62% chance God exists

Valmont

Thought I'd post a small article I read in this mornings edition of 'Metro'

'62% chance God exists
The mathematical probability of God's existence is just over 62 per cent. German science magazine PM conducted the study using probability and plausability mathematical formulas. Researchers started with the hypothesis that God exists and then tried to analyse the evidence in favour or against that hypothesis across five areas, creation, evolution, good and evil, and religious experience. The scientists applied mathematical formulas to calculate how statistically probable different answers were to questions like "How probable is it that God created the Universe?"'.

Slightly dubious?

Thoughts?

robindch

> Slightly dubious?

There's nothing slight about the dubiousness of this claim. I don't have Metro to hand, but I presume that it's based upon Stephen Unwin's similar notion which runs more or less as follows:

• Assume a 50% probability that one's favourite deity exists (well, we don't know whether it does, so it's "equally" likely to exist, or not to exist). Cough, cough.
• Add probability for all the "good" things in the universe
• Remove probability for all the "bad" things in the universe

...and you eventually arrive at a 66% probability that your own particular chosen deity exists.

This is the kind of thing that would be good religious satire in a saner world, but becomes headline news in this one. Weird.

Valmont

robindch wrote:

> Slightly dubious?

I was attempting some subtle sarcasm, lol. The whole thing is obviously flawed.

The quote I posted was the article in it's entirety, it was only small.

Son Goku

Valmont wrote:

Slightly dubious?

Thoughts?

It is post-dubious. Again we have a group of people who think Bayesian probability (the kind used for poker odds and flipping coins) is the kind of statistics required to analyse everything.

aidan24326

If that was the whole article in it's entirety then it was a bit of a waste of time. They must have been very badly stuck for an article to fill up a bit of space. If that is the quality of 'news' that's appearing in metro it's no wonder they give it away for free. Though to be fair I usually find metro no worse than alot of other papers, even those who would claim a more high-browed position for themselves.

As for the German secience magazine who carried out the 'study', they too ought to know better. And it's great to know that mathematical researchers are using their time so productively.

MrJoeSoap

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/16020937.htm

In a recent review printed in The Telegraph of Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion", the reviewer, Alexandra Alter, deems that "it is finally fashionable to be an atheist."

Fashionable perhaps, but only in certain circles radiating from the staid departments of philosophy and sociology in a large number of our universities. Dawkins' pugnacious prose is a thinly veiled rehashing of the oft repeated "atheism is merely a disbelief in God - the burden of proof is on the theists" argument.

This, and his scorn for any doubt about atheism, is as much a statement of faith over reason as any religious zealot could utter. Handouts with this "atheism is disbelief" mantra are apparently issued to every student the first day in Philosophy 101 as the initial step in their indoctrination. How can anyone reasonably claim that atheism isn't as much a statement of belief in the non-existence of God, as is the believer's faith that there indeed is a God?

Come, let us reason together.

Dawkins proclaims that the probability of a divine being is "less than zero." Disregarding that over-the-top hyperbole, what are the odds that God does indeed exist, and whose word of God is most likely to be true?

Let's meet him halfway and assume for the sake of argument that there have been no supernatural events since the creation - the Big Bang in technical terms. Either the universe was created by a super-powerful being, or it came into existence spontaneously. There is no scientific theory or evidence available that can even begin to account for either possibility.

So, scientifically, philosophically and reasonably speaking, the odds for the existence of God are an undeniable 50-50. Throw in some slight scientific evidence from the argument for intelligent design (which brought the atheist/physicist Fred Hoyle to state that the existence of God is "almost beyond question") and make it a 50.1 to 49.9 advantage for God.

That's reason enough for me to tip the scales toward a belief in God. Dawkins' arguments have more validity against a divinely revealed word of God. There are so many unverifiable claims to receiving direct knowledge of divine intent from God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin and the rest, as well as books with diverse faith-based opinions, even within the many various sub-sects within each religion or between the sacred texts themselves, that the overwhelmed mind balks.

It is a major impetus behind the thinking of people who take the ofttimes terrifying step of leaving their religion in need of answers. It even causes some to go so far as to overreact and seek a sense of belonging within the rebellious cliques of atheism; often less for the effrontery the term conveys than a genuine belief in it.

Does a "Word of God" in fact exist, and if so, how do we go about finding it? There is one glaring rule to follow in such a search, which should be more obvious than it apparently is: Don't look to men, past or present, for the revelation of God's word, look to God. I could labor to expound on what I mean here, but someone has already described it much better than I ever could.

Rarely is the expression of one's concept of our relationship to the divine more timelessly profound and majestic than this: "It is only in the creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be.

"It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

-Thomas Paine

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/16020937.htm

Was just reading that yesterday. Fairly nonsensical stuff as far as I'm concerned.

Zombrex

Either the universe was created by a super-powerful being, or it came into existence spontaneously.
...
So, scientifically, philosophically and reasonably speaking, the odds for the existence of God are an undeniable 50-50.

What nonsense. The odds are not 50-50, the odds are unknown. If God does exist the odds are 0-1 and vice versa if He doesn't. They default to 50-50 only if you have to make them something and you have absolutely no information either way. But then you would be ignoring all the logic and reason that suggests God doesn't exist.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. People are idiots.

Zillah

This is old stuff, and still makes me feel ill at its stupidity.

Sangre

There's a 72% chance this article is wrong.

Bunnyhopper

Plus, you have to bear in mind that 78.24% of statistics are just made up on the spot.

MrJoeSoap

Only 16% of people know that though.

Valmont

Sorry guys, I was aware that the whole 'probability' argument had been covered before in the 'most logical belief' thread and others but I thought it was funny that it was in the Metro.

The unfortunate fact is some people will have read it and assumed that because it was conducted by scientists (and I use that term loosely), it is reliable. Which it isn't.

Statistics and probability are reliable methods of scientific investigation but they can only be useful if applied to a tangible and reasonable hypothesis.

What next?

aidan24326

EDIT: had written a longer post, but deemed it pointless, as this is just nonsense written by a typically arrogant sort (like that Quinn guy from the indo who was on Tubridy with Dawkins). Not really worth talking about.

EDIT2: referring to the macon.com article rather than the metro one.

MagnumForce

So, scientifically, philosophically and reasonably speaking, the odds for the existence of God are an undeniable 50-50.

I was gonna say something about this, but i see aidan24326 has done it far better than i was going to.

aidan24326

MagnumForce wrote:

I was gonna say something about this, but i see aidan24326 has done it far better than i was going to.

Magnumforce sorry about that, I deleted it :rolleyes: as the whole probability thing had been done before and I figured it was pretty obvious to all anyway.

One thing I would say though. If you read the article by Thomas Paine in macon.com, he ridicules Dawkins for suggesting a god probability of 'less than zero'. (I haven't see that in Dawkins book yet but I'll take his word for it).
It is important to make the distinction of what kind of god Dawkins considers to be so overwhelmingly unlikely, or nigh on impossible in his eyes.

He is referring to the 'god' of popular culture, of the abrahamic religions in particular though not exclusively. The god that interacts with the universe, performs miracles, listens to prayers, requires us to worship him every sunday morning etc. He considers that god to be an absurdity, that we can say quite a bit about the probability of existence of a god like that. And it is hardly surprising (well not to me anyway) to learn that a logical examination leaves that god in probability nowhere land.

Dawkins believes a supernatural universe-creator (what we might call a more 'sophisticated' version of god) to also be unlikley, but it is primarily the less sophisticated god of organised religion that he is referring to if and when he talks of 'less than zero' probability, as we have facts, evidence and logic to work on there. The other stuff is naturally a bit more speculative, but I think many of those who review his books don't make that distinction (maybe intentionally).

Crucifix

Ignoring all the other issues for a moment; How can you get an answer of 62% chance of God existing, when your starting point is there's a 50% chance of God existing? It's not like it's an iterative process.

robindch

> How can you get an answer of 62% chance of God existing, when your
> starting point is there's a 50% chance of God existing? It's not like it's an
> iterative process.

It's as I said above -- according to Unwin, the existence of "good" things of one kind or another increases the chances that god exists, while the existence of "bad" things decreases it. It hasn't occurred to him that good and bad are simply human value-judgements and all he's succeeded in doing is just "proving" what he had assumed to start with.

This is satire, not reality. But it's one of the achievements of modern religion that it's frequently difficult to tell which is which.

Tar.Aldarion

Fourfty percent of people will read this post.

maitri

Valmont wrote:

Thought I'd post a small article I read in this mornings edition of 'Metro'

'62% chance God exists
The mathematical probability of God's existence is just over 62 per cent. German science magazine PM conducted the study using probability and plausability mathematical formulas. Researchers started with the hypothesis that God exists and then tried to analyse the evidence in favour or against that hypothesis across five areas, creation, evolution, good and evil, and religious experience.etc..."'.

I really wonder how they define this "God". Is "he" the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God? Is "he" then defined to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent? And if he is defined to be those things (as the Christian etc... God usally is) how did they get past this good old problem?:

Argument 1:

P1a: If the creator (we assume here for the sake of the argument that there is one) of this world were omniscient and omnipotent, then "he" could create a world in which all of his goals could be accomplished without pain and suffering (especially the suffering of innocent babies and animals).
P2a: If the creator of this world were omnibenevolent, then "he" would create a world in which all of his goals were accomplished without pain and suffering.
P3a: This world is not without pain and suffering.
Ca: Therefore the creator of this world (if there is one) is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

To be more concrete:

Argument 2:

P1a: If the creator (we still assume for the sake of the argument that there is one) of this world were omniscient and omnipotent, then "he" could create a world in which all of his goals could be accomplished without the rape and murder of small children.
P2a: If the creator of this world were omnibenevolent, then "he" would create a world in which all of his goals were accomplised without the rape of small children.
P3a: This world is not without the rape and murder of small children.
Ca: Therefore the creator of this world (if there is one) is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

And for the Old Testament God (for those who believe this book in a literal way):

Argument 3 (as a curiosity):

Samuel 15:2-3, "Thus says the LORD of hosts. . . 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'" (emphasis added). (A denial that this record records an actual history is a defeator of this argument.)

P1: An omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent being would not commit an evil act.
P2: Ordering an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants (and animals) is an evil act.
P3: The Old Testament God ordered an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants (and animals).
C: Therefore, the Old Testament God is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.

I guess two ways to cope with these problems is either to define God/the Creator in another way than being "omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent" - but then I wonder just how then they define "him" - or to refuse to define God at all.

If they chose (wisely, I think) not to define God/the Creator at all, then I wonder how on earth they are able to make probability and plausability mathematical formulas about "him"?

I kind of suspect this whole thread is probably just a joke?

5uspect

maitri wrote:

I kind of suspect this whole thread is probably just a joke?

I think you're probably right there.

Zillah

On this forum, yes.