Topic: God

Anonymous 44c01a5dc7264ad76d59cf5f394e0c1c started this discussion 2 months (2008-10-11 17:27:33 UTC) ago:

Does he exist? Yes/no? Arguments?

Anonymous b61e9e6125292e4bb4111a973b7ac684 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 17:36:50 UTC) ago, 9 minutes later (#68,565):

Nope. There's a hat with infinite possible gods, you pick one out your chances of being correct is 1/infinity, which is 0.

Anonymous 3eede754fdc56da48f4769c43042be21 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 17:55:58 UTC) ago, 19 minutes later (#68,579):

@68,565

I agree with your conclusion, but your argument is poor, for two reasons: (1) you are confusing the probability of a future event with prior probability, which are different concepts, mathematically, and (2) although I agree that the probability that a god exists is pretty infinitesimal, the probability that "at least one god exists" is not equal to the probability that "this particular god exists". You can use the absurdity of a particular religion to discount the probability that it's own particular god is valid, but you should not extrapolate that to all possible gods.

For an example, let's use your logic to prove an absurd result:

(1) Pick a random counting number n. It can be arbitrarily large.

(2) The probability that you picked n = 1 is 0, since there are infinitely many numbers and you picked one at random. (This step is not necessary, but it is illustrative.)

(3) Choose another counting number k arbitrarily. Then the probability that you picked n = k likewise must be 0.

(4) But since you picked k arbitrarily, you've now proved the absurd result that the probability that you picked any particular number is 0.

(5) You can demonstrate the contradiction via counterexample — say, choose n to be 17. ;)

You see that now, the probability that n = 17 is 1. (The prior probability that you would have picked 17 is indeed 0, however — if you really were picking from an infinite set. This is arguably impossible, since your brain can't possible address most numbers on the near side of infinity. ;) )

Anonymous b61e9e6125292e4bb4111a973b7ac684 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 18:12:25 UTC) ago, 16 minutes later (#68,586):

Fine I should have stated, the probability any individual god exists is 0. Not the probability of there existing any god at all. I should clarify, my argument is not "There does not exists any god(s)" My argument is "If there does exist any god, the likely hood that your god is that god is 0"

Anonymous b61e9e6125292e4bb4111a973b7ac684 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 18:27:16 UTC) ago, 15 minutes later (#68,589):

Though I suppose I could clarify even further, my argument is essentially you have an interval in the real line (0,1) your probability of picking any single point is 0, so call all those points gods, the one you pick has a 0% chance of being the real god (assuming one exists).

Anonymous 3eede754fdc56da48f4769c43042be21 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 18:46:56 UTC) ago, 20 minutes later (#68,593):

@68,589

Fine — I guess it's up to me to volley. ;) I would go along with the idea that there are infinitely many possibly gods, but you are putting the set of gods onto a real interval, which means that you are asserting that the set of gods is not merely infinite, but uncountable. (As you probably know, an interval of real numbers is way bigger than your average run-of-the-mill infinite set.) Therefore, I demand a proof in the form of a function into the set of gods from an uncountable set before I will accept your hypothesis. ;)

Seriously, though, although I am as much of an atheist as you are, this argument is not good. It assumes, for instance, that the god(s) are wholly unable to communicate with humanity, or otherwise affect the results of the random draw. Secondly, certain belief systems will encompass more than discrete points in your probability space (i.e., if you take a Deist who believes merely in a monotheistic guiding force, then there are infinitely many gods in the hat that satisfy these broad requirements, thereby making these choices "denser" — once people are selecting intervals rather than points out of the hat, your "probability is zero" argument loses mathematical force).

Anonymous b61e9e6125292e4bb4111a973b7ac684 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 18:57:54 UTC) ago, 11 minutes later (#68,595):

My logic also requires the assumption that there is only one god. So yeah in a way you're right, it's a naive way to look at it, but it fends off monotheists.

Good fun though, not many people on the internet are mathematically knowledgeable.

If we only knew how infinite the number of god they have is, cause it might have measure 0.

Anonymous 395d9232b147a627bafc422d55fa7da5 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 21:23:55 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#68,633):

The more scientific proof we get the more things we find out are controlled by forces of nature and such. If things like lightning have been proven to be natural and not God bringing his wrath down on Earth, what's to say we can't prove everything "God" does is really not done by him? In fact, with the Hadron Collider, we're getting closer to proven that this entire universe could have feasibly been created with nothing more than the matter that existed then, and a lot of time.

Anonymous c6a24c2295009a7eecdc4867a9af4bc0 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-11 21:46:41 UTC) ago, 23 minutes later (#68,642):

God and empiricism do not mix. No matter how awesome science gets, it's still science. Science can never ever touch God because of the very concept of God. Therefore, there's absolutely no point in proving whether or not he actually exists. The simple fact of the matter is that he does "exist" simply because people believe he does, and carry out physical actions in his name.

Anonymous e49359d7789f4b4132962b6f44c889e4 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:15:57 UTC) ago, 5 hours later (#68,735):

The correct answer is "Maybe".

Anonymous aa7d02cf64b16287b7d0bcddda3dfffd replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:20:21 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,737):

Nobody knows for sure. That's the end of it to tell you the truth.
We humans have created religions due to our weakness (fear of death) and try to force ourselves to the notion that there is a purpose in life (which I'm not doubting).

Anonymous 3eede754fdc56da48f4769c43042be21 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:25:15 UTC) ago, 5 minutes later (#68,738):

@68,735

Hmm. I don't know if the correct answer is "Maybe". I think that, without further evidence, the correct answer is "No", unless your personal epistemology is so rigorous that you are agnostic about everything.

Consider this:

"The invisible, undetectable pink unicorn sitting on your bed — does he exist? Yes/no?"

Would you really answer, "Maybe?" Probably not. Is there a reason why this analogy is unfair?

Anonymous c6a24c2295009a7eecdc4867a9af4bc0 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 23:00:41 UTC) ago, 20 hours later (#69,042):

@68,738

Yes, I would fucking answer "maybe" to this one. There is an objective reality that we cannot detect or sense. This makes no difference though, because the unicorn has no effect on our science.

Anonymous b5dd5c28af470e55c1eb8c292fc1d5df replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 23:27:22 UTC) ago, 27 minutes later (#69,051):

@68,642

This man speaks the truth.

Before somebody calls me a hardcore Christian or something, I am a Deist.

Anonymous a1cd937ba7d6c0514d06e7c1f3793c5f replied with this 2 months (2008-10-13 12:47:19 UTC) ago, 13 hours later (#69,252):

I'm an agnostic.

Rationality will always prove more useful in practice than faith. Faith is okay to an extent, but with no true evidence to support any particular God or Gods (let's face it already), it is only fair to suppose that there could be a God or Gods.

The Epicurus argument says it all really. God or Gods could not be omnipotent yet also willing to do apparently nothing of important consequence, or to prevent evils, willingly or otherwise. In which case, there is simply no good reason to waste one's life on them. I'm even wasting my precious life on this argument, which, as sound as it is, is no more practically acceptable than worship itself.

AnonTalk BBS — Discuss anything anonymously without registration.