The God Delusion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Probability requires some information. "No information" isn't a valid probability distribution.

I am talking about it from a scientific perspective. If you have no information (no experimental evidence) on the possible results, then every result is equally probable.

Remember what I was replying to. I was replying to Whaleboy's assertion that agnostic isn't the most rational position, because the question of god's existence wasn't a 50/50 probability. My reply was that since there was no scientific evidence one way or another, it was in essense a '50/50' probability.

I know you are bright, please read things in context.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
*sigh* How the hell can any of us truly know what God is or isn't? You have your scientists on one side, your theologians on the other and everyone else caught in the cross fire.

The majority of scientists are not atheists (the poll I saw might only have been of america). The same percentage of scientists are atheists now as were 100 years ago.. (which says that the position of atheism is independent of scientific understanding, there was no nonSupernatural explanation for the existance of the universe prior to Hawking, I Beleive)

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Be a good person, not because God is watching over your shoulder, but simply because it strengthens the whole.

commie

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm? My claim is that there is no (scientific) evidence either way. If there is no evidence, then there is no information, and probability would be 50/50.

That's just wrong. Reread post #178.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Let's play with this a bit ...

There's no evidence wether there's any gods, so there's a 50% chance there are non, and a 50% chance there is one or more of 'em.

We don't have any evidence to tell if there's no god, one god, or many gods, so let's split it 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3. Suddenly the chance of atheism dropped!

But we can do better than that; there can be no gods, one, god, two gods, three gods, or more - we've got no evidence, so they're all equally likely.

Repeat ad infinitum, and the probability of atheism converges to zero! Huzzah!

I am not into playing stupid philosophy games.

The statement was about what was rational, which based upon my discussion with Whaleboy relates to what is scientific.

So in science, if we ask if something exists. Like a new force or something, the existence of something versus the nonexistence of something is the question. The properties of that something (whether there are 1 or 2 or they are Christian or Hindu in the case of god) aren't relevant.

I would recommend studying how science gets done, and how the rational study of the natural world proceeds.

JM

[Jon Miller]

For a more concrete example, consider the experiments that determined that there was structure to the atom. The initial experiments didn't determine that there were neutrons and protons, or even that there were quarks. Rather they determined that the atom wasn't indivisable.

The question was whether there was something their or not. The answer was that there was something there.. what that something was was left to later experiments.

Before those experiments, there were some previous experiments which provided some evidences. In the case of the question of whether there is something there or not (related to the supernatural), there has been no experiments formulated which would provide evidence one way or another (there has been numerous hacks formulated, by both atheists and deists, but they would never pass any unbiased peer reviewed journal). As such, as to the question about whether there is anything there, the rational (in terms of Scientific, is what I mean) is that we don't know, basically that it is 50/50 whether something is there or not.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I am surprised (no really) that I am the one getting attacked on the 50/50 statement, when it is Whaleboy's statement. I was just trying to reply to him so that he could understand.

And yet my comment gets attacks, and not his (except for Elok).

JM

[Provost Harrison]

Why are we forgetting that the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that God exists...the bible and personal testimonies of those who follow are not evidence...

[Provost Harrison]

You have to look at history and look at how contrived the whole concept is, and how there are so many other concepts throughout the world...the only thing in common between the faiths is the anthropomorphocisation that occurs...but that doesn't sound so strange considering how a human mind works...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Why are we forgetting that the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that God exists...the bible and personal testimonies of those who follow are not evidence...

I am not claiming that they are scientific evidence.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You have to look at history and look at how contrived the whole concept is, and how there are so many other concepts throughout the world...the only thing in common between the faiths is the anthropomorphocisation that occurs...but that doesn't sound so strange considering how a human mind works...

Not scientific evidence.

JM

[Provost Harrison]

...and thus you are never going to be arguing in the same terms as the atheists. It's why these arguments end up so futile...no one can persuade anyone else of anything. I know which side of the argument I think is right though...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I am not into playing stupid philosophy games.

What on Earth, then, are you in a thread about the discussion of the existence of God?

The statement was about what was rational, which based upon my discussion with Whaleboy relates to what is scientific.

So in science, if we ask if something exists. Like a new force or something, the existence of something versus the nonexistence of something is the question. The properties of that something (whether there are 1 or 2 or they are Christian or Hindu in the case of god) aren't relevant.

In science, when one tries to establish whether something exists, one predicts what one would expect to observe if that something exists, or does not exist, and then makes observations, from which one estimates the likelihood of that something existing.

"Gods exist" isn't a scientifically addressable question, because the notion of "gods" is so amorphous that one cannot say what observable consequences it should have.

I would recommend studying how science gets done, and how the rational study of the natural world proceeds.

I have a quite good idea how science is done, thank you.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am surprised (no really) that I am the one getting attacked on the 50/50 statement, when it is Whaleboy's statement. I was just trying to reply to him so that he could understand.

i) I've not seen Whaleboy saying it's 50/50. He's said agnosticism is only defensible if it's 50/50, but that's a different claim.

ii) I long ago gave up any hope of talking sense with Whaleboy.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


i) I've not seen Whaleboy saying it's 50/50. He's said agnosticism is only defensible if it's 50/50, but that's a different claim.

ii) I long ago gave up any hope of talking sense with Whaleboy.

His statement implied it could be discussed in similiar terms. My statements afterwards were in response to him, and so tried to use his language.

JM