probability of a being without evidence
 

Hey All,
I don't understand why some of you think that a probability can be given for a thing existing without any evidence. ie. God.

It's the same as coming up with a probability that there's a group of leprechauns at the center of Mars that produces all of the toys for christmas.
How can you have a probability without any supporting evidence?

Shooby.

Re: probability of a being without evidence
 

You know, I find it very interesting that some of you can think that you can come up with a probability, but then nothing to back it up. HMMM....

Shooby

Re: probability of a being without evidence
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can you have a probability without any supporting evidence?


[/ QUOTE ]

What you can do is, assume you have a probability, and then see what can be deduced from that. If it’s already a basic assumption then lack of supporting evidence is irrelevant.

Re: probability of a being without evidence
 

Maybe if the basic assumption is based in reality. So you're saying that if I can get enough people to believe that leprechauns exist, I don't need any evidence of their existence to propose a probability of their existence?
I don't think so.

Shooby

Re: probability of a being without evidence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if the basic assumption is based in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should assumptions be based in reality?

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that if I can get enough people to believe that leprechauns exist, I don't need any evidence of their existence to propose a probability of their existence?
I don't think so.
Shooby

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Just if you assume that that you can give a value to the probability of leprechauns existing, then it becomes sensible to talk about the probability of leprechauns existing. Otherwise it’s pretty meaningless, unless you know something abut leprechauns that I don’t.

At least that’s about the only way I can make sense of all this talk about the probability of God existing.