What is the probability of God existing?

[michejohnson]

This is an interesting question that has been asked by many others, including Dawkins. We can't seem to be able to provide a satisfying proof of God nor can we exhaustively disprove God. What about the probability of existence? How would one even come up with such a number in the first place?

[Questioner]

Hi Miche, welcome to the forum.

The Law of One material underlying this site says that in this life on Earth, things are arranged so that we don't have conclusive proof one way or the other. There is some evidence for a greater spiritual truth and also some evidence against it. We have to make our own choice through faith. Are you familiar with the Law of One material? What is your own choice about whether or not to believe in God, and what that choice means to you?

[Peregrinus]

Hi Miche

May I also welcome you to the forum.

As are many things in this illusion, it is all perspective based upon the individuals understanding. I would suggest that if one has faith, the probability is 100%, and if a person does not, the probability might be anywhere between 0 and 50%.

In my humble opinion, I choose to have faith, and thus, in my understanding, the probability is 100%.

[Ali Quadir]

This is an interesting question that has been asked by many others, including Dawkins. We can't seem to be able to provide a satisfying proof of God nor can we exhaustively disprove God. What about the probability of existence? How would one even come up with such a number in the first place?

There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove God scientifically. Neither do we have any scientific leads on probability. Science is simply not designed to do this.

The reason people believe is not because of evidence, it's also not because of peer pressure or social dogma. It's because of direct subjective experience. This has no scientific value however. And some people like mr Dawkins like to assume for this reason that it has no value in life either.

Philosophically speaking there is a strong case to be made that this universe seems to indicate the presence of a creator or creating principle. But this is a philosophical case, not a scientific one. I will make it if you're interested. But some insight in philosophy is required. Dawkins does not put down a strong philosophical basis. He's a biologist so he's partly excused.

The atheist movement under Dawkins guide has adopted a stance where only scientific evidence is valuable. They often are clueless about the origins of science and the methods of science, and if you try to explain this to them it usually goes above their heads. Even Dawkins himself misses the point about the limits of science on occasion.

Have you come here to explain there is no evidence for God? Or have you come here to find answers about God? Depending on your intentions I would have a different answer for you.

I believe in God because Irrationally I know without a doubt who he is. And rationally it is impossible for me to discredit this irrational knowledge. Faith is where I accept my irrational knowledge to be correct in absence of evidence for or against.

Mr Dawkins belongs to the category of atheist frequently described as "Angry white men"... Their motives are understandable if you're British or American, since Christian dogma in those countries is sky high. For some reason it's part of the national conservative pose to believe in creationism for those guys. And this causes a lot of injustice and idiotic situations. But it is not caused by the average religious Joe. It's caused by the media more than by the people.

Is there anything specific you'd like? I'm even in for a good science versus religion discussion if within the forum parameters.

[Monica]

Ali: Bot or no, I'm interested!!

Please do continue. My son's a Dawkins fan and I could use some pointers from you, for the next time we debate.

[Ali Quadir]

Any topics you're especially interested in? I've been debating atheists for the last two years. It's the mental equivalent of slam dancing. Is there anything he's particularly hung up on?

Allow me a little time please, I've got a few busy days ahead, and I want to do this right.

[Monica]

Any topics you're especially interested in? I've been debating atheists for the last two years. It's the mental equivalent of slam dancing. Is there anything he's particularly hung up on?

Allow me a little time please, I've got a few busy days ahead, and I want to do this right.

Oh, goody! My heart is singing! Thanks!!!

Well, basically, he calls himself an objectivist. Open to the possibility of God/supernatural but won't believe anything until it's been proven. Recognizes that subjective experiences seem 'real' to the person, but aren't really 'real' since only objective reality is 'real.' Has disdain for faith, even when I tried to explain it in the context of being necessary to create our own reality, if it's indeed true that there is a network connecting all of us, some sort of holodeck, that responds to our beliefs, desires, and visions. To me, that is an entirely different definition of 'faith' than the 'blind faith' promoted by religions, but he seems to lump it all in together as being 'blind' and sees no value in believing in or hoping for something that hasn't yet been proven. While I subscribe to the adage, Some things have to be believed to be seen, he's more likely to think that those seeing those things are just crazy.

While I believe that whether something has value in our lives (ie., makes us a better person, or the world a better place) is more important than whether it's literally 'true' or not, he is more concerned about finding 'the' truth and is concerned about believing something that might turn out to be false. For example, it would be somehow really terrible to believe in a soul if there really isn't a soul, regardless of whether believing in a soul might give peace and comfort. He'd rather remain without the peace and comfort he might get from believing in it, than get some 'false' peace and comfort.

To me, there is nothing that isn't real, because it's all real in some dimension or subjective reality...if it's real to us, then it's real, in a sense, and that's what matters. But to him, he wants to acknowledge only objective reality.

I've already voiced my views that waiting for science to catch up with unexplained phenomena is putting your faith in science. I even said science can be a religion, and trusting only in science is just like trusting only in a religion. He didn't like that.

He did have some negative experiences with organized religion, so some of his views are understandable, but I am concerned that he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Ali Quadir]

Hey, you describe the guy like it could be me at my 18th...

Basically what you told me has little to do with Dawkins. So I won't go into him very deeply. I've been present on his forum for 2 years now. As the "theist chewtoy". It's an educational form of massochism. With Dawkins it's important to remember that his basic argument is how terribly unlikely Gods existence is as there is absolutely no proof for him. As something able to create something as complex as the universe must be equally complex itself. And as we are able to explain the universe without him. But the flaw here is that any of these things can be used to guess at probability. And the other factors in the equation like how amazingly unlikely it is that a universe formed where matter could exist. How amazingly unlikely it is that this matter could form into stars and planets. How unlikely it is that life evolved in the short timespan that it did. Adding an information processor to the picture makes everything much more likely. Don't call it God though.

Dawkins also goes on to explain how terrible religions have been to some people. And consequently presumes that therefore all religion must be banished for mankind to find true happiness.

His followers are almost all rational thinkers but in my experience while they rattle the saber of science, they don't know some of it's core definitions. They put their faith in something they can't completely oversee. Mostly there is anger over what the church has done to them. And a sense of purpose that I often joke as being rather evangelical.

You mention you feel your son does not want to believe in something that later turns out to be false. He prefers to follow the evidence. Fortunately there is a lot of evidence to support the unexplained. So I'll just point at evidence I know about. You essentially mention the unity as important. There happens to be a book out, "Science and the Akasha field" by a guy named Ervin Laszlo. The man is a physicist and philosopher one of the frontier thinkers in evolution, and an expert on chaos theory and systems theory.

Especially systems theory, a usually unknown aspect of science is very important in explaining God. Basically they specialize in the behavior of complex systems. They explain how random events in complex systems can lead to goal oriented and adaptive behavior. No organism could exist without it, they are literally the emergent property of a chaotic system with certain complexity. And it's likely that every chaotic system will display emergent higher order structure.

In the book he goes after a theory of everything involving the Akasha field. He describes it's effects in nature supported by scientific research and clarifies how those events are connected. It's chock full of frontier science from behind the former iron curtain and offers a lot of leads to research privately.

The biologist Stuart Kauffman is a good one, he studied primates and recorded the evolution of their emergent behavior demonstrating how evolution and survival do not just depend on the dna but also on the transfer of information that occurs outside the DNA.

Your kids choices are obviously his alone, but if he wants to move from fully rational not trusting his other senses to fully rational AND trusting his other senses this could do good things for him. It was a large journey for me as well.

Here's the book. I hope it's all right within in the context to link to a shop?
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Akashic-Fi...917&sr=8-4

[Whitefeather]

This is an interesting question that has been asked by many others, including Dawkins. We can't seem to be able to provide a satisfying proof of God nor can we exhaustively disprove God. What about the probability of existence? How would one even come up with such a number in the first place?

Greetings Miche

What is your take on the subject?

Kindly define "God".

Why would we want to prove the existence of anything upon the 3D plane of illusion?

L/L
Whitefeather

[BrownEye]

Didn't science say the earth was flat at one time or another? There are so many things in the bible that are not logical to me. But at the same time everything Ra has described is perfectly logical. Science still can't explain anything from prehistory without making a dead end out of it. Seems to me the top scientists in the world have so far figured out that we were "created", they just don't know who or what created us. I think the idea isn't the probability of god existing, the question should be the probability of comprehending the idea or meaning of god ha ha.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2008/11/joke...ience.html

[ayadew]

Any topics you're especially interested in? I've been debating atheists for the last two years. It's the mental equivalent of slam dancing. Is there anything he's particularly hung up on?

Allow me a little time please, I've got a few busy days ahead, and I want to do this right.

Don't feel like you need to argument anything spiritual, it's illogical by popular definition. By popular I mean the usual train of thought logic is based upon, ie: Time exist. There are physical laws and they are constant. Consciousness came out of matter.

While instead LOO says... Time is an illusion. The only constant is change. Matter came out of consciousness.
It's really a biiiig leap.

There are no 'atheists', we all have our dogma... the science I outlined above being one of the most popular dogma, and you can't really escape the dogma of that you exist.

[Whitefeather]

I think the idea isn't the probability of god existing, the question should be the probability of comprehending the idea or meaning of god ha ha.

Exactly!
The first thing is to define the concept of "God", before discussing it.
L/L
W.

[Purple Dragon]

Great article Pickle! Thanks for sharing

[Ali Quadir]

Great article Pickle! Thanks for sharing

Yes, I loved it too!

[Monica]

Hey, you describe the guy like it could be me at my 18th...

That's a relief! Then there's hope!

I've been present on his forum for 2 years now. As the "theist chewtoy". It's an educational form of massochism.

I know the feeling! I've had that experience on another forum! :-/

With Dawkins it's important to remember that his basic argument is how terribly unlikely Gods existence is as there is absolutely no proof for him. As something able to create something as complex as the universe must be equally complex itself. And as we are able to explain the universe without him. But the flaw here is that any of these things can be used to guess at probability. And the other factors in the equation like how amazingly unlikely it is that a universe formed where matter could exist. How amazingly unlikely it is that this matter could form into stars and planets. How unlikely it is that life evolved in the short timespan that it did. Adding an information processor to the picture makes everything much more likely. Don't call it God though.

I don't really understand how either side of the debate can quantify the probability of something that is so totally unknown. Both sides claim the other is 'unlikely' but what is that based on? There is nothing to contrast the creation/evolution of the UniVerse with.

His followers are almost all rational thinkers but in my experience while they rattle the saber of science, they don't know some of it's core definitions. They put their faith in something they can't completely oversee. Mostly there is anger over what the church has done to them. And a sense of purpose that I often joke as being rather evangelical.

Please elaborate!

Here's the book. I hope it's all right within in the context to link to a shop?

Sure! Thanks for the recommendations - I'll check them out! I've already been giving Christmas stocking stuffers (as hints, ha) of Dean Radin and of course Nassim Haramein.

[Ali Quadir]

I don't really understand how either side of the debate can quantify the probability of something that is so totally unknown. Both sides claim the other is 'unlikely' but what is that based on? There is nothing to contrast the creation/evolution of the UniVerse with.

You are very observant, that is exactly the problem. It is mainly a problem for the science. However, there is a philosophical alternative for assigning chance to possibilities. Which is a lot less certain than a scientific guess of probability but it is at least able to make a statement. The logic there goes along the lines of "Sketch the world that would exist with a God, and sketch it without a God" Then see which one of our sketches resembles reality the most... Most of these guesses tend to be slightly in favor for God existing.

But it's obvious that there are large problems associated with this approach. The rational team usually won't even consider this. It's a valid approach, just not very reliable, while it seems to be the best one we have I can really understand people who consider it unconvincing. It would not be a reason for me to believe something over my gut instincts.

People tend to get stuck on the idea that God must be a complex phenomenon to create a complex creation. However, in my opinion this does not follow.. God is the absolute simplest thing in reality which is why you get all the paradoxes when you try to describe it. From it all other things emerge. But all those things are not part of it's original complexity.

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing. A sheet of paper filled with formulas is a complex thing. Yet the filled sheet is a potential that emerges from the empty sheet.

His followers are almost all rational thinkers but in my experience while they rattle the saber of science, they don't know some of it's core definitions. They put their faith in something they can't completely oversee. Mostly there is anger over what the church has done to them. And a sense of purpose that I often joke as being rather evangelical.

Please elaborate!

Well science is a complicated topic, one of the big arguments about ufology I got involved in ended up hinging on the difference between repeatability and reproducibility. There's a huge difference but it's concepts that non scientists usually don't recognize.

At any rate I was dismissed as trying to redefine science. Even though I referred to sources. And even though I learned the difference in a course on experimental methodology in university. The minds were closed, and this became the excuse.

It's a game, I respond with the same degree of sharpness that people open with. Meaning that if someone is polite and sincere I'll be exactly that. But if people open by calling me all kinds of names and generally open with ridicule, I'm going to take the opportunity to beat them over the head with their mistakes and ignorance. This instance I was sharper than usual.

The sense of purpose is that all irrational thought should be removed and religions eliminated, most consider this a matter of education. Some would go as far as to prosecute.

You know, remind yourself of what the church did, those sort of tactics.

[Monica]

It would not be a reason for me to believe something over my gut instincts.

Agreed. Whose sketch? Too subjective. Just guesses.

But since you mentioned 'gut instincts' they don't even acknowledge any validity to gut instincts at all. For example, I have some past life memories. It's pretty obvious to me that they're past life memories. The simplest explanation is that my subjective observation (that these memories are just as real as memories of this life) is the correct one, imo. But I'm told that my experiences count for nothing...that I'm foolish for accepting what seems obvious to me, and I should, instead, not believe they're past life memories until it's been proven that they're past life memories! When i counter with, "Well what else could they be?" I'm told they could be genetic memory, etc. Never mind that they can't explain why I would have only a few, consistent memories, and they happen to correlate with certain issues in my life...never mind that it's never been proven that we even have genetic memories (at least not to this degree) either...never mind that there is a ton of evidence suggesting that many children (and adults via regression) do indeed remember past lives. They seem to have traded one religion for another. They are not neutral but biased in favor of cynicism to the point of ignoring the obvious.

People tend to get stuck on the idea that God must be a complex phenomenon to create a complex creation. However, in my opinion this does not follow.. God is the absolute simplest thing in reality which is why you get all the paradoxes when you try to describe it. From it all other things emerge. But all those things are not part of it's original complexity.

That's a novel idea! Nassim Haramein said something to that effect...that the physics that explains the UniVerse isn't complex...if it's true, it'll be simple.

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing. A sheet of paper filled with formulas is a complex thing. Yet the filled sheet is a potential that emerges from the empty sheet.

But a sheet of paper and the data written on that sheet of paper are 2 separate and distinct things...having nothing to do with each other. The formulas could just as easily have been typed into a computer. The paper is tangible and the formulas intangible. They have no association except proximity, and even then, not really, because where do the formulas reside? In someone's mind, or in a computer's memory...the paper is just a storage device. I don't see the formulas as springing forth from the paper...they sprang forth from the mind.

It's a game, I respond with the same degree of sharpness that people open with.

I sometimes do that too.

This instance I was sharper than usual.

Which instance are you referring to?

The sense of purpose is that all irrational thought should be removed and religions eliminated, most consider this a matter of education. Some would go as far as to prosecute.

You know, remind yourself of what the church did, those sort of tactics.

Oh, yes, I've definitely encountered that! Religious evengelism traded for anti-religion evangelism...funny how they don't see that they're doing the same thing!

[Ali Quadir]

But since you mentioned 'gut instincts' they don't even acknowledge any validity to gut instincts at all. For example, I have some past life memories. It's pretty obvious to me that they're past life memories. The simplest explanation is that my subjective observation (that these memories are just as real as memories of this life) is the correct one, imo.

Correctness is a rational measure Your past life interpretations combined with the observations you mention leads to an understanding that serves to explain the observations. In sofar it fits is what we usually call correctness. In reality we have no way of knowing how well a theory fits what we do not observe.

If the goal is to be right all the time then yes you need to discard all the unknowns as false and stick only to the knowns. However, it's not a pragmatic approach since you'll essentially no longer be able to make sense of the unknowns you can only go into denial about them.. They don't exist...

If the goal is to be pragmatic it's been proven time and time again that any working hypothesis is likely to be better than none at all. "No understanding" will never lead to good outcomes. While a "flawed understanding" will lead to good outcomes a lot of the time.

Relating to your past lives. You don't know if you've lived a past life.. In my opinion when your djin descended through the densities into this earth it picked up experiences and impressions and from it formed a psychological/physical entity that it then proceeded to call self. The memories are consistent and often even agree with reality if we could check them. However... Are they really yours or are they someone elses who is one with you? There is a third alternative offcourse: that we're just making it up.

I'm not saying I'm right offcourse, I'm just showing that your interpretation works, mine works, and so there's two pragmatic approaches which deal adequately with the observations without either of them being a guarantee to truth. There's a third approach that simply denies it's existence without any real evidence to support itself but based on the premise that if you can't prove something to be true it must be false. Black and white, right or wrong.

But I'm told that my experiences count for nothing...

This is true in science. Because in science we agreed that only shared experience holds any value at all. For science. For the goals of science.. And with the limitations of science in mind. The next time someone tells you this, you could ask them for what domains this holds true. If they claim only science, then you can ask them why it would hold true for your inner thoughts then. If they claim all. Then ask them how many scientific decisions they have made today. What did they eat? Who do they love? Why are they wearing red? Some of those choices are very important and not made on rationality at all.. In fact, the vast majority of our choices and understanding is non rational. Rationality is like the layer of paint on wood. People only look rational on the surface.

You know I love science, I think it's a very useful tool when it's limits are known. In short science makes claims about reality that are verifiable. It cannot support experience that is unverifiable. And it cannot deny experience that is unverifiable. However, on the experiences that are unverifiable it can say nothing. It cannot say that they do not exist except for some rare cases. And in these cases the other systems of understanding (philosophy, experience, intuition, faith) often give you a more pragmatic handle on the situation.

that I'm foolish for accepting what seems obvious to me, and I should, instead, not believe they're past life memories until it's been proven that they're past life memories! When i counter with, "Well what else could they be?" I'm told they could be genetic memory, etc.

Ask what the difference would be... And if genetic memory actually means that you store memories in DNA. Then ask if this is proven.

Never mind that they can't explain why I would have only a few, consistent memories, and they happen to correlate with certain issues in my life...never mind that it's never been proven that we even have genetic memories (at least not to this degree) either...never mind that there is a ton of evidence suggesting that many children (and adults via regression) do indeed remember past lives. They seem to have traded one religion for another. They are not neutral but biased in favor of cynicism to the point of ignoring the obvious.

I'm not sure what the motivation is. That's my goal to discover. There's a perfectly logical reason for their skepticism even when this skepticism doesn't answer to science. One of the claims on ufo's is that there's no evidence. But this statement itself is simply preposterous.. There is ground traces, radar recordings, face to face encounters. Photographs and movies of flying objects, not just lights but solid ships that were simultaneously witnessed by multiple separated groups of people and is documented both by independent groups and by government.

It makes no sense whatsoever to claim there is no evidence. I'm perfectly fine with people interpreting evidence in different ways. I don't believe it's prudent however to ever ignore evidence.

At any rate, there must be a motivation. Perhaps it is the fear to be wrong. Science does represent the closest thing to absolute certainty we have... However ONLY when it makes a measurable claim.

People tend to get stuck on the idea that God must be a complex phenomenon to create a complex creation. However, in my opinion this does not follow.. God is the absolute simplest thing in reality which is why you get all the paradoxes when you try to describe it. From it all other things emerge. But all those things are not part of it's original complexity.

That's a novel idea! Nassim Haramein said something to that effect...that the physics that explains the UniVerse isn't complex...if it's true, it'll be simple.

I believe the idea is very old I certainly did not invent it.

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing. A sheet of paper filled with formulas is a complex thing. Yet the filled sheet is a potential that emerges from the empty sheet.

But a sheet of paper and the data written on that sheet of paper are 2 separate and distinct things...

Not according to the materialistic world view. There one is simply a specific configuration of the other. Information as a physical entity as opposed to a non physical metric still holds a difficult position in science.
You're right. But many people do not see the difference. The physical laws are supposed to be the same for a filled and for an empty sheet of paper, information has no effects.

While obviously it does. Otherwise you could not read a paper and follow the directions on it.

having nothing to do with each other. The formulas could just as easily have been typed into a computer. The paper is tangible and the formulas intangible. They have no association except proximity, and even then, not really, because where do the formulas reside? In someone's mind, or in a computer's memory...the paper is just a storage device. I don't see the formulas as springing forth from the paper...they sprang forth from the mind.

You're referring to the principle of emergence. Like I said earlier, God is the absolute simplest principle. Everything else is an emergent property. On the whole the rational skeptics don't recognize emergent properties as real entities in reality, they mainly consider them side effects. Just like consciousness is an unnecessary side effect.

This instance I was sharper than usual.

Which instance are you referring to?

The situation where some friendly folks were heckling me for trying to redefine science while all I was doing was quoting from a first year university textbook. Repeatability versus Reproducibility.

Oh, yes, I've definitely encountered that! Religious evengelism traded for anti-religion evangelism...funny how they don't see that they're doing the same thing!

Just goes to show that we are most annoyed by people who are just like us.
Btw, I never could stand you Monica..


Your boy is he interested in the all in one idea on an emotional level? The principle of organisms as described in Kymatics the movie Ayadew posted is very good. All we'd need to do is add some scientific sources to it. And I think that's doable. But if he's emotionally not interested then it'll be hard to convince him. When I had my rational phase, I dismissed all things non rational, but I was emotionally interested in them. I read books on the paranormal while at the same time dismissing them and not being able to put the book down. You can hide irrational enthusiasm but you can't make it go away.