Odds of God's Existance- atheist vs. agnostic....

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

Agnostics say they don't know if a god or supreme being exist while Atheists are pretty sure god doesn't exist. Even they say they can't be 100 percent sure. The Dawkins scale (google it if you don't know what it is) rates the belief from 1-7. A true '7' says they are 100 percent sure that god DOES not exist...

I don't like the scale because it's impossible to be 100 percent sure of ANYTHING..

I think a better way to distiniguish atheists from agnostics is to state the odds that YOU THINK a god exists..
An agnostic might say 1 in 3 or 1 in 10.
A true atheist might say 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000,000
A really, really hardcore atheist might say 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 but still leaves that very small chance that a higher power MIGHT exist.

What do YOU think are the odds that a god exists?
Does anyone here really think the chances are absolutely zero or do you just think they are very tiny like less than one in a million?

Do religious people think the odds of god existing are absoltely 100 percent or just like 99.9999999 percent?

I want to go beyond the Dawkins scale and discuss the odds....

[Twiler]

I don't see how you can quantify a feeling in numerical terms.

[Nay_Sayer]

About the exact same odds that invisible pink unicorns exist

[Astreja]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I think that there's a probability of 0.999... that the god described in the Abrahamic scriptures is wholly mythical.

I think the odds for god-like beings (not omniscient, not immortal and not omnipotent) are considerably better, but I still won't believe in one until I encounter it in the physical world.

And I think the probability of anyone being able to accurately distinguish a god from a god-like being is as close to zero as makes no odds.

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

I wonder if James Randi would answer this question with a specific number.
What do you think HE would say are the odds that god exists? (Not necessarily the god of the bible but any type of supreme being with higher powers).

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

I don't like the scale because it's impossible to be 100 percent sure of ANYTHING..

I'm absolutely 100% certain that I, at the very least, exist.

[Doubt]

There are multiple types of atheists and agnostics and some of the definitions overlap. I have been in some discussions where atheists have claimed that agnostics are really atheists. They are not without a point but by their own logic people calling themselves atheists should also call themselves agnostics. Some, as Astreja did above, use both words.

Some of the arguments stem from the two words describing different things. Agnostic is about what you know. Atheist is about what you believe.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

I think a better way to distiniguish atheists from agnostics is to state the odds that YOU THINK a god exists..
An agnostic might say 1 in 3 or 1 in 10.
A true atheist might say 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000,000
A really, really hardcore atheist might say 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 but still leaves that very small chance that a higher power MIGHT exist.

I think the difference between a strong (gnostic) atheist and a weak (agnostic) atheist is moot.

It is simply 2 different ways of stating the same thing.

Gnostic atheist = "I am sure there are no gods, as far as humans can know anything, considering the position is unfalsifiable"

Agnostic atheist = "I am very very nearly sure there are no gods, but its unfalsifiable so I guess there's a small chance"

In my mind the 2 positions are equivalent and just different ways of expressing the same thing.


Personally Im a gnostic atheist. Everything we know about the universe points to there being no deities.

[MikeSun5]

A true agnostic would just say, "I don't know."

Can't really quantify faith or lack thereof...

[arthwollipot]

I think it's an exceptionally poor idea to start quoting probabilities in any argument for or against the existence of god. For a start, there's only one place you can pull those numbers from. For a finish, you can never verify them statistically.

No. There's no god. I'm pretty sure of it. I'm not going to put a number on how sure I am.

[Beerina]

Thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know there is no such thing as a "most powerful god" -- any god you can name I can imagine not just a more powerful one, but an infinitely more powerful one. A god is merely an infinite bag, or set, of powers.

Ergo the chance of such a god existing is 0%.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know there is no such thing as a "most powerful god" -- any god you can name I can imagine not just a more powerful one, but an infinitely more powerful one. A god is merely an infinite bag, or set, of powers.

Ergo the chance of such a god existing is 0%.

Doesn't follow. Nothing in what you said leads directly to a probability of 0%.

[Xero]

You do realise that agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief, yes?

[Kahalachan]

I'd have to even know there's stuff outside the known universe to begin with. I can say aliens are most certain cause of the sheer amount of planets involved. I'd have to know there's trillions of universes or that the universe is a subset of something more.

Also, define god.

The God of the Bible contradicts itself so I don't know. 1 in 1 x's 10^1,000,000?

That is there is perhaps the most remote possibility where a god exists in some alternate reality where logic doesn't apply I guess.


If we're just talking about some creator thing, I don't know. 1 in 10 million? I expect a god to exist as much as I expect to win the lottery, and that's like nothing.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I would put it like this:

Imagine the probability of some random thing existing. Perhaps a two inch purple elephant in a red velvet suit who speaks French. Or whatever. It could be anything. This is something that is physically possible. So, maybe we just haven’t found the evidence yet. So maybe God is real, but we just haven’t found the evidence yet.

Now imagine the probability of some random thing existing that is known to be made up. Perhaps the wizard Gandalf. R any fictional person or object. We know that the wizard Gandalf was made up by J. R. R. Tolkien. But it is physically possible for the wizard Gandalf to exist. There is a chance, however small, that although all evidence suggests that the wizard Gandalf is just a fiction created by J. R. R. Tolkien, that there is, in fact, a real wizard Gandalf that just coincidentally happens to exist. All evidence shows that God is an invention created though the history of myth. So maybe God is real, and just happens to coincidentally match the mythical description of God created by humans, but we just haven’t found the evidence yet.

Now imagine the probability of some random thing existing that is known to be made up, but just happens to coincidentally actually exist, and has not been discovered by science. What is the probability of discovering God—or really, discovering a God interference. If God is a god that interferes with the universe, or with our naturally surrounding, and especially with the concerns of humans, then we might expect to discover that interference. But we don’t find that. We find that everything we can observe acts according to very strict and uniform laws. If a god that interferes with the universe exists, we would expect to find frequent, or at least occasional, disruption of the laws of physics due to the God interference. But we don’t find that.

So, there is no evidence for God. We know that God was made up by people. We don’t find evidence of God where we would expect to find evidence if God existed. These are the things we use to determine whether or not something exist. God fails them all.

Therefore, the probability of God would have to be on the lowest tier of probability of existence. That means that to the extent that we can conclude that something does not exist, God is on the lowest tier of not existing.

[llwyd]

I don't know what point would there to fix an arbitrary value to the improbability of God. Though I have to say, that I don't really understand the concept of probability outside the mechanical and exact cases like flipping a coin or throwing dice. It is not this kind of probability that people are most using when talking about the subject but the sort of imprecise, imperfect knowledge based probability like sports betting or judging political horseraces etc. I have always found it bit confusing to fix numerical values based on quite subjective and imperfect understanding. Anyway, I would say that the probability of the existence of a supernatural all-powerful being is next to nothing based on current (and very likely future) understanding of the nature of the universe.

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

To those who claim the odds can't be quantified, what do you think of Drake's equation when it comes to calculating the odds of extraterrestrial life?

I mean there is no evidence for intelligent life outside of the earth, yet astronomers try to calculate the odds of E.T. existing.

There is also no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist so we have to leave room for possibility.

Again, I'm NOT referring to God of the Bible but ANY sort of supernaturual, higher power (a deistic god).

[Lamuella]

I would need the concept of god to be much better defined before I could give a probability of its existence.

[Soapy Sam]

Drake's equation is a flat assed guess, firmly based in ignorance of the details.
Nothing wrong with that, but don't bet your pension on it .

I don't think gods exist, outside human heads. Quantifying that belief makes no sense. It's a belief.
I believe I'll have a coffee. 98%.

[Malfie Henpox]

I'm three million atheist.

[RobDegraves]

Quote:

what do you think of Drake's equation when it comes to calculating the odds of extraterrestrial life?

The Drake Equation makes a number of reasonable but unproven assumptions. The equation is impossible to work with without those assumptions so it's more of a hypothesis than an equation.

When it comes to assigning probability to a supposed Deity, you have to make a very large number of completely arbitrary assumptions before you can even start.

-Define a Deity.
-All powerful or just powerful.
-Laws of physics apply or not.

Etc almost infinitum.

As a species, we can barely get to our own moon and occasionally send stuff to our nearest planet. I think it's a little early to start making assumptions about Deities... particularly when we have no evidence at all either way.

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

What about the odds of some sort of form of life after death? (not just heaven or hell but ANY form of consciousness- reincarnation on earth, becoming a conscious part of nature or outer space, being reincarnated on another planet thousands of light years away from earth, etc).

[Malfie Henpox]

I'm 5,678 there's no life after death. Unless it's Tuesday, when the number is divided by the time and multiplied by the year.

[Manopolus]

Until a god does something that notably affects me, I don't care whether a god exists or not. I do, however, know beyond any reasonable doubt that every religion I've ever studied is a total load of crap.

[Pope130]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

To those who claim the odds can't be quantified, what do you think of Drake's equation when it comes to calculating the odds of extraterrestrial life?

The Drake equation makes a statement of probability based on incomplete data. It uses estimates based on information and theory available at the time. You will note that the results of the equation have changed considerably since it was first formulated. As more information about the universe has become available the estimate of the probability of life on other planets has increased. When first run the probability of other stars having planetary systems was a best guess. Now there are hundreds of known planets in other solar systems. The number of known galaxies, the types of star systems known to have planets, and the limits of what environments can support life have all greatly improved.

This shows that the original estimates were conservative. The statement: "There is probably life out there." becomes more reasonable the more we learn.

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

According to some, yes, the possibility has gone up but others it has gone down...

There is a theory that although microbial life is common, the conditions required for COMPLEX life to evolve are very rare and possibly unique to earth.

There is this (militant atheist) astrobiologist who wrote a book called "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is uncommon in the Universe" who states that we are PROBABLY the ONLY intelligent life form in the ENTIRE Milky Way Galaxy and POSSIBLY the entire universe. It states that the transition from microbial life to complex life (animals and plants) was a frleakish fluke with odds of something like 1 in a billion and then the evolution of intelligence and civilization even more freakish. He said the universe is more hostile to life and the only reason earth has been able to evolve life is it's location, the large moon that stabilizes it's rotation, Jupiter's size and gravity that takes the hit from all the asteroids that would have hit earth and exterminated us a long time ago, and just sheer luck that a supernova hasn't gone off.

He said that there MAY be a FEW other complex (animal-like but not neccesarily human-levels of intelligence, let alone technology) forms out in the universe but our odds of contacting E.T. are near nil.

Also remember the Fermi Complex, if the universe is teaming with life, why haven't any evolved the capicity for intersteller travel to make their presence known to us?

As of this point, I'm agnostic about intelligent life outside of earth because there is no evidence either way.

I am also agnostic about whether or not a higher supreme being exists.

We don't KNOW!

Therefore my claim that God's existence or lack of existence cannot be KNOWN to man is valid.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

Also remember the Fermi Complex, if the universe is teaming with life, why haven't any evolved the capicity for intersteller travel to make their presence known to us?

This here is a stupid question to ask. You're assuming that all alien intelligences have equal or superior development to humanity, without even considering there might be less developed races.

And even if there's some uber advanced race out there that proves Arthur C Clarke's maxim about any sufficiently advance race being indistinguishable from gods, it's still a large universe out there with incredible distances between one star and the next.

They would likely be as unaware of us as we are of them.

Originally Posted by IGWK

Therefore my claim that God's existence or lack of existence cannot be KNOWN to man is valid.

I think the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that God does not exist, where as intelligent life does.

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

There is this (militant atheist) astrobiologist

So he uses military force? Citation please.

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

Militant atheist in the sense that he's sure there's no god. His name is Peter Ward and the book is "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon In the Universe"
and you can google him and look at his book reviews on Amazon.

JREF won't let me post the link with the quote about him being a militant atheist because I don't yet have 15 posts (the minimum required to post links) but I'd like to send a link to anyone who sends me a private message and then I'll post it.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

To those who claim the odds can't be quantified, what do you think of Drake's equation when it comes to calculating the odds of extraterrestrial life?

I mean there is no evidence for intelligent life outside of the earth, yet astronomers try to calculate the odds of E.T. existing.

There is also no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist so we have to leave room for possibility.

Again, I'm NOT referring to God of the Bible but ANY sort of supernaturual, higher power (a deistic god).

We have evidence that life exists. The comparison doesn't work.

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

Militant atheist in the sense that he's sure there's no god.

That's not what "militant" means. When atheists start banding together and killing people they disagree with, you can call them militant.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

Therefore my claim that God's existence or lack of existence cannot be KNOWN to man is valid.

Not really. For example, if the God of the Bible did exist as described in the Bible (able to perform miracles), it's existence theoretically could be known to people. If it truly cannot be KNOWN to people, then it is undetectable, and contradicts the various biblical descriptions of it.

But yeah, quantifying silly things such as the existence of God or the existence of an afterlife is pointless, when things such as gods and afterlives are pure speculation. May as well set odds for the next Quidditch World Finals.

[Beelzebuddy]

Odds are for betting. Bets require win conditions. If I bet there is no god, and I'm right, how will we know it?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

Therefore my claim that God's existence or lack of existence cannot be KNOWN to man is valid.

If you ask for it to be "KNOWN" then you are asking for certainty. And that's just not possible in anything (as far as anyone knows). Nor is it what you originally asked for when talking about statistics and probability.

Going back to the original question of numerical estimates - I expect science could put reasonable estimates on the probability of evolution and whether or not Homo sapiens evolved from earlier species.

That would also be a direct measure of the improbability of miraculous God creating man directly.

Of course, theists might still want to argue that Genesis was not meant literally. But that just seems to be a case of theists trying to shift the goalposts every time science discovers things that don't agree with the bible.

[Lord Emsworth]

There is not much uncertainty when it comes to the existence of God. Depending on what definition you use and feels good to you, God can easily definitely exist or definitly not exist. There is little to no grey in between.

[ehcks]

There's no statistical meaning to the chance that magic exists.

But as for me, I am absolutely certain that your god is a fictional character in a story book. I feel the same about every other human-invented god. I even feel the same about the very word "god."

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

To those who claim the odds can't be quantified, what do you think of Drake's equation when it comes to calculating the odds of extraterrestrial life?

That is not what the equation tries to assess.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Drake equation is a mathematical equation used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

Quote:

I mean there is no evidence for intelligent life outside of the earth, yet astronomers try to calculate the odds of E.T. existing.

No, they are not. They pretty much start with the assumption that ET exists and - in the case of Drake, at least - wonder how likely it is that some of those that exist are detectable from where we are.

There is no question as to whether aliens exist or if they can be detected in principle. It is assumed that they do and that we can.

Quote:

There is also no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist so we have to leave room for possibility.

No. Why would I have to do that? What does that even mean?

Quote:

Again, I'm NOT referring to God of the Bible but ANY sort of supernaturual, higher power (a deistic god).

ou are refusing to define what wheat it is you're talking about. Suit yourself.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by IndianGuessWhichKind

What about the odds of some sort of form of life after death? (not just heaven or hell but ANY form of consciousness- reincarnation on earth, becoming a conscious part of nature or outer space, being reincarnated on another planet thousands of light years away from earth, etc).

The question is just as meaningless, and as far as it can be answered, the answer is: "There is no life after death."

[IndianGuessWhichKind]

God's existence isn't a black/white issue as atheists and religious people make it out to be. First of all, most Americans assume that god=the god of the Bible.

I wasn't even raised in a Christian household to begin with. My parents are Hindu. I am agnostic because I believe that there VERY WELL COULD BE A HIGHER POWER out there who created the universe (deist god) but who let's things run as they be.

I also believe there COULD be a form of life after death- reincarnation or becoming one with the universe seems more likely than heaven or hell.

I also believe it is possible that there IS NO GOD and that when we die, we cease to exist but I CANT IMAGINE NOT EXISTING FOR ETERNITY...

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so what if the energy/chemicals that make up who you are get recycled and transformed into another living organism in the far, far future?

I do NOT believe in psychics because they can be PROVEN wrong ala Sylvia Browne's bad prediction.

However, when it comes to proving that there is NOT an intelligent creator of the universe out there, I think agnosticism/deism makes a LOT more sense than atheism.

I wanted to make atheists and agnostics about how strong they were in their beliefs which is why I put an "odds of god's existence" spin on the problem.

[Skeptic Ginger]

All the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are mythical/fictional creations of humans.

Why have a higher standard (aka double standard) that instead of following the evidence to the conclusion (evidence = gods are mythical) we somehow must start with the conclusion (gods might exist) and seek to show they don't?

It's as close to certain that gods do not exist, as it is close to certain other facts, such as gravity exists, are.