Shouldn't We Leave Math Out Of It?

[Lestat]

In order to assign a probability, don't you need to have a non-zero reference point? In other words, we can assign a probability to whether or not it will rain tomorrow, because we have historic non-zero values to go by. We can even assign a probability for death by an eagle dropping a tortoise on your head (it has happened at least once in human history).

But when it comes to religions and gods, I can see no basis for assigning statistical likelihoods. And the mere attempt to do so, only lends weight to a believer's postion. In other words, it gives him a platform he doesn't deserve.

Would we dare attempt to assign a probability for the existence of a Unicorn or it's attributes? Is it not pure folly? For to try and do so, should be seen as an utter triumphant victory for any Unicornist.

Math only becomes viable when we concede likelihood. i.e. if we concede the potential for 100 different gods and/or religions, we can now use probability to assess likelihood for one of them being correct over others. But just because something is "possible" does not mean it deserves statistical consideration. Even if the word "possible" must necessarily contain a meaning of non-zero value, it is still possible for that value to be so infintessimally small as to be unworthy of any mathematical application or discussion.

This is why in the most recent debate between David and PairTheBoard, I have to give at least that one round to PBT. I thought he made a very strong case that alot of the math, statistics, and probabilities, that David uses to stress his points, are not necessarily applicable to things like gods and religion. In other words, David might be taking certain liberties with select math and statistical terms in order to add an authoritative quality to his posts. I don't accuse him of purposely doing this, but for PBT to even be able to point this out is demonstrative, since David obviously deserves our utmost respect when it comes to math.

[David Sklansky]

I never tried to seriously assign a probability to God existing. I tried to assign a probability to whether or not paranormal events actually ever happenned.

What you may be trying to point out is that when the experimental frequency of an event is zero, the probability of it occurring can not be calculated as easily as if it had at least one ocurrence. But an upper bound can be deduced. In other words if the first 30 alien abduction stories were debunked, I could lay at least 10-1 against the truth of the next one (assumming only this information.)

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I tried to assign a probability to whether or not paranormal events actually ever happenned. </font>

I believe you have also tried to assign probabilities to God's attributes as well (such as if He cares about belief in the divinity of Jesus, etc.).

My question is, how can this (or calculating for paranormal events), be done with a straight face?

I'm not trying to be rude or a smart-alec, but if I imagine that I have a fairy godmother, how do you assign a probability for her skirt having a 3 inch hem as opposed to having a .5 inch hem? Or the probability that I died once and she brought me back to life?

My main point is, that the very attempt to do so (assign a probability), gives credence to the fact that I actually have a fairy godmother in the first place. Theists definitely have the better PR campaign going here. They have us earnestly considering the probabilities on properties for an event, before any basis for the actual event has been found. I really think that's a trap that many agnostics (myself included), fall into.

[David Sklansky]

You misinterpreted off the cuff remarks. Its only miracles, and the debunking of them that math can really examine.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You misinterpreted off the cuff remarks. Its only miracles, and the debunking of them that math can really examine.

[/ QUOTE ]
hallelullah, praise the lord.

chez

[kerowo]

Doesn't theorectical physics predict things that the experimental physicists have yet to see in the lab? That may not be quite the same thing, but I don't think you would predict something that had a zero percent chance of happening.

[LooseCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't theorectical physics predict things that the experimental physicists have yet to see in the lab? That may not be quite the same thing, but I don't think you would predict something that had a zero percent chance of happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

but they already have prior evidence that the calculations they make (and the models they use to determine things) have led to the truth before, so there's already some empirical evidence in their favor.

the god question doesnt have the "we were right before" argument

[kerowo]

You should look at how outrageous some of the things predicted by physicists before they were seen experimentally were.

[m_the0ry]

Kerowo has a good point. It isn't exactly logical to infer that because electrons can tunnel a baseball can tunnel through walls. Yet modern physics says that without a doubt a baseball can tunnel through a concrete wall. You could try and see this experimentally by throwing a baseball at a wall once every .5 seconds until the end of the universe and you would never observe it, and yet it is still possible.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, omniscient deities and math are incompatible theories and so math has no place in a disproof of god. I use disproof in the loosest imaginable way because god is such a vapor-concept that it could never possibly be disproven.