20 Nov 06
Originally posted by telerioni have explained that, there is infinate POSSIBILITIES of what her name could be, there is only TWO possibilities of whether God(s) exists. of course it wont be 50/50 with so many possibilities, but with only two it is possible. there are exceptions for ex. when a batter goes up to bat the only two possibilities are he gets out or he gets on base and the probability is not 50/50 but usually about 30/70.
You need to follow the steps listed in my post above. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Several excellent examples of "binary propositions" for which the event probabilities are not equal (i.e. 0.5 and 0.5) have been offered in this thread already.
Here is another. I have a daughter. Either her name is "jknm29u3ne" or it is not "jknm29u3ne." Do you think that the probability that her name is "jknm29u3ne" is 0.5?
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomSo according to your view, the fact there are infinite possibilities means that the probability that her name is Emily is zero. Do you agree?
i have explained that, there is infinate POSSIBILITIES of what her name could be, there is only TWO possibilities of whether God(s) exists. of course it wont be 50/50 with so many possibilities, but with only two it is possible. there are exceptions for ex. when a batter goes up to bat the only two possibilities are he gets out or he gets on base and the probability is not 50/50 but usually about 30/70.
Your view also means that the probability of her being called Emily is the same as being called edfurpoàçdgdsdf.
It's insane.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaNO, that is not what i said.
So according to your view, the fact there are infinite possibilities means that the probability that her name is Emily is zero. Do you agree?
Your view also means that the probability of her being called Emily is the same as being called edfurpoàçdgdsdf.
It's insane.
21 Nov 06
I knew most people couldn't statistically tell their ass from their elbow (two choices therefore a 50% chance of being right) but really this is ridiculous.
Say I have a biased coin that will fall heads twice as often as it falls tails. There are still two possibilities but now the percentages won't be 50-50 they'll be 66.6/33.3 won't they?
21 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZi know that, its been established. i just think this is one of those situations where it is 50/50. there is no way to test it, and no evidence to support one or the other, so i believe it is 50/50. you could argue about evolution or w/e but they are only theory, the creation theory is also what it says, theory. that is what probability is really, theory, you flip a coin and you guess that it will land on heads 50% of the time.
I knew most people couldn't statistically tell their ass from their elbow (two choices therefore a 50% chance of being right) but really this is ridiculous.
Say I have a biased coin that will fall heads twice as often as it falls tails. There are still two possibilities but now the percentages won't be 50-50 they'll be 66.6/33.3 won't they?
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNo, actually Creationism isn't on the same grounds as Evolution. Evolution is a Scientific Theory (look it up, it doesn't mean guess) and Creationism is utter rubbish with no evidence at all.
i know that, its been established. i just think this is one of those situations where it is 50/50. there is no way to test it, and no evidence to support one or the other, so i believe it is 50/50. you could argue about evolution or w/e but they are only theory, the creation theory is also what it says, theory.
And as for having no evidence and therefore it being 50-50. That's ludicrous. If there is no evidence for either side then you cannot say what the probability is. You can believe it's 50-50 but that's really just you plucking a number out of the air.
Also, I find it funny that this thread started off as a badly worded bastardization of Pascal's Wager, the worst argument for believing in God ever imagined.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillInteresting that you spelt probability wrong twice, in two different ways! (and Analogy)
I think that the anology of the existence or non-existence of something it is a binary proposition.
So the coin analogy is more appropriate it we're talking about the probobility of that idea.
And if you are talking about probabilty then bias is a problem.
You're in the realm of mathematics.
Mathematics is mostly very exact and bias does not come into it. 2+2=4 whether you are Christian Muslim or Atheist.
I have a bachelors degree in mathematics by the way.
If there are two possibilities and absolutely no other information is available then the probability of one occurring is 50/50. However, as no other information was available, this can actually be pretty meaningless.
The moment some information becomes available then the probability changes. For example if we are told the two options relate to a child's name then it is almost a certainty that the combination of letters will be pronounceable making the probability of it being dsfgierthls almost zero regardless of the number of other options given.
The moment you give at least some information about what you define as God and I compare it with my own personal experiences in life, then it affects dramatically the probability that such a God exists.
Remember that probability is all about lack of information. Once we know which way the coin has fallen, the whole 50/50 thing disappears.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomRead more carefully. There were only two events in my example.
i have explained that, there is infinate POSSIBILITIES of what her name could be, there is only TWO possibilities of whether God(s) exists. of course it wont be 50/50 with so many possibilities, but with only two it is possible. there are exceptions for ex. when a batter goes up to bat the only two possibilities are he gets out or he gets on base and the probability is not 50/50 but usually about 30/70.
1) Her name is jknm29u3ne.
2) Her name is not jknm29u3ne.
This is exactly analogous to your problem. You have two events.
1) God exists.
2) God does not exist.
I really can't believe you are having so much difficulty with this. Don't post about probability until you've actually bothered to learn something about it. You might as well be telling me that 1+1 = 17.
21 Nov 06
To expand my explanation on how probability is affected by the amount of information available:
Given two possibilities:
1. Something that has been defined exists but no specific evidence for its existence has been presented.
2. It does not exist.
If that is the only information we have combined with our knowledge about the universe which includes the fact that the number of possible things that do exist is infinitely less than the number of possible things that don't exist then we can conclude that unless further information is presented the probability of the thing existing is infinitely small.
So unless evidence for the existence of God is presented then the probability that he exists is infinitely small.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomDo you also believe that this is just one of those cases where 1 + 1 = 17?
i know that, its been established. i just think this is one of those situations where it is 50/50. there is no way to test it, and no evidence to support one or the other, so i believe it is 50/50. you could argue about evolution or w/e but they are only theory, the creation theory is also what it says, theory. that is what probability is really, theory, you flip a coin and you guess that it will land on heads 50% of the time.
It is possible that your particular version of the xian mental idol has a probability of 50% of existing, however that requires such an incredibly biased assumption about the sample space that your pronouncements become worthless. Why not assume that your particular god has a 79% chance of existing? Why not 100%?
Making probabilistic claims about a supernatural is just BS.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by telerionI disagree (surprise!). With your example, you are giving information regarding aspects beyond existence/non-existence. A more appropriate set-up would be:
Read more carefully. There were only two events in my example.
1) Her name is jknm29u3ne.
2) Her name is not jknm29u3ne.
This is exactly analogous to your problem. You have two events.
1) God exists.
2) God does not exist.
I really can't believe you are having so much difficulty with this. Don't post about probability until you've actually bothered to learn something about it. You might as well be telling me that 1+1 = 17.
1) You have a daughter.
2) You do not have a daughter.
The proposition of God's existence says nothing of character, name, attributes, etc. Those extemperaneous arguments are analogous to the proposition of your daughter's name.
It's the whole apples and oranges thing.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. We already suspect he has a daughter and a lot of other information regarding daughters is also available (we know that daughters are fairly common etc). Notice how changing it to 1) you have a pet leprechaun, 2) you do not have a pet leprechaun, suddenly changes the whole outlook.
I disagree (surprise!). With your example, you are giving information regarding aspects beyond existence/non-existence. A more appropriate set-up would be:
1) You have a daughter.
2) You do not have a daughter.
The proposition of God's existence says nothing of character, name, attributes, etc. Those extemperaneous arguments are analogous to the proposition of your daughter's name.
It's the whole apples and oranges thing.
At least one attribute / definition must be given before we can even talk about the existence of God. In fact, some attributes are assumed within the common understanding of the word.
As I said before, if no information is available about God then the probability of his existence is infinitely small.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadNotice how changing it to 1) you have a pet leprechaun, 2) you do not have a pet leprechaun, suddenly changes the whole outlook.
No. We already suspect he has a daughter and a lot of other information regarding daughters is also available (we know that daughters are fairly common etc). Notice how changing it to 1) you have a pet leprechaun, 2) you do not have a pet leprechaun, suddenly changes the whole outlook.
At least one attribute / definition must be given before we can ev ...[text shortened]... no information is available about God then the probability of his existence is infinitely small.
This is the essence of the argument. Either you do, or you do not have a pet leprechaun. No valuation has been placed on the little green guy, except by the person inventing him.
A valuation of sorts has been given God yet it has never required teaching to anyone in the history of the human race: we all have some God concept (with varying degrees of accuracy). The same cannot be said for the green guy, unicorns, FSM, or any other 'make-believe' character devised as supposed foils to the unobserved God.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe claim "I have a daughter" is taken as given in the example. The only issue over which uncertainty exists is whether or not her name is jknm29u3ne. As far as probabilities go, this is exactly the same type of problem as "Does God exist or not exist." They are both "event A / not event A" sorts of problems. Assuming that probabilities can even be formed over these spaces (I would argue that they can be in the former case and not in the latter without further assumptions), the relevant probabilities are simply prob(A) and 1 - prob(A). Note that prob(A) need not equal 0.5.
I disagree (surprise!). With your example, you are giving information regarding aspects beyond existence/non-existence. A more appropriate set-up would be:
1) You have a daughter.
2) You do not have a daughter.
The proposition of God's existence says nothing of character, name, attributes, etc. Those extemperaneous arguments are analogous to the proposition of your daughter's name.
It's the whole apples and oranges thing.