There is more atheists than...

So you haven't stopped? Good, it's an excellent game. Catching a white whale is awesome and impressive.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Is it a scientific hypothesis, though? The way I see it, because of the nature of god (probably any god) he can never be proven scientifically. Because he decides what the rules of nature are and because he decides when he wants to be proven or not. It's not like he's left the scientific door open for us to find him, if we push the right buttons and m ...[text shortened]... me right in the eyes and there's nothing I can do about it." It doesn't work like that, does it?

When we are talking about god as being an actual being, then that being
either exists, or it doesn't.

That is a question of fact, of the nature of reality.

That makes it a scientific question.

The fact that it can only be answered probabilistically doesn't negate that.

No question in science is ever answered with 100% certainty, everything
is ultimately probably false or probably true.

The probabilities might get incredibly close to 0 or incredibly close to 1 but
they never actually reach 0 or 1.



I liked an argument made on the "Atheist Experience" TV program by one of
the presenters.

It basically boiled down to saying that if you have something that has no effect
on our world, is invisible, and undetectable, and in fact is totally indistinguishable
by any means from it's own non-existence... then you have to ask what you mean
by the word 'exists'.

If gods existence is utterly and completely indistinguishable from it's non-existence
by any test or observation then what do you mean when you say that it exists?


If you allow such a being to be considered to exist then you have just rendered the
word exist meaningless, and we now need a new term for the concept of something
existing.


And if it can't be demonstrated by any means to exist then for any and all intents and
purposes it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So you haven't stopped? Good, it's an excellent game. Catching a white whale is awesome and impressive.

I help my kid out when he is stuck, not caught a white whale yet, just hammerheads and great white sharks and an orca.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When we are talking about god as being an actual being, then that being
either exists, or it doesn't.

That is a question of fact, of the nature of reality.

That makes it a scientific question.

The fact that it can only be answered probabilistically doesn't negate that.

No question in science is ever answered with 100% certainty, everything ...[text shortened]... demonstrated by any means to exist then for any and all intents and
purposes it doesn't exist.

I'll reply more in depth tomorrow when I'm behind a computer instead of an Ipad, but for now I'll just say that I never claimed or implied that probabilistism (not sure if that's a word...) is a problem with science.

The problem is that you cannot assign any probabilities to god's existence. Not zero, not one and nothing in between.

Or if you can, I'd love to read it.

With regards to your second point: interesting, but if the presenter meant it as an argument against god it's of course a very flawed one, because theists will always* claim that god has had some sort of effect on "our world". For instance via the Bible or the Quran.



* unless there are religions that indeed claim that their god has had no effect whatsoever on us, in which case I tend to agree with the argument.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I'll reply more in depth tomorrow when I'm behind a computer instead of an Ipad, but for now I'll just say that I never claimed or implied that probabilistism (not sure if that's a word...) is a problem with science.

The problem is that you cannot assign any probabilities to god's existence. Not zero, not one and nothing in between.

Or if you c ...[text shortened]... t their god has had no effect whatsoever on us, in which case I tend to agree with the argument.

You can assign probabilities (or more correctly bound probabilities) for
the existence of gods.

But how you do it is rather involved.

It involves the use of Bayesian Probability theory.

If you're interested I can hunt down some links to talks given on how
you do it plus more detailed information on Bayesian analysis.


And you are correct that pretty much every religion I have heard of claims that
their god interfere with the world in some way, and thus should be detectable
by some test or other.

However they then try to simultaneously claim that it's impossible to detect their
god by any means.

At which point I roll out that argument and state that if their god is utterly undetectable
and indistinguishable from it's own non-existence then it doesn't in fact exist.
And can't be said to exist.

I am interested in that but fear that it will go straight over my head. I promise I will attempt to read/watch it but I won't promise to understand it or to agree with it. And even if I don't understand it, I might still decide to disagree with it 🙂

But yeah, post some links if you have them.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I am interested in that but fear that it will go straight over my head. I promise I will attempt to read/watch it but I won't promise to understand it or to agree with it. And even if I don't understand it, I might still decide to disagree with it 🙂

But yeah, post some links if you have them.

Ok, no problem.

I don't have them on this computer, but I'll hunt them down tomorrow, when I'm on my other computer.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The problem is that you cannot assign any probabilities to god's existence. Not zero, not one and nothing in between.

Probability is all about how many options there are and what you know about their relative likelihood. The probability of a gods existence depends on what you know about it, or what knowledge you decide to use in your calculation.

If however you take it that there is no evidence specifically for or against the existence of a god, then you can take this fact into account: There are infinitely more non-existent 'things' than existent 'things'. Even if the universe is infinite, this is true.
There are also infinitely more things (existent or otherwise) that are not gods than things that are gods.
So the probability that a god exists based only on the above facts is very nearly zero.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Probability is all about how many options there are and what you know about their relative likelihood. The probability of a gods existence depends on what you know about it, or what knowledge you decide to use in your calculation.

If however you take it that there is no evidence specifically for or against the existence of a god, then you can take this ...[text shortened]... e gods.
So the probability that a god exists based only on the above facts is very nearly zero.

How do you assign a numerical value to something that doesn't exist?

Originally posted by divegeester
How do you assign a numerical value to something that doesn't exist?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking how I know how many things don't exist?

To give an analogy of my above argument:
We know roughly how many species of mammal exist, but also know that there are a number of as yet undiscovered species.
We can imagine many species of mammal that do not exist (unicorns for example).
If we wanted to, we could think up any number of mammals that do not exist.
So, if you think up a possible mammal (that is not amongst the known existent ones), the chances that it exists is essentially zero.

There is however the added complication that definitions are broad, so if you think up a mammal that has 6 toes and say nothing more about it, you have covered a wide range of possible mammals, so it gets really complicated.
The same applies to gods. If you are vague about your definition of 'a god' then you cover more solution space and thus make your god more probable.

Probability is all about how many options there are and what you know about their relative likelihood. The probability of a gods existence depends on what you know about it, or what knowledge you decide to use in your calculation.

If however you take it that there is no evidence specifically for or against the existence of a god, then you can take this fact into account: There are infinitely more non-existent 'things' than existent 'things'. Even if the universe is infinite, this is true.

I really don't understand your argument. Are you saying that the non-existence of an infinite number of things reduces the chance of one particular thing existing?

EDIT: posts crossed.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I really don't understand your argument. Are you saying that the non-existence of an infinite number of things reduces the chance of one particular thing existing?

Yes - assuming that you have no other information available.

Given any real number - and no other information about it, the probability that it is an integer is nearly zero because there are infinitely more real numbers than integers. If I recall correctly, it is also infinitely more likely to be irrational than rational.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I'll reply more in depth tomorrow when I'm behind a computer instead of an Ipad, but for now I'll just say that I never claimed or implied that probabilistism (not sure if that's a word...) is a problem with science.

The problem is that you cannot assign any probabilities to god's existence. Not zero, not one and nothing in between.

Or if you c ...[text shortened]... t their god has had no effect whatsoever on us, in which case I tend to agree with the argument.

Essentially, if a god interacts, or has interacted in the past, then those interactions will be detectable by science. If it does not, then it effectively does not exist.

Simples.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Essentially, if a god interacts, or has interacted in the past, then those interactions will be detectable by science. If it does not, then it effectively does not exist.

Simples.

--- Penguin.

No its a Fail, for those acts may be out with the natural world and are thus inexplicable by the scientific method.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its a Fail, for those acts may be out with the natural world and are thus inexplicable by the scientific method.

That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense... let alone any other kind of sense.