I had not seen any of this but I agree with you about the 0.5.

I am almost positive that to have the 0.5 starting point, both Yahweh and Zeus are contained within the original definition of "God". That is why any specification beyond a "conscious creator(s)" for God is narrowing and lowers the probability. If you add "the Mississippi River", you are no longer talking about God so the probability goes up but you have changed the question. That is unless the Mississippi River is actually the conscious creator hiding in the form of a river, in which case it is already in the 0.5. In other words, 0.5 probability of a God which includes a very small probability that God is hiding in the form of the Mighty Mississippi. Likewise FSM.

Could not agree more.

I agree except that P=1/N for N hypothetical deities assumes that each characterization is equally likely. That is probably not true.

I think that the way I have defined things above, the probability is capped at 0.5. It could move up or down based on our observations of our reality.

I agree that we are not in complete ignorance. For one thing, if there is no God (using the broad Creator definition) than there might not have been a universe or self-aware beings occupying it. But that is built into the starting point of 0.5. It is like a question that was argued in this forum some time ago. There exists a card and it has a dot painted on it. The dot is painted either blue or red. You know absolutely nothing about how that color came to be. What is the probability of red? In that state of ignorance about the card, the probability is 0.5. It is not perfect ignorance because you know that there is a card. That gives the question of the color meaning. There is a universe so the question of a creator has meaning. If there was nothing created than the question of a creator becomes very hard to structure. But in that case we would not be having this conversation.


I still believe that this is a good analogy. I hope I have clarified definitions to the point that you agree.

Thanks, you are very kind. I will hang around. I will continue to refute MB's errors, but I do not have the patience to argue with him/her.

God might punish people who think his existence is unlikely yet pray anyway just in case.

And people who do pray are very apt (RLK being an exception) to be less inclined to educate themselves especially regarding medicine and science. So prayer often has a downside unless there is god who both exists and rewards that activity.

Your proposition that god exists or he doesn't is the same as 'something' exists or it doesn't. This can never be false, it's a tautology and adds nothing useful at all to the conversation (it certainly doesn't increase the likelihood of god existing by making it at least 50% probable) which is why I'd assumed that you couldn't have been guilty of making such a pointless statement. It seems like you're saying something of consequence but you're not really, it's meaningless.

Also, you claimed that "In the absence of any information to resolve the question, the probability starts at 50%", now you're claiming in the paragraph above that "we are not in complete ignorance". This is clearly contradictory, or resolved by you 'building' whatever you want into your 0.5 starting point of not knowing anything. If there truly is no information then no probability can be calculated. Trying to add a prior to something you can literally know nothing about (especially given that you believe that god prevents us from ever having evidence of his existence) makes no sense. Adding a prior to this is a whim, at best it's arbitrary, at worst it's special pleading.

You're attempting to reduce this situation to a false dichotomy where there are only two options and claiming that each has an equal chance of being true just so you can slap a number on it.

Do you have anything to add to this 'The probability of god existing is 50%' conversation? It seems like it must either be incorrect or just meaningless but not being expert in Probability I have to accept that I might not understand the problem. I'd appreciate an explanation from someone who is more expert.

I think deism is better understood as a denial of revealed religion than as a belief in a featureless creator, a feature of the entity is that it doesn't reveal.

I don't see why the types of mystical experience that may motivate a conversion from deism to theism wouldn't also motivate a conversion from atheism to theism.

I acknowledge that this scenario has to be considered part of a probability analysis. I do question whether your situation is worsened by the act of prayer. Given that uncertainty is inherent in our situation, punishing the uncertain for the act of prayer (essentially a request for aid of some kind) when there has been no clear instruction that prayer is forbidden, would appear to be the act of a malevalent god. If we are essentially at the mercy of a malevalent god, that ill will would be almost certain to manifest itself with or without prayer. For that reason, I do not believe that this scenario is a counter argument against prayer.

I am not all that certain about cause and effect in this correlation, but I do appreciate being excluded.

It's the Argument from Inauthentic Belief, perhaps you're not familiar with it. It's usually used as a counter to Pascal's wager. You're missing the element that praying when you don't actually believe in god would be deceptive and dishonest, even immorally so and probably worthy of punishment. So would God actually be malevolent to punish you for your insincere prayer? Seems to me then that such a prayer could easily worsen your situation without god being malevolent, making your conclusion wrong to the point of being somewhat irrelevant. It's obviously wrong in fact, kinda like the proposition that the probability of something existing or not existing being 50% is obviously meaningless, or being true but kinda like saying 'a long car journey has a starting point of you sitting in the driver's seat and turning on the engine', well... yeah. Duh.

Whatever, I can take a hint so I won't make any more posts addressed to you on that issue. Can't say it's been pleasant chatting with you.

The error that MB is making in this post is that he is mixing the concepts of doubt and insincerity. Doubt is an understandable situation given the incomplete information that we possess. But a doubter could still pray sincerely for faith and wisdom, etc. Insincerity is a different beast. Why one would pray privately and insincerely is a little hard to fathom. It would seem to be more likely to be a public display in an attempt to garner favor with the faithful observers.

Yes, MB did make that error, as much as he hates to admit it.

What about the Jew who blasphemes if he prays to Jesus but thinks there is a 10% chance the Christians are right?

I am honestly completely at a loss as to how to respond to this. How is praying to Jesus different from praying to God and why would it matter?

Jews think it is a sin to pray to Jesus.

All the abrahamic religions agree on that. It would be sinful for any of them (or anyone) to pray to a Hindu God. The no other Gods before me stuff.

Are you not interested in contributing to the 'Probability of god = 50%' thing or did you miss my post?

OK. I guess this question does not have any traction with me. Jesus is God so all you would be doing is using a different name in your mind while praying. And substituting an image of a slender bearded man in his early '30s for a heavily built bearded man in his '70s. I did not know that Jews considered that a sin, but whatever. Personally I doubt that makes much difference but if it is a problem for a Jew just pray to God and you are ok in any event.

How about the Hindu Gods... Is it ok to pray to them and break the 2nd commandment?

OK with whom? Me? Fine, I do not care to whom you pray or do not pray. God? I don't know. Strict evangelical Christians? I suspect they would think you are going to hell.

Any other that you would name? I will answer but I suspect that you can figure that out for yourself.

If you dont know if its ok with God then praying should not always be safe and with no risk. Might be, might not.

I am still not even sure what it means. You are praying to God but you are using a different name and have a different mental image? I am struggling to understand how that could possibly matter. If it matters to you then pray however you want.

Put another way, it is highly unlikely that any mental image of God that I have is at all accurate. Are you saying that I am at risk because I do not have an accurate mental image of God when it is impossible to have an accurate mental image? Only a malevalent god would be inclined to punish that. That case has already been covered.

I still feel that the risk in prayer only applies under the case of a malevalent god, in which case you are probably in a rough spot under any scenario.

I think the original question here was how much does uncertainty matter, or how much uncertainty is too much?

There is a big difference in praying to God, yet having doubts as to whether he can hear you, or praying to every God because you are uncertain as to which is real.

It doesn't matter to me.

No im saying prayer is not always safe and without risk. Sometimes the Gods, like the biblical one, punish for it.

Im oik with making Gods who punish for prayer malevalent.