Can the probability of God existence change?

[Lestat]

Or is it static?

If intelligent life (that of which matches at least our own intelligence), were discovered elsewhere in the universe, would this increase, decrease, or not change the probability of a Creator?

What if it could somehow be proven with 100% certainty that we were the only intelligent life in the universe. Notice that this is very different from proving the impossibility for other intelligent life forms). Would the fact that we were solely alone in this vast seemingly infinite universe alter probability of a Creator's existence? If so, would that probability increase, decrease, or remain unchanged?

What other things, if proven or disproven, might alter the probability of God's existence particularily for such staunch athiests like Sklansky?

I doubt any one miracle would be enough for sklansky, save for a voice coming out of the sky. But certainly there must be things which he would entertain adjusting the odds. ??

[theweatherman]

hmm, it seems that the probability of existence is always either 0% (doesnt exist) or 100% (does exist). There isnt really any third choice such as 80% (something existing 8 times out of ten). Based on this then Id say that the probability of Gods existence is always the same; either 0% or 100 %

[RainDog]

While I disagree as to the probability of existance always being 0% or 100%, I do agree that the probability of God's existence will always remain the same. This seems to be the case while alive anyways. After death maybe there is a possibility of a shift in probability...ok that sounds bizarre. I'm tired.

[David Sklansky]

"I doubt any one miracle would be enough for sklansky, save for a voice coming out of the sky. But certainly there must be things which he would entertain adjusting the odds."

Very frustrtaing. The probability of ANYTHING changes, (from the vantage point of the oddsmaker or collective oddsmakers) any time ANY relevant information is received. If there was no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, it would significantly raise the probability of the existence of a personal god. If we built computers that were conscious, it would significntly decrease the chances. Smaller events have smaller effects.

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, it seems that the probability of existence is always either 0% (doesnt exist) or 100% (does exist). There isnt really any third choice such as 80% (something existing 8 times out of ten). Based on this then Id say that the probability of Gods existence is always the same; either 0% or 100 %

[/ QUOTE ]

"Probability" means the likelihood of something occurring based on incomplete information.

For example, taking your stance it's either 100% or 0 that your flush will hit on the river. But because we don't know everything, we assign probabilities. The question being asked is whether or not certain information would change an individual's beliefs about the likelihood of God.

The answer is there isn't a sane person who wouldn't change their probability assessment based on strong evidence. For me such evidence would be a verifiable miracle, such as a whole ward of a hospital getting cured overnight, God appearing and talking to 100,000 people at once, a hurricane (such as Rita) disappearing in a minute, a faith healer curing a visible external injury instantly, someone brought back from several days dead, all the bibles in the world suddenly becoming clear and unambiguous There are a million things that would make me a believer, not one has been proven to happen.

First, why do you think that learning that we are the only life in the universe would change the probability of a God existing?

Second, I want the probability that Superman exists. Why?
Because it's the same probability that a God exists.
Some things shouldn't be given a probability based on the absurdity of the content.

Shooby

The probability that a god exists is completely subjective. Everyone has their own idea of what the probability of a god is. I referred to this as our "Agnostic Factor" in an older thread called "Math Unites Atheists and Believers". Of course, random occurences are going to affect our personal probability of god. As Mr.Sklansky has said, proof of humans as the only intelligent life in the universe would affect his personal probability for a god.
For the guy who said that the probability of a god is either 1 or 0. Do you understand what a probability is? With no evidence to prove or disprove god, the probability of a god has to be between 0 and 1, but never 1 or 0. Because nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is or isn't a god. If I hit my flush draw on the river, should I have said that it was 100% before it happened?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
For the guy who said that the probability of a god is either 1 or 0. Do you understand what a probability is? With no evidence to prove or disprove god, the probability of a god has to be between 0 and 1, but never 1 or 0. Because nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is or isn't a god. If I hit my flush draw on the river, should I have said that it was 100% before it happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a real difference, its just a different way of looking at the same thing. The probability of making the flush is 1 or 0 if the situation is deterministic (that's what deterministic means). If its a random event then its a probability. As we assume (hopefully correctly) that no-one has enough information to do better than as if it was a random event, the best we can do is to go with the probability.

Similarly with god, either there is a god or there isn't (1 or 0) but as we can't determine whether there is or not, some believe they can put a degree of certainty on their belief in god.

chez

Why not put a degree of certainty on god? This can then give us a way of classifying a person's belief or disbelief in god. The "Agnostic Factor" is a great way to determine how religious or unreligious a person is. The online dating implications alone give it a justification for use. I mean, if you meet a girl online who says that she's blonde 5'10'' , 120 pounds and religious, then what the heck does the last part mean? Does it mean that she's a good person who happens to wear a cross around her neck? Or are you going to wake up one night to find that she's performing an exorcism on you screaming "the power of Christ compells you"? Wouldn't it be easier to meet her and have her say "I'm blond, 6ft tall, 120 pounds, I like long walks on the beach, and I feel that there is a 1/10 chance of god existing". Now you know who you're talking to and what you can expect from the person. It's late and I've been drinking, so maybe this is incoherent rambling, but it seems like a good idea. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
First, why do you think that learning that we are the only life in the universe would change the probability of a God existing?

Second, I want the probability that Superman exists. Why?
Because it's the same probability that a God exists.
Some things shouldn't be given a probability based on the absurdity of the content.

Shooby

[/ QUOTE ]


If intelligent life (that of which matches at least our own intelligence), were discovered elsewhere in the universe, it would greatly decrease the probability of a creater - do you see why?

Do you think that they would believe in god and that they were made in his image (assuming they look very different from us)? Also, would they have their own version of Jesus?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not put a degree of certainty on god? This can then give us a way of classifying a person's belief or disbelief in god. The "Agnostic Factor" is a great way to determine how religious or unreligious a person is. The online dating implications alone give it a justification for use. I mean, if you meet a girl online who says that she's blonde 5'10'' , 120 pounds and religious, then what the heck does the last part mean? Does it mean that she's a good person who happens to wear a cross around her neck? Or are you going to wake up one night to find that she's performing an exorcism on you screaming "the power of Christ compells you"? Wouldn't it be easier to meet her and have her say "I'm blond, 6ft tall, 120 pounds, I like long walks on the beach, and I feel that there is a 1/10 chance of god existing". Now you know who you're talking to and what you can expect from the person. It's late and I've been drinking, so maybe this is incoherent rambling, but it seems like a good idea. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be a great way of determining how religous someone is, in fact that sounds entirely reasonable. It doesn't mean that their degree of belief is anything to do with the probability of god existing.

Compare with the flush example. The degree of belief in flushyness should be exactly the same as the probability of making the flush.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
The degree of belief in flushyness should be exactly the same as the probability of making the flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't think I agree with you in your comparison of drawing for a flush to guessing if god exists, but I may just be misinterpreting what you mean.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The degree of belief in flushyness should be exactly the same as the probability of making the flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't think I agree with you in your comparison of drawing for a flush to guessing if god exists, but I may just be misinterpreting what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is probably not you, chez has a habit of making things complicated. I didn’t get a chance to help him edit his post for clarity.

Actually, I haven’t read his post yet. (I am just joking with my pal, chez.) I am sure it is fine, but he I am sure he will be glad to restate it.

RJT

[andyfox]

Those who believe in God (capital G) beleive that we are his special creations, while not physically at the center of the universe, at the center of God's thoughts. Were it proved that there is no other life in the universe, wouldn't it lend credence to that view and detract from the viewpoint that life was formed from physical phenomena, rather than from the design of a Grand Designer?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe in God (capital G) beleive that we are his special creations

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats the issue. Not all people who believe in god believe that.

Some people who don't believe in god don't believe that belief in god means belief that we are his special creations.

I don't believe it can be put clearer than that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The degree of belief in flushyness should be exactly the same as the probability of making the flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't think I agree with you in your comparison of drawing for a flush to guessing if god exists, but I may just be misinterpreting what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it make sense if by god I don't mean religous view. I can't help distinguishing the two even though I get accused of making things too complex.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe it can be put clearer than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I am out of a job, then. /images/graemlins/frown.gif Well, I consider it a compliment, chez. Glad to see you passed the final exam. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[RJT]

OMG, this is scary. I thought David was gone for a while. It seems he has indeed resurrected.* And in only 2 days instead of the usual 3. I guess if one has to follow a good act, one better do it a bit better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cf My post under the thread “4 possibilities of the universe…”

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Some things shouldn't be given a probability based on the absurdity of the content

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever get tired of using responses like this?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Can the probability of God existence change?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have a thought provoking chat with someone about religion, and the probability of God existing could easily increase or decrease a hundred fold.

[ QUOTE ]
What if it could somehow be proven with 100% certainty that we were the only intelligent life in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erhm! How? Will the universe last long enough for you to inspect every planet, By the time you have checked the last planet, life will have had millions of years to evolve on one of the first few you visited. You would have to actually visit them, just looking will only tell you what the situation was when the light left them.

Just imagine after trillions of plants you think you have nearly finished your quest, only to have, to your horror, someone point out that you have personally infected billions and billions of planets with bacterial life, and now the universe is seething with the stuff /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Lestat]

I understand what you're saying, but this is off the point. The question is if the odds of other intelligent of life forms go down (say the human race is now 20 billion years old and has yet to come across any evidence of anyone out there), does this effect the probability of God's existence?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, but this is off the point. The question is if the odds of other intelligent of life forms go down (say the human race is now 20 billion years old and has yet to come across any evidence of anyone out there), does this effect the probability of God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking to someone and thus changing some small part of your perception of God will probably have a much larger change in the likelihood of God existing than any indication of extraterrestrial life.

Or to look it another way; Consider the interval of the real line corresponding to the range for probabilities of God existing, corresponding to all sensible looking perceptions of God (whatever that means). If some bacteria were detected on Triton (Or a two headed humonoid form Betelgeuse wrote a top selling book), I think the change in the positioning of the interval would be negligible compared to the size of the interval.

My problem with the whole thing is that I think it's absurd to give a probability that a fairy tale exists. It shouldn't be either be between 1 and 0, but null.
And probability shouldn't be subjective. If it is, it's meaningless.
Shooby

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
My problem with the whole thing is that I think it's absurd to give a probability that a fairy tale exists. It shouldn't be either be between 1 and 0, but null.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lukasiewicz rolls in his grave. /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with the whole thing is that I think it's absurd to give a probability that a fairy tale exists. It shouldn't be either be between 1 and 0, but null.
And probability shouldn't be subjective. If it is, it's meaningless.
Shooby

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Shooby

If god is a metaphysical comcept then I think you're right.

Most people are talking about religous views, aspects of which you can assign probabilities to. Take the extreme example of those who predicted the world would end on some date (I can't remember the date but its gone), the probability their religous view was right is zero.

chez