The Probability of God

[reason]

There is an often repeated claim that the existence of God is improbable. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and criticise this claim. The view to be presented here is that the claim is nonsense. However, this should not be taken to imply that the existence of God is probable, as that would also be nonsense, something that will hopefully become clear. There are two arguments associated with the claim that the existence of God is improbable and a common error between the two regarding the use of probability, each to be addressed separately.

The first argument takes its inspiration from an old argument against any theory that life originated by something other than design. In short, the probability that life could have come into existence by chance is miniscule, not unlike the probability that a tornado passing through a scrap yard would assemble a fully functional Boeing 747. The argument claims that the arrangement of living organisms is too complex to have been the product of chance, but -- like Paley’s watch -- instead betrays the work of a designer. Therefore, the existence of life would be almost inexplicable without the existence of a God.

There are numerous errors here, not least the remarkable leap from the existence of a designer to the existence of a God, never mind the God of Abraham. The equivocation is all too obvious. However, even if this assumption is granted then the existence of life need not be as improbable as the argument suggests. The process of mutation and selection radically increases the chance that complex life might emerge, and it is curious to happen upon the argument from design in a post-Darwin world*, especially given the sheer enormity of the universe.

In an ironic twist, this argument has been turned on its head by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and employed to argue that the existence of God is improbable. There is a dramatic quality which may not be unintentional. In short, God is a incredibly complex entity, more so than any organism that has ever existed, and so the probability that God would come into existence except by design is miniscule (and God did not evolve), even smaller than the probability that a tornado passing through a scrap yard would assemble a fully functional Boeing 747. Therefore, the existence of God is improbable.

There are three flaws to this argument to be offered here. First, for the majority of theists God is assumed to have existed before laying down the laws from which it would follow that some event or other is probable or improbable. In other words, the probability that a complex entity might come into existence is a function of the laws which govern the universe, but since God is the definer, creator, and mover of those laws the same probability estimates need not apply to God himself, no more than the laws of gravity or electromagnetism.

Second, there seems to be some confusion on the part of some authors about how rational argument is conducted. The argument is often presented like an attempt to catch theists in an error of reasoning. In short, if a theist employs the premise: 'the probability of complex life emerging without a designer is miniscule', then they are expected to actually believe that it is true and accept its consequences. The error here is in the assumption that a person must believe the premises which he employs in a critical argument, when he need not. In fact, critical arguments are characterised by having contradictory premises i.e. taking one or more propositions -- perhaps the beliefs of an opponent in debate -- and demonstrating them to be inconsistent**.

Third, even if the existence of God is improbable in the sense explained above, that does not mean that God does not exist. For example, consider the proverbial tornado that swept through a scrap yard to leave in its wake a fully functional Boeing 747. The apparent improbability of this event arises in absence of any initial conditions, and the improbability may decrease as we begin to specify the shape and content of the scrap yard and tornado. There could even be some configuration from which it is all but inevitable that Boeing 747 is constructed, and the alternative configurations may be inconsistent with the evidence. In other words, the abstract probability that God exists is irrelevant to someone who believes that the world is such that such an improbable event actually occurred, as they irregularly do.

For truth-seekers an improbable truth is always preferable to a probable falsehood.

To be continued...

* Take the following string of ten numbers between zero and ten.

6379100581​

The probability of obtaining this string from a random set of ten numbers between zero and ten is 1/100,000,000,000. However, if we introduce a selection procedure which preserves matches from one guess to the next, then the chance that we will get a match in fewer attempts is more likely. In fact, since there is a 1/10 probability of guessing the first number correctly and there are ten numbers, we might expect to get at least one match on the first guess.

7492025489
6379100581​

Here the ninth number in each string matches and is now locked. The probability of obtaining matching strings from the next guess is 1/10,000,000,000. That is still very unlikely, but since there is a 1/10 probability of guessing the first number correctly and there are nine numbers, we might expect to get at least one more match after the next two guesses.

7395633480
6379100581​

Here the second number in each string matches and is now locked. The probability of obtaining matching strings from the next guess has now been eroded to 1/1,000,000,000. That is once more very unlikely, but perhaps the it is now clear what this process achieves: a radical increase in the probability of matching the two strings. There simply needs to be some procedure by which mutations can arise (random guesses) and adaptive mutations can be retained (correct matches). However, the illustration presented here should not be taken as a description of precisely how evolution by natural selection occurs.

** The fallacy of the fallacy of the stolen concept, perhaps.

 

[Mole]

Civilization and Religion

There is an often repeated claim that the existence of God is improbable. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and criticise this claim. The view to be presented here is that the claim is nonsense. However, this should not be taken to imply that the existence of God is probable, as that would also be nonsense, something that will hopefully become clear. There are two arguments associated with the claim that the existence of God is improbable and a common error between the two regarding the use of probability, each to be addressed separately.

The first argument takes its inspiration from an old argument against any theory that life originated by something other than design. In short, the probability that life could have come into existence by chance is miniscule, not unlike the probability that a tornado passing through a scrap yard would assemble a fully functional Boeing 747. The argument claims that the arrangement of living organisms is too complex to have been the product of chance, but -- like Paley’s watch -- instead betrays the work of a designer. Therefore, the existence of life would be almost inexplicable without the existence of a God.

There are numerous errors here, not least the remarkable leap from the existence of a designer to the existence of a God, never mind the God of Abraham. The equivocation is all too obvious. However, even if this assumption is granted then the existence of life need not be as improbable as the argument suggests. The process of mutation and selection radically increases the chance that complex life might emerge, and it is curious to happen upon the argument from design in a post-Darwin world*, especially given the sheer enormity of the universe.

In an ironic twist, this argument has been turned on its head by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and employed to argue that the existence of God is improbable. There is a dramatic quality which may not be unintentional. In short, God is a incredibly complex entity, more so than any organism that has ever existed, and so the probability that God would come into existence except by design is miniscule (and God did not evolve), even smaller than the probability that a tornado passing through a scrap yard would assemble a fully functional Boeing 747. Therefore, the existence of God is improbable.

There are three flaws to this argument to be offered here. First, for the majority of theists God is assumed to have existed before laying down the laws from which it would follow that some event or other is probable or improbable. In other words, the probability that a complex entity might come into existence is a function of the laws which govern the universe, but since God is the definer, creator, and mover of those laws the same probability estimates need not apply to God himself, no more than the laws of gravity or electromagnetism.

Second, there seems to be some confusion on the part of some authors about how rational argument is conducted. The argument is often presented like an attempt to catch theists in an error of reasoning. In short, if a theist employs the premise: 'the probability of complex life emerging without a designer is miniscule', then they are expected to actually believe that it is true and accept its consequences. The error here is in the assumption that a person must believe the premises which he employs in a critical argument, when he need not. In fact, critical arguments are characterised by having contradictory premises i.e. taking one or more propositions -- perhaps the beliefs of an opponent in debate -- and demonstrating them to be inconsistent**.

Third, even if the existence of God is improbable in the sense explained above, that does not mean that God does not exist. For example, consider the proverbial tornado that swept through a scrap yard to leave in its wake a fully functional Boeing 747. The apparent improbability of this event arises in absence of any initial conditions, and the improbability may decrease as we begin to specify the shape and content of the scrap yard and tornado. There could even be some configuration from which it is all but inevitable that Boeing 747 is constructed, and the alternative configurations may be inconsistent with the evidence. In other words, the abstract probability that God exists is irrelevant to someone who believes that the world is such that such an improbable event actually occurred, as they irregularly do.

For truth-seekers an improbable truth is always preferable to a probable falsehood.

To be continued...

* Take the following string of ten numbers between zero and ten.

6379100581​

The probability of obtaining this string from a random set of ten numbers between zero and ten is 1/100,000,000,000. However, if we introduce a selection procedure which preserves matches from one guess to the next, then the chance that we will get a match in fewer attempts is more likely. In fact, since there is a 1/10 probability of guessing the first number correctly and there are ten numbers, we might expect to get at least one match on the first guess.

7492025489
6379100581​

Here the ninth number in each string matches and is now locked. The probability of obtaining matching strings from the next guess is 1/10,000,000,000. That is still very unlikely, but since there is a 1/10 probability of guessing the first number correctly and there are nine numbers, we might expect to get at least one more match after the next two guesses.

7395633480
6379100581​

Here the second number in each string matches and is now locked. The probability of obtaining matching strings from the next guess has now been eroded to 1/1,000,000,000. That is once more very unlikely, but perhaps the it is now clear what this process achieves: a radical increase in the probability of matching the two strings. There simply needs to be some procedure by which mutations can arise (random guesses) and adaptive mutations can be retained (correct matches). However, the illustration presented here should not be taken as a description of precisely how evolution by natural selection occurs.

** The fallacy of the fallacy of the stolen concept, perhaps.

I am predisposed towards you simple because of your name, "Reason".

On the assumption, perhaps mistaken, that at your front door stands the Goddess of Reason, called, "The Statue of Liberty".

And you are quite right - just because a watch has a watch-maker doesn't mean the Universe has a Universe-Maker.

Also you and I are able to create complexity on our computers with the iteration of a few simple rules - complexity that transcends these simple rules and can't be explained by them. And indeed a complexity that can't be reverse engineered.

So I presume complexity itself doesn't establish the probability of the existence of God.

So I agree with you that the probability or the improbability of the existence of God can't be established.

So that leaves us with a very interesting question. Why has there never been a civilization not based on a religion?

 

[Oberon]

Also you and I are able to create complexity on our computers with the iteration of a few simple rules - complexity that transcends these simple rules and can't be explained by them. And indeed a complexity that can't be reverse engineered.

So I presume complexity itself doesn't establish the probability of the existence of God.

I'm afraid I must further muddy the waters by pointing out that the complexity you create on your computer is the work of an intelligent agent, specifically you.

Sorry.

 

[Mole]

I'm afraid I must further muddy the waters by pointing out that the complexity you create on your computer is the work of an intelligent agent, specifically you.

Sorry.

I would like to agree with you but if that is the case, I am a peculiar intelligent agent. For all I create is few simple iterative rules. The result is beyond my understanding.

I can see what the result does but I can't reproduce it.

In fact it is the iteration a few simple rules that makes the complexity.

So you might say God created a few simple iterative rules and the result is us.

But you would also have to say that God doesn't understand how we got here. And nor could he reproduce us.

This might be the case but it would mean God is not all-knowing or omnipotent.

So if I am a peculiar intelligent agent, then so is God.

But you won't worship me, so why God?

 

[Oberon]

I was just addressing the presence of an intelligent agent, Victor. The analogy isn't perfect; you didn't create the computer or program the OS, either. Nevertheless, it's also true that neither the environment in which your simple iterative rules operate nor the rules themselves are by any means the result of random chance.

 

[Mole]

I was just addressing the presence of an intelligent agent, Victor. The analogy isn't perfect; you didn't create the computer or program the OS, either. Nevertheless, it's also true that neither the environment in which your simple iterative rules operate nor the rules themselves are by any means the result of random chance.

Sure, Oberon, and it is rules that iterate.

And the result is not random. The result is selected.

But the result is independent of the rules, in the same way your brain is independent of your DNA.

We can't predict your brain from your DNA. Nor can we discover your DNA by studying your brain. Your brain transcends your DNA.

In the same way we can't predict a God by studying evolution, nor could we arrive at evolution by studying God.

God or gods have been studied for 200,000 years without predicting evolution.

And of course evolution, which may be the iteration of simple rules, does not predict God.

It was once thought that the study of nature would tell us about the nature of God. But all the study of nature tells us about is nature.

In fact the more we learn, the more we find the supernatural is natural.

And so the end point is the demise of God.

So perhaps God is dead. Or at least sleeping like the dead parrot.

 

[Oberon]

Now, Victor, if you're going to reason your way to the death of God, you'll have to do a better job than that. You'll have to show your work.

You write "In fact the more we learn, the more we find the supernatural is natural." The way I see it, the more we learn, the more we come to understand how little we really know. How often is it that a successful experiment in particle physics (for example) answers one question, but raises three others?

Let us draw a circle describing the set of human knowledge, and say that everything outside of the circle is the set of things we don't know. The circle is expanding... but no matter how large the circle gets, the essence of the arrangement does not change. It has not ever done so, not since the first human taught himself that prying at things with a stick was easier than using his bare hands.

 

[Mole]

Now, Victor, if you're going to reason your way to the death of God, you'll have to do a better job than that. You'll have to show your work.

You write "In fact the more we learn, the more we find the supernatural is natural." The way I see it, the more we learn, the more we come to understand how little we really know. How often is it that a successful experiment in particle physics (for example) answers one question, but raises three others?

Let us draw a circle describing the set of human knowledge, and say that everything outside of the circle is the set of things we don't know. The circle is expanding... but no matter how large the circle gets, the essence of the arrangement does not change. It has not ever done so, not since the first human taught himself that prying at things with a stick was easier than using his bare hands.

Sure Oberon, my mathes teacher always told me to show my work. But I would always answer, "What does it matter if my answer is correct?".

And he would fail me - just like you.

And this is the nature of enquiry - the more we get to know, the more interesting questions we get to ask.

And all I can do is to quote your former Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, who spoke of the things we don't know, and the things we know, we don't know and the things we don't know, we don't know.

And it is there I rest my defence.

 

[nolla]

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

But, yeah, I'd like to discuss about this but I want you to define god in some way. You are talking about the Christian god right? I think it would be a lot more interesting to define god as something not so ... human-like. There would be better chance for it's existence also. It does not have to be an "incredibly complex entity", it can be something a whole lot simpler. Like, some universal plan or something. There we will be in trouble telling apart god and nature, though.. I dont know. How would you define god in some less ridiculous terms than the Christians?

 

[Mole]

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

But, yeah, I'd like to discuss about this but I want you to define god in some way. You are talking about the Christian god right? I think it would be a lot more interesting to define god as something not so ... human-like. There would be better chance for it's existence also. It does not have to be an "incredibly complex entity", it can be something a whole lot simpler. Like, some universal plan or something. There we will be in trouble telling apart god and nature, though.. I dont know. How would you define god in some less ridiculous terms than the Christians?

How about Gaia?

 

[redacted]

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.