There is more atheists than...

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

Does this also mean that in an infinite universe with an infinite number of "things" existing the chance of you or me existing is infinitely close to zero?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Does this also mean that in an infinite universe with an infinite number of "things" existing the chance of you or me existing is infinitely close to zero?

Playing with infinities can be dangerous. But I think the answer to your question depends on what information we take into account.
The fact that we exist now, tells us that it is possible for us to exist. If we take this into account it increases the likelihood that we would exist in your hypothetical universe to near 1.
If however you asked 'what is the probability that a flying toaster exists in your hypothetical universe, I think it would be near zero.
Probability is all about information.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Does this also mean that in an infinite universe with an infinite number of "things" existing the chance of you or me existing is infinitely close to zero?

Depends which way you are asking the question.

In an infinite universe, anything that is possible is mandatory.

So as we are evidently possible, we are certain to exist.
In fact we would be certain to exist an infinite number of times.


However when talking about the possible existence of gods, or specifically
the probability of a specific mutually exclusive god existing...
Then you are talking about the a priori chances of that singular specific god
existing out of infinite possible options.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 co ...[text shortened]... r definition of 'a god' then you cover more solution space and thus make your god more probable.

Well if you want to play games about unknowns and assigning probability factors to things that don't exist we can all join in:

There is an infinite number of possible parallel universes, therefore the probability that god exists in one of those is infinitely high.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

While this is a nice example, it's of course problematic:

You say Given any real number - and no other information about it. Now keep in mind that in this comparison "God" is equated to "an integer". You do have additional information about integers though, namely that there are less integers than real numbers.

Because of this additional information - which your are using - you can make a probability claim about whether the number is an integer. Such information is not available about god. Therefore probabilities about god cannot be calculated. Later you say Probability is all about information. I agree. And because there is no measurable information available about god, calculating the probability of his existence is not possible.

(Mind you, certain types of god I think can be called "impossible" to exist. For instance when contradictory statements about this god are being made. An omnipotent god creating a rock he cannot lift would be the most famous example.)

If I'd continue with this comparison, it would have to be something like "because there is an infinite amount of numbers, the chance of a particular number existing is infinitely small" which I think is nonsense.

If anything, if an infinite amount of numbers exist, than a particular number must exist. Which I think is similar to what Divegeester said.

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.

Yes, that sounds completely logical and reasonable.

Which is of course diametrically opposed to how theists believe in god.

They simply tell you that god has brushed away all of His "fingerprints". Because he can do that.

This is why science can't be used to disprove god. Because theists will simply change the "rules" when it appears that god's existence has been disproved by science.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Yes, that sounds completely logical and reasonable.

Which is of course diametrically opposed to how theists believe in god.

They simply tell you that god has brushed away all of His "fingerprints". Because he can do that.

This is why science can't be used to disprove god. Because theists will simply change the "rules" when it appears that god's existence has been disproved by science.

No its not, its an EPIC FAIL, the supernatural cannot be subject to the same rationality as the natural world, that is logical, coherent and reasonable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In an infinite universe, anything that is possible is mandatory.

No, it isn't.

So as we are evidently possible, we are certain to exist.
Not so.

In fact we would be certain to exist an infinite number of times.
No. You are making an unfounded assumption: that the existence of things has a uniform probability distribution, and even then, you would still be wrong. At best, you can say the probability that we would exist is near 1. You cannot say it is certain (1).

However when talking about the possible existence of gods, or specifically
the probability of a specific mutually exclusive god existing...
Then you are talking about the a priori chances of that singular specific god
existing out of infinite possible options.
How is this different. Surely there are an infinite number of possible options in an infinite universe?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not, its an EPIC FAIL, the supernatural cannot be subject to the same rationality as the natural world, that is logical, coherent and reasonable.

As opposed to the theistic world, which is illogical, incoherent and unreasonable.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The same ones as being a theist. Since no one can possibly know one way or the other, to be an atheist is just as much a leap of "faith" as being a theist.

Not really. Every day, an atheist wakes up and sees no evidence of a god. No poltergeist with a bushy beard sitting on a cloud, no miracles where two cat turds are magically transmuted into a thousand Happy Meals to feed the homeless, no burning bush pronouncing the wisdom and the way. It takes, therefore, no active imagination to not believe in a god, or any leap of faith. When belief conforms with empirical observation, there is no faith.

Certainly there can still be mystery in life for atheists, even spirituality, but there is no assumption that wherever there is mystery there is magic or spirits. And since, whenever the light of scientific inquiry is shone where previously there was darkness, a mystery turns out to have a wholly natural explanation, the atheist is daily affirmed in his convictions. Belief remains consonant with observed reality.

So, while it might be charged by some that an atheist cannot "prove" there is no god, the fact of the matter is the burden of proof does not lie upon the atheist. The observed arrangement of the universe sides with the atheist, and whatever aspects of reality can not yet be explained by physical models amount to just that: mysteries that beckon us to stride forth and investigate further, and not drop to our knees in mindless worship.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Yes, that sounds completely logical and reasonable.

Which is of course diametrically opposed to how theists believe in god.

They simply tell you that god has brushed away all of His "fingerprints". Because he can do that.

This is why science can't be used to disprove god. Because theists will simply change the "rules" when it appears that god's existence has been disproved by science.

God always wins the game for the madding crowd because the goal posts are continually moved this way and that, so that every shot scores.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Not really. Every day, an atheist wakes up and sees no evidence of a god. No poltergeist with a bushy beard sitting on a cloud, no miracles where two cat turds are magically transmuted into a thousand Happy Meals to feed the homeless, no burning bush pronouncing the wisdom and the way. It takes, therefore, no active imagination to not believe in a god, ...[text shortened]... eckon us to stride forth and investigate further, and not drop to our knees in mindless worship.

Nicely put.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Depends which way you are asking the question.

In an infinite universe, anything that is possible is mandatory.

So as we are evidently possible, we are certain to exist.
In fact we would be certain to exist an infinite number of times.


However when talking about the possible existence of gods, or specifically
the probability of a specific m ...[text shortened]... the a priori chances of that singular specific god
existing out of infinite possible options.

In an infinite universe, anything that is possible is mandatory.
I'm always skeptical of this - what is the cardinality of the infinity in said infinite universe?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]In an infinite universe, anything that is possible is mandatory.
I'm always skeptical of this - what is the cardinality of the infinity in said infinite universe?[/b]

That would depend on the kind of multiverse going on.

However lets for the moment stick with the most basic, a 3 dimensional universe
that stretches infinitely in every spacial dimension, (and for the moment we'll
specify that it extends infinitely into the time dimension as well.)


EDIT: And those of a mathematical bent.

By mandatory I meant probability 1-e Where e=1/infinity...

Which is 1 for all practical purposes.


And in an infinite universe, anything with a non zero frequency of occurrence will
occur an infinite number of times.

Originally posted by Soothfast
God always wins the game for the madding crowd because the goal posts are continually moved this way and that, so that every shot scores.

No, every shot misses, but they still keep kicking as if nothing happened. I frequently refute various theists claims that involve science by pointing out that they have got the science wrong, but do they acknowledge that they got it wrong? Do they consider the possibility that if they got it wrong once they may have got it wrong the next time?
Even after they make 10 false claims in a row, they don't pick up a science book and learn something, they just post another 10 false claims.