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......