The Probability of God

[Evan]

How about this: There is a possibility that god exists and that it doesn't. That is 50-50. No proof for any direction.

gah. you can't assume it's 50-50.

[Sniffles]

At best, one can prove that there's merit to belief in a God. But you can never fully prove or disprove his existence. In the end, it's a matter of faith; not mathematical probability.

[Poser]

In the end, it's a matter of faith; not mathematical probability.

So are you going with 100% matter of faith and 0% mathematical probability?

[Sniffles]

So are you going with 100% matter of faith and 0% mathematical probability?

Faith is not a quantitative entity.

[Poser]

Faith is not a quantitative entity.

You don't believe in varying degrees of faith?

[Didums]

I agree that trying to determine the probability of a God existing is in no way possible given the nature of the common description of God. However, given the theories that we have (theories are backed by evidence), the Plausibility factor is reduced. Our perception limits our ability to find Truth, but it is still Truth to our Perception nonetheless. Given the knowledge that we do possess, it seems that the God hypothesis (which by nature is unprovable) is of little importance to explaining anything, at all. We have natural explanations according to observation, the natural is all that matters, I don't see how the supernatural can be of any importance to us.

All we can be sure of is that Agnosticism is likely the most proper stance to take, however, Agnostics, by definition, lack a belief in God, and are therefore Atheists (Prefix "a" means Without, Theism means a belief in God, Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God). Atheism is Not an Active Disbelief in God.

[Sniffles]

I agree that trying to determine the probability of a God existing is in no way possible given the nature of the common description of God. However, given the theories that we have (theories are backed by evidence), the Plausibility factor is reduced. Our perception limits our ability to find Truth, but it is still Truth to our Perception nonetheless. Given the knowledge that we do possess, it seems that the God hypothesis (which by nature is unprovable) is of little importance to explaining anything, at all.

God is not a hypothesis. To treat God as such is to misunderstand his nature. God is a metaphyiscal entity, which is beyond the realm of science which deals with physical entities.

We have natural explanations according to observation, the natural is all that matters, I don't see how the supernatural can be of any importance to us.

This essentially means cutting yourself short on purpose. Natural explanations does not disprove God, or render him unimportant. In fact quite the contrary. God wants us to understand him and understand his creation, and that was certainly the basis for much of the basic scientific breakthroughs that came about under Christianity's guidance. If you want, I can provide you with some sources on this - in fact scholars have been acknowledging this for the past 50 years at least.

Christianity is not like Islam, which adheres to Occasionalism - ie whatever happens is simply the will of God. A simple example of this is the belief in miracles. By its very nature, a miracle is a rare and unusual event- and seeks to explain why many events that go contrary to nature actually occur. And within Catholicism, miracles are actually investigated with to great extents - which even Michael Shermer has spoken positive of.

But miracles are not explainations of natural phenomena. You're confusing methodical Naturalism with metaphysical Naturalism.

[Poser]

All we can be sure of is that Agnosticism is likely the most proper stance to take, however, Agnostics, by definition, lack a belief in God, and are therefore Atheists (Prefix "a" means Without, Theism means a belief in God, Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God). Atheism is Not an Active Disbelief in God.

Great post but I disagree with your definition of Agnosticism. Agnosticism would be by definition, not knowing of the existence or nonexistance of God. Totally different than the lack of belief in a God. I would say that is the belief of an Agnostic, God cannot be proven or disproven, so faith is all there is. I can be a spiritual Agnostic and have faith but then if something is proven or disproved by science then faith doesn't apply any more.

[Didums]

Great post but I disagree with your definition of Agnosticism. Agnosticism would be by definition, not knowing of the existence or nonexistance of God. Totally different than the lack of belief in a God. I would say that is the belief of an Agnostic, God cannot be proven or disproven, so faith is all there is. I can be a spiritual Agnostic and have faith but then if something is proven or disproved by science then faith doesn't apply any more.

Hmm, what I understood as the definition of Agnostic is this: Human perception limits us from knowing whether or not a God exists, it is Unknown and Unknowable. Therefore, they do not take a stance in favor of a belief in God, they remain neutral. However, in being Neutral, they are still not believing in God, they lack the belief, if they had the belief, they would be Theists.

[Didums]

God is not a hypothesis. To treat God as such is to misunderstand his nature. God is a metaphyiscal entity, which is beyond the realm of science which deals with physical entities.

hy·poth·e·sis
1. a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

I wasn't talking about a Scientific Hypothesis, I understand that God is by nature Un-testable.

This essentially means cutting yourself short on purpose. Natural explanations does not disprove God, or render him unimportant.

Theism's purpose itself is to define Purpose and used to try to explain natural phenomenon (through God ironically). Take an objective look at the concept of Purpose, if you can, being a Theist may have you jump to the idea of God right away to explain Purpose, but I think that you are capable of taking an objective look at it, purpose itself is a very loose concept.

In fact quite the contrary. God wants us to understand him and understand his creation, and that was certainly the basis for much of the basic scientific breakthroughs that came about under Christianity's guidance.

Subjectivity ahoy.

If you want, I can provide you with some sources on this - in fact scholars have been acknowledging this for the past 50 years at least.

Here is what I said when Owl essentially asked me the same question:

Also, about your offer of seeking out a plausible account for the existence of God, I don't think its necessary. I don't completely deny the possibility of a God figure existing (except in the fashion that I argue against in my OP), it just likely hasn't shown itself to us (and never will). Also, it would probably be different to the human definition of a God, therefore, not truly a God at all, however, the same Supernatural idea is in mind. So, a Supernatural entity may exist, it is likely not be limited to the human definition of God (which is by nature a made up thing), it has likely not shown itself to us in any of the world religions, and it is likely indifferent to our existence. It would truly be of no importance to us at all.

But miracles are not explainations of natural phenomena. You're confusing methodical Naturalism with metaphysical Naturalism.

Yes, miracles are in no way explanation of natural phenomena, they are actually contradictory to that, because most 'miracles' go against what we know to be natural phenomena.

I don't think I'm confusing methodical naturalism with ontological naturalism.

Wiki: Methodological naturalism is the stance that for purposes of scientific or empirical inquiry, one must confine the inquiry to observable phenomena. This stance is often taken as a philosophical foundation for scientific method.

Wiki: Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism or ontological naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (i.e. the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.

These two philosophies are not entirely separate, they both fall under Naturalism as a whole.