RE: A One In An infinity Chance That God Exists. What Do You Guys Think?
July 4, 2012 at 10:48 am
Cato seems to be the only person in here who knows anything about probability theory. Except that you don't need things like "known inputs" and "known mechanisms" in probability theory. That's something more like experiment design, where you want a random variable to accurately reflect the outcome of some experiment.
Really, in order to assign probabilities, all you need is a sample space S, a σ-algebra Σ defined on S, and a probability measure defined on Σ.
So let's say that our sample space consists of all the possible universe-creators--God, the monkey-mole, etc., and Σ is defined as the σ-closure of every finite subset of S.
By assumption, S is countably infinite. Now, your method seems to be something like, "Since there is no evidence that any particular potential creator is more likely to be the actual creator, we must assume that they all have equal probability."
That is, P(God) = P(monkey-mole) = ...
Unfortunately, there is no probability measure on an infinite set that assigns a constant value to every point. Since you don't have a probability measure, you can't draw probabilistic inferences. So your argument is invalid--it draws improper inferences.
Really, in order to assign probabilities, all you need is a sample space S, a σ-algebra Σ defined on S, and a probability measure defined on Σ.
So let's say that our sample space consists of all the possible universe-creators--God, the monkey-mole, etc., and Σ is defined as the σ-closure of every finite subset of S.
By assumption, S is countably infinite. Now, your method seems to be something like, "Since there is no evidence that any particular potential creator is more likely to be the actual creator, we must assume that they all have equal probability."
That is, P(God) = P(monkey-mole) = ...
Unfortunately, there is no probability measure on an infinite set that assigns a constant value to every point. Since you don't have a probability measure, you can't draw probabilistic inferences. So your argument is invalid--it draws improper inferences.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
