50/50

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What attributes do you want your deity to have?

[Cato]

I really meant the chances that the god they believe in exists.

Part of the confusion in this thread is that two very distinct meanings of probability are being conflated. When we are talking about beliefs we can roll out Bayes in a subjectivist probability discussion. This says absolutely nothing about the actual existence of any god. For that we need frequency probability which relies on observation, measurement, and an understanding of the causal mechanism if available.

For the existence of physical entities, probability is essentially the frequency of occurrence. Until at least one god is demonstrated, the frequency probability is zero; Bayes be damned.

[robvalue]

Let's see if Buffy can clear up this confusion.

http://youtu.be/c7JkSg9PviY

[Ben Davis]

[Shuffle]

I really meant the chances that the god they believe in exists.

Not what you said, but it is still not 50/50.  Their god is nothing more than delusions and/or power mongers/men.

And no, you can't choose what you believe. Just for a fun experiment, believe for a few briefs moments that you can fly. Honestly, legitimately, wholeheartedly believe that you can fly.

Yes. I can choose to believe that I can really fly. "Honestly, legitimately, wholeheartedly believe that you I can fly".  Does not make it so.  Then again, I was in the Airborne.  We flew lots of times.

I know it is not 50/50. Did you not read my post when I said the chances to pick the right god was 0% likely?

And I know you can't actually believe that you can fly. If you can, than I don't want to talk to a person so deluded.

[Shuffle]

What attributes do you want your deity to have?

Are you talking to me. If you are, I don't think that matters. All that matters is the amount of gods that can be conceived of, which is infinite.

[Ben Davis]

What attributes do you want your deity to have?

Are you talking to me. If you are, I don't think that matters. All that matters is the amount of gods that can be conceived of, which is infinite.

The probability of anything infinite happening is 1 so that would make god/s a certainty. The problem with this supposition is that it defines god/s as everything/anything: "I can conceive of a god which is a chair therefore...". This robs the explanatory power from the definition of 'god/s'. What we need is a definition of the god in question which can then have its attributes compared to 'things about which we understand the probability of existence'; where attributes have existent matches, we can begin to hazard a number; where attributes are demonstrably non-existent, we can state impossibility; where there are no existent comparisons for attributes, no probability can be ascertained.

[Shuffle]

Are you talking to me. If you are, I don't think that matters. All that matters is the amount of gods that can be conceived of, which is infinite.

The probability of anything infinite happening is 1 so that would make god/s a certainty. The problem with this supposition is that it defines god/s as everything/anything: "I can conceive of a god which is a chair therefore...". This robs the explanatory power from the definition of 'god/s'. What we need is a definition of the god in question which can then have its attributes compared to 'things about which we understand the probability of existence'; where attributes have existent matches, we can begin to hazard a number; where attributes are demonstrably non-existent, we can state impossibility; where there are no existent comparisons for attributes, no probability can be ascertained.

The chances that a specific god, out of the infinitely many more, is correct is 0.