Well, that certainly changes things. To this question, my answer is that I haven't the foggiest idea. Taking reality to refer to spacetime arising from the Big Bang, I have no idea what is needed to create reality. It could be a completely natural event, or it could be supernatural. In either case, it could involve intelligence or not, or purpose or not. I have no basis to assign a probability, and I'm not sure we ever will have an answer to this question. But if we do, I'm not sure that any particular answer would surprise me more than any other.

What would surprise me - no, utterly astound me - would be to learn that a God like the Christian God is the creator of reality. This is far beyond intelligence and purpose. This is a specific purpose, with expectations attached, and interactions, and consequences.

The Creator God could leave no evidence of its role. The Christian-like God supposedly does leave evidence. The evidence to me is confusing, conflicting and incomplete. It has led virtually every person I know to come to a different conclusion about God. To learn that something exists that satisfies the broad parameters (omni3-ish, all-loving, heaven, son dies for three days to forgive us and so on) yet brought about this current state of affairs - to say I would be astounded barely scratches the surface.

I am an atheist - I lack belief in a god because of the lack of compelling evidence. I have asked theists to provide that evidence - why do they believe? You have declined to answer - that is your right. Others have spoken of personal experience. I have never had a similar experience. Well into the second half of my life, would you expect that lack of experience to make me more or less certain about the existence of God? What evidence could I present?

Other theists have presented what they consider the most compelling arguments for God - Kalam, ontological and so on. To say they fail to make a compelling case is an understatement. Should my response be to become more or less certain about the existence of God? What evidence could I present?

Other theists have argued along lines such as the universe having the appearance of design. Even the most charitable reading of such lines gets us nowhere near the Christian God. And on and on.

Even when specific arguments are presented to challenge the God concept, the response is typically to alter the God concept, or to question our ability to understand the God concept (though it seems easily understood when it comes to the positive qualities asserted).

The more believers are unable to present a compelling argument, the more confidence I will have in my position - even without specific evidence that God does not exist - and even without believing that God does not exist. I am happy to present what I do believe. That certain theists seem compelled to attribute beliefs at odds with my actual beliefs does not make a positive contribution to the dialogue. (And nor do atheists making similar claims about theists' beliefs.)

A few comments:

I found it difficult to think about this question in terms of percentages and so I converted it to odds instead and found it much easier. Here I think 1 out of a 1000 sounds about right. I certainly don't have the confidence of those who add a big string of .9 afterwards (making it 1 out of a trillion or larger).

Here I'll say that the biggest reason for not going higher is that since there have been so many theists I think it would be irrational to have more confidence in my own conclusions.

I'm also not going by the definition of "God" put forward by jibninjas. I think there is actually a significant chance that our reality was created by the scientists of the future (i.e. that we are living in a simulation), and since these scientists would qualify as "intelligent, purposeful creators," according to jibninjas' definition they would be gods. However, I don't actually think they would be gods, so I think that definition is deficient.

Why this? Time to get boring. You don't believe in Santa Clause. Are you less than 99% certain that he doesn't exist?

My guess is to rationalize the kind of crap that directly followed your post.

First consider the question. Do you think I simply lack belief in Santa Claus? Do you simply lack belief in Santa Claus?

Personally, I believe Santa Claus does not exist. I can't specify my confidence beyond 'extremely confident that Santa Claus does not exist'. The notion of a percentage seems meaningless to me - if I say I am 99.999% confident, is this supposed to mean that if you proved to me that one hundred thousand universes exist, I must expect a Santa-like being to exist in one of them? Or say I feel more confident still, and tack on an extra 9 - do I now need a million universes to accept that one contains a Santa?

This kind of reasoning is especially suspect when it's transferred from a Santa-like being to a god-like being. Gödel's proposed proof of a god hinged on a similar idea, but posits that if a god-like being exists in one universe, it must, being god-like, exist in all. So by that reasoning any answer less than 100% is actually 0%.

Or the same thing in a perhaps more palatable form. I lack a belief that the total number of stars in the universe is odd. Should you then feel justified in haranguing me for not giving a percentage figure for my confidence in its being even?

^ This.

what i like is how dedicated and committed joeydiamonds is to his troll-like arguments on this board, considering he thinks there's a 40% chance that he's completely wrong about it all.

That's not what 100% means. I can be 100% sure there is a tree in front of me. If you tell me it's a hologram and then walk through it, I will be 100% sure it's a hologram. I don't have to admit all of reality might be an illusion, even though that's actually the case.

And you didn't answer my question about Trudy.

You didn't say that. I wouldn't have voted in such a poll.

An intelligent purposeful creator of reality is irrelevant until proven (or maybe even theorised), and is not God in any case. Such a being could be any incomprehensibly advanced interdimensional being, itself requiring an explanation as to where it came from.

I don't need to evidence to assert there is no evidence for something's existence.

It depends on how conclusive you find that lack of evidence. "Absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" arguments are tough to make. Though maybe less so to oneself, granted.

Something like: "If God exists, X must be true." Then whatever you got in the way of X not being true.

This takes for granted that God existing has anything to do with his believers having the ability to present a compelling argument to that effect. I have not seen any compelling arguments in support of such a connection and therefore seriously doubt its existence.

Okay, though be advised that evidence-free assertions have fallen out of favor lately.

First - the irony. I asked you for evidence that God (if he exists) is good. I'm still waiting.

Second - so I need evidence now that there is no evidence?

A common claim here is that God makes its presence known to people. It hasn't to me. I acknowledge that this could mean that God has a problem with me, but it seems more likely that there is no God as described. Yes, absence of evidence - but evidence that is expected.

Is there anything that could satisfy that statement that could be disproven? In any case, my point is that a lack of belief can become more confidently held even in the absence of disproof of a particular claim.

That's not to say there are no arguments against particular claims, but as long as theists make widely variable and often conflicting claims, it's hard to know which claims are at issue.

I know your views are widely different than the Catholic teachings I was raised with, and I can't say I recall your position on this point - but aren't many Christians expected to spread the word?

How does that go, again? Oh yes, ""Absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" arguments are tough to make."

But my point is not that God existing implies that all believers will be able to make a compelling case. For example, I am willing to accept belief based on personal revelation. I don't argue that such believers are wrong to believe, and their existence is part of why I am not a strong atheist. I would also hope that they will understand that their reasons for believing are not compelling to me. But there are believers that claim for example that God is the only rational belief, and suggest they can offer support for that position. When that support fails, confidence in my lack of belief grows - again without any positive disproof of the claim itself.

Again, I'm not sure of your position, but most theists I know believe that God (in various ways) communicates with us, intervenes in the world, and has expectations. The evidence related to those contributes to beliefs held. I would expect at least some of the evidence to be able to be shared (as the Bible is) but I don't find a compelling case. Maybe I'm not supposed to see it, but the absence of expected evidence is a form of evidence for absence. My lack of belief is more confidently held, even without proof of God's non-existence.

For me Santa and God have the exact same status. Why do you treat them differently?

You are confusing physical probability with evidential probability. The frequentist approach doesn't apply here. From Wikipedia:

Yes. Your degree of confidence in that case should be exactly 50%, given no additional information for any kind of bias.

Because they're different. I get the feeling that you are applying a very narrow definition of 'god' for the purposes of the poll and thus of this discussion. I'm applying as wide a definition as I can.

And as before, I lack a belief in god(s), while I believe Santa does not exist. Do you simply lack a belief in god(s) or do you believe none exist? If the latter, then Concerto's observation doesn't apply to you.

So in other words, "99.999%" really is just a synonym for 'extremely confident that' and beyond that it is indeed meaningless. Cool.

But you say that because of the fact of the case, not because I lack a belief in one of the propositions. Whereas with the god question, you apparently take my lack of belief in one of the propositions as a strong indication that I should be able to offer a percentage figure for its negation.

Probability would imply that there is some sort of meaningful data regarding god(s) out there, which there isn't. Heck, most beliefs in god(s) are even mutually exclusive so even using "public opinion" as some sort of evidence seems like it shuts more doors than it opens...and many of the ones that aren't mutually exclusive are so broad you could just as well be talking about a mindless event and not a being.

I think a better thread would be to ask the strong atheists how they reached 100%.

I don't like how the question is framed because it reduces the concept of god to a guessing game and it's not a guessing game, it's a question of faith. You either believe in it or you don't.

For me I disdain the concept of god because I think it's the stuff of story books. Now I will say that I do respect and appreciate that for many people religion is a tremendous guiding force and source of inner strength. I don't deny that it is capable of playing a good role in many people's lives... but so can Nintendo. So can alcohol. So can cocaine. None of that gets to the central question of whether there is a god or not. If god is the benevolent, omnipotent, redeeming, and just charicature that Christians would have us believe, then I believe there is absolutely ZERO chance god exists, that's for sure. It's too obvious that the Christians (and to be fair all religions) have totally manipulated the concept of god to suit their own ultimately self-serving aims.

I (think) I know what 100% means. If there is 100% chance that something is true, there is 0% chance it is untrue.

Ah, okay. Basically, what you're saying is that it's okay to claim you are 100% dead sure of something only to say "whoops!", upon learning that you were wrong. Great if that works for you. What I'm saying is that you never should have pinned a 100% certainty label on it in the first place.

No. You can just go through life making definitive claims about things and saying "whoops" every time you are proven wrong. Again, if that works for you you're welcome to it.

Sorry, I thought I did. I am not 100% sure that Trudy doesn't exist. I'll leave some margin for error. So it's 99.9... something% Trudy doesn't exist.

And in case you are misunderstanding me, I should explain that being 99.9...% sure of something is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from being 100% sure in that nothing about one's actions would or should change. IOW, it's perfectly okay to live as though one is 100% sure of something even if they're slightly less sure (in my opinion). All I'm saying is that if you are willing to change your position and admit you were wrong (as you would with the tree/hologram), then you were wrong to have been 100% certain in the first place.

I clicked 99.9 as there is no option for 100%.

I'm 99.999999% sure of Gods revealed so far. But I can't put a % on "creator of the Universe who doesn't offer us any evidence". Since jib added this new definition later on in the thread, I had to vote "other".

I never said that the God does not offer evidence. why would you assume this?

Your defintion includes creators that to do not offer evidence.

Because if he offered evidence, we wouldn't be having any debate. There would be no atheists(except the idiots). So, I only have to assume you're referring to the ones who don't offer any evidence. The ones(Jesus's dad or are they the same?, Allah, Ganesh etc) that offered evidence have been so unconvincing and ridiculous that I'm 99.999999% sure it's just made up by early man.

+1