No. Just not convinced.

Uhm, that formula is utterly biased nonsense based on ignorance. 

That probability means absolutely nothing. Also, which god are we talking about?

If you like you can replace god with any fictional character and it works the same way.

I mean it's wonky compared to other forms of statistics.

For example, if I have a deck of cards that we've examined and determined to be a standard deck of cards, we can accurately say, my chance of getting a spade is 1 in 4.

With Bayesian analysis, we don't have to parameters.  There is no deck of cards, so your criteria is subjective.  For example, I believe one of the premises in the article is that recognition of goodness is 10 times more likely if a god exists.  I have no idea how the author determined that.  Unlike probabilistic statistics there's no hard fact of reality this is referring to. 

To try and sum it up, if we were to calculate the odds of getting a royal flush in a game of poker, we will always get the same answer, assuming we know the math.   So we can state the probability with confidence.  If 100 people did a bayesian analysis on the existence of god, we'd likely get 100 different answers. It's not a reliable way to determine this sort of thing.

This would be interesting if you offered me something more concrete. Otherwise, what you are presenting is no more or less bias than my own opinion. Also, the deck of cards example only works because you have examined and know all the variables beforehand. In this case, we are specifically talking about NOT knowing all the variables. If you use the card example and said, "we don't examine the cards first" then conclude that you have a 1 in 4 chance of pulling a spade, how could I argue that statistic since I am as ignorant to the cards as you are to the probability of God's existence.

Also, if you are going to continue to ignore the possibility and probability that art imitates life and we, as humans are art (as is all of this universe), then you have issues with your own ignorance that you should address instead of trying to pick an argument with me about it.

Late edit: notice I am not even getting into the argument about the credentials of Bayesian analysis? The reason is because I can clearly see you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is fine, I will let you attack it all you want. I know when I am speaking to someone informed and when I am speaking to someone a little bit ignorant. You have your heart in the right place and my goal is not to convince you or change your mind. My job was to explain how I felt and why I felt that way. Attempting to discredit my feelings will never work because I am way too strong mentally to be broken by someone beneath the appropriate level of influence. I am always willing to listen/read but I am not stupid enough to go, "oh, that random internet user that clearly knows very little about this topic has convinced me to change my mind" and you are not the person to change that position. So, attack away. Try as you may. Nothing you say is going to move me unless it is absolute and equivocated proof that there is no creator.

Ahhhh. You are that guy, are you? Well, present me more sophisticated statistics on the topic, please. Hopefully, you created the example you will set up yourself. That would be preference.

The probability means something to me. If there is a chance that there is a God; a legitimate one at that, I am willing to hear that out. And we are talking about God. God means, "creator" so I am not speaking on religion as a whole; rather, if there is a creator. I am a Muslim but my religion is not of consequence to my belief in God as my religion is my discipline to myself and God but only because I believe in both myself and God regardless of my religion.

You are correct on that third point. I could also replace God with nonfictional characters... ...like man. Man creates things all the time, such as simulations of, "life" in video games. In other words, man is also a God to its creations. It could work with anything, really. The question is not, "is God proven to be real?" so the argument you are raising is misplaced anyway. The question is about if I have a faith in God and why I have it. I have answered and explained and there is nothing you can reasonably do - outside of show me concrete and absolute proof to the contrary - to change my mind. On the other hand, I assume the same of you and therefore, I respect your opinion.

I'm honestly really not trying to be rude, but I really don't understand your response.  

The card example was specifically to draw the distinction between frequentist and bayesian approaches.  It seems to me like you just repeated the same point back at me.  

But to go with it, if I said there was a 1 out of 4 chance of getting a spade and you know that I haven't examined the deck, the correct response would be "there is no way you can possibly know that, so I don't believe you."  Which is basically my response to your statistics on god.  There is no way you have the information to draw that conclusion.

As for art imitating life, I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said.  Like, it's a complete non-sequitur.  It's like we were having a conversation about the best Nintendo game, and then you said, "well what about checkers?  That's a good game".  Dunno what it has to do with whether bayesian analysis is accurate or appropriate in this situation.

As for the edit, I find it kind of irritating for people just to assert that I'm wrong about something. I make an effort to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it.  Of course, that doesn't mean I'm always right, and If I am wrong about bayesian analysis, feel free to explain how I am, cause then I can correct it and know better.  But if you are going to say I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate an explanation.

I don't know why you feel like you're being attacked.  I don't think my response was at all aggressive.  And feel free to try and change my mind.  If I'm wrong, I'd definitely like my mind to be changed.  

I cannot prove there is no creator, and I didn't say there wasn't.  But, do you just believe everything so long as it can't be disproven?  I have a unicorn sitting next to me right now.  Can you conclusively prove that I don't?  And if not, do you believe me?

If you wait until something is disproven to not believe in it, then you would have to believe in basically everything to be consistent.  This is basic burden of proof stuff. 

There are multiple reasons your post makes little sense to me.

I will start with your example with the cards. If you did say you had a 1 in 4 chance of getting a spade and I had not examined the deck, the correct answer is to say you could be correct because I do not know. You could also be incorrect. The side I decide to land on though, is completely up to me since there is no further information about the deck of cards. And the side you land on is completely up to you. But for me to challenge you and for you to challenge me when we are both 100% blind on the subject is futile at best. Since that is the case, you have been wasting your time. But that is exactly how this kind of statistics works. The probability, despite leaning on the side of there being a God, clearly leaves plenty of room for their being no God at all. This is how I know you do not know what you are talking about. Because you compare two different kinds of statistic analysis as though they are equal when they are not. Since they are not equal, you have to decide if you see it as credible or not. I once questioned pi. Like, who decided the numbers? When does someone get to say, "no, that number is incorrect" or anything like that? I could say all of that stuff is made up since its only value is completely made up through humans. However, that would come from a place of ignorance since I do not know exactly how pi works and therefore, I do not have enough of a place to make the claims about pi and its development that you have made about the data I presented.

As far as art imitating life, it stands to reason that since your final paragraphs are just kind of thrown in there and you are basically asking me if I believe things until they are disproven that you are not paying attention to the fact that I do not solely use statistical probability to come to my conclusion. Alongside the fact that there is statistical analysis that says there is a greater chance there is a God than there is not, there is also the fact that we are essentially Gods as well. That we are on a site that essentially praises and judges human's work in metaphysical realms. And that those creations may have no idea they are created and manipulated. Those creations are ignorant of their creator. If one of those is programmed to say, "we were created by someone greater than us" then we would say, "they are correct" but the people in that realm would have the same argument we are having right now. Because they have no physical proof, the unicorn is just as real as God. A simple way to look at things, really. We are not aware so we either believe it or not. Just like any other program we create. It is a guess to them because they cannot reach outside their limitations and touch us either. I am not ignorant to the signs that we will one day be able to create, "life" that will also be able to create, "life" and so on from there. If that is the case, then there is most definitely a case that something created us and we created something that will create something else... a paradox sure but an understanding that the chances are that the things we create (video games) would not exist if we did not create them. I can use that same logic on humans and this space (realm) as well. And if I place all my belief in something, it would be that humans are not the only thing in the history of everything that can create. Humans have evolved over time, the technology along with it. However, our understanding of even the most basic elements and fundamentals of science are shaky at best. It is clear to me that we are art and we imitate life. Along with the presentation of statistical data that supports my position, I am more than happy to say science and religion are coming to the same conclusion: There is most likely a creator of some kind.

Hell, I just watched Neil Degrasse Tyson saying exactly what I am saying to you right now. That we most likely have a creator (or group of creators) and so on and so on and we will never truly know where that line ends. We are essentially a simulation.

Last note, I do not feel attacked. I feel it is OK for you to attack the link I posted. I have no problems with you trying to attack my data presented. The integrity of the data presented not for me to defend. However, I am not one to indulge such claims just for the sake of banter. It is perfectly reasonable for you to decide how you feel based on whatever you feel. As I said, I have already done my job and going back and forth with you, someone that does not seem to completely understand everything I presented anyway, is getting rather redundant. You decide to or not to believe anything you want. I am good from here on out.

Lol unicorns. Nice try.

This is not proper statistical theory... -_- Actually, isn't even bad statistics - it's horribly bad probability

On what premise do you start at 50%? That's not something you can just declare without justification. That's not a "natural state" for the existence of something without any evidence for or against. If I take a completely random set of qualifiers for an object/thing/etc... the probability of its existence, without evidence for or against, goes towards zero as I add specificity.

The arguments are rather ridiculous, as well. "I agree that the existence of goodness is more probable in a world in which God exists." 

 ? so, you see no evolutionary interest in a social species that helps each other? 

And what makes you declare that a god would necessarily be good?

If you're not talking about a *specific* god, we can attribute him no characteristics

If you're talking about a specific god... well, that would be even more absurd as a probabilistic analysis. I could invent you any number of slightly different benevolent gods that would fill all the qualifiers in that list, which all contradict each other's existence, but each have a probability of over 50% to exist, with these calculations. (obviously absurd.) 

I rather despise it when "math" is misused so blatantly.

As I have explained twice already, the point of the comparison was specifically to illustrate the distinction between frequentist and bayesian models for probability. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying they're different, and showing why bayesian is not appropriate for this kind of question.

But you've demonstrated the problem much more clearly.  You have said we are both 100% blind on this subject.  You have also said there is a 67% chance god exists.  You are 67% sure on a topic you are 100% blind on.  That's nonsensical.  I don't know if 67% is the correct answer (or if it makes sense to answer the question with a probability), but I do know that your method is absurd, and we don't need to seriously consider the outcome.  

Pi is a ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle.  If you draw a perfect circle, and divide the circumference by the length of the diameter, it will always yield a result of approximately 22/7 or 3.1415........ and so on.  Nobody decided the numbers.  It's just what you get when you make a ratio between these two things.

Unless you saw something different than I did, Tyson did not say it was very likely we are in a simulation.  He said it is hard to argue against it.  Which is true.  There are some ideas that are hard to falsify.  Which is precisely why we do not believe all things until they are disproven.  We believe what has been proven.  I cannot disprove we are in a simulation, but I have no reason to think I am in one.  Also, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not an authority on this sort of thing as far as I know, and this was his off the cuff answer to a twitter question we're not talking about some sort of scientific consensus.  And, science has not been moving towards a creator.  Science can only examine the natural world, so unless the creator interacts with the natural world in a way we can observe, it is outside of the realm of science.

You're the one who said you would believe in a creator until it was completely disproven.  Which is why I'm still confused about why you don't believe me about Buttercup (that's my unicorn's name).  You haven't disproved her. Why are you applying a different standard of evidence for a creator and Buttercup?

Let's use this approach to analyze the possibility that there is an omnipotent demon conspiring to prevent me from having sex with models.

Under the hypothesis that this demon does not exist I estimate my chances of having sex with a super model at about 99% cause I'm pretty damn awesome.

If however there is a demon that is preventing me from having sex with models, the odds of me having sex with a model is 0%

Thusly the universe we live in (where I have not had sex with a model) is better explained by the hypothesis that there is a demon that does not want me to have sex with models.

Bayesian.  Garbage in, garbage out.