The most logical belief

Alex S.

Hi All,
I've had these discussion with many people and would be interested in your views.
Why is the most logical belief?
Here is my reasoning.
There either is a God or the isn't.
In probability this is expressed
P(God) or P(No God). Now both start off at 50/50 or .5.
i.e.
P(God) + P(No God) = 1

Unless we are told more information, that can change either of those probabilities. It remains the exact same as trying to guess if something is inside a box or not.

Now, in my opinion, there is no evidence to proove there either is a God or there is not a God.
The narrative's in the bible may be 100% correct or the may be factually inaccurate. We don't know. All we know is that this narratives exist.
Similarly there is no aethist proof, that there is definetly no God.

So the probability stays at 50/50.
I would conclude therefore that agnostism is the most logical belief i.e. it is impossible to definetively say, if there is a God or if there is no God.

Comments...

Rev Hellfire

agnostism isn't a belief its just sitting on the fence.

/me waves to my fellow fence sitters.

Sapien

Alex S. wrote:

Hi All,
I've had these discussion with many people and would be interested in your views.
Why is the most logical belief?
Here is my reasoning.
There either is a God or the isn't.
In probability this is expressed
P(God) or P(No God). Now both start off at 50/50 or .5.
i.e.
P(God) + P(No God) = 1

Unless we are told more information, that can change either of those probabilities. It remains the exact same as trying to guess if something is inside a box or not.

Now, in my opinion, there is no evidence to proove there either is a God or there is not a God.
The narrative's in the bible may be 100% correct or the may be factually inaccurate. We don't know. All we know is that this narratives exist.
Similarly there is no aethist proof, that there is definetly no God.

So the probability stays at 50/50.
I would conclude therefore that agnostism is the most logical belief i.e. it is impossible to definetively say, if there is a God or if there is no God.

Comments...

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Alex S.

I don't see how a belief is only a valid belief, if the conclusion is either existence or non existence.
Let's use the word opinion instead of belief.
Would you agree that agnostism is a more logical opinion than aethism?

Sapien

Alex S. wrote:

Would you agree that agnostism is a more logical opinion than aethism?

If there's no reason to believe in something, there's no reason to believe in something. An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue logic.

pH

Alex S. wrote:

There either is a God or the isn't.
In probability this is expressed
P(God) or P(No God). Now both start off at 50/50 or .5.

Here's your first problem - just because a decision is binary (having 2 outcomes) does not imply that both are equally likely.

For example I'm either going to win the lottery this weekend or I'm not, that doesn't mean I've a 50/50 chance of winning the lottey.

Tomorrow it may rain or it may be dry - doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance of rain tomorrow.

So basically you cannot just pluck 50/50 out of the air, you need to assign the P(God) and P(No God) probabilities based on some other reasoning or logical deductions.

robindch

> An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue logic.

I disagree. An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue probabilities.

Logic will get the atheist and the agnostic to the door into the real world, but only the atheist has the brass 'nads to open it and walk through.

.

Alex S.

I don't follow your argument / point Sapien.
Are you saying aethism is not logical? Or are you saying aethists are not afraid to argue against logic?
If so, so what? What's the point?
Comments...

robindch

> The narrative's in the bible may be 100% correct or the may be factually
> inaccurate. We don't know. All we know is that this narratives exist.

Well, why not ask somebody over in the christianity forum? Depending upon who replies, you'll hear that the bible is 100% accurate in every respect, or that it's mostly accurate, or that it needs to be read carefully. But they'll all tell you that it describes a god with infinite love, but who somehow still finds time to spend a lot of time smiting and otherwise inconveniencing the inhabitants of the middle east. So you can ask: "does the actual text of the bible square with what people say it is"? To which the answer is a forceful "No.". And you can start drawing conclusions from there...

Valmont

Agnostics may sit on the fence, but it must be uncomfortable having a thin piece of wood between your legs all the time. Conversly athiests are running around in the proverbial field.

You agnostics are just too indecisive! (please note that I respect and understand the views and opinions of all agnostics, athiesm is just my preference)

And to carry on the ruthlessness of this forum, stop spelling athiest wrong!!! It's not spelt aethist!!!:p

Interesting thread

monkeyfudge

Actually picking atheism is probably the most illogical choice.

If you were going to think about things in a logical manner and want to avoid eternal damnation then logically it makes sense to throw your hat in with one of the religions and hoping it's the right one to stand a slim chance of avoiding damnation.

If you're an anteist and you're wrong* then you'll definitely be getting a taste of enternal damnation. Unless there is a God who only repsects the opinions of atheists.




*You're not by the way.

Dades

The only "logical" conclusion is the one you reach after looking at all the options. Some people see that as agnosticism, some as atheism. Of course many claim to look at all the options and still be theist - though that is a leap in logic that most unbelievers cannot come to terms with.

The problem with saying what is most "logical" is that you really have to start by defining belief, atheism, agnosticism, god and everything else. Once you open that can of words (which can be interesting) you'll see that the only logical conclusion is the one you think it to be.

pH

monkeyfudge wrote:

Actually picking atheism is probably the most illogical choice.

If you were going to think about things in a logical manner and want to avoid eternal damnation then logically it makes sense to throw your hat in with one of the religions and hoping it's the right one to stand a slim chance of avoiding damnation.

How can you be so sure?

It may be that by worshipping the wrong God(s) you may anger the real one even more than by merely failing to worship the one true God!

You are making an assumption that if a God exists he/she has revealed his/her wishes to us. He could have a particulary God-like sense of humour and the real test may be "Not to go worshipping any of these false Gods I've put before you"

robindch

> If you were going to think about things in a logical manner and want to
> avoid eternal damnation then logically it makes sense to throw your hat
> in with one of the religions and hoping it's the right one to stand a slim
> chance of avoiding damnation.

This is Pascal's Wager and is considered a fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Mentalmiss

Atheism makes no sense at all.
If you are logical enough to realise that the doctrine that we have been fed is totally illogical then you can not see any logic in even believing in the possibility of the existance of a god.
Sitting on the fence will just give you a pain in your ass.

monkeyfudge

Mentalmiss wrote:

Atheism makes no sense at all.
If you are logical enough to realise that the doctrine that we have been fed is totally illogical then you can not see any logic in even believing in the possibility of the existance of a god.
Sitting on the fence will just give you a pain in your ass.

How is atheism sitting on the fence?

Alex S.

Hi in reply to PH,
All binary decisions have equal outcomes, unless you know more about the problem.
For example, the chances of winning the lotto is not binary.
You know how many permutations of numbers there are and you know how many selections you make. So the probability of you winning is:
(No. of selections) * (1 / number of permutations).

If you did not know how many selections were made, and how many permutations there were, it would be 50 / 50. The fact is you always do, so the analogy is disingenious.

The probability of it raining tomorrow is never 50 / 50, because you generally have some accurate information, which will point to a more likely outcome. You know what time of year it is, you also have other information weather forcasting etc. so it does not become 50 / 50. If you did not know anything that would make either outcome more likely, suppose you knew nothing about weather patterns, time of year, you had no weather mathematics, you didn't know future weather can be calculated from current statistics, it would be 50 / 50.

So, these analogies are both invalid. They are completly different problems.

A better analogy is discovering a box and trying to guess if something is inside it. You don't know anything about the box, where it came from, you can't shake it to see if something moves, you know nothing to change the basic probability of 50/50.

Mathematically, the probability of there being a God is
P(God) = 0.5, as we know absolute nothing to change the probability of there being one or not.

robindch

> All binary decisions have equal outcomes [...]

Um, with this logic, can I say that there's a 50% chance that there's an invisible pink unicorn standing beside me?

pH

Alex S. wrote:

Hi in reply to PH,
All binary decisions have equal outcomes, unless you know more about the problem.

Not so I'm afraid. Your knowledge of the problem in no way effects the probability of each outcome. In no sense is there a default 'each outcome is equally probable' except in the cases where you already know each outcome is equally probable

For example, the chances of winning the lotto is not binary.
You know how many permutations of numbers there are and you know how many selections you make. So the probability of you winning is:
(No. of selections) * (1 / number of permutations).

Yes it is it's a binary decision (there are 2 outcomes) the probability of one occuring is say 1/1000000 and the probability of the other is 999999/1000000.

If you did not know how many selections were made, and how many permutations there were, it would be 50 / 50. The fact is you always do, so the analogy is disingenious.

Do you know what disingenuous means?

The probability of it raining tomorrow is never 50 / 50, because you generally have some accurate information, which will point to a more likely outcome. You know what time of year it is, you also have other information weather forcasting etc. so it does not become 50 / 50. If you did not know anything that would make either outcome more likely, suppose you knew nothing about weather patterns, time of year, you had no weather mathematics, you didn't know future weather can be calculated from current statistics, it would be 50 / 50.

So, these analogies are both invalid. They are completly different problems.

A better analogy is discovering a box and trying to guess if something is inside it. You don't know anything about the box, where it came from, you can't shake it to see if something moves, you know nothing to change the basic probability of 50/50.

Think about this, if you enter a room and there are 100 boxes in it. You know absolutely nothing about those boxes, what they're for or why they're there. Now you're telling me that you are fairly certain that 50 are full and 50 are empty!

Mathematically, the probability of there being a God is
P(God) = 0.5, as we know absolute nothing to change the probability of there being one or not.

I've already explained that just because there are 2 outcomes it doesn't mean they're equally likely.

Alex S.

pH wrote:

Not so I'm afraid. Your knowledge of the problem in no way effects the probability of each outcome.

Of course it does. If some gives you 20 cards and tells you every cards is either red or black, and tells you to pick one, the probability of you picking a red or black one is 50 / 50.
But, if he tells you 17 / 20 cards are red, the probability of you picking a red one is 17 / 20 and a black one is 3 / 20.

In no sense is there a default 'each outcome is equally probable' except in the cases where you already know each outcome is equally probable

Each outcome is equally probable unless you know more about the problem other than the number of possible outcomes. This is basic logic.






Yes it is it's a binary decision (there are 2 outcomes) the probability of one occuring is say 1/1000000 and the probability of the other is 999999/1000000.

It's a binary outcome, not a binary decision, with unequal probabilities. This is because, you know more about the problem other than the fact that there are two outcomes.

Do you know what disingenuous means?
Yes, but I agree not an accurate usage. Replace with the word 'inaccurate' i.e. 'inaccurate analogies'.


Think about this, if you enter a room and there are 100 boxes in it. You know absolutely nothing about those boxes, what they're for or why they're there. Now you're telling me that you are fairly certain that 50 are full and 50 are empty!

Now I am not certain, that is the probability, unless you know more about the boxes i.e. more information other than the possible outcomes, that is the probability.


I've already explained that just because there are 2 outcomes it doesn't mean they're equally likely.

Yes, just because they are two outcomes doesn't mean they're equally likely, it depends what you know about the problem.
Again, I'll use the card analogy. You pick a card, you know that it can either be red or black, but that's all you know. The probability is 50 / 50 for either red or black.
Now you pick a card from 20 cards, again they are only two possible outcomes red or black, but this time you are told 19 are red 1 is black. In this case:
P(red) = 19 / 20
P(black) = 1 / 20.

Since we know nothing for certain about the existence of a God, and we also nothing for certain about the non exitence of a God:
It follows:

P(God) = 0.5

Your thoughts...

robindch

> just because they are two outcomes doesn't mean they're equally
> likely, it depends what you know about the problem.

Er, no it doesn't -- the probability of an outcome does not depend upon how little is known by the person calculating the probability. If this were true, then I could head down to the racetrack and influence the odds by going out of my way to know nothing about horses...

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> All binary decisions have equal outcomes [...]

Um, with this logic, can I say that there's a 50% chance that there's an invisible pink unicorn standing beside me?

I'll restrain myself for the moment. I'm waiting to mug Wicknight and his gang of pixies.

Agnosticism can't be the most logical belief, because it's not a belief. Atheism may be a belief, theism is a belief, but agnosticism isn't. It is the most logically supportable position, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

robindch wrote:

> An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue logic.

I disagree. An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue probabilities.

Okay. I stick by logic. Like Occam's Razor, for instance, which is about as sensible a way to put it as I can imagine. To invite probabilistic considerations is to open the argument up to precisely the same meaningless warbling that has opened this thread: "P(God) + P(No God) = 1", and so forth. Silliness. The probabilities are so hugely weighted that they exist comfortably within the realm of ontology.

Tar.Aldarion

wrote:

An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue logic.

I disagree. An atheist is an agnostic who isn't afraid to argue probabilities.

I disagree yet again. I think agnosticism is the most logical 'belief'. I am more than willing to debate that to. Most people seem to think agnnosticism is just a product of being afraid to throw your hat into the ring. Well, I have put thought into my beliefs my whole life and agnosticism is far from that for me.
Please tell me why atheism is more logical than agnosticism, I find that this is not so.

Agnosticism can't be the most logical belief, because it's not a belief. Atheism may be a belief, theism is a belief, but agnosticism isn't. It is the most logically supportable position, though.

Depends on how you define agnosticism and belief, can i have the belief that 'I don't know'?
I think absolute Atheism(which is just me adding a superfluous word to atheism) and likewise for believing in <religion here> is not as logically supportable as agnosticism.

In fact, I believe my first post regarding agnosticism/atheism(back before this forum existed) on these boards called The Atheist close minded for his expressed belief on that thread, those were the days. He then made a comment on my spelling errors of the word atheist in his reply. Now, look at us, mods of the Atheist/Agnostic and grammar fora respectively.

robindch

> I think agnosticism is the most logical 'belief'.

Agnosticism, as Wicknight says above, is not a belief, it's a position concerning the existence of god into which one is pushed by sound logic. Once there, you can start applying your own personal beliefs, based upon whatever evidence, or lack of evidence, that you wish -- and end up believing that either god exists (getting you to theism or some regional variation), or that god doesn't exist (getting you to atheism).

> Please tell me why atheism is more logical than agnosticism

Again, atheism isn't "more logical" than agnosticism; it's simply an assertion concerning the existence of god starting from a position of agnosticism, but bearing in mind the available evidence for god.

Make sense?

hairyheretic

Sapien wrote:

"P(God) + P(No God) = 1", and so forth.

You forgot + P(Many Gods)

And that doesn't even factor Goddesses into it.

Dades

Is agnosticism not a belief that we do not, or can not know about the existence of god(s)?

Perhaps again there are degrees - I would not suggest Tar as an agnostic does not have a "belief", however I would concede that an answer "I don't know" accompanied by a shrug you get from many does not equate to a belief.

In fact, I believe my first post regarding agnosticism/atheism(back before this forum existed) on these boards called The Atheist close minded for his expressed belief on that thread, those were the days. He then made a comment on my spelling errors of the word atheist in his reply. Now, look at us, mods of the Atheist/Agnostic and grammar fora respectively.

Ah the heady days of 2005.

Wicknight's sky pixies must have whisked him off to a better place.

Alex S.

robindch wrote:

> just because they are two outcomes doesn't mean they're equally
> likely, it depends what you know about the problem.

Er, no it doesn't -- the probability of an outcome does not depend upon how little is known by the person calculating the probability. If this were true, then I could head down to the racetrack and influence the odds by going out of my way to know nothing about horses...

Of course it does.
Suppose there are twenty cards, all cards are either red or black.
3 people have to guess the probability of a card being red or black.
Person A, is told nothing more than that.
His deduction is
P(Red Card) = 0.5
P(Blue Card) = 0.5

Person B, knows that there are at least 12 red cards. But doesn't know anything about the other 8, except that they are either red or black.

Therefore, his deduction is:
P(Red Card) = 12 / 20 + 4 / 20 = 16 / 20 = 0.8
P(Black Card) = 1 - 0.8 = 0.2

Person C, knows there are exactly 13 cards.
His probability is deduced as:
P(Red card) = 13 / 20
P(Black Card) = 7 / 20.

Now in this case they all are presented the same cards, Person C, will be right more than Person B, or Person A, not because he is better at Maths, because he knows more about the problem.

pH

Alex S. wrote:

Of course it does.
Suppose there are twenty cards, all cards are either red or black.
3 people have to guess the probability of a card being red or black.
Person A, is told nothing more than that.
His deduction is
P(Red Card) = 0.5
P(Blue Card) = 0.5

Well maybe his deduction (or guess) is that p(red card)=0.5, but that in no way does that make the actual probability of a red card = 0.5, or make his guess or decuction right or correct in any meaningful way.

Unless you know something about the distribution (as in B and C) you cannot calculate the probability at all. Assigning each possible outcome an equal probability in no way makes each probability equally possible.

Alex S.

pH wrote:

Well maybe his deduction (or guess) is that p(red card)=0.5, but that in no way does that make the actual probability of a red card = 0.5, or make his guess or decuction right or correct in any meaningful way.

Unless you know something about the distribution (as in B and C) you cannot calculate the probability at all. Assigning each possible outcome an equal probability in no way makes each probability equally possible.

No, knowing something about the distribution, only changes the probability from the it's default of (1 / No. of Possible outcomes).
All probability starts with a default of (1 / No. of possible outcomes) and only changes if other factors such as knowing distribution etc. change this.

With God, nothing else is known. So it remains P(God) = 0.5.

pH

Alex S. wrote:

No, knowing something about the distribution, only changes the probability from the it's default of (1 / No. of Possible outcomes).
All probability starts with a default of (1 / No. of possible outcomes) and only changes if other factors such as knowing distribution etc. change this.

With God, nothing else is known. So it remains P(God) = 0.5.

Once again ... there's no such thing as a default probability (1/no of outcomes). The only time the you assign a probability of (1/no outcomes) is when you know in advance that all outcomes are equally probable.

Since I don't believe that you genuinely think that you've come up with a massive breakthrough in proving the existance of God, I guess you're trolling at this stage.

Anyway you never took on board hairyheretics point, in your new probability theory what is the probability that there are 2 gods? or 15 gods? or 8293 gods?