Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Zarathrustra]

Why? what is the point of life if not to seek the answer to the greatest question. Why are we here?

It's been the biggest question on everyone's mind since the dawn of consciousness.  We can discuss it all we like, but we all know we're never going to be able to actually answer it definitively.

[Arnifix]

It's been the biggest question on everyone's mind since the dawn of consciousness.  We can discuss it all we like, but we all know we're never going to be able to actually answer it.

I don't think we know enough to be able to honestly say that.

[cobra]

Yes, but when you (the punter) are in the dark as to how many sides the dice actually has, or how many are painted black or white, then until you have a large sample of results to work with, to calculate the probable odds, then the odds are esentially 50/50 as far as you're concerned.

this is not correct.

the only case when two options gives you 50/50 is when they are of equal chance, talking about the change of god and chance of no god being equal is nonsensical

you can not say that given 10 universes that 5 of them will have gods - this would clearly be an absurd claim but it is the claim whiterabbit is making

women can be pregnant or non pregnant - can you people accept that here there are two possible states but obviously there is not a 50/50 chance of a woman being pregnant, that is because the two outcomes are not equally probable

[WhiteRabbit]

this is not correct.

the only case when two options gives you 50/50 is when they are of equal chance, talking about the change of god and chance of no god being equal is nonsensical

you can not say that given 10 universes that 5 of them will have gods - this would clearly be an absurd claim but it is the claim whiterabbit is making

women can be pregnant or non pregnant - can you people accept that here there are two possible states but obviously there is not a 50/50 chance of a woman being pregnant, that is because the two outcomes are not equally probable

for a qaulified physicist you really are not so good at maths are you.

remember :
P(A) = n(A) / n(S)

with your hypothsis - there are 10 universes, so 10 chances for god and 10 for no god - there are 20 equal chances - and only 10 can be right

that formula becomes P(A) = n(10) / n(20) = 0.5 = 50%

ffs man read up on some basic maths!

[Arnifix]

Can I be smart too? Hmmm, what's the chance the sun will rise in the morning?

P(A) = n(1) / n(2)

Disingenuous argument is disingenuous.

[WhiteRabbit]

Can I be smart too? Hmmm, what's the chance the sun will rise in the morning?

P(A) = n(1) / n(2)

Disingenuous argument is disingenuous.

Why is it disingenuous - do you have some information the rest of us do not as to something that sways the proability away from there being a creator ?

What you were mentioning above is incorrect - the simple probability i used is for random objects - ie things one is unsure of. All your doing is taking the rules for predicing the oucomes of a random series and fitting it round something utterly predictable.

It does not detract from what i have been getting at all along - which is - either there is a god or there isnt, you may believe there isnt, i may believe there is. however at this stage we have no solid proof of either (and no matter how strong the theoretical proof - if it inst observabed proof then it isnt proof yet) so both view is equal. this my friends is called tollerance.

Its okay though i spent many hours arguing with people and showing there is no god in my early 20's too - then i grew up.

[Arnifix]

Why is it disingenuous - do you have some information the rest of us do not as to something that sways the proability away from there being a creator ?

What you were mentioning above is incorrect - the simple probability i used is for random objects - ie things one is unsure of. All your doing is taking the rules for predicing the oucomes of a random series and fitting it round something utterly predictable.

It does not detract from what i have been getting at all along - which is - either there is a god or there isnt, you may believe there isnt, i may believe there is. however at this stage we have no solid proof of either (and no matter how strong the theoretical proof - if it inst observabed proof then it isnt proof yet) so both view is equal. this my friends is called tollerance.

Its okay though i spent many hours arguing with people and showing there is no god in my early 20's too - then i grew up.

You don't understand the maths you are referring to. This is pretty obvious, given the quoted post and your failure to comprehend what I inferred in my previous post. Thanks for debunking your own shit for me.

Smarter people than you have made the case that it's not a 50/50 split, besides which arguing whether god exists or not based on the mathematical equivalent of semantics is bullshit, disingenuous and quite frankly insulting to those who do believe in god.

Enjoy sweet defeat, idiot.

[TofuEater]

we have two squares and one triangle - so by this logic a ratio of 2:1

now we have two options - and only one can be right - thus again 2:1

You have said two different things here - both of them can't be right.

The "odds" of something occuring may well be 2:1, but that's not 50/50 - it can't be because you're leaving out the original '1'.

Put it this way - say you asked students to pick a card that had either one of the two squares or a triangle (ie: three cards) then you are right that it would be 2:1, but there is a 33% chance of getting a triangle and a 66% chance of getting a square.

In order for there to be a 50/50 chance (ie: one square/ one triangle) the ratio (or "odds) must be 1:1. Check it out with your local bookie.

[nick247]

Why is it disingenuous - do you have some information the rest of us do not as to something that sways the proability away from there being a creator ?

What you were mentioning above is incorrect - the simple probability i used is for random objects - ie things one is unsure of. All your doing is taking the rules for predicing the oucomes of a random series and fitting it round something utterly predictable.

It does not detract from what i have been getting at all along - which is - either there is a god or there isnt, you may believe there isnt, i may believe there is. however at this stage we have no solid proof of either (and no matter how strong the theoretical proof - if it inst observabed proof then it isnt proof yet) so both view is equal. this my friends is called tollerance.

Its okay though i spent many hours arguing with people and showing there is no god in my early 20's too - then i grew up.

too easy, you dont need maths to win this one, just logic

By your own admission we cannot give a definite set of odds on whether god does or does not exist. eg i cannot say there is a 1/10 chance, i dont have all the information

So by that logic that YOU AGREE ON, how can you justify there is a 5/10 chance?

You cant. You dont know how many sides the dice has and how many of them are coloured black.

ooooooooooooooooo I WIN, TAKE IT BABY!!!!

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I think you're all missing WhiteRabbit point. Maybe you should read his post instead of just quoting it.

He's saying both views are equally valid.

[cobra]

I think you're all missing WhiteRabbit point. Maybe you should read his post instead of just quoting it.

He's saying both views are equally valid.

only in the case which god is the same as no god, as soon as you have an interventionist god his argument breaks down

if he wants to discuss his point then he shouldn't use maths that he doesn't understand

[nick247]

I think you're all missing WhiteRabbit point. Maybe you should read his post instead of just quoting it.

He's saying both views are equally valid.

no i dont believe we are missing his point

if his point is that in a situation where there are two mutually exclusive options then one option must occur, then that point is so fucking obvious that to point it out like its some sort of amazing realisation is ridiculous.

couple that with the fact that due to a complete lack of consensus within the world as to what constitutes god, you cannot even say its a matter of god exists or doesnt exist. There could be a thousand options here.......

and he blatently shows a misunderstanding of maths when he tries to use probability.....1in2 chance of something happening MEANS that it is equally likely that a will occur as it is b will occur.

and i dont see where he has the information that god existing is 1in2, or in other words, that god existing is equally as probable as god not existing. If i cant claim that its actually more like 1in2000000 then you cant claim its 1in2

[Bell]

Put another way, we don't know for sure that we aren't all ruled by an almighty giant magic invisible purple monkey that has the power to create the universe and decide our fate.

So by WhiteRabbit 's logic there is %50 chance that there is infact a giant magical invisible purple monkey because there are only 2 choices "it exists or it doesn't".

It's like the TAB trying to put odds on a horse to win a race when they don't even know the name of the horse, how many horses are in the race, how long the track is, or when the race is.

[KiLL3r]

[video]NChSYplWgRA[/video]

[UppityDuck]

Just got a book today titled: The Book of Atheist Spirituality: An elegant Argument for Spirituality without God by
Andre Comte-Sponville
Haven't read it yet, but it looks good (red, white and grey, with black and red writing :disappoin)...

From the dust jacket: "According to Comte-Sponville, we have allowed the concept of spirituality to become intertwined with religion and thus have lost touch with the nature of a true spiritual existence. In order to change this, however, we need not reject the ancient traditions and values that are part of our heritage; rather, we must rethink our relationship to these values and ask ourselves whether their significance comes from the existence of a higher power or simply from the human need to connect to one another and the universe."

I look forward to it.

[philo-sofa]

r.e. Whiterabbit and Arnifix's & Cobra's posts:

IMO you're (as often happens here) arguing at cross purposes.  I think Arnifix and Cobra are saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the probability is not unknown, but can be inferred to be less than 0.5 from theory.

The maths you're both using appears to be the same and valid, it's the inputs which are in dispute.  There are (as I'm sure you both know - just clarifying the arguments) two ways of deriving probailities - observational and theoretical.  Without any theoretical model you're pushed on the observational (in this specific case I remind us all it's called 'data mining' and is frowned upon).  When you have no ability to observe observations (because you're stuck in your universe and evidence of God is not something we can agree on) you could indeed argue the odds are best calculated as 0.5  However this is a pretty empty argument.

Arnifix and Cobra are however saying that he feels the odds are apparently calculable by theory, and that they are less that one in two, which supercedes the 'no other data' calculation (insert 'God of the gaps' joke here please).  The issue there is that this is the very point we're arguing - the very point under contention.  Assuming that you're correct and feeding the inputs into a formula is pointless re an argument on the truth of a proposition is pointless, and very circular.

IMO no one here is trying to make a serious argument about God based on this forumula, because I don't think we really think we can, but I'm hoping highlight what the argument each side is making is: Cobra & Arnifix are saying "God doesn't exist most likely FFS" and WhiteRabbit is saying "you don't know if God exists" - which is the whole gist of this thread and which means with respect you're not actually advancing the argument at all but simply tring to plug your conclusions into a probability function and hence making the statement "I think this". Instead, you really need to be presenting your case for either state.  Argument such as the formula one (as currently presented - there is always the possibility of deriving somethign useful from the maths itself) are best left for when we reach page ∞ of the thread and can agree on the existence or lack thereof of a God.

[Arnifix]

Sadly no. Whiterabbit is using incorrectly purposed maths. The example I used highlights the inability to accurately model probabilities of concepts using his equation. According to WhiteRabbit, the sun has a 50% chance of rising despite all the evidence to the contrary because he refuses to use a Bayesian (real-world) probability model. So I'm more trying to say A) you can't accurately predict the probability of the existence of a god and B) even if you could, you're doing it wrong, because evaluating statements using isolated mathematical logic gives poor results.

I agree with your analysis of his argument.

Who knows if god exists. There is no solid evidence that he exists, nor is there solid evidence that he doesn't (imo of course, you can believe whatever you want). I highly doubt it's a 50% chance though.

[philo-sofa]

K - though I wonder whether it's really valid to suggest a Bayesian model as an alternative as you run into the same issues over the inputs.  The anti 'raw classical probability' argument by the counter example of of the sun rising then appears invalid as the analogy doesn't hold - we can agree what the inputs are wrt the sun rising but not over a God; so why are we using a Bayesian model in the first place when it requires an understanding of the degree of information available which is still a point of contention?

Jsut trying to get what you mean fully.

[Arnifix]

K - though I wonder whether it's really valid to suggest a Bayesian model as an alternative as you run into the same issues over the inputs.  The anti 'raw classical probability' argument by the counter example of of the sun rising then appears invalid as the analogy doesn't hold - we can agree what the inputs are wrt the sun rising but not over a God; so why are we using a Bayesian model in the first place when it requires an understanding of the degree of information available which is still a point of contention?

Jsut trying to get what you mean fully.

For this particular argument, it doesn't really matter which way you go. I'm not arguing that the Bayesian model is correct in this circumstance, just that it's not as blindingly retarded as the classical model. There are very few real-world situations in which the classical model can give valid results.

Both are bad and shouldn't be used, but one is slightly less bad because it at least tries to incorporate knowledge. And my position all along has been that at this point in time we don't have enough information to do anything.

[UppityDuck]

+1 to both of you above.
Sometimes there're diamonds in the coal.

[cobra]

IMO you're (as often happens here) arguing at cross purposes.  I think Arnifix and Cobra are saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the probability is not unknown, but can be inferred to be less than 0.5 from theory.

my general point was he was using maths incorrectly, my issue was he was using maths he didn't understand then due to his general ignorance not understand the glaring errors in his argument.

It is retarded to attach probabilities to the existence of god

[nzr_hotsexgary]

The whole concept of a probability is that the situation can be reproduced when certain variables reoccur. The example of 10 universes with each universe has a number of gods is a good one - it allows you to take a sample and find out with more certainty than before the distribution of gods over universes.

The problem when no information is known about the system is that you have to assume an even distribution - having 0 gods is just as likely as having 1,000 gods.

This is going to confuse the majority of readers further still when since we have no information about the distribution other than that the number of possible gods is a whole number greater than equal to zero. Therefore, since there are an infinite amount of possibilities, we have to take the limit of P(A) = n(1) / n(infinity) and therefore the probability of having any number of gods is equal to the probability of having to 0 gods, which is 0 by the way if you haven't been following.

And to take it just that little bit further, one could always expand on Gödel's incompleteness theorems to say that there is no way of proving the existence or inexistence of a god or gods, in much the same way that there is no way of proving whether or not we are in a simulation, without interference from an external source.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

The whole concept of a probability is that the situation can be reproduced when certain variables reoccur. The example of 10 universes with each universe has a number of gods is a good one - it allows you to take a sample and find out with more certainty than before the distribution of gods over universes.

The problem when no information is known about the system is that you have to assume an even distribution - having 0 gods is just as likely as having 1,000 gods.

This is going to confuse the majority of readers further still when since we have no information about the distribution other than that the number of possible gods is a whole number greater than equal to zero. Therefore, since there are an infinite amount of possibilities, we have to take the limit of P(A) = n(1) / n(infinity) and therefore the probability of having any number of gods is equal to the probability of having to 0 gods, which is 0 by the way if you haven't been following.

And to take it just that little bit further, one could always expand on Gödel's incompleteness theorems to say that there is no way of proving the existence or inexistence of a god or gods, in much the same way that there is no way of proving whether or not we are in a simulation, without interference from an external source.

Indeed.

The argument on whether their is a God or not is akin to the argument on whether we are in a simulation. After all, the creators of a simulation have all the attributes of a god, they created the simulation, they are all powerful (over the simulation) and all knowing.

On that point, I would argue against your assumption that "having 0 gods is just as likely as having 1,000 gods".

That would be saying we have no way of knowing how many technicians are maintaining the simulation. There could be 2 technicians in charge, or a million, each is just as likely.

But the question is, whether we are in a simulation, not how many technicians are maintaining the simulation.


I agree with your last part, there is no way of proving the existence or inexistence of a god or gods.
However personally, I would use the term god to cover gods, in the context of a simulation, it makes no diffrence to us how many gods are in charge, all it matters to us is that 'something' created the simulation, and it's fair enough to called that something a God, since it fits all the attributes of a God.

So there is no way of proving the existence or inexistence of a god without interference from an external source.
However interference from an external source can only prove there is a God (I use the term God and 'simulation creators' interchangeably here). So really there are two options;

• A God can never be disproved or proved to exist.
• A God can be proved to exist.

However the option "A God can be proved not to exist" is impossible.


Also, the simulation creators may only prove their existence to only some of the beings in the simulation. They could pick a person and undeniably proved to that person that they exist.

This person would tell other people what happened, some would think he or she is crazy, while others would believe.


So are we in a simulation? Is there a probability that we are in a simulation? According to philosopher Nick Bostrom we most likely are.

I wouldn't put a number on the probability though, it's silly to apply math to a question like this.

[Arnifix]

However the option "A God can be proved not to exist" is impossible.

True, but assuming all things relating to the universe can be discovered through SCIENCE "A god can be proven to not be necessary" would be possible.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

True, but assuming all things relating to the universe can be discovered through SCIENCE "A god can be proven to not be necessary" would be possible.

That doesn't make sense.

You could say "It not necessary for the the universe to be a simulation", but that's meaningless.

Science can discover everything about the simulation apart from the fact that it is a simulation.

Unless i'm failing to see your point.