Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[GhaudePhaede010]

JWeinCom said:

GhaudePhaede010 said:

Well of course it is a little, "wonky" because it is statistics. I mean, no statistic is proven fact, just a chance against odds. So, I am not preaching there is a God based on my last research. I am explaining why I believe there is a God and using statistics is one of those reasons. It may be the main one, but still, I have a belief and I have a reason to believe. However, we are on a video game website speaking about a Creator and the, "irony"  that people would deny a Creator on a site based around the exact way a Creator works is not lost on me. Sometimes we deny even though the reasoning and logic may be literally right in front of our face.

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.

Last edited by GhaudePhaede010 - on 24 August 2018