The Probability of God

[IronUnkind]

Without any consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that a personal, singular, interactive god exists?

Put another way, is it inherently more likely or less likely that there is a god?

[David Sklansky]

Others will point out technical problems with your question. But we all know what you mean. My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive. In fact to me they are almost the same question.

[IronUnkind]

Part of my intention in posing the question the way that I did was to entice people to point out the "technical problems" with my question. I wish you had been more specific, so that I might better be able to zero in on where you stand epistemologically with respect to this question. Your answer intrigues me, however.

Since you seem so keen on using a Bayesian approach, I thought it would be helpful if you proposed some parameters for discussing this question. The results, as you know, will radically differ if one party assumes, say, a zero probability (strict atheists) and another assumes 1/2 (Pascal). And for those who object to the rationality of even assigning such a number, I ask how we are ever to get the "wager" off the ground?

[David Sklansky]

When I speak of the probability there is God I speak of it in the same way as I might speak of the probability that OJ was innocent. Are you willing to put both subjects in the same category, logically speaking?

Anyway many mathmeticians are uncomfortable with discussing the probability of events that already did or did not occur. As a gambler it seems obvious to me that we are simply talking about the right odds to lay or take given the evidence at hand. It doesn't matter whether the evidence involves the future or the past. Of course to make these bets and not take the worst of it, it is necessary that the other guy not have evidence that you don't have. New evidence changes someone's opinion of the odds. F Lee Baily's assessment of OJs odds of being innocent are better than mine. Assuming he thinks about as well as I do. OJ's son also has more evidence but it is likely that my odds are more accurate than his in spite of that. Both because I'm smarter and because he desperately wants to believe his father is innocent.

This is a very complicated subject that really need not be discussed in detail. Reaon being is that most unbelievers consider a personal God to be so incredibly unlikely, that any technical tweaking won't accomplish much. Since I can forsee a real long debate on this subject I will tell you now that I won't be joining in.

PS For those who aren't sure what I meant about computers, my contention is God is very unlikely if computers ever become fully conscious (how to determine if they are is another complicated subject but lets just say it can be done). He is however reasonably likely if we ever could prove that computers can't be conscious. My reason for this stance is of course that if computers can be conscious it means consciousness can "emerge" simply form the right combination and location of subatomic particles including photons. Something that might evolve.

[David Sklansky]

I just read your original post stating "without any consideration of the evidence". Didn't see that part before. But there is always some evidence. If you insist it all be ignored, the answer is one half. That's just automatic if there are only two possibilities and we know nothing about them.

[PairTheBoard]

DS -
"the answer is one half. That's just automatic if there are only two possibilities and we know nothing about them. "

There are two Envelopes. One has twice the amount as the other. The Envelopes are shuffled and Env1 is opened to reveal $100. The $100 gives us no information about whether it is the larger or smaller amount. Do you say there is a 50% probabilty Env2 contains $200 and a 50% probablity it contains $50? You have no information to choose between the two and it must be one or the other so it's 50-50? If so, the expected value of the second envelope is $125 and you would pay $10 for the right to switch? I don't think so.

PairTheBoard

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway many mathmeticians are uncomfortable with discussing the probability of events that already did or did not occur.

[/ QUOTE ]
Technically speaking, this is not true. Time has nothing to do with it. In the basic mathematical model of a probability space, there is nothing to distinguish between events which have occurred and events which have not. There is no time variable. The problem is a matter of perspective on what is random and what is not.

For instance, suppose I'm a blackjack player. I play in a certain way. The way I play generates a winrate for me. That winrate is a number. I don't know what that number is. But it is still a number. It exists and, as long as I don't change the way I play, it won't change. From this perspective, it's not random. So it doesn't make sense to ask about the probability that it is this value or that value.

On the other hand, suppose you walk into a casino and randomly select a blackjack player to observe. Maybe you select me. My winrate is now a random number. The probability my winrate is positive (or, more precisely, the probability your randomly chosen player's winrate is positive) is simply the proportion of blackjack players in the casino with a positive winrate.

So it doesn't really have anything to do with what has or has not happened. It has to do with what you're willing to consider random. Many mathematicians are unwilling, to a certain degree, to consider something random if it's not repeatable.

For example, what's the probability George Bush will die in office? I could claim it's 10%. But how could you verify it? Some think the only way to legitimately verify it would be to independently run through his presidency many times and see if the proportion of times he dies converges to 10%. Since this is impossible, these Frequentists would assert that it makes no sense to assign a probability to this event.

Others, however, would be fine with assigning a probability to this, so long as that probability was consistent with the probabilities of other related events. For instance, if it were 10%, then this would imply that the probability Dick Cheney ever becomes president is at least 10%. If we somehow knew (or agreed) that this latter probability was less than 10%, then we could reject the claim that the probability Bush dies in office is 10%. To these Bayesians, consistency is a tool for verifying probabilities; repeatability and the law of large numbers is not a necessary requirement.

The "event" of God's existence seems obviously unrepeatedly. So finding the probability of God amounts to finding the number (or numbers) which are consistent with the known (or agreed upon) probabilities of other related events. Not all mathematicians believe that this is a valid approach. They would argue that many of the "known" probabilities are nothing more than a description of our opinions on the state of the universe. As such, all we are doing here is trying to make sure our opinion on the existence of God is consistent with all of our other opinions.

In the end, though, the debate really has nothing to do with time and whether certain events have or have not already occurred.

[BZ_Zorro]

Without consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that invisible unicorns exist in an ethereal world beyond the reach of our 5 senses?

You answer my question, and I'll cut and paste it into yours /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Without considering the evidence (or judgement, reason and logic derived from experience), you cannot determine the possibility of anything in any meaningful way.

Can pigs fly? Possibly, but without considering some evidence, it's a meaningless discussion. Just for fun, try telling me they can't without considering any evidence.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
The "event" of God's existence seems obviously unrepeatedly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that should read "...obviously unrepeatable."

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive.

[/ QUOTE ]
We do this every time we reproduce.

[David Sklansky]

Your example violated my stipulation that "we know nothing about them"

[David Sklansky]

"My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive.

We do this every time we reproduce."

You are like the Anti Not Ready. Did you see how when I said that the scientific explanation for the miracle of the sun standing still is "it didn't happen" he said "is that Newton or Einstein". You sometimes do the same thing in reverse. Are you contending that if someone could maneuver sub atomic particles at will he could without question create something that knew it was alive? That should mean, I think, that he could in theory ressurect you if you were dead. I'm not so sure.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you contending that if someone could maneuver sub atomic particles at will he could without question create something that knew it was alive? That should mean, I think, that he could in theory ressurect you if you were dead. I'm not so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Without question" is too strong since you don't know without question that I know that I am alive. I might be a mindless automaton. The reasons you are nearly sure that I know I am alive are that you know you are alive, you know that you are built pretty much the way I am, and I act like I know I am alive -- that is, I pass the Turing test.

With that constraint, I'd answer your question in the affirmative: if we could move subatomic particles around at will, we could make Xerox copies of Phil Ivey, and all the reasons we have for believing that the real Phil Ivey knows he is alive would apply just as well to the copies. They would be built just like Phil, and they would pass the Turing test.

(And we could "resurrect" Phil after he dies by making a copy of how he is now.)

I am able to process thoughts because of how the physical atoms in my brain are arranged -- not because of some non-physical soul. Do you consider that statement to be controversial?

[rickieO]

here's a proof for god built on 2 premises:

humans are born, or endowed with innate knowledge.

example: the knowledge that every whole is greater than one of it's parts.

example: something which is concieved, but doesnt exist is not as great as something which actually exists.

can one concieve of that which nothing greater than it can exist?

if yes, then we know that "that which nothing greater than it exists" must exist, because of our innate knowledge (ex#2)

therefore, the probabilty of the first premise being true combined with the probabilty of the second premise being true leads you to the answer for the original question.

i do also realize "that which nothing greater than it can exist" may or may not be an adequate definition for god.

the rickiebear

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Without consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that invisible unicorns exist in an ethereal world beyond the reach of our 5 senses?

You answer my question, and I'll cut and paste it into yours

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. 50/50.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Others will point out technical problems with your question. But we all know what you mean. My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive. In fact to me they are almost the same question.

[/ QUOTE ]

pokerstove gave it about a 12% chance.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a proof for god built on 2 premises:

humans are born, or endowed with innate knowledge.

example: the knowledge that every whole is greater than one of it's parts.

example: something which is concieved, but doesnt exist is not as great as something which actually exists.

can one concieve of that which nothing greater than it can exist?

if yes, then we know that "that which nothing greater than it exists" must exist, because of our innate knowledge (ex#2)

therefore, the probabilty of the first premise being true combined with the probabilty of the second premise being true leads you to the answer for the original question.

i do also realize "that which nothing greater than it can exist" may or may not be an adequate definition for god.

the rickiebear

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll just pretend that a millenium of critique of this Philosophy 101 argument doesn't exist, right?

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Without any consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that a personal, singular, interactive god exists?

Put another way, is it inherently more likely or less likely that there is a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

We may have a winner for "Meaningless Thread of the Month".

[David Sklansky]

The Turing test doesn't prove that something knows it is alive. As you yourself admitted. Here's a better although not conclusive, test. Eavesdrop on a supersmart computer talking to another one. See if they ever speculate on the subject of how to prove that something knows it is alive. If I knew that such a conversation was not explicitly part of the original software, that would be good enough for me.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a better although not conclusive, test. Eavesdrop on a supersmart computer talking to another one. See if they ever speculate on the subject of how to prove that something knows it is alive. If I knew that such a conversation was not explicitly part of the original software, that would be good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think the copies of Phil Ivey might indeed speculate about that. Not because they have been directly programmed to, but because they have been programmed (by the evolutionary process that designed the original Phil Ivey) to find meaning and purpose in things, and to model other people's psyches in their own heads to figure out what makes them tick, and so on.

If we programmed a computer to run essentially the same "software" that the human brain has been "programmed" with -- not that we ever would, mind you, but if we did -- then it'd probably engage in the same kind of speculation about other entities' capacity for thought that we are engaging in.

But that's a common failing of sci-fi movies. When a computer "wakes up" and becomes conscious, it adopts human-like characteristics like getting jealous or thirsting for revenge or whatever. But a computer will never do this on its own -- it would have to be programmed for those things.

The human brain has been programmed for them or we wouldn't get jealous, mad, etc, either.

[David Sklansky]

"But that's a common failing of sci-fi movies. When a computer "wakes up" and becomes conscious, it adopts human-like characteristics like getting jealous or thirsting for revenge or whatever. But a computer will never do this on its own -- it would have to be programmed for those things.

The human brain has been programmed for them or we wouldn't get jealous, mad, etc, either."

You love to throw fastballs that Not Ready or Iron Unkind can hit out of the park.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
You love to throw fastballs that Not Ready or Iron Unkind can hit out of the park.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, because a program requires a conscious programmer? (It doesn't.) Or are you referring to something else?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Your example violated my stipulation that "we know nothing about them"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. When the $100 is revealed "we know nothing about" whether it is the larger or smaller amount.

PairTheBoard

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
can one concieve of that which nothing greater than it can exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. It's called a self contained universe.

[ QUOTE ]
i do also realize "that which nothing greater than it can exist" may or may not be an adequate definition for god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. It's also a perfect definition of a self contained godless universe.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read your original post stating "without any consideration of the evidence". Didn't see that part before. But there is always some evidence. If you insist it all be ignored, the answer is one half. That's just automatic if there are only two possibilities and we know nothing about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

::phew::

I was hoping you would catch that, Sklansky.
After I read your first response, I became a bit worried. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif