A One In An infinity Chance That God Exists. What Do You Guys Think?

[amateurlyinsightful]

I don't see what's wrong with the way I assigned the probability originally

Probabily concerns reality. Probability attempts to calculate the odds/chance that a certain outcome will arrive based on known inputs and known mechanisms. You misused probabilty by invoking unknown inputs (creators of any sort) and ignored the creation method; therefore, your probability is meaningless.

Take the often used example of rolling a die (cube). The input is the die and its characteristics. The mechanism/process is the person rolling the die. We know there are six potential outcomes. The probability of rolling any one of the six is 1/6. We can then get fancy and figure the probability of rolling a certain number with a certain number of rolls.

This methodology cannot apply to non-existents. This is what is wrong with your assignment of probability to imagined creators. No input and no mechanism.

Taken from askmathematician.com "If the evidence E that we have is really unlikely to have occurred given the existence of a particular god G (but not so improbable otherwise), then that will tend to make the god G less likely." The equation is God/Evidence. Evidence according to Dictionary.com is "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign." Therefore, the existence of God/a infinity amount of other things that created the universe is a valid probability equaling to a one in an infinity chance that there is a God http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/05...od-exists/

[liam]

If there was a one in 1/0 chance i'd be on agnosticforums.org

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Cato; thank you, I almost understood that.

Does that mean we can work out the probably of sentient beings in say our galaxy? Do we have enough data?

[amateurlyinsightful]

let me rephrase my post: How is it that evidence isn't that there are other possible Gods, and therefore, God/E equals one in an infinity chance that there is god

---

you can check the probability of something that you're not sure exists. just checkout the first post on this page, and do some research instead of just listening to people on this board

[Whateverist]

This all seems so masterbatory, quibbling over how best to assign probabilities to made up shit. We must not be doing it right. It should be more fun.

[Anomalocaris]

Ok, I won't self promote. Can someone argue with me please about the post

---

I think I have one more self promotion

Why? I don't actually care about probabilities. A probability of 1 is not proof,neither is a probability of say 1 in 100 million proof of a negative.

A claim can either be proved or it cannot. If not I am unable to accept any truth claim.

You have not yet earned the privilege of self promotion.

Actually, a legitamate probability of 1 is proof, and more conclusive proof than any other form. A probability of 1 in a billion is not proof of negative, but for the purposes of building a world view, It will do.

[Cato]

Taken from askmathematician.com "If the evidence E that we have is really unlikely to have occurred given the existence of a particular god G (but not so improbable otherwise), then that will tend to make the god G less likely." The equation is God/Evidence. Evidence according to Dictionary.com is "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign." Therefore, the existence of God/a infinity amount of other things that created the universe is a valid probability equaling to a one in an infinity chance that there is a God http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/05...od-exists/

The author in your link was only demonstrating how one could reasonably consider the existence of god probabilistically. Your issue is not understanding that any probability requires evidence, something the author was clear about.

Until you can provide evidence for a god, assigning probability is meaningless.

---

@Cato; thank you, I almost understood that.

Does that mean we can work out the probably of sentient beings in say our galaxy? Do we have enough data?

It's been considered. The most popular version is the Drake equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Check out the criticism section. Even though we have the obvious evidence of output (us) and a thorough understanding of star and planet formation, the fact that quantifiable input must be guessed for certain terms means the output of Drake's equation tells us nothing.

[amateurlyinsightful]

Cato, according to the same definition of evidence I've shown in the post you replied back to there is evidence of God to the believer, which is the people I present with this argument.

---

Cato, I've given you rep because although you were first insufferable now (for a while already) you are being respectable

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Actually, a legitimate probability of 1 is proof, and more conclusive proof than any other form

Indeed,but NOT absolute. However,certainly good enough for daily life. Insurance companies have become rich playing far lower probabilities.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is either evidence or there is not, no qualifier required (ie-"to the believer" is complete and utter garbage). But lets say we gave that one to you, we're going to have to add the qualifier -to the believer- to your conclusions. There is a 1 in infinity chance of the existence of god -to the believer-. I wasn't aware that the believer required any probabilities.

Try again.