The most logical belief

Alex S. · 03-07-2006 4:21pm #1

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 · 03-07-2006 4:33pm

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

/me waves to my fellow fence sitters.

Sapien · 03-07-2006 5:09pm

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. · 03-07-2006 6:15pm

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 · 03-07-2006 6:17pm

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 · 03-07-2006 6:52pm

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 · 03-07-2006 6:52pm

> 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. · 03-07-2006 6:57pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:02pm

> 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 · 03-07-2006 7:13pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:23pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:31pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:31pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:34pm

> 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 · 03-07-2006 7:39pm

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 · 03-07-2006 7:41pm

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. · 03-07-2006 10:46pm

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 · 03-07-2006 10:59pm

> 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 · 03-07-2006 11:03pm

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. · 03-07-2006 11:27pm

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 · 04-07-2006 12:06am

> 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 · 04-07-2006 1:03am

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 · 04-07-2006 5:02am

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 · 04-07-2006 5:15am

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 · 04-07-2006 9:15am

> 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 · 04-07-2006 9:22am

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 · 04-07-2006 10:25am

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. · 04-07-2006 10:33am

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 · 04-07-2006 11:00am

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. · 04-07-2006 11:49am

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 · 04-07-2006 11:57am

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?

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 12:37pm

pH wrote:

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?

Of course there is default probability of 1 / no. of possible outcomes.

w.r.t. hairyheretics point.

The probability of 2 gods, is an entirely different problem. Once again it defaults to the number of possible outcomes. Now what are the number of possible outcomes?
Suppose we know there are five possible outcomes, to that question.
P(No God), P(1 God), P(2 Gods), P(3 Gods), P(4 Gods), but we know nothing else. Each probability starts with 0.2.

Now this can be taken to extremes in which case, we could calculate the probability of an infintie amount of Gods.
Again if all probabilities are mutually exclusive and we know nothing else,
each one including no God, all default to 1 / infinity.

The problem with that approach is we don't know the amount of possible outcomes, so there is no default in this case.

When I write,
P(God), I mean it can be 1 God or >1 God. So it can be 1, 17 or infinity, we actually don't know the amount.
So because there are only two outcomes,
P(God(s)), and P(No Gods), in which case each case:
P(God(s)) = 0.5

I am abbreviating that to
P(God), but will I will write P(God(s)) as I think that clarifies.

Scofflaw · 04-07-2006 1:11pm

Hmm. P(God(s))=0.5, or "in the absence of information, it's a coin-toss". I'd accept that, although it's fundamentally just a statement of our ignorance - an estimate of the probability rather than the probability itself.

On the other hand, the more tightly you specify God, the lower the probability drops, because the improbabilities multiply. So, the proposition that God is good is, assuming a good/evil binary choice:

P(God(s)) * P(Good) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25

In fact, we can set up as many of these as we like, such as the question of whether God will punish non-believers, whether He/She/It is actually the Creator, etc etc.

So, the possibility of any particular God is vanishingly small. That's God for you - he seems likely, but the minute you focus in, he vanishes away. On that basis, given the high improbability of a god worth worshipping, atheism is perhaps the most logical belief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 04-07-2006 1:16pm

Scofflaw wrote:

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

Dragons Scofflaw, gang of dragons! ..

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 1:21pm

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. P(God(s))=0.5, or "in the absence of information, it's a coin-toss". I'd accept that, although it's fundamentally just a statement of our ignorance - an estimate of the probability rather than the probability itself.

On the other hand, the more tightly you specify God, the lower the probability drops, because the improbabilities multiply. So, the proposition that God is good is, assuming a good/evil binary choice:

P(God(s)) * P(Good) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25

In fact, we can set up as many of these as we like, such as the question of whether God will punish non-believers, whether He/She/It is actually the Creator, etc etc.

So, the possibility of any particular God is vanishingly small. That's God for you - he seems likely, but the minute you focus in, he vanishes away. On that basis, given the high improbability of a god worth worshipping, atheism is perhaps the most logical belief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, because the odds of there being no God never exceed 0.5% atheism is not a logical belief. There's a 50% chance atheism is right, and a 50% chance it is wrong. There is no logical argument to say it is more right than wrong. I agree it has a higher probability of being right than P(God(s) that care about you) which as you say Scofflaw, is 0.25.
But it doesn't have a higher probability of P(God(s)). Atheism, has an equal chance of being right or wrong, therefore it is not a logical belief.

Scofflaw · 04-07-2006 1:24pm

Wicknight wrote:

Dragons Scofflaw, gang of dragons! ..

Well, they were both equally likely....

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 04-07-2006 1:27pm

> There's a 50% chance atheism is right, and a 50% chance it is wrong.

You still haven't told me whether or not you think that there's a 50% chance that there's an invisible pink unicorn standing beside me. I await your answer with interest...

Zombrex · 04-07-2006 1:27pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Please tell me why atheism is more logical than agnosticism, I find that this is not so.

For me the logic that supports atheism is that we (humans) invented the concept of gods, so how can God exist if he/it was just an invention of our collective culture. The likelyhood, the probability, that something we invented actually existing in the universe, is relatively slim as to be quite improbable.

As Scofflaw and others will probably point out I can't know we invented God for certain, or that even if we invented the concept of a god that doesn't mean that we by pure fluke got it absolutely correct and such an entity does actually exist. But then again I can't technically know anything, from a logic position. The only things that are actually true are logical tautologies, which only exist in theoretical logic class rooms.

So while being agnostic in relation to God is technically the most logical position, that position isn't based on the idea that there is a lot of good reasons to think there might be a God, more on the logical reality that you cannot ever know for certain anything. There are in fact, as far as I'm concerned, no good reasons to think there might actually be a God.

Which is why, out here in the real world away from the logic class rooms, I'm an atheists because I believe, based on my understanding of human history and culture, that we invented the concept of gods and as such they can't exist in the real world, any more than the invisable green unicorn sitting beside me (called Bob).

If something "god-like" does actually exists it is something else, some as yet unknown entity, because the clasification "god" is invalid to begin with.

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 1:28pm

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, they were both equally likely....

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry Scofflaw, don't understand your point.

Zombrex · 04-07-2006 1:40pm

Alex S. wrote:

There's a 50% chance atheism is right, and a 50% chance it is wrong.

As people have been trying to explain to you, in the absence of known probability you don't default to 50/50.

If you don't know the probability you simply say you don't know.

If probability of something defaulted to 50/50 in the absence of known actual probability anyone who failed living cert maths would be winning the Lotto every week.

The probability is constant even if you are not aware of it. Which brings me nicely to point two -

50/50 probability (or 30/70, 10/90, 1/99 etc) only effect unknown outcomes for future events that are effected by external forces.

There being a God or no God doesn't change. There is or there isn't and this fact has always either been true or false, there is no change.

Since atheism is either wrong or correct, and this never changes, the actual probability of it being wrong or correct is either 100% or 0%.

Using an example with cards, if you put a 4 of Spades on a table, walk away and come back an hour later, and nothing has changed the card, the probability that that card will be the 4 of Spades is 100%. The probability that it will be another card is 0%.

The problem with applying this to atheism is you don't know which it is until you actually find out. If atheism is correct the probability it is correct is 100%, if it is wrong the probability is it is correct 0%

UU · 04-07-2006 1:55pm

It's sorta easier to believe that nature exists. We can't deny that as we're all a part of nature......unless one believes that existence here on Earth is in fact a total illusion and true reality really lies elsewhere. Hmmm......all in all, nature exists pretty much. As for God, etc. well that all boils down to faith and beliefs, eh?

Scofflaw · 04-07-2006 2:15pm

Alex S. wrote:

Sorry Scofflaw, don't understand your point.

Pixies and dragons...part of an oft-repeated argument that God is as apparently likely as a pixie, or a dragon, or a unicorn. You may have noticed robin urging you towards engaging in this particular discussion...

I'm not sure why people are having such difficulty with the assignment of a probability of 0.5 to God(s). In the absence of information one is entitled to assign any initial probability to outcomes, and 0.5 is the most defensible for binary outcomes.

Obviously, we would hope to improve this assigned probability.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funsterdelux · 04-07-2006 2:21pm

I am branded by "society" as an atheist, that is I dont have any beliefs, I'd rather I or "we" are called Humans.

So I dont think there is a "most logical belief"

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 2:25pm

Wicknight wrote:

As people have been trying to explain to you, in the absence of known probability you don't default to 50/50.

If you don't know the probability you simply say you don't know.

If probability of something defaulted to 50/50 in the absence of known actual probability anyone who failed living cert maths would be winning the Lotto every week.

The probability is constant even if you are not aware of it. Which brings me nicely to point two -

50/50 probability (or 30/70, 10/90, 1/99 etc) only effect unknown outcomes for future events that are effected by external forces.

There being a God or no God doesn't change. There is or there isn't and this fact has always either been true or false, there is no change.

Since atheism is either wrong or correct, and this never changes, the actual probability of it being wrong or correct is either 100% or 0%.

Using an example with cards, if you put a 4 of Spades on a table, walk away and come back an hour later, and nothing has changed the card, the probability that that card will be the 4 of Spades is 100%. The probability that it will be another card is 0%.

The problem with applying this to atheism is you don't know which it is until you actually find out. If atheism is correct the probability it is correct is 100%, if it is wrong the probability is it is correct 0%

Disagree, if you don't know the number of possible outcomes, then you are correct, you don't know the probability. But,
probability analysis begins with the number of outcomes, in this case it is a set of two outcomes. {God(s) exist, God(s) don't exist}.

So both default to 0.5, until you know more. In nearly all binary problems i.e. with two outcomes, you will know more, so you rarely get end where you begin at 0.5.

However, w.r.t. P(God(s)), you know nothing more.
It is an almost unique problem and it remains at 50%, following a probability analysis.

Scofflaw · 04-07-2006 2:35pm

Alex S. wrote:

However, w.r.t. P(God(s)), you know nothing more.
It is an almost unique problem and it remains at 50%, following a probability analysis.

True only for the general proposition of God(s).

Hmm. If you summed up the probabilities for all the specific Gods that humanity has proposed, would it sum to 0.5, or more, or less?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 04-07-2006 2:40pm

Alex S. wrote:

So both default to 0.5, until you know more.

They don't, they default to unknown, for any practical purpose.

For a non-practical purpose you can put them at anything you like.

Its like saying "I don't know how many euro I have in pocket, so I'm going to assume I've €10" .. you can assume you have anything you like, but that doesn't mean when you get up to the counter to pay for your Happy Meal you have €10. Practically you don't know how much money you have, so any judgement based on your made up assumptions is meaningless.

Assuming the prob is 50/50 is meaningless, since you don't know it is. You can do it (you can do anything) but any conclusions based on that will be equally meaningless.

You are running into problems when you start using this (meaningless) default as the basis for further exploration. You can't, since the actual prob unknown.

pH · 04-07-2006 2:41pm

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure why people are having such difficulty with the assignment of a probability of 0.5 to God(s). In the absence of information one is entitled to assign any initial probability to outcomes, and 0.5 is the most defensible for binary outcomes.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "one is entitled to assign any initial probability" from. I'm sure you can quote the maths text book that comes from, I wouldn't imagine for a minute that you just made that up.

Even if you say "I'll guess the probability as 0.5" it's just a guess and no more defensible than any other random choice.

Alex S. wrote:

Disagree, if you don't know the number of possible outcomes, then you are correct, you don't know the probability. But,
probability analysis begins with the number of outcomes, in this case it is a set of two outcomes. {God(s) exist, God(s) don't exist}.

So both default to 0.5, until you know more. In nearly all binary problems i.e. with two outcomes, you will know more, so you rarely get end where you begin at 0.5.

I'm afraid this is once again total rubbish. So please provide some references

Here's a very simple introduction to probability:

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A109506.html
"In general, the probability of an event is the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes. (This assumes the outcomes are all equally likely.)"

http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~albert/m115/probability/equally_likely.html
In general, if there are N possible outcomes in an experiment and the outcomes are equally likely , then you should assign a probability of 1/N to each outcome.

CAUTION: This recipe for assigning probabilities works only when the outcomes are equally likely. It is easy to misuse this. For example, suppose you toss a coin three times and you're interested in the number of heads. The possible numbers of heads (the sample space) are

You and Scoff are obviously not the first people to have difficulty with this, but if you insist you are right, find a reputable maths site to back up your claim:

Provide a link which says,
If you have an event which has N outcomes and have no idea of the individual probabilities of each outcome then the correct thing to do is assign them each a probability of 1/N.

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 2:46pm

Wicknight wrote:

They don't, they default to unknown, for any practical purpose.

For a non-practical purpose you can put them at anything you like.

Its like saying "I don't know how many euro I have in pocket, so I'm going to assume I've €10" .. you can assume you have anything you like, but that doesn't mean when you get up to the counter to pay for your Happy Meal you have €10. Practically you don't know how much money you have, so any judgement based on your made up assumptions is meaningless.

Assuming the prob is 50/50 is meaningless, since you don't know it is. You can do it (you can do anything) but any conclusions based on that will be equally meaningless.

You are running into problems when you start using this (meaningless) default as the basis for further exploration. You can't, since the actual prob unknown.

Unless you are sure there are only two possible outcomes (which is very unlikely) the 10 euro analogy is inaccurate.

A better analogy is guessing whether a card is red or black, when it can only be red or black, or if I am married or not. In both cases, you are certain there only two possible outcomes.

Zombrex · 04-07-2006 3:00pm

Alex S. wrote:

Unless you are sure there are only two possible outcomes (which is very unlikely) the 10 euro analogy is inaccurate.

A better analogy is guessing whether a card is red or black, when it can only be red or black, or if I am married or not. In both cases, you are certain there only two possible outcomes.

There are only two possible outcomes, but that does not mean that both outcomes are equally likely, so stating that the probability is 50/50 is meaningless. Unless the cards have been randomised properly, and contain an equal amount of reds and blacks, the chance that you will get a red or black card is not 50/50. If you are unaware of the method used to sort/unsort the cards, or unaware of the number of say red cards, you don't know the probability. They might all be red, in which case the probability of getting a red one is 100% and black 0%

A better example is the Lotto.

There are two outcomes to the Lotto, you win our you don't win. If you were ignorant of the mechanisms of the Lotto, unaware of the number of balls in the drum and the number of numbers picked, you could default to saying that there is a 50/50 probability. But this is meaningless. You could assign any number you like and it would be equally meaningless (unless by chance you actually did hit the correct probability).

So if you conclude from that that you are as likely to win the Lotto as you are to lose the Lotto each time you play (50/50 change), that conclusion is equally meaningless, since your inital values for the probability are meaningless.

Stating that the probability there is a God is 50/50 based on the fact that those are just the defaults you choose is as meaningless as stating the probability of there being a God is anything/anything.

You can't drawn any conclusions from this so you are right back where you started as if you said unknown/unknown

Scofflaw · 04-07-2006 3:03pm

pH wrote:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "one is entitled to assign any initial probability" from. I'm sure you can quote the maths text book that comes from, I wouldn't imagine for a minute that you just made that up.

You and Scoff are obviously not the first people to have difficulty with this, but if you insist you are right, find a reputable maths site to back up your claim:

Provide a link which says,
If you have an event which has N outcomes and have no idea of the individual probabilities of each outcome then the correct thing to do is assign them each a probability of 1/N.

Where do I get the idea? Well, doing probability through school and college, I suppose, although only as a supplement to science. I'll kindly ignore your extremely patronising offer of a "good introduction".

Let me reverse your reasoning - if you have an event with N possible outcomes, each mutually exclusive, and you know no more about the system than that, what probability would you assign to each outcome?

If you are going to assign a raised probability to one outcome, in the absence of information, can you justify that?

References: try "probability event n outcomes 1/n" on Google and take your pick.

regards,
Scofflaw

Alex S. · 04-07-2006 3:04pm

pH wrote:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "one is entitled to assign any initial probability" from. I'm sure you can quote the maths text book that comes from, I wouldn't imagine for a minute that you just made that up.

Even if you say "I'll guess the probability as 0.5" it's just a guess and no more defensible than any other random choice.

I'm afraid this is once again total rubbish. So please provide some references

Here's a very simple introduction to probability:

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A109506.html
"In general, the probability of an event is the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes. (This assumes the outcomes are all equally likely.)"

http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~albert/m115/probability/equally_likely.html
In general, if there are N possible outcomes in an experiment and the outcomes are equally likely , then you should assign a probability of 1/N to each outcome.

CAUTION: This recipe for assigning probabilities works only when the outcomes are equally likely. It is easy to misuse this. For example, suppose you toss a coin three times and you're interested in the number of heads. The possible numbers of heads (the sample space) are

You and Scoff are obviously not the first people to have difficulty with this, but if you insist you are right, find a reputable maths site to back up your claim:

Provide a link which says,
If you have an event which has N outcomes and have no idea of the individual probabilities of each outcome then the correct thing to do is assign them each a probability of 1/N.

I just clicked one of your links (http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~albert/m115/probability/equally_likely.html). In the 2nd sentence of paragraph 1, it states:
"If we have listed all outcomes and it is reasonable to assume that the outcomes are equally likely , then it is easy to assign probabilities."

i.e. if you know nothing more than the number or outcomes i.e. they are equally likely.
I also read the part you referenced:
"CAUTION: This recipe for assigning probabilities works only when the outcomes are equally likely..."

Here, you have four possible outcomes, but the reason why they do not have equal probability is because you know more about the problem. You can deduce all possible permutations and deduce each outcome is not equally likely.

However, w.r.t. P(god(s)), there is absolutely nothing extra you know other than the number of outcomes, which renders all outcomes equally likely.

However, even if you disagree with this and maintain that the probability is unknown and not 50 / 50, you are arguing agnostism as you are arguing the existense of God is unknown and not that the existence of God is false.