Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[thatguywhojuggles]

Without defining god, I can't comment. If we're talking about all the gods that humans have believed in throughout all history, I am 100 percent atheist.

 

[Alric]

Why are you putting the probability to 0?

I'm not giving it any probability. Not even 0. There is no way to assign probability to something there is no evidence, mechanism or necessity for its existence. That is the meaning of woo.

 

[Furi]

I'm not giving it any probability. Not even 0. There is no way to assign probability to something there is no evidence, mechanism or necessity for its existence. That is the meaning of woo.

Why are you putting the probability to 0? You are equalling the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I don´t. I agree that there is no evidence for god(s). That´s why I am a 6. To be a 7, I´d need the 100 % proof that (god)s don´t exist. Got some?

I suppose a NULL value for probability would be better description for me too rather than P=0, but listed as 6 because I cannot disprove through evidence of non existance to a theist the non existance of their figment. so it is more my inability to disprove their woo rather than any likelihood of them making me do nothing other than PMSL when they explain things that moved me to a 6.

*shakes fist* Grrr this ski lodge would have been mine, if it wasn't for you meddlesome theists.</Hannah Barbera>

 

[Alric]

I cannot disprove through evidence of non existance to a theist the non existance of their figment.

But you don't have to. You know what the evidence is (none). So there is no need to prove, disprove, consider or think about anything. If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented I would be the first one to switch to 6.

Why are we defining a present believe on the possibility of an (extremely unlikely) future occurrence?

 

[Sceptic Realist]

I'm not sure I like the poll options unless someone clarifies something. Is this defining "God" as the figure religions worship, or simply some higher power, a more broad designation? That would influence my answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

But you don't have to. You know what the evidence is (none). So there is no need to prove, disprove, consider or think about anything. If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented I would be the first one to switch to 6.

But if you are ready to change your stance based on evidence, then you are a 6 already.

Why are we defining a present believe on the possibility of an (extremely unlikely) future occurrence?

We are not. We are defining a present belief (I assume that's what you meant?) based on the evidence of present occurrences. But we are also open to the possibility (and you don't need to assign probabilities, just acknowledge that it is a possibility) that we are wrong.

We, being skeptics. It's the scientific approach.

 

[Michael C]

I'm not sure I like the poll options unless someone clarifies something. Is this defining "God" as the figure religions worship, or simply some higher power, a more broad designation? That would influence my answer.

The poll definitions are taken from "The God Delusion", where Richard Dawkins defines his "God Hypothesis" thusly:

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us"​

Dawkins himself says he'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7. Here is his reasoning:

"Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."​

That doesn't tally with the results of this little poll, where category 7 is the second most popular choice. Of course nobody can claim that the JREF forumites who answered this poll represent a typical sample of the general population. If this poll was done on a large scale, I wonder what the results would be. Would Dawkins be proved right, or are there really more "sevens" than he thinks?

 

[Georg]

I'm not giving it any probability. Not even 0. There is no way to assign probability to something there is no evidence, mechanism or necessity for its existence.

If there is no way to assign probability, you can´t rule it out, can you? That´s my point and that´s why I´m a 6.
7 for me means, there is no way to ever change your mind, no matter what evidence will ever be shown, and that is not skeptical.
If you define the 7 different (including the possibility that you err, like Hokulele did), I´d join that camp in an instant.

So, maybe the definitions of 6 and 7 are really the problem. Maybe we should clear that up.
Is the "knowledge" in 7 for you provisional knowledge that could be changed or is it ultimate knowledge that can´t ever be changed?

That is the meaning of woo.

I beg to differ. For me, woo is the stuff that is testable, gets tested, shows no positive results (homoeopathy, dowsing, astrology etc.) better than chance (or placebo). Religions making claims (prayer works etc.) also belong to that category, that´s why I said I´m a 7 regarding the god(s) of the religions I´m aware of.
Deities that cannot be tested (like the idea they just triggered the big bang or something similar but do not interfere with anything anymore) do not belong there in my opinion. For me there is no reason to believe in them (lack of evidence), but I wouldn´t group those believers with people that believe in stuff despite contradicting evidence.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The problem with absolute certainty is that if anyone can significantly weaken by argument any of the assumptions leading to it, it can no longer be so certain and therefore is no longer absolute.
My non belief feels 100%, but I suspect many of the posters here are smart and knowledgable enough to shake one or more of my assumptions- as they do daily on other matters.
So while I would like to pick 7, I'm forced to go for 6. But I despise myself for doing so.

 

[Menalitus]

IMHO it's a shame to see so many people choosing 7. Again IMO it is at least as bad as a 1, as some people (inc Dawkins) have already suggested.

How can a logical person make a statement of complete (dis)belief in anything without any evidence? I would have the same feelings about someone who declares a absolute disbelief in God that I would about someone who declares the opposite, it shows the same lack of imagination.

I would say that the FSM (PBUHNA) doesn't exist but I am always prepared to change my mind if presented with evidence to the contrary. In my opinion a 7 would not be prepared to change their mind on evidence of Gods existance in the same way that a 1 wouldn't if presented with evidence of the non existance of God.

I suspect that many of the 7's have voted on this by reflex and I would hope that on reflection most would take a view that they are actualy on the 7 side of 6.

To me, 7 has the same "la la la fingers in the ears" feeling that 1 gives me.

 

[H3LL]

How can a logical person make a statement of complete (dis)belief in anything without any evidence?

"I have this thing here that can do something. The thing is so marvellous that I can never let you see it or the things it does. If I did show you, it will disappear."

The 6's know nothing about what the thing is, nothing about what it can do but on my word that it does exist they think there is a possibility that it might.

All the 6's can buy one... only $100.

When you know why you won't buy one you will know why I'm a 7.

.

 

[Menalitus]

But IMO the problem is actually that a pure 7 would not buy one (or believe it existed) even if it landed on the end of their nose. I think thats kind of the point of the scale, a 7 is equally credulous to a 1 in my opinion.

That why I am a 6.9.

 

[H3LL]

But IMO the problem is actually that a pure 7 would not buy one (or believe it existed) even if it landed on the end of their nose. I think thats kind of the point of the scale, a 7 is equally credulous to a 1 in my opinion.

That why I am a 6.9.

Well you've already bought three, so you would say that.

.

 

[Menalitus]

Well you've already bought three, so you would say that.

.

You are right in that I would be pretty stupid to buy one of your hoojums based on simply your assurance of its existance. However I don't think it would be quite so stupid (although admittedly still pretty daft) to be less than 100% convinced that they don't exist (or that they did) without any evidence.

While I would like to call myself a complete Atheist I would be as guilty as the complete believers of shoddy logic if I stated that 'I do not believe, I know.'

 

[H3LL]

I know they can't exist because we have no knowledge of what they are. Gods or "things". Even with some detailed information, there are still things that are imaginary and will never, ever be real. Probability = 0.

Meanwhile, Aslan, Gandalf and Zeus are due round soon. Fafhrd and Grey Mouser should be joining us later if Vetinari has let them out.

We're going to share a pumpkin coach together and join the Mad Hatter's new tea party. He has just discovered crockery orbiting Saturn and asked if we would like to try it out.

They all want "things". Must make some more.

All 6's are invited, we have seats for 10²⁴⁶
Ta! ta!

 

[Menalitus]

I know they can't exist because we have no knowledge of what they are. Gods or "things". Even with some detailed information, there are still things that are imaginary and will never, ever be real. Probability = 0.

Aaah so you don't have any knowledge of them so they don't exist...

Sounds remarkably like "I don't understand it"/"it's too complicated" therefore God exists... Based on my previous observations I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this development.

Maybe we can coin a new phrase here - "The Non-God of the Gaps"

 

[Alric]

Aaah so you don't have any knowledge of them so they don't exist...

Right. So why even consider their existence. This whole thread is based on another false assumption. That the choices are inflexible. I am a 7 now based on the information. If someone found that Bosons are inscribed with the phrase "Excuse the inconvenience" I would not be a 7 anymore.

Its ok you can change your mind. You don't have to state your beliefs today based on information that you know very well its unlikely to come.

 

[Menalitus]

Right. So why even consider their existence. This whole thread is based on another false assumption. That the choices are inflexible. I am a 7 now based on the information. If someone found that Bosons are inscribed with the phrase "Excuse the inconvenience" I would not be a 7 anymore.

Its OK you can change your mind. You don't have to state your beliefs today based on information that you know very well its unlikely to come.

Sounds like you are actually a 6 then...

I think you are confusing your belief in the non-existence of "God" with the scale that was offered at the start of this thread. 7 is the equivalent of a 100% KNOWLEDGE in your own mind that god does not exist (the equivalent of no 1 for a believer), it does not allow room for a change of mind. That is why there is an option 6.

By choosing option 7 you are effectively saying that you would not change your mind even if supplied with concrete proof of Gods existence - "la la la he is not there".

For the record, I am absolutely convinced that there is no God, it is just my personal interpretation of the scale in this thread that makes me a 6. To all intents and purposes I am really a 7 and would argue against the existence of God all the way. However here we are talking about the scale provided which (again based on my interpretation of the point of this thread) makes me a 6.

 

[Alric]

I guess it all depends on how "Jung knows" did Jung say he would never change his mind? It would be a better poll if it plainly said:

I know God does not exist.

 

[Menalitus]

Agreed, I am simply looking at a 7 as the equivelent of a 1 but at the other end of the scale and I can't see one of them (a dedicated and true 1) changing their mind even in the face of extreme evidence.