, the first coin toss you ever make might be a 50/50 split, but every toss after that is something other than an even split. Likewise, the first god proposition might have been an even split as far as correctness, but every god invented after that was not an even split.

You have obviously missed the point.  Firstly, there is no coin toss in my argument.  Secondly, regardless of whether or not you pick the correct hand, there is still a coin.  There is not a 50/50 chance of there being a coin, only a 50/50 chance of picking which hand it is in.  Likewise, there is not a 50/50 chance that a god exists. only a 50/50 chance that one chooses correctly.

the first coin toss you ever make might be a 50/50 split, but every toss after that is something other than an even split

As to the coin toss, every time it is tossed there is still a 50/50 chance of heads. The number of tosses does not change the possibilities.

[thehedglin]

You have obviously missed the point. 

Did I? Forgive me, but I guess I didn't understand your point, then. I suppose I will have to see if you explain it better here...

Firstly, there is no coin toss in my argument.

Indeed, I used it as a example of something analogous. The coin toss is a binary example, like yours, so it should have similar distribution properties.

Secondly, regardless of whether or not you pick the correct hand, there is still a coin.

That would be the reason that I used an example with two clear choices, instead of three. In a situation where "no coin" was a possibility, you would be at 33.3_/33.3_/33.3_ instead of 50/50. I would have had to use an analog with three choices to compensate.

There is not a 50/50 chance of there being a coin, only a 50/50 chance of picking which hand it is in.

Indeed, and in mine it is not a 50/50 chance of there being a coin, only a 50/50 chance of choosing the correct result of the flip.

Likewise, there is not a 50/50 chance that a god exists. only a 50/50 chance that one chooses correctly.

My example had a sum total of diddly-squat to do with gods existence, only the probability of the choice being correct.

As to the coin toss, every time it is tossed there is still a 50/50 chance of heads.  The number of tosses does not change the possibilities.

Let us see:

f(n)= pr(tails in first flip)×f(n-1) +
pr(heads in first flip, tails in second flip)×f(n-2) +
pr(heads in first 2 flips, tails in third flip)×f(n-3) +
pr(heads in first 3 flips, tails in third flip)×f(n-4) +
pr(heads in first 4 flips, tails in fourth flip)×f(n-5) +
pr(heads in first 5 flips, tails in fifth flip)×f(n-6) +
pr(heads in first 6 flips, tails in sixth flip)×f(n-7) +
pr(heads in first 7 flips) =
(1/2)×f(n-1) +
(1/2)2×f(n-2) +
(1/2)3×f(n-3) +
(1/2)4×f(n-4) +
(1/2)5×f(n-5) +
(1/2)6×f(n-6) +
(1/2)7×f(n-7) +
(1/2)7
Where:
f(n)=probability of success within n flips.
pr(x)=probability of x happening.

No, the number of flips changes the distribution curve, changing the odds of the sequence. Even if the odds of a single flip doesn't ever change, the odds of any sequence of numerous flips does. This also influences the probability of what will come next.

[Shuffle]

You have obviously missed the point. 

Did I? Forgive me, but I guess I didn't understand your point, then. I suppose I will have to see if you explain it better here...

Firstly, there is no coin toss in my argument.

Indeed, I used it as a example of something analogous. The coin toss is a binary example, like yours, so it should have similar distribution properties.

Secondly, regardless of whether or not you pick the correct hand, there is still a coin.

That would be the reason that I used an example with two clear choices, instead of three. In a situation where "no coin" was a possibility, you would be at 33.3_/33.3_/33.3_ instead of 50/50. I would have had to use an analog with three choices to compensate.

There is not a 50/50 chance of there being a coin, only a 50/50 chance of picking which hand it is in.

Indeed, and in mine it is not a 50/50 chance of there being a coin, only a 50/50 chance of choosing the correct result of the flip.

Likewise, there is not a 50/50 chance that a god exists. only a 50/50 chance that one chooses correctly.

My example had a sum total of diddly-squat to do with gods existence, only the probability of the choice being correct.

As to the coin toss, every time it is tossed there is still a 50/50 chance of heads.  The number of tosses does not change the possibilities.

Let us see:

f(n)= pr(tails in first flip)×f(n-1) +
pr(heads in first flip, tails in second flip)×f(n-2) +
pr(heads in first 2 flips, tails in third flip)×f(n-3) +
pr(heads in first 3 flips, tails in third flip)×f(n-4) +
pr(heads in first 4 flips, tails in fourth flip)×f(n-5) +
pr(heads in first 5 flips, tails in fifth flip)×f(n-6) +
pr(heads in first 6 flips, tails in sixth flip)×f(n-7) +
pr(heads in first 7 flips) =
(1/2)×f(n-1) +
(1/2)2×f(n-2) +
(1/2)3×f(n-3) +
(1/2)4×f(n-4) +
(1/2)5×f(n-5) +
(1/2)6×f(n-6) +
(1/2)7×f(n-7) +
(1/2)7
Where:
f(n)=probability of success within n flips.
pr(x)=probability of x happening.

No, the number of flips changes the distribution curve, changing the odds of the sequence. Even if the odds of a single flip doesn't ever change, the odds of any sequence of numerous flips does. This also influences the probability of what will come next.

[Shuffle]

That goes back to my equation. Do you agree with it?

It has a problem. There are more kinds of spoons than I can count, but that doesn't mean that you would divide the probability of me having one by the number of kinds that exist. Let me put it this way, if I may:

The chances of getting any sequentially specific set of cards in a traditional 52 card game of 7-card poker is:

1/(52*51*50*49*48*47*46) = 1/674,274,182,400


However, since sequence isn't generally very relevant, the chance of getting any sequentially nonspecific set is actually:

1/133,784,560

However, once you sit to play your odds of getting a hand of seven cards is 1/1. No matter how statistically near-impossible any set of cards is to get, you will still get one.

But I started out with the assumption that the chance that you will pick a card to begin with is 50/50. I do not think this is the case at all, but even if it is, the chance it is a certain card is 0, since it is an infinite deck with all different cards.

[thehedglin]

To be fair, not many people really understand probability, it is a bastard of a field of study. Essentially the error here is one most people tend to make, they look at the odds of a single event, and assume that the individual probability of that event isn't effected by the frequency or sequence. Like with the cards, we went from 1/52 odds of a single card being dealt, to 1 in over six hundred billion in a seven card hand.

The number of events matter.

---

But I started out with the assumption that the chance that you will pick a card to begin with is 50/50. I do not think this is the case at all, but even if it is, the chance it is a certain card is 0, since it is an infinite deck with all different cards.

While the chance of a certain card is 0, in your scenario, the chance of getting a card is still 50/50. Since we haven't really specified a card, any card is still a card, you have to specify a single value before the infinite deck comes into play. It is essentially the difference between any god being correct, and a specific god being correct.

In probability, a large range does not always decrease a probability, at least not until you specify a value or sequence.

[IATIA]

No, the number of flips changes the distribution curve, changing the odds of the sequence. Even if the odds of a single flip doesn't ever change, the odds of any sequence of numerous flips does. This also influences the probability of what will come next.

Wrong. The chances are always 50/50. The results of the previous flip have nothing to do with the next flip. It is always 50/50.

You still have missed the point.

It still has nothing to do with a 50/50 chance of there being a god. There either is or is not. Moot point. There is only a 50.50 chance of being correct as in my hide the coin in one hand. There is a coin. Period. absolutely. There is only a 50.50 chance of choosing the correct hand, but there is a coin. !00% chance.

[IATIA]

Just for those that think they know probabilities.

I have two envelopes. One has a twenty and the other has a five.

What are the chances that you will pick the envelope with the twenty?

Before you open the envelope, I will give you a chance to pick the other one.

Now what are the chances you will pick the one with the twenty.

A second example. You have a room with thirty people in it. What is the chance that two have the same birthday?

[thehedglin]

No, the number of flips changes the distribution curve, changing the odds of the sequence. Even if the odds of a single flip doesn't ever change, the odds of any sequence of numerous flips does. This also influences the probability of what will come next.

Wrong.  The chances are always 50/50.  The results of the previous flip have nothing to do with the next flip.  It is always 50/50.

You still have missed the point.

It still has nothing to do with a 50/50 chance of there being a god.  There either is or is not.  Moot point.  There is only a 50.50 chance of being correct as in my hide the coin in one hand.  There is a coin. Period. absolutely.  There is only a 50.50 chance of choosing the correct hand, but there is a coin. !00% chance.

If you are given the choice multiple times, the chances of you being correct every time is not 50/50.

---

Just for those that think they know probabilities.

I have two envelopes.  One has a twenty and the other has a five.

What are the chances that you will pick the envelope with the twenty?

Before you open the envelope, I will give you a chance to pick the other one.

Now what are the chances you will pick the one with the twenty.

If given the choice only once, 50/50. But if given this choice more than once, the chances that you will pick the twenty every time is NOT 50/50.

A second example.  You have a room with thirty people in it.  What is the chance that two have the same birthday?

Actually depends on your birthday, the chances of finding someone with the same birthday changes drastically if you were born on leap day(February 29th).

[comet]

Does anyone agree that the existence of god is a 50/50 chance? I have heard atheists say that theists have said this in the past, but I have never heard it. I just want to make sure it isn't a straw man that atheists have come up with, so I can avoid using it in the future.

Thanks!

  first we have to know what god.  Are we balling everything we don't understand and don't agree with up in one big ball of god? But let's assume we all mean the definition every time we ask.
 
If we are talking about just "something more complex", based on emergence,  then the statement "There is "something" is more valid than saying "there is "nothing".  But When we begin to assign traits to this "something" like he lived, he died, and he undied then flew way, we can say "it is more valid to claim that event did not happen" then it is to claim "that event happened."  And it is not 50/50, its more like 99.99 / 0.01
 
Not that I should.  But the words "belief' and "faith" should have some type of real support.  The dictionary be dammed. I can't see why we allow a stupid person the opportunity to say "I don't believe that." and all reason is tossed down the porcelain pooper and the debate is over.

[Shuffle]

Does anyone agree that the existence of god is a 50/50 chance? I have heard atheists say that theists have said this in the past, but I have never heard it. I just want to make sure it isn't a straw man that atheists have come up with, so I can avoid using it in the future.

Thanks!

  first we have to know what god.  Are we balling everything we don't understand and don't agree with up in one big ball of god? But let's assume we all mean the definition every time we ask.
 
If we are talking about just "something more complex", based on emergence,  then the statement "There is "something" is more valid than saying "there is "nothing".  But When we begin to assign traits to this "something" like he lived, he died, and he undied then flew way, we can say "it is more valid to claim that event did not happen" then it is to claim "that event happened."  And it is not 50/50, its more like 99.99 / 0.01
 
Not that I should.  But the words "belief' and "faith" should have some type of real support.  The dictionary be dammed. I can't see why we allow a stupid person the opportunity to say "I don't believe that." and all reason is tossed down the porcelain pooper and the debate is over.

I agree with everything you said up to the 99.99/0.01. Where did you get that number?