Math Unites Atheists and Believers

Out of boredom I came up with a way to quantify a persons faith in god or doubt in his existence. Many people are agnostics and we won't openly say that god doesn't exist but we also won't say that we believe in him. This is because we are rational people. We have doubts that god exists, but we also accept that maybe there is a god because we can't prove or disprove god's existence. So now let's use a number to represent our belief or doubt in god. I call it our "Agnostic Factor". The Agnostic Factor is the chance that you think that there is a god. So it's like we're betting on whether there is a god or not and you have to take some kind of odds for your money before you decide to make a bet.
I was raised christian and don't go to church or read the bible in any way so I say that there is a 1/5 chance that there is a god. I call myself an agnostic. I then asked my brother the atheist what he thinks the chance of a god are and he said 1/100. I didn't have a religious person to test and so I assume that people who say that they believe in god will say a number better than 1/2. Now the limits of the Agnostic Factor are 1 and 0. However, these numbers are unattainable without oversimplifying or rounding. A really big atheist might say that there is a 1/1000 chance of there being a god, but this is 0.001. I believe that no atheist no matter how hardcore they say they don't believe in god can give a number of 0. 1/100000000 is not 0 unless you simplify and say that it is approximately zero, but this is not the true number. Now for religious people. I believe that many religious people will say that there is a 1/1 chance of there being a god. But I don't feel that this is truly being honest. I believe that the most religious people in the world will not honestly have a number greater than 1/1.05. Therefore the limit of 1/1 is impossible.
Now I define that a person who says that they believe in god has an agnostic factor of 1 > AF >0.5
And I define that a person who claims to be an atheist has an Agnostic Factor of 0.05 > AF > 0.0001
And then of course the selfproclaimed agnostics have an agnostic factor of 0.5 > AF > 0.05
As you can see, all people have an agnostic number between 0 and 1, but never 0 or 1. Therefore, everybody is limited to the chance that they think that there is a god. So religious people and atheists are just people that are either rounding up to 1 or rounding down to 0. We are all therefore agnostics defined by our agnostic factor. And since we are all the same, we can give thanks to math for uniting us all. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
A really big atheist might say that there is a 1/1000 chance of there being a god, but this is 0.001. I believe that no atheist no matter how hardcore they say they don't believe in god can give a number of 0. 1/100000000 is not 0 unless you simplify and say that it is approximately zero, but this is not the true number.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't understand an Atheist do you. My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion. Zero, nada, zilch!!!! If the number was even .00000000001 I think that would be an Agnostic because there still is a very small amount of doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A really big atheist might say that there is a 1/1000 chance of there being a god, but this is 0.001. I believe that no atheist no matter how hardcore they say they don't believe in god can give a number of 0. 1/100000000 is not 0 unless you simplify and say that it is approximately zero, but this is not the true number.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't understand an Atheist do you. My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion. Zero, nada, zilch!!!! If the number was even .00000000001 I think that would be an Agnostic because there still is a very small amount of doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say there is no chance of a god, are you saying no chance of a day-to-dat traditional god, or no chance that the universe was somehow influenced by some higher being? Because if its the latter, then you can't say exactly 0% because you have absolutely no data beyond the universe.

And your comment "you really don't understand an atheist" seems to suggest that, like your opposing theist, you willingly choose to make categorical conclusions without objective evidence.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A really big atheist might say that there is a 1/1000 chance of there being a god, but this is 0.001. I believe that no atheist no matter how hardcore they say they don't believe in god can give a number of 0. 1/100000000 is not 0 unless you simplify and say that it is approximately zero, but this is not the true number.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't understand an Atheist do you. My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion. Zero, nada, zilch!!!! If the number was even .00000000001 I think that would be an Agnostic because there still is a very small amount of doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say there is no chance of a god, are you saying no chance of a day-to-dat traditional god, or no chance that the universe was somehow influenced by some higher being? Because if its the latter, then you can't say exactly 0% because you have absolutely no data beyond the universe.

And your comment "you really don't understand an atheist" seems to suggest that, like your opposing theist, you willingly choose to make categorical conclusions without objective evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO CHANCE THE UNIVERSE WAS INFLUENCED BY A HIGHER BEING - PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't tell me I must believe a little bit because I have absolutely no data beyond the universe. That is ridiculous. Because I don't have all the answers to the beginnings of the Universe I must somehow leave open the possibility that a god created it - why? How does that follow? Must I also leave open the possibility it was created by a one-eyed Unicorn. I can't prove it wasn't. You just don't understand a true Atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't tell me I must believe a little bit

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not telling to believe anything, you've already decided to believe something w/o evidence, I choose NOT to believe a little bit or a lot of bit that which I have no evidence of.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't tell me I must believe a little bit

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not telling to believe anything, you've already decided to believe something w/o evidence, I choose NOT to believe a little bit or a lot of bit that which I have no evidence of.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing me - you say I believe in something without evidence. I believe there is no God because there is no evidence of his existence. That is wrong? What about people that believe in god even though there is no evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing me - you say I believe in something without evidence. I believe there is no God because there is no evidence of his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way for us to "see" (or communicate/interact/whatever) beyond the universe, but you are claiming that there is nothing beyond the universe which possibly could have set the universe in motion. So, you are believing in something without evidence. I think any confusion comes up with the term "god" (which carries baggage due to common use) which is why I chose "higher dimensional being" or something like that instead. I'm not saying that I believe in anything beyond the universe (because it would be purely speculation and rather silly to speculate on something I can only have zero data on, and if that something existed, it would likely be well beyond anything my earth-bound comprehension could understand). But I am saying that believing that NOTHING is beyond the universe is equally unfounded speculation. Its like a simple statistics test, you can reject a hypothesis by showing it is not probable, but you can't prove a hypothesis to be true. You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.

Not supportable: "I believe there is no God because there is no evidence of his existence."

Supportable: "I do not believe there is a God because there is no evidence of his existence."

The difference may seem subtle, but it is significant.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there is nothing beyond the Universe or that I know how it started. But that does not mean I must somehow leave room for the fact that a 'higher being' may have started it. I just don't see the connection. And it is pointless to try. I do indeed reject that possibility do to lack of evidence (and logic). Your original post was about assigning a number to one's level of belief or lack of. I simply want it known that on that scale I am a Zero -period.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there is nothing beyond the Universe or that I know how it started. But that does not mean I must somehow leave room for the fact that a 'higher being' may have started it. I just don't see the connection. And it is pointless to try. I do indeed reject that possibility do to lack of evidence (and logic). Your original post was about assigning a number to one's level of belief or lack of. I simply want it known that on that scale I am a Zero -period.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I was not the OP.

2. You stated: "NO CHANCE THE UNIVERSE WAS INFLUENCED BY A HIGHER BEING - PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!" This implies that you are the one making the claim, not the one rejecting a claim. You cannot logically make a claim for which you cannot support.

3. The fact that you fail to see any difference between "I believe there is no god..." and "I do not believe there is a god..." suggests that further discussion of this topic with you is futile.

I see your point, however, some people in history have been forced into the 1 or 0. Christians have been killed by atheists/other religions for refusing to denounce their christianity. Atheists have been killed by Christians for refusing to admit the existence of God. Both have been forced to choose, on pain of death. Denouncing Christianity or atheism (especially atheism) would be a pretty easy thing to do unless you're absolutely certain. I'd say that's a pretty good case for arguing 1 or 0 (or maybe just plain human stubborness, I don't know).

As far as the probability of God goes, I think there is a 0.0000000000001 chance that Santa, as described in popular myth, actually exists. That doesn't really make me a Santa agnostic.

For me, the probability that God of the bible exists is 0. Absolute 0. The probability of a personal God who interacts with world or people in any way, is absolute 0. The probability that Jesus was some messenger of God is absolute 0. The probability that a higher, universal power of some kind exists is about 10% for me.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there is nothing beyond the Universe or that I know how it started. But that does not mean I must somehow leave room for the fact that a 'higher being' may have started it. I just don't see the connection. And it is pointless to try. I do indeed reject that possibility do to lack of evidence (and logic). Your original post was about assigning a number to one's level of belief or lack of. I simply want it known that on that scale I am a Zero -period.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I was not the OP.

2. You stated: "NO CHANCE THE UNIVERSE WAS INFLUENCED BY A HIGHER BEING - PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!" This implies that you are the one making the claim, not the one rejecting a claim. You cannot logically make a claim for which you cannot support.

3. The fact that you fail to see any difference between "I believe there is no god..." and "I do not believe there is a god..." suggests that further discussion of this topic with you is futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Sorry about that.

2. Never really stated that this was a claim - just my answer to a question the OP had asked me. An order for something to be considered scientifically it must be refutable. The existence of god is not so it is not an issue that can be considered scientifically. But that does not mean one can't have an opinion on the issue one way or the other. Nor does it mean you can't be 100% certain in your opinion.

3. You are right - I don't understand the semantic difference and I graduated 2nd in my class.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
For me, the probability that God of the bible exists is 0. Absolute 0. The probability of a personal God who interacts with world or people in any way, is absolute 0. The probability that Jesus was some messenger of God is absolute 0. The probability that a higher, universal power of some kind exists is about 10% for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this universal power have an intelligence?

[ QUOTE ]
3. You are right - I don't understand the semantic difference and I graduated 2nd in my class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant difference between claiming "I believe there is no God based on the evidence" versus rejecting a claim with "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence."

Why?

If you say "I believe there is no god", then the burden of proof is on you to support such a claim. If you say "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence" then you are rejecting a claim based on the evidence rather than making your own claim. Like I said before, you cannot make a claim which you can't support with data, but you can certainly reject a claim which is not supported by data.

This is like a statistics hypothesis test.

Hypothesis: P(creator beyond the universe) > X
(i.e., probability of a creator is greater than some number X, where X is greater than 0)

You may be able to reject this hypothesis due to lack of data, no matter what number for X you choose.

But this is not the same as proving the hypothesis: P(creator beyond the universe) = 0.

I know it's easy to say "what's the difference", but it is a real difference! Confusing [rejecting a hypothesis] with [proving its alternative] is a misapplication of the scientific method and logical deduction, and is at the root of much junk science that gets bantered about.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
If you say "I believe there is no god", then the burden of proof is on you to support such a claim. If you say "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence" then you are rejecting a claim based on the evidence rather than making your own claim. Like I said before, you cannot make a claim which you can't support with data, but you can certainly reject a claim which is not supported by data.


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept this difference and thank you for the explanation - it has been 'fun' talking to you. Have a good weekend.

[RJT]

This is wrong:

[ QUOTE ]
My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


You cannot say “...there is no chance of a god...” and then qualify it with “in my opinion”.

You can say “...there is absolutely no chance of a god.”; but then you have to be able to back up that statement with a logical proof.

You can also say “I believe there is no chance of a god.” That is akin to saying I believe in any particular theory, for example “ I believe that the theory of evolution is correct.”

You can say even this, if you wanted to, “I am 100% certain that there is no god.” But, then, quoting John Lennon, “…you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.” That is to say your credibility would be shot. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in a belief.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong:

[ QUOTE ]
My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


You cannot say “...there is no chance of a god...” and then qualify it with “in my opinion”.

You can say “...there is absolutely no chance of a god.”; but then you have to be able to back up that statement with a logical proof.

You can also say “I believe there is no chance of a god.” That is akin to saying I believe in any particular theory, for example “ I believe that the theory of evolution is correct.”

You can say even this, if you wanted to, “I am 100% certain that there is no god.” But, then, quoting John Lennon, “…you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.” That is to say your credibility would be shot. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. I always laugh at people who say you can't be 100% certain of something. Why, because you say so. You can be 100% certain about something and yet be totally wrong. It is how you feel about something not whether it is true or not. To imply that I can't be certain implies that I have some doubt no matter how small. But I do not. Do you need to do a mind meld with me to prove it?

As for the John Lennon song - what are you saying? Every one of my friends (and I have quite a few) know how I feel about God. That has not hurt me in the least. It has never hurt me in my love life or at work. I make more than 95% of all engineers in the country (according to the latest EE times poll). And everyone knows what an avid atheist I am.
Who is my credibility shot with - you???

This is why I need David for my running mate in 2008! Everyone believes in math.

[David Sklansky]

The amazing thing about this thread is that I would have laid 100-1 that the disputer would be someone who said the probability was exactly one in his mind rather than exactly zero.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. I always laugh at people who say you can't be 100% certain of something. Why, because you say so. You can be 100% certain about something and yet be totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t really want to make a big issue about it.

In hindsight, I think my tone might have come across as terse. I didn’t mean it how it might if sounded, so I apologize if I can across as terse.

But, I am 99.99 ad infinitum % certain that I am correct.

I did not say that someone can’t be 100% certain of something.

One can be 100% certain of facts, proven math formulas and the like.

One cannot be certain of anything subjective. One can have an almost certainty about just about any opinion one chooses.

One can have an opinion he is 99.99..ad infinitum % confident in. So, long as the words ad infinitum are not omitted.

But to say one is 100% certain in something that is not proven or verifiable is improper use of the English language.

If you insist on saying that you are 100% certain in anything that is a subjective opinion literally makes no sense is all.

Are you so sure I am incorrect? I have already admitted that I am only 99.99 ad infinitum % confident in what I said. And this isn’t even an opinion matter - the subject of who is correct here is verifiable.

[chezlaw]

Can be I be pedantic for a moment (clearly I can /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

100% certain is a a grammatical tautology

99% certain is an oxymoron

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Can be I be pedantic for a moment (clearly I can /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

100% certain is a a grammatical tautology

99% certain is an oxymoron

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Touché

100% certain is redundant, that is for sure.

99% certain - oxymoron? Technically , yes you are correct. Definitely more clear to say 99% confident.

The reason it might not be grammatically incorrect is that there are words that are omitted that are understood. Such omission of words is a common and accepted part of the English language. Like when we say the glass is 99 % full. We are actually saying: the amount of liquid in the glass as a percentage of it being full is 99%

I still can’t get commas correct, so I am not the best one to correct grammar.

I am still 99% confident in what I said though - perhaps not the best way to say it.

p.s Sorry for the temporary hijacking of the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The amazing thing about this thread is that I would have laid 100-1 that the disputer would be someone who said the probability was exactly one in his mind rather than exactly zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr.Sklansky is exactly right. I intended the post to be answered by believers not atheists. I figured atheists would say "who cares?". I could have said that I'm not 100% certain that I'm not a torso hooked up to a bunch of machines and computers and my life has been one big dream or virtual reality. I have no evidence to support if this is true or false, but of course I'm going to question it and say that it isn't likely and has about a 10^(-10^6) chance of being true. With such a low probability I can understand why someone wouldn't believe it to be true and I can't see why anyone would care enough to debate it.
Now, what I really don't understand is the people who claim to be 100% certain that they ARE a limbless torso hooked up to computers and machines with no evidence to support such a claim.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I could have said that I'm not 100% certain that I'm not a torso hooked up to a bunch of machines and computers and my life has been one big dream or virtual reality. I have no evidence to support if this is true or false, but of course I'm going to question it and say that it isn't likely and has about a 10^(-10^6) chance of being true . With such a low probability I can understand why someone wouldn't believe it to be true and I can't see why anyone would care enough to debate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the probability? As (I assume) you have no evidence to deny or support the scenario it seems arbitrary.

The reason I don't believe anything about it, is that any belief I have is independent of the truth of the matter. Hence there's no use in debating it.

chez