So?

This is obviously false. If this were the case we wouldn't even be having this debate.

He was answering your question here

How do you expect us to put a % on something that we have no evidence for?

Your poll asks for the probability of a purposeful creator which is a broad definiton. So we would have to get the mean/median of the probabilites of "creators w/ evidence" and "creators w/out evidence". If one of those variables are unknown there can't be a useful answer.

Deistic god 85%

Theistic God 100%

The Christian god doesnt exist? 99.99%

Some sort of god doesnt exist? 50%

This would include the option that we live in world that is actually a virtual reality simulation since the creators of the virtual reality similation are effectively gods.

I chose 95%. I essentially pulled this number out of my posterior, but that doesn't mean it's useless. It could be translated as 'I'm sure there isn't a god, but I'm less sure than about 5% of atheists'.

Because no definition of god was given when I voted, the number roughly represents my judgement of the mean of a distribution of different gods with different probability values. FSM = 100%. Deistic-type gods = closer to 50%. If you change the definition of god to be more specific and to make more claims (e.g. hardline Muslims or Christians), imo the probability climbs closer to 100%, while if it is vague and makes few claims, it drops closer to 0% (For me, values close to 0% are reserved for tautological or prosaic gods such as 'the laws of the universe').

For Jib's given definition (an intelligent creator of the universe), it's vague and deistic enough that I would give it 90 - 95%.

Ha - good one! You can't be 100% sure.

But if I read correctly, according to you, it's impossible to say anything has a 100% chance of being true. I daresay that's not really what you believe. I daresay you would concede it's 100% true that 2+2=4.

On what? On 2+2 being equal to 4? Your problem would obviously be with the question, not the level of certainty.

It works for everyone including you. It might seem easy to make it sound ridiculous, but the alternative is even sillier and does not reflect real life.

I am 100% sure 2+2=4. I am 100% sure the god of the Bible does not exist.

If either of those things is ever proven false to me I will not only happily exclaim "whoops", I'll add a hearty "well **** the living **** out of me!", as I try to process the existent reality of things which defy all logic.

It would seem you on the other hand might ensure the preservation of your dignity by telling your wife or mother you're at least 99.9% sure they're not shape-shifting pteropods from a planet in the Majestic Sombrero Galaxy, because that will save you the embarassment of saying "whoops" if they ever reveal their true forms. Great if that works for you.

Then I have found a Russell's Teapot Agnostic. Again, if that works for you you're welcome to it.

I see what you're saying but I can't fully agree. The alternative to 100% certainty is to concede all trees might be holograms. I don't believe that proposition to any extent whatsoever. Such concessions take intellectual honesty to unrealistic extremes.

So, if I'm proven wrong I can take it. In the meantime, I'll still swing my axe as hard as I can without touching the tree first to make sure I'm not going to cut my own foot off.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there is no evidence for the existence of any kind of god (the broadest definition possible), and that's why you simply lack a belief in god. But there is explicit evidence against the existence of Santa, hence you actively believe that Santa doesn't exist. But then let me ask you these questions:

1-The evidence against the existence of Santa is mainly our knowledge of this legend's origin. Using fields like psychology, anthropology, and history, we can trace back the origin of every single mythology for god/s. Why can't you actively disbelieve in god too, then?

2- If you say that when we trace the origin of the concept of all gods, that still doesn't rule out the possibility that god, in the broadest definition of the word, exists. But then, can't we say the same about Santa? Maybe he really exists and has inspired the people who came up with him. So all along, we've been thinking that he was a made up character, while in fact he actually existed. Do you see the parallel?


I can only speak for myself. In this case, obviously it is an exaggeration which is supposed to be a synonym for what you said. That's not to say that we can't put a real number behind evidential probabilities in general. It's just that the probability of god's existence is really immeasurable.

If I had to be more precise, I would say that the probability of each concrete god (Zeus, Jesus, etc.) existing is 0. And I believe this is a mathematically sound statement.

Not really (though I have presented this same idea myself elsewhere). The problem is that there's nothing for this ur-Santa to explain. It lacks any attributes beyond 'impossible to detect and is called Santa'. If you start assigning attributes to it, you turn it into a minor deity in some presumably polytheistic universe. I'm going to be extremely confident that it doesn't exist, as I might be for various other highly specific deities.

I don't really know what you mean by 'mathematically sound'.

So, if I understand correctly, you actively disbelieve that Jesus is the son of God, but simply lack a belief that god (in whatever form) exists.

That mathematically the probability is really 0.

I think it's unlikely to be true.

But does that mean "that it really is false" or something else?

Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean using an analogy. What is the probability that a randomly picked person's height is exactly 1.8 meters? The answer is: 0.

I don't see how that can properly describe your attitude to gods. Can you explain?

I (think I) understand what you're saying about the person's height - this is the same as saying the probability that a randomly chosen number between 1 and 2 is 1.35356699595 is 0, right? I just don't see how that applies here.

An interesting flip-side of this thread would be to ask theists "What is the chance that God exists?" Can true Christians have any shred of doubt about God's existence? Are there people here that class themselves as Christian, but are still not 99%+ sure of God's existence? What percentage of belief signifies you as a theist? 50/50? 10%? 90%?

Yeah, you understood me correctly. Just to formalize, an exact number in a probability density function does not have an area under the curve, since it doesn't have width, hence the probability is 0.

I think an exact god's existence (like Zeus) has a probability of 0 for the exact same reason. That god has concrete traits, deeds, etc. Therefore, the likelihood of such an entity (with precisely those traits and deeds, and not any different) existing, despite the total absence of evidence, is equivalent to randomly hitting the number 0.012423 (when choosing a number between 0 and 1).

But that doesn't say much about the general case. As in, the 'probability' of some god-like being existing. That's how I approached the OP.

Our positions agree. We're just arguing semantics. Like...

I think it's a mistake to compare these two as though math and science are identical fields/categories. Math deals in proofs. When you make a mathematical claim, you set about proving it. It took how long to prove Fermat's last theorem? Even though it was clearly correct.

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Even the most sound scientific theories are never proven. The best that can be said is that they have never been falsified. Like the ToE. Or if I let go of my pen. I cannot say it's 100% certain it will fall to the desk. And I don't believe a group of trained scientists formally conducting such an experiment would either. This is the case even if billions upon billions of trials have resulted in exactly that (the pen falling to the desk). The best that can be said is gravitational theory has yet to be falsified and seems overwhelmingly likely to be correct.

I think the existence of god is a scientific claim. Not a mathematical one that can be proved or disproved. Therefore, I think it is incorrect to pin a 100% certainty label on it one way or the other.

I know, I mentioned this as a side note.

I am still not completely sure I understand your position on god/s though. If, hypothetically, there was a way to know for sure whether there is any sort of god, and a group of scientists knew the answer (just bare with this unrealistic thought experiment), what's the worst odds on which you'd put money that god doesn't exist?

Also, does your position change depending on whether we're talking about a theistic or a deistic god?

I honestly don't know. I probably wouldn't bet (I don't tend to bet on things much).

I become more confident in that unquantifiable way.

Claims about the god of the Bible fail because they create paradoxes and other contradictions. If paradoxes cannot exist, God cannot exist.

I think a better analogy is to say it's 100% certain your pen is not a banana.

Ironically perhaps, a scientifically established god would not be a god.



Thanks for your time, sincerely. Like you said, we agree... 99.9%.

But I believe that you claim to be a strong atheist, correct? In other words your position is not that you hold no belief about God. If so, this poll really would not target you (although input is always appreciated)

Interesting, do you actually believe this or are you saying to get some point across?

Well, it isn't so much that I'm a strong atheist as that I think that the distinction as used by almost everyone on this forum is either confused or empty. That being said, the idea that strong atheism implies 100% certainty that there are no gods is just ridiculous. The distinction between the two categories is supposed to be over whether or not you hold a belief that there is no god. It doesn't rest on whether you view your belief that there is no god as infallible. If that is what you mean by strong atheist, then of course I am not one.

Well, I was trying to get a point across (that your definition is too broad), but I also think the chance that we are all living in a simulation is non-negligible. For comparison, I think it is much more likely than the hypothesis of a deistic god who created the universe.

You do play poker, right? You bet on things all the time. If you're getting 3:1 on your bet and you win like 50% of the time, you should be accepting that bet all day.

I am asking this specific question because it's a way to operationalize your beliefs.

If somebody lay you 9:1 on your money, would you bet that god doesn't exist? If the answer is yes, what's the lowest number you'd accept?

To use this opportunity to clarify my own beliefs, I'd bet any amount that is not outside my life BR even if I was getting $1 for every $99 I bet. That's the 99% threshold. I'm pretty sure I'd accept a lot worse odds than that too.

A big +1 here.