All labels are are just "wannabe classifications"

What is the probability that:

- one day someone will travel back in time and meet or kill them-self?
- that Santa Claus exists?
- the Easter bunny?
- the tooth fairy?
- the flying spaghetti monster?
- the cubs will win the world series (just kidding).

Contrary to popular belief, a good scientist does not have to hold out the possibility that anything is possible. An open mind is one thing, considering all things possible another. You can not force someone to believe in something no matter how small a belief. I have 0.0000000000000000000 belief in god and that will never change.

Before embarking on debates/tangents such as this, I think it's very important to properly define what we're talking about and make sure everyone is on common ground. What is the probability that Santa Claus exists? I'm quite certain that somewhere there is a real person who's legal name is Santa Claus, so depending on definition you'd be wrong to have only zeros in your assessment of probability.

This is especially true when dealing with anything as amorphous as what one might call god. How are we defining god? Could god be any conscious entity that kicked off our universe perhaps by accident and/or from a different dimension? If so, I don't like your 0.0000000000000000000 probability. I think it would be prudent to throw at least a 1 in after some given number of those zeros.

btw- I'm not completely disagreeing with you. To the extent that beliefs must be formed in a useful practical sense, I also hold the belief that no god exists. But I think it should be a graduating scale... Running from incredibly unlikely using any definition of god, to near certainty under the Christian definition of personal god. Either way, I'd place many zeros after the decimal point and for practical purposes it changes nothing about how I view or live life, or make decisions. I just don't agree with all zeros under any definition. imho

Lestat,

My beef is not with you - I enjoy most of your posts. However, you know what I mean by Santa Claus .

My point is you can live your life with absolute certainty on many issues. It doesn't mean you are correct - just that you personally have no doubt what-so-ever. It doesn't make you a bad person or even a bad scientist (though some here believe that). How can you tell someone they must have some doubt? How do you go about adding doubt to your mind? Sorry - I have no room for a 1 even a google digits out!

None of the things on your list have a 0% probability. It may not be significant enough to change how you treat a situation, but that is not what a 0% probability means. And adding 'contrary to popular belief' to the beginning of a sentence does not somehow make a statement true. That something is never 100% certain is, in fact, a central tenet of science. It is called falsifiability.

If you can be incorrect then you were incorrect to assign a 0% probability in the first place. Assigning a 0% probability definitively means having no potential to be wrong.

You may be fairly certain of something to the point at which your level of confidence is practically the same as zero. But to invoke absolute certainty itself is foolish.

Trust me, I enjoy your posts as well and have no beef either. I'm just trying another path towards what I think Deorum is trying to say. Mainly, that there should be some distinction between having no doubt (in practical terms) and assigning zero probability. I have no doubt the sun will still exist tomorrow. However, the probability is still something less than 100% even though I will certainly live my life with absolute certainty on that assumption.

So maybe we're splitting hairs here. But the biggest probelem I have is that if you put the probability of something at zero percent, this implies you are not amenable to new evidence to the contrary. How could you be when you've already assigned a 0% probability? This (in my opinion) is what constitutes bad science. When you drop a pen from your hand, you should have no doubt that it will be influenced by gravity and fall to the floor. Nevertheless, science assigns something less than a 100% probability for such an event. If it were 100%, then science would never accept any other result. And that would be bad.

For some reason, it took me far too many words to say this. The biggest problem with assigning zero or 100% probability is that you leave no room to ever admit that you were wrong. This would be very bad indeed for science.

You all seem to be agreeing with each other to me, but I do wonder - why can't you think the chance is 0% now but change your mind at some point if the evidence changes? At the time of assigning the probability you were convinced - future selves aren't (thankfully) bound by our previously held beliefs/probability assignations.

Perhaps the problem here is semantics. But I am talking about my personal probability. Assigning 0% probability is the same as being certain. It does not mean I am correct. It could have a 100% probability and still be 0 in my mind. It is a measure of personal doubt not actual fact. It means I have no doubt.

Many people were certain the world was flat but they were wrong. If somehow evidence to the contrary is presented then I would have to admit to being wrong. I just don't believe there is any chance of that happening.

Deorum makes the common mistake of saying that falsifiability is a central tenet science (which it is) but that this requires that science allow all things to be possible (which it doesn't). The concept of god is basically unfalsifiable so science really can't disprove it.

I do not know if he is a peer-reviewed scientist but I have had this fruitless conversation with many like him. Speaking for science like he is the final arbiter of what is or isn't good science. I have met and have as friends many scientists who are hardcore atheists who are equally certain that there is 0 change of there being a god. I really don't think they care if Deorum claims this is poor science. I have no problem name dropping if you wish. Then you can tell me if they are good scientists.

This is part of the problem with the new Dawkin breed of atheist. In my time, even a .00000000001 chance would qualify you as an agnostic.

I am curious Deorum - what probability do you assign to the existence of Santa Claus (you know which one Lestat).

Agreed, kinda what I just posted...

You keep repeating that as if it adds some kind of credibility to what you're saying. As if you sat on some kind of round table deciding the merits of all atheists (past and present lol).

I agree we all have the same idea in mind, my only point was to illustrate that we were not talking about absolute certainty. In practical terms, our certainty is such that it is relatively indistinguishable from absolute certainty and I have no problems with someone claiming 'I am absolutely sure that this is not true' as long as they understand that they are using the term loosely, rather than actually invoking absolute certainty.

You can, it is just foolish to do so because if you do wind up changing your mind that means you were wrong to invoke it in the first place. Claiming a 0% chance is to claim that you cannot change your mind. It is foolish to claim that 'this cannot be wrong' by simply understanding that one way it could almost always be wrong is if you are massively delusional but do not realize it. It is to claim 'this cannot happen' when you full well know that it can, even if the probability is extremely small.

Falsifiability means having the ability to change your position on something in light of new evidence, which is the exact opposite of what absolute certainty means. While I disagree that the concept of god is not falsifiable, even if it were that would not somehow be justification for claiming absolute certainty.

So low I would probably be off by an embarrassingly large number of orders of magnitude if I tried to come up with a number.

I guess it depends on how serious someone is when they say 0%. To me, 0% means 0%. If you're willing to change your mind under certain circumstances then saying 0% now means you're just fluffing your feathers and exaggerating for effect. I don't see how it can be logically consistent to go from 0% to being willing to change your mind.

I'm going to give an example of what I mean by 0% and I'd appreciate if someone could double check my logic here. It's very possible that I'm being inconsistent...

I think the probability of Santa Claus existing (using what I think is bocablkr's definition), is 0%. What this means is that there is no evidence that could convince me otherwise. If you took me to the north pole and showed me a shop full of elves, I still wouldn't believe that Santa Claus has been delivering presents to every kid in the world by way of sleigh and reindeer. Even if the other 6 billion people on the planet were to verify this, I would simply think I was dreaming or hallucinating before I believed in the existence of Santa Claus. Because of this, I feel I can logically assign a 0% probability for the existence of Santa Claus (as bocablkr defines him). Literally nothing could cause me to change my mind about that.

Now let's consider god. First, we need to define god. For now, let's just say it's any sentient, omnipotent, invisible entity. I cannot assign the probability of existence at 0% even though I think the odds are too small to put a number on. In other words, it is something higher than zero. This is because there are circumstances that would cause me to change my mind, or at least 2nd guess my very strong opinion that there is no such thing as a god.

There are miracles that could occur, stars spelling a phrase in the sky, scientific phenomenons (another name for miracles), that would cause me to change my mind. I would still strongly consider the possibility that I were dreaming or hallucinating, but these things would nevertheless be considered more plausible to me than in the Santa Claus scenario. I guess what I'm saying is that I could be convinced there exists a sentient, omnipotent, invisible being.

So am I being logically inconsistent? If so, where? This is a serious question. I'd like to get rid of bad logic wherever possible. But this is how I see 0% probability assignments. Thanks.

I guess this is the gist of the problem. You believe that if someone claims there is 0% change ( a 7 on the Dawkins scale) that this means they can't change their mind later if evidence presents itself to the contrary. I simply disagree with that premise and your use of the term foolish is what rankles most good hardcore atheists. Ok - lets name drop a little.

I had an email conversation with Dr. Richard Leakey ( yes THE Richard Leakey the famous paleo-anthropologist and conservationist) about the Dawkins scale 1- 7. You can check my posts from a year or two ago. He claimed he would be a 7 on that scale - no doubt what-so-ever. Is he foolish? He has no personal doubt - must he force himself to have a tiny bit in-case he needs to change his mind in the future? This is where I disagree with Dawkins and agree with most of the hardcore atheists of the past. You can be certain, have zero doubt but still be able to change your mind. You are assigning a personal probability, not a formal one.

You may disagree but I find your use of the term foolish offensive.

Lets looks at a few others who are 7's on the Dawkins scale. Who I guess would be considered foolish by Deorum.

My Uncle (PhD in Physics) was one of the main 'Science' writers for Bell Labs in Murray Hill, NJ for many years.

My Father (master's in Physics).
.One of the founding members of the Physics Dept at SUNY Cortland.
.Taught students how to become Science Teachers.
.Only 2 time winner of the NY state Distinguished Teacher award.
.Research Scientist at the nuclear facility at Oak Ridge Tenn.
.Currently, the head 'SCIENTIST' at the Ft. Lauderdale Museum of Science and Discovery.

The amazing Randi (good friend of my Fathers). An amazing man.
.Winner of the 2003 Richard Dawkins award.
.Famous Scientist and paranormal debunker.

They are all 7's. No Doubt at all. They are not foolish. They are all very accomplished and respected scientists.

We are basically on the same side. I use to name call with someone when I disagreed with them but I try not to anymore. If the evidence presented doesn't convince them the we should agree to disagree. You may consider us foolish in your mind but I think you should refrain from putting it in print.

Morning Lestat,

I am a little surprised that you would accept proof of god and therefore change your mind but not so for Santa Claus. Ignoring dreaming or hallucinating, I think if somehow you were taken on a sleigh ride and visited everyone's house on Christmas Eve and delivered presents (and ate cookies) you would change your mind .

Look, it just seems reasonable to me that based on the current level of evidence one can assign a 0% probability to something and yet change their mind if future evidence warrants it. I guess this is where we have a disagreement. Some call it foolish to have that opinion. I can't force myself to believe in something, even a tiny bit just so I won't be called foolish. It would be insincere anyways....

I think it is foolish to be presumptuous. It is also foolish to be arrogant about it. Thankfully, the less arrogant one is, the less likely they will appear presumptuous.

MAYBE that's why some people leave a little doubt. Just sayin.

Sorry if I came off as arrogant.

Do you deny that many respectable scientists consider themselves 7's - just sayin.

For those of you who don't think 'good' scientists can be true disbelievers check out this link - http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...ts_and_atheism

Now I don't know how many of these 'greater' scientists would consider themselves 7 on the Dawkins scale which came out later. But there is a separate category for doubt and I would think even the smallest amount would qualify.

How many scientists don't believe in God?
Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists

Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
--
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3
Figures are percentages.


Another link on a new scale because some scientists have issues with
Dawkins scale - http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins+scale


And just to show how many people consider themselves 7's feel free to read the comments posted by readers in these forums.

http://www.meetup.com/BrisbaneAtheists/polls/165637/

http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum...cussionID=1871

http://ergosum.wordpress.com/2007/09...ot-an-atheist/

http://zh-cn.facebook.com/topic.php?...154&topic=5352

I like Dawkins, but his "scale" is pretty stupid (not that I could really do better). And no, it doesn't surprise me that most real scientists would consider themselves a 7. Seems about right imo.

These guys would agree (two of my fav scientists) http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1714963534233# great interview!

Btw, I don't think you are arrogant. An arrogant person wouldn't have replied to my post like you did.

It's not possible that you are just delusional and that there is a plethora of evidence for the existence of Santa?

The term 'foolish' is not meant to be a personal attack. It is a description of the ridiculousness of claiming to be literally absolutely certain of something. By claiming that you are willing to change your position later, you are claiming that you are not absolutely certain. To claim that something has a 0% chance is to claim that there is no possibly conceivable alternate situation in which it could be true, and that is not only ridiculous, it is dishonest. We can all conceive of such a situation for virtually anything.

While I cannot claim anything about the other scientists you mention (and arguments from authority carry very little weight in this forum), I suspect that they would all probably agree with James Randi (about whom I am fairly confident you are wrong). From what I have read of Randi's, I am extremely confident that he would also tell you that you are wrong to invoke absolute certainty. Randi is a spokesman for rational skepticism, and absolute certainty is generally rejected in such ideals.

As I said before, it is possible to be certain at such a level that it is practically the same as absolute. I am up there too, I would probably be a '7'. I do not consider that foolish in the least. I do not consider you foolish either, I just do not think you fully understand exactly what it is you are claiming when you say you are literally absolutely certain.

Deorum,

After one of Randi's seminar in Ft. Lauderdale a few years back, my father introduced me to Randi and I asked him about where he would be on the scale. I am fairly certain that he replied 7. I will try and verify that just to be sure. And I agree an argument from authority should not be considered proof. However, it points out that many top scientist have no personal belief in god - zero, nada. You continue to believe that means they can not change their mind if evidence to the contrary was to arise and I think this is where we disagree. I would change my mind BECAUSE I am a scientist not in spite of it. If the evidence is there - I can't deny it. But I am comfortable living my life with zero doubt until such evidence presents itself. I still think we are on the same side .