Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[Egg]

I don't know how anyone can speak of having to prove or disprove the existence of imaginary things. Or us there anything that would lead you to believe god is anything but imaginary?

Do you have proof that God is merely imaginary?

 

[biostudent]

I sympathise with your position, but for some reason seem to be compelled to point out that if there was no religion, I don't suppose your atheism would be a subject that needed much discussion - just like I don't really feel any need to talk about my lack of a belief in Kaplankitwinkyminky.

Lol sorry, I just wasn't being very clear (I'm coming off a 3 day migraine and my ability to communicate is really suffering). Those were actually two, unrelated points that I was trying to make.

 

[Egg]

That would depend on what you think is "highly improbable". "1 in a million" occurrences happen 300 times a day in the US alone!

The probability of drawing 4 aces in a row is (4/52)*(3/51)*(2/50)*(1/49) = 1/270725 ~ 0.00037%

The probability of getting a royal straight flush in a 5-card poker game is 649,739 : 1 = 0.000154% *

Combine that with the massive number of card plays at any given moment around the world. Drawing 4 aces in a row happens all the time!

Very true. Although the chance of it happening in this particular friend's card game last night is still pretty small, but perhaps plausible for the reasons you mention here.

How would you describe the difference between plausibility and probability (or perhaps belief in a probability)?

 

[Alric]

Do you have proof that God is merely imaginary?

I can imagine her.

But the onus is for those that allow a probability to show there is one.

 

[Egg]

I can imagine her.

But the onus is for those that allow a probability to show there is one.

I don't suppose my imagining Paris Hilton would make her cease to exist, but perhaps it's worth a go .

The onus is presumably on the one making a claim.

"God exists"

"The probability of God existing is 3.764%"

"God is mere imaginary"

These are all claims and if we are to use skepticism to discern the truth behind them, we'd have no reason to accept any of the above claims without any presented evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Very true. Although the chance of it happening in this particular friend's card game last night is still pretty small, but perhaps plausible for the reasons you mention here.

How would you describe the difference between plausibility and probability (or perhaps belief in a probability)?

It doesn't make sense to discuss exact probabilities of God. How the heck does one estimate those?

 

[Egg]

It doesn't make sense to discuss exact probabilities of God. How the heck does one estimate those?

My thoughts exactly.

God either exists or doesn't. Isn't any probability subjective?

 

[Tressa]

#6 defacto atheist.

 

[CFLarsen]

My thoughts exactly.

God either exists or doesn't. Isn't any probability subjective?

Not at all. E.g., in the case where we know all possible outcomes (the poker examples before, and with coin tosses and dice throws), it is objective.

 

[Egg]

Not at all. E.g., in the case where we know all possible outcomes (the poker examples before, and with coin tosses and dice throws), it is objective.

Of course. I was referring to estimating the probability of God's existence, not probability in general.

 

[Hokulele]

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?

I just wanted to clarify a bit, as I think you may have misunderstood my reasoning. I am stating that I can make mistakes, but I do not think I am making one when I make a statement such as "there are no gods".

For example, I recently drove a friend to the airport and drove her car back to her house. As I started the drive back, I believed the brakes were fine as they had been fine all the way on the trip to the airport, I had no reason to think there were any problems with the brakes. If anyone had asked me at that point in time, I would have been completely confident in stating that the brakes were fine.

I was wrong.

 

[Alric]

It doesn't make sense to discuss exact probabilities of God. How the heck does one estimate those?

So you agree there is no probability for the existence of god?

 

[CFLarsen]

So you agree there is no probability for the existence of god?

No, I'm saying that we can't work out what the probabilities would be.

If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented, would you switch to 6, yes or no?

 

[Alric]

No, I'm saying that we can't work out what the probabilities would be.

If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented, would you switch to 6, yes or no?

This is the part I don't get. Why does my position now depends on a future event for which there is no known probability.

 

[Tricky]

I think that the philosophical differences between those who voted for 6 versus those who voted for 7 can be attributed to a rounding error.

 

[ehbowen]

Those of us who voted "1" are watching the argument between the "6s" and "7s" with some amusement.

The question, Mr. Larsen and others, is whether if evidence or mechanism is presented at some point, would you also switch from 6 OR 7 to "1"?

Keep in mind that we are not discussing some impersonal "force" which can be studied or manipulated at whim, but rather a very real, intelligent and volitional Person who can choose when, where, and to whom He reveals Himself.

As a Heinlein character said in Tunnel In the Sky [not in quotes because I do not have the original reference handy; this is from memory], the superior woodsman is not the kind of man you will find by looking. HE may find YOU, as you trample noisily through the brush. He may shadow you for a while to see what you are up to. But the only way you are going to find him is if he wants to be found.

When you are trying to separate the cream from the milk from the impurities, it behooves you not to stir the pot. But at some point that separation will be complete. God will in fact reveal himself to the world; that is a promise. When that does happen, do you think that he will be more impressed by the fact that you were "only" 99.99% certain that he was never there, or that you decided to commit for the full 100?

I don't think it will make a hundredth of a percentage point's difference either way....

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

God does not exist or does exist in such a way that his/her/its existence is so imperceptible as to be the equivalent of non-existence.

I see no difference between the two positions above.

 

[ehbowen]

There is no IED in that vacant building or there is an IED so well concealed that its existence is so imperceptible as to be the equivalent of non-existence....until you touch its trip wire.

I see a great difference between the two positions above.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

There is no IED in that vacant building or there is an IED so well concealed that its existence is so imperceptible as to be the equivalent of non-existence....until you touch its trip wire.

I see a great difference between the two positions above.

Yeah, I'd hope you do.

Blowing up and taking your legs off is pretty perceptible.

Any evidence that any 'God' has ever done anything ever anywhere?

I'm pretty sure IEDs exist. You know anyone who refutes their existence?

 

[ehbowen]

Any evidence that any 'God' has ever done anything ever anywhere?

Packard used to have a slogan: "Ask the man who owns one." Try asking a Christian, especially one of those fundamentalists you hate so much, what God has done in his life. Not to pick it apart, not to try to explain it away, but with a genuine intent to listen and to try to understand.

In my own case there has been a lifetime's worth of events which, considered individually, could be dismissed as coincidental, but when considered in the aggregate form such a pattern of divine guidance and provision that it would be perverse to assume otherwise. My present job, for instance. I didn't even look for it; one day when I was at home, unemployed, and broke I got a call out of the clear blue asking me if I was available and when could I start? And that's not the only time that has happened to me; there have been at least three other times in my life that I obtained a job under circumstances which I class as providential.

Could I be wrong? I suppose, in the same way your number 7s might envision some wild scenario which would make them number sixes. Perhaps this entire universe is only a computer simulation, and even now some unseen hand is reaching for the "reboot" key. But, for me, it is pointless to hedge my bets. Count me a "1".