Religous probabilty question.

[The once and future king]

Say it was proven that a God did exist.

By how much does this increase the likely hood that Christianity is "true".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Say it was proven that a God did exist.

By how much does this increase the likely hood that Christianity is "true".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough.

[hmkpoker]

CTHULU FTAGHN! CTHULU FTAGHN!

[Apocalypso]

0%

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
0%

[/ QUOTE ]

This cant be correct because the existence of a God proves that metaphysical truths are now possible instead of just existential ones. This means it is now possible for Christianity to be true whereas before it was impossible.

[luckyme]

-91%

In 1200 AD a french monk claimed that 3000 miles west of madrid there was a land with 40 ft fire breathing dragons and 16 ft tall one-eyed giants. After 1492, and no signs or native reports of such, how much did his claim gain in credibility?

A few people around seattle claim there is a sasquatch the lives in a cave high up Mt Rainier. Last week they found a cave there,no sasquatch signs. How much did the likelyhood of a sasquatch go up?

Finding 'something' in the 'place' that a claimed entity is said to occupy, yet no attributes specific to that entity, decreases the chance that the specific entity exists.

"a god" that doesn't have xtrian god attributes yet can be identified as 'a god' is a very negative finding for xtianity.

luckyme

[Borodog]

That is an insightful post, luckyme.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Say it was proven that a God did exist.

By how much does this increase the likely hood that Christianity is "true".

[/ QUOTE ]

No change.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
That is an insightful post, luckyme.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, but where did the -91% come from?..I'm assuming it's just postulation, but maybe not

[guesswest]

In this case it IS an attribute specific to that entity though, namely that it's a God, it's no kind of counter-finding. I can't see how those examples are demonstrating comparable things.

In the Sasquatch case the counter-evidence is that the cave is empty, not that the cave exists. If they found a cave but for some reason couldn't look in it it wouldn't be counter-evidence, it'd be either weak supportive evidence or meaningless, much like discovering an unspecified God exists.

If I suggested that there was a 6ft tall red haired guy with one leg called Bert existed, then someone found a carbon molecule......

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
"a god" that doesn't have xtrian god attributes yet can be identified as 'a god' is a very negative finding for xtianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP didn't say it was "'a god' that doesn't have xtrian god attributes". If that was the case, then the probability would have gone down almost 100%.

But, the P(Xtrianity is true)|god-exists > P(Xtrianity is true)

I'd say it would go up by a small percentage -- 5% or so. Christianity adds a whole lot of claims on top of a god existing.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If I suggested that there was a 6ft tall red haired guy with one leg called Bert existed, then someone found a carbon molecule......

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I'd give it a bit more than that... I'd say "then there is a knock at the door" or some such.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is an insightful post, luckyme.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, but where did the -91% come from?..I'm assuming it's just postulation, but maybe not

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't so much a postulation as a joke, I'm sure, since the thing in question is impossible to quantify.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is an insightful post, luckyme.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, but where did the -91% come from?..I'm assuming it's just postulation, but maybe not

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the circumference of the scrotum in which people like godBoy keep their brains. It is negative because the measurement was taken in a counter-clockwise fashion.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
OP didn't say it was "'a god' that doesn't have xtrian god attributes". If that was the case, then the probability would have gone down almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems implicit in the OPs phrasing, as is typically the case in an attribute-free premise.

IF the OP meant that it had xtrian traits but he wasn't going to tell us yet, that's a later puzzle to solve. As given, it's only value as a puzzle rests in the assumption that "no xtrian clues were found", if some were, I'll gladly change my answer to take into account the new facts.

As given, any xtrian traits are 'facts not in evidence', and we should be marked down if we solve the puzzle assuming they are there rather than that they're not.

Iow, ifOP comes back saying, "Oh, well we found him saltifying a gal while holding back the waters of the north sea" I'm gonna be p'ssd at having my time wasted by not being given all the relevant evidence.

Claim - the only person on the island is 6ft tall red haired guy with one leg called Bert.

If they report, we found a person but can't tell if it's a guy, it's height, has legs, a face ( bearded or not), it's hair color, etc. The the response should be "Well, it's pretty likely it's not bert on this islsand then, because with any entity we get close enough to determine it's a 'person' some bert-traits would almost always be discernable, are you sure it wasn't Beatrice".

-91% seems too generous now, luckyme

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP didn't say it was "'a god' that doesn't have xtrian god attributes". If that was the case, then the probability would have gone down almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems implicit in the OPs phrasing, as is typically the case in an attribute-free premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll have to wait to hear from the OP... but I would assume that he meant "a god" -- with only the minimal necessary traits to fit the "god" description, but no other traits have been discerned. All of this is far-fetched, of course, as I have no idea how one would determine that "a god" exists, but not have noticed any other qualities that could be compared to the christian-god description.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how one would determine that "a god" exists, but not have noticed any other qualities that could be compared to the christian-god description.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had one idea ( it's late in the year and I'm tired) - if there were no xtrian god then such a sighting would make sense. I left 9% on the table in case there is another idea out there and I'm too yeared-out to think of it.

luckyme

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Claim - the only person on the island is 6ft tall red haired guy with one leg called Bert.

If they report, we found a person but can't tell if it's a guy, it's height, has legs, a face ( bearded or not), it's hair color, etc. The the response should be "Well, it's pretty likely it's not bert on this islsand then, because with any entity we get close enough to determine it's a 'person' some bert-traits would almost always be discernable, are you sure it wasn't Beatrice".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think there's a missing chunk in your logic here. As in both your original examples (ancient spain, sasquatch), it's the lack of evidence where there is reasonable expectation that evidence should be found, which decreases the likelihood of existence. It's not just a plain lack of evidence. In the case of the Sasquatch it's that the cave is empty, not that the cave exists.

If I speculated that there were gnomes living in the centre of neptune, us not finding those gnomes wouldn't diminish the likelihood that they exist, because we're not looking anywhere where they would be.

The OP gives little information as to how and why we find out a God exists, just that we do. Assuming nothing additional about this discovery, since the OP volunteered nothing additional, there is no reason to believe any xtrian traits about this god should be observable if they were there.

And in the case of Bert, it's probably just a bad metaphor. But again you're saying his existence is discredited because we're looking somewhere where we would be expected to find evidence - if we were looking on a different island it wouldn't say anything at all about the question. There's no reason to assume based on the OP that we have access to anything else epistemically, just the raw fact that God now exists.

[luckyme]

thanks guesswest, you are raising interesting points, even if I can't follow your basic claim. It seems you're leaping over the uniqueness of the situation, treating "a god exists" as "gods exist".

[ QUOTE ]
if we were looking on a different island it wouldn't say anything at all about the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes,I took pains to look on the 'bert' island.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to assume based on the OP that we have access to anything else epistemically, just the raw fact that God now exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

One attribute of a xtrian god is that it is the only god, so postulating a raw fact of a god existing means that both this god and a xtrian god can't exist. It's not a matter of - hey, we've show that a god can exist so it increases the likelihood of a xtrian one. That works in your original Bert .. discovering that there are humans increases the chance of a Bert. That's why I adjusted it to the One-guy-one-island setting, since that's a better alignment to the xtriangod/agod issue. The original claim -

[ QUOTE ]
Say it was proven that a God did exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Proven" not postulated. Proof ( in a scientific sense, not a faithbased one) requires evidence and logic, at the least. Evidence is exclusionary by it's nature ( else it's not evidence, just a useless piece of data).

If some of the god-evidence the OP produces also hints at a xtrian god, then it's a horridly formed question wasting peoples time. Iow, if he has proof of a xtrian god he should say so.

Since a xtrian god is the only god ( bert is the only person on the island), identifying god-traits that don't show xtrian god traits reduces the chance that it's bert.

I am leaving the concept in an abstract condition, and am essentially arguing from the nature of 'proof' and the one-god-per-island necessitated by the xtrian claim.

hope that helps, luckyme

[guesswest]

luckyme: 'One attribute of a xtrian god is that it is the only god, so postulating a raw fact of a god existing means that both this god and a xtrian god can't exist.'

In so far as my basic claim goes, this is what's key. The idea is that should the xtrian god exist it would be THIS god, not another seperate god.

If the OP had said that a non-xtrian god had been discovered , obviously it would discredit the idea of a xtrian god existing additionally, but he didn't say that. What he said is that a god is found to exist, with no other characteristics specified and this revelation existing in a vacumn.

Because this discovery, as the OP presents it, has no additional info/explanation attached - there can be no expectation that any characteristics, xtrian or otherwise, should be apparent. So why can't this god be the xtrian god?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Because this discovery, as the OP presents it, has no additional info/explanation attached - there can be no expectation that any characteristics, xtrian or otherwise, should be apparent. So why can't this god be the xtrian god?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I meant when I said: "I have no idea how one would determine that "a god" exists, but not have noticed any other qualities that could be compared to the christian-god description.". I think luckyme misunderstood what I was saying - not sure, though. I can't think of any evidence that would prove that "a god" existed, but neither corroborated or discredited additonal claims in regards to the xtian god.

But, I also considered the option that people have misinterpreted or misunderstood the qualities of the "xtian god" -- to be more specific about this, we would need to nail down the exact qualification of that god as well as the minimal qualifications for "a god". Obviously, if they are identical, it would be impossible to show that "a god" existed while not simultaneously showing that the xtian god existed. The closer they are to being the same (with no divergent properties being discovered), the higher the odds would go up after having shown that "a god" existed.