Probability of God's existence → zero

[Fluké]

This is concerned with the probability of one single entity possessing the various Monotheist Abrahamic qualities God must need to have.

Which monotheist God am I referring to? There should be one God, but there are, in fact, several monotheist Gods. Thus, we could at this point determined how likely it is that God is the Christian version. He could be Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and all other versions ... But even if he was the Christian God, would he be the Lutheran God or the Anglican, Catholic, Maronite, Coptic or Methodist God (to name a few). So the chances that he is (1) a Christian God and then (2) a particular sect of Christianity is a small chance.

- However, the main bulk of the thread lies here.

God is simply a word used to denote the concurrent existence a set of qualities. The main ones are below:

* Omnipotence
* Omniscience
* Omnipresence
* Morality
* Purpose giver
* Our creator

There can only be one omnipotent entity, as by definition it won't be able to exercise its power over another omnipotent entity. So in the entire universe there can only be one truly omnipotent entity out of the millions of millions of millions of other entities. So the chance of a single entity in the whole universe is infinitesimal. The inverse of all the billions of entities in the universe. The existence of a single most powerful entity and (at the same time) the most moral (or absolutely perfect) are independent qualities, as are the rest. That means it would require an infinitesimal chance with an infinitesimal chance. To add to the growing infinitesimal chance, we would have to consider the probability of the existence of an entity that is omniscient, omnipresent, our creator, our purpose-giver, and not even mentioning an eternal entity! That is, in effect, an infinitesimal chance raised to the power of as many qualities as you define in God.

We can now say that there is a very infinitesimal chance that God exists. An absolutely infinitesimal chance can be ignored and rounded to zero as not being statistically significant.

The chance of a plane falling out of the sky and falling on me the next time I leave the house, is infinitesimal. For all intents and purposes, we round it to zero!

So practically speaking, there is zero chance of God's existence.

[theVOID]

This is concerned with the probability of one single entity possessing the various Monotheist qualities God must need to have.

How can you possibly say what qualities an entirely unknown, hypothetical entity must have?

Which monotheist God am I referring to? There should be one God, but there are, in fact, several monotheist Gods. Thus, we could at this point determined how likely it is that God is the Christian version. He could be Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and all other versions ... But even if he was the Christian God, would he be the Lutheran God or the Anglican, Catholic, Maronite, Coptic or Methodist God (to name a few). So the chances that he is (1) a Christian God and then (2) a particular sect of Christianity is a small chance.

Or none of the above.

- However, the main bulk of the thread lies here.

God is simply a word used to denote the concurrent existence a set of qualities. The main ones are below:

* Omnipotence
* Omniscience
* Omnipresence
* Morality
* Purpose giver
* Our creator

Other than Omnipotence and Prime-mover i see no reason why any of these other attributes are essential to the definition of a god. You should really be addressing a particular set of attributes given by an individual believer. God can be defined in any number of ways and as such arguing from your own definitions is just going to seem ridiculous to anyone in who doesn't share you predefined god.

There can only be one omnipotent entity, as by definition it won't be able to exercise its power over another omnipotent entity. So in the entire universe there can only be one truly omnipotent entity out of the millions of millions of millions of other entities.

I agree.

So the chance of a single entity in the whole universe is infinitesimal.

So is the chances of your own existence, yet you exist, right?

The existence of a single most powerful entity and (at the same time) the most moral (or absolutely perfect) are independent qualities, as are the rest. That means it would require an infinitesimal chance with an infinitesimal chance.

So are the chances of yourself, an infinitesimally likely to occur individual, being moral to any given point.

To add to the growing infinitesimal chance, we would have to consider the probability of the existence of an entity that is omniscient, omnipresent, our creator, our purpose-giver, and not even mentioning an eternal entity! That is, in effect, an infinitesimal chance raised to the power of as many qualities as you define in God.[quote]

So are the chances of you possessing your own attributes, such as your height, hair color, average bone density etc.

[quote]
We can now say that there is a very infinitesimal chance that God exists.

There is also an infinitesimal chance that an you should exist.

An absolutely infinitesimal chance can be ignored and rounded to zero as not being statistically significant.
[quote]

So there is also zero chance that you exist?

Unlikely ≠ Impossible.

[quote]
The chance of a plane falling out of the sky and falling on me the next time I leave the house, is infinitesimal. For all intents and purposes, we round it to zero!

You do not round it to zero, you keep it as a small probability, if you have any intentions of being intellectually honest that is.

So practically speaking, there is zero chance of God's existence.

And by the same logic there is zero chance of your own existence...

[Fluké]

How can you possibly say what qualities an entirely unknown, hypothetical entity must have?

They're defined in that religion.

Which monotheist God am I referring to? There should be one God, but there are, in fact, several monotheist Gods. Thus, we could at this point determined how likely it is that God is the Christian version. He could be Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and all other versions ... But even if he was the Christian God, would he be the Lutheran God or the Anglican, Catholic, Maronite, Coptic or Methodist God (to name a few). So the chances that he is (1) a Christian God and then (2) a particular sect of Christianity is a small chance.

Or none of the above.

Is this an attempt to refute me? or is it merely a frivolous remark?

- However, the main bulk of the thread lies here.

God is simply a word used to denote the concurrent existence a set of qualities. The main ones are below:

* Omnipotence
* Omniscience
* Omnipresence
* Morality
* Purpose giver
* Our creator

Other than Omnipotence and Prime-mover i see no reason why any of these other attributes are essential to the definition of a god. You should really be addressing a particular set of attributes given by an individual believer. God can be defined in any number of ways and as such arguing from your own definitions is just going to seem ridiculous to anyone in who doesn't share you predefined god.

Anyone who doesn't share you predefined god?

You're presumably not talking about all the Abrahamic believers?

Anyone this is another frivolous remark, that avoids dealing with the bulk of my post.

So the chance of a single entity in the whole universe is infinitesimal.

So is the chances of your own existence, yet you exist, right?

Is this how you debate? By isolateing each individual sentence from my post, taking it out of context and attempting to refute it?

Had you bothered to read the entire post, you'll notice I attributed the Abrahamic beliefs of a monotheistic God to that entity. And NOOOOTT merely any entity!

The existence of a single most powerful entity and (at the same time) the most moral (or absolutely perfect) are independent qualities, as are the rest. That means it would require an infinitesimal chance with an infinitesimal chance.

So are the chances of yourself, an infinitesimally likely to occur individual, being moral to any given point.

Read my comment above.

To add to the growing infinitesimal chance, we would have to consider the probability of the existence of an entity that is omniscient, omnipresent, our creator, our purpose-giver, and not even mentioning an eternal entity! That is, in effect, an infinitesimal chance raised to the power of as many qualities as you define in God.

So are the chances of you possessing your own attributes, such as your height, hair color, average bone density etc.

Now, you're moving from a mere entity (as above) to adding attribtes to that entity.

Whilst, you seem to be slowly getting the point of the thread, you have forgotten the whole element of the PROBABILITY of those attributes.

We can now say that there is a very infinitesimal chance that God exists.

There is also an infinitesimal chance that an you should exist.

*sigh*

An absolutely infinitesimal chance can be ignored and rounded to zero as not being statistically significant.

So there is also zero chance that you exist?

*sigh*

The chance of a plane falling out of the sky and falling on me the next time I leave the house, is infinitesimal. For all intents and purposes, we round it to zero!

You do not round it to zero, you keep it as a small probability, if you have any intentions of being intellectually honest that is.

If there was an infinitesimal x,

then y + x = y.

When talking about the infinitesimal probability in isolation then I don't think there is any problem in calling it "zero".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

So practically speaking, there is zero chance of God's existence.

And by the same logic there is zero chance of your own existence...

I had a much better discussion here. Once you actually get my post, the discussion can get interesting.

[Tiberius]

Picking holes in people's arguments are what we do here. Asserting that someone "doesn't get" your post and then not trying to rectify that by perhaps explaining it better isn't a very good tactic if you want to appear intellectually honest.

theVOID made some rebuttals, and you complained and said *sigh* a lot. Why not instead try to rebut the rebuttals?

[Fluké]

Picking holes in people's arguments are what we do here. Asserting that someone "doesn't get" your post and then not trying to rectify that by perhaps explaining it better isn't a very good tactic if you want to appear intellectually honest.

theVOID made some rebuttals, and you complained and said *sigh* a lot. Why not instead try to rebut the rebuttals?

Once a person picks holes in my argument but everytime has grossly misrepresented my position, I am afraid I do sigh. Particularly, with the latter points. If they don't understand, then I try rectify that. As it so happens, I do think it was well explained but I'm happy to add further clarification.

What do you think?

[Tiberius]

What do I think? I think theVOID was right to call you out on your statistical bullshit. Specifically:

Which monotheist God am I referring to? There should be one God, but there are, in fact, several monotheist Gods. Thus, we could at this point determined how likely it is that God is the Christian version. He could be Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and all other versions ... But even if he was the Christian God, would he be the Lutheran God or the Anglican, Catholic, Maronite, Coptic or Methodist God (to name a few). So the chances that he is (1) a Christian God and then (2) a particular sect of Christianity is a small chance.

Non-sequitur (and an abysmal use of statistics). It does not follow that because there are numerous possibilities, the chances of one of them being true are smaller. Only if you assign equal probabilities to each of the possibilities can this be true, and you can't assign equal probabilities because you don't know anything about these possibilities to justify such an assignment.

There may be more evidence to point to a particular God, and that is where probabilities change. It's like when creationists argue that because there are two outlooks (Creationism vs Evolution), the chances of either of them being true is 50%. This is of course, nonsense, and you can easily see why. The existence of other possibilities (aliens seeding life for example) doesn't suddenly make the chances of all three 33% each.

The second piece of statistical nonsense was this:

So in the entire universe there can only be one truly omnipotent entity out of the millions of millions of millions of other entities. So the chance of a single entity in the whole universe is infinitesimal.

Now I pride myself in being pretty good at mathematics, yet I've never seen a calculation where "millions of millions of millions" is equal to infinity. Yet you claim that 1 in "millions of millions of millions" is an infinitesimal amount. Well...it's not. It's a very actual and measurable amount. Not only that, but 1 in "billions of billions of billions" is an actual amount, and very much smaller than your amount...so how can your amount be an infinitesimal?

For you to have an infinitesimal, you'd have to show that there are an infinite number of entities in the universe. Well, that is easily disproven. The visible universe is a finite size, ergo it can hold a finite number of things. Only a fraction of which are entities (assuming we are talking about living entities here), and even that fraction can be calculated to an actual amount. So your "infinitesimal" argument simply shows you have a very poor understanding of statistics, as does the rest of your post.

[Fluké]

Which monotheist God am I referring to? There should be one God, but there are, in fact, several monotheist Gods. Thus, we could at this point determined how likely it is that God is the Christian version. He could be Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and all other versions ... But even if he was the Christian God, would he be the Lutheran God or the Anglican, Catholic, Maronite, Coptic or Methodist God (to name a few). So the chances that he is (1) a Christian God and then (2) a particular sect of Christianity is a small chance.

Non-sequitur (and an abysmal use of statistics). It does not follow that because there are numerous possibilities, the chances of one of them being true are smaller. Only if you assign equal probabilities to each of the possibilities can this be true, and you can't assign equal probabilities because you don't know anything about these possibilities to justify such an assignment.

I have made no fallacies and my statistics is accurate.

Well, since you put on bold Christianity in my example, let's deal with that. There are 22,000+ Christian denominations. The chances that the one a person believes in is right does drop. Also, we're going to have to reduce the probability of each denominations to an equal level, for a lack of evidence. I'll deal with this more below.

There may be more evidence to point to a particular God, and that is where probabilities change. It's like when creationists argue that because there are two outlooks (Creationism vs Evolution), the chances of either of them being true is 50%. This is of course, nonsense, and you can easily see why. The existence of other possibilities (aliens seeding life for example) doesn't suddenly make the chances of all three 33% each.

I have dealt with this point here (you might be interested to read since I dealt with practically every rebuttal)

Can there be evidence for us available so that God's qualities are combined within one entity? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Can we as humans be in a position to identify the qualities of supreme perfection, omniscience, omnipotence? I don't think we could ever. All we can do is identify the absence of such qualities in entities, in our limited human capabilities. Our ability to identify entities without such qualities, is not the same as identifying those that have them. Is it possible that humans, with our limitations, can ever have evidence that an entity does possess these absolutely qualities? Can we distinguished between an an entity that is very-long-lived and one that is immortal? Or one that is knowledgeable and an omniscient entity?

I think we fall short of being able to obtain reliable evidence that an entity exists as God.

So in the entire universe there can only be one truly omnipotent entity out of the millions of millions of millions of other entities. So the chance of a single entity in the whole universe is infinitesimal.

Now I pride myself in being pretty good at mathematics, yet I've never seen a calculation where "millions of millions of millions" is equal to infinity. Yet you claim that 1 in "millions of millions of millions" is an infinitesimal amount. Well...it's not. It's a very actual and measurable amount. Not only that, but 1 in "billions of billions of billions" is an actual amount, and very much smaller than your amount...so how can your amount be an infinitesimal?

For you to have an infinitesimal, you'd have to show that there are an infinite number of entities in the universe. Well, that is easily disproven. The visible universe is a finite size, ergo it can hold a finite number of things. Only a fraction of which are entities (assuming we are talking about living entities here), and even that fraction can be calculated to an actual amount. So your "infinitesimal" argument simply shows you have a very poor understanding of statistics, as does the rest of your post.

The problem here is that there is no calculation where "millions of millions of millions" is possible :p but as some able mathematician I am alarmed you think an infinitesimal amount is "a very actual and measurable amount". In statistics, it is insignificant.

There are something I should clear up, namely:

1) "millions of millions of millions" is synonym for the countless number of entities.

2) It is the infinitesimal probability raised to the power of as many definitions we place on God. So, it becomes inconceivably infinitesimal.

Would you discount the probability of being hit by elephant during an enormous earthquake tomorrow in England? We, as humans, would totally discount that almost infinitesimal chance but that is much less justifiable than discounting the thoroughly infinitesimal chance of God’s existence. Why do we apply one rule to God's probability of existence, and one to everything else.

[fr0d0]

To repeat VOID

The probability of God existing is infinitesimally small, and could be considered impossible.

The probability of people existing is infinitesimally small, and could be considered impossible.

This isn't a convincing argument.

[Tiberius]

Well, since you put on bold Christianity in my example, let's deal with that. There are 22,000+ Christian denominations. The chances that the one a person believes in is right does drop. Also, we're going to have to reduce the probability of each denominations to an equal level, for a lack of evidence. I'll deal with this more below.

So now you are changing your argument? Your original statement was that the chances that a God is the Christian one is small because there are numerous other Gods. Now you are saying that the chances that a person believes in the correct God are smaller. There is a difference...one deals with the personal choice of a person, the other deals with the actual existence of such beings.

I think we fall short of being able to obtain reliable evidence that an entity exists as God.

That's a separate argument. The point is, you cannot simply make the assertion that all God claims are on an equal level. Certainly there is a way of showing that some Gods are more likely that others. If God A has contradicting attributes, and God B and C do not, then Gods B and C are both more likely than God A.

The problem here is that there is no calculation where "millions of millions of millions" is possible

Erm...yes there is. 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 x 1,000,000. Millions of millions of millions. Otherwise known as a quintillion.

but as some able mathematician I am alarmed you think an infinitesimal amount is "a very actual and measurable amount". In statistics, it is insignificant.

I don't. That was in reference to the "1 in millions of millions of millions", which is an actual and measurable amount.

1) "millions of millions of millions" is synonym for the countless number of entities.

Not really, especially not in statistics. If you want to say "countless" then say it.

2) It is the infinitesimal probability raised to the power of as many definitions we place on God. So, it becomes inconceivably infinitesimal.

Again, based on faulty statistics. You could apply this to anything and say that everything is inconceivable. There are an infinite number of things that could happen when you toss a coin, so the result of a toin coss is inconceivable. Of course, most of those things are infinitesimally small, but two of them (i.e. it landing heads or tails) are very much more probable to occur.

[Fluké]

To repeat VOID

The probability of God existing is infinitesimally small, and could be considered impossible.

The probability of people existing is infinitesimally small, and could be considered impossible.

This isn't a convincing argument.

There are two important differences:

1) God is a single entity and 'people' is a collection of entities.

2) The probability of a person existing (like me) has certain definitions. You will need (assuming you can, of course!) find a person with my name, my attributes (such as hair colour etc ...), living in a particular city – London, the fact that I post on atheistforums.org with a particular username etc … some maybe smaller than others but no where near ‘infinitesimal’. There are 6m people living in London (I think!) that is no where near the probability involving the countless entities in the entire universe and the unique attributes such as being the omniscient!

---

Well, since you put on bold Christianity in my example, let's deal with that. There are 22,000+ Christian denominations. The chances that the one a person believes in is right does drop. Also, we're going to have to reduce the probability of each denominations to an equal level, for a lack of evidence. I'll deal with this more below.

So now you are changing your argument? Your original statement was that the chances that a God is the Christian one is small because there are numerous other Gods. Now you are saying that the chances that a person believes in the correct God are smaller. There is a difference...one deals with the personal choice of a person, the other deals with the actual existence of such beings.

No, they're both the same argument. Admittedly, I worded it clumsily there. It is the probability that the Christian God (or whatever) of a certain denomination is true.

I think we fall short of being able to obtain reliable evidence that an entity exists as God.

That's a separate argument. The point is, you cannot simply make the assertion that all God claims are on an equal level. Certainly there is a way of showing that some Gods are more likely that others. If God A has contradicting attributes, and God B and C do not, then Gods B and C are both more likely than God A.

More likely?

We are dealing with infinitesimal chances, for starters.

If God A has contradictory definitions, then it doesn't exist.

The problem here is that there is no calculation where "millions of millions of millions" is possible

Erm...yes there is. 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 x 1,000,000. Millions of millions of millions. Otherwise known as a quintillion.

but as some able mathematician I am alarmed you think an infinitesimal amount is "a very actual and measurable amount". In statistics, it is insignificant.

I don't. That was in reference to the "1 in millions of millions of millions", which is an actual and measurable amount.

1) "millions of millions of millions" is synonym for the countless number of entities.

Not really, especially not in statistics. If you want to say "countless" then say it.

This is bordering on pedantry.

I am dealing with ALL the entities in the universe. Obviously, people use millions of millions in very day speech to convey ‘countlessness’ and not "1,000,000 x 1,000,000 x 1,000,000". That's no-where near enough! After all, it is countless!

2) It is the infinitesimal probability raised to the power of as many definitions we place on God. So, it becomes inconceivably infinitesimal.

Again, based on faulty statistics. You could apply this to anything and say that everything is inconceivable. There are an infinite number of things that could happen when you toss a coin, so the result of a toin coss is inconceivable. Of course, most of those things are infinitesimally small, but two of them (i.e. it landing heads or tails) are very much more probable to occur.

I am genuinely confused and don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. There are several issues:

Firstly, when one toss a coin, it can land on heads, or tails - both of which make P(coin landing on either heads or tails) = 0.5. There are other possibilities. It could, for instance, sink through the floor. The chances of that happen are so insignificant that we disregard it and count it as zero. Now, 0.5 is very measurable.

Secondly, one must be careful using "infinitesimal". I was careful in selecting it. It is a measure denoted to something that is "so small that there is no way to see them or to measure them". So the it really won't apply to a probability that is 0.5 !

Thirdly, and I'm not sure you're saying this but tossing a coin and landing on either heads OR tails is a single probability. The probability of the existence of God is a satisfaction of all the definitions that need to be satisfied. Thus, it would need to satisfy all the probabilities. So they depend on each other.