| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Richo" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2007 06:09:41 PM |
| Object: |
Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
I am currently reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and I find
myself agreeing with most of what he is saying.
In chapter 4 - he talks about "Why there is almost certainly no God"
and he relies on his speciality - Darwinian natural selection.
In some ways this is the section that I am least comfortable with and
I will try and explain why.
The basic idea of design vs natural selection is this:
On the face of it the complexity of living entities seems improbable.
Two ways of explaining this complexity are that it was designed or
that it emerged by natural selection.
Natural selection wins because it *explains* how improbable complexity
can emerge from simple rules and many baby steps each of reasonable
probability.
The "design" explanation doesn't really explain anything - it just
deepens the mystery and pushes it further from our grasp.
All well and good and perfectly reasonable. Dawkins could (and should)
have stopped there.
Now the bit I have trouble with:
Dawkins says that the designer is itself highly improbable.
(The ultimate 747 - after talk of a 747 self assembling in a
hurricane...)
What can I possibly have a problem with here?
Probability and statistics refer to frequency - how often x happens
given y opportunities.
The Probability that a protein just falls together from its component
atoms for example can be calculated - its a strawman argument against
natural selection of course - but in principle this pointless
calculation is possible and Fred Hoyle has done it.
The correct response to Fred Hoyle is not "That's not the probablity"
its "So what?".
He has calculated a probability of something that no one is arguing
for - natural selection is not chance.
But how many ways can I arrange x things in y spots IS a meaningful
probability calculation.
Similarly, in principle, if we know of 1 billion planets and 137 of
them have life on them then we can do a quick calculation on the
"probability of life arrising on a randomly chosen planet" - we can
then say its unlikey and put a number on it.
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Marshall" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
20 Feb 2007 09:04:17 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable? If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable. Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Steve M
PS sick of reading about strawmen !
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
20 Feb 2007 10:48:07 PM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
03 Mar 2007 12:18:50 PM |
|
|
On 20 Feb 2007 20:48:07 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
It doesn't and cannot exist.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 10:30:52 AM |
|
|
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Would you consider "god" to be a life form? As in, a member of a
species? Even if it's the only one, I don't see what else it could be.
Just as other species have certain traits, this one is supposed to be
immortal, invisible, telekinetic, telepathic, a fire starter,
omniscient, omnipresent, a shape shifter, dwells in a land that is
similarly invisiblt (etc), and have all manner of other
characteristics that no life form we've seen possess. Supernatural
traits. It can even violate the laws of physics. And this creature is
supposed to have existed BEFORE the creation of the universe, let
alone billions of years before life began to form? It is supposed to
exist, despite there being no evidence for it's existence, nor any
evidence for the supernatural traits it is said to possess?
I'd say god's existence is not improbable, it is impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 05:43:51 PM |
|
|
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And we know something about the universe.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Would you consider "god" to be a life form?
Tricky - if its life its not as we know it.
As in, a member of a
species? Even if it's the only one, I don't see what else it could be.
Just as other species have certain traits, this one is supposed to be
immortal, invisible, telekinetic, telepathic, a fire starter,
omniscient, omnipresent, a shape shifter, dwells in a land that is
similarly invisiblt (etc), and have all manner of other
characteristics that no life form we've seen possess. Supernatural
traits. It can even violate the laws of physics. And this creature is
supposed to have existed BEFORE the creation of the universe, let
alone billions of years before life began to form? It is supposed to
exist, despite there being no evidence for it's existence, nor any
evidence for the supernatural traits it is said to possess?
I'd say god's existence is not improbable, it is impossible.
Either God exists or its impossible.
I believe its impossible - I cant prove it - but I am quite relaxed
about that.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
03 Mar 2007 12:58:44 PM |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2007 15:43:51 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
Rank Superstition, yes.
8-)
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And so many theists can't handle that fact.
And we know something about the universe.
Namely that it exists and demonstratably so.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Would you consider "god" to be a life form?
Tricky - if its life its not as we know it.
With fiction anything is possible.
As in, a member of a
species? Even if it's the only one, I don't see what else it could be.
Just as other species have certain traits, this one is supposed to be
immortal, invisible, telekinetic, telepathic, a fire starter,
omniscient, omnipresent, a shape shifter, dwells in a land that is
similarly invisiblt (etc), and have all manner of other
characteristics that no life form we've seen possess. Supernatural
traits. It can even violate the laws of physics. And this creature is
supposed to have existed BEFORE the creation of the universe, let
alone billions of years before life began to form? It is supposed to
exist, despite there being no evidence for it's existence, nor any
evidence for the supernatural traits it is said to possess?
I'd say god's existence is not improbable, it is impossible.
Either God exists or its impossible.
It doesn't exist nor can it.
I believe its impossible - I cant prove it - but I am quite relaxed
about that.
You can via myraid paths.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 05:59:31 PM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 3:43 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
Special pleading. Theology does not get a free pass as far as I'm
concerned.
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And we know something about the universe.
I don't allow that god "just exists" and I don't think the universe
exists without cause.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Would you consider "god" to be a life form?
Tricky - if its life its not as we know it.
Would a theist say that god isn't alive?
As in, a member of a
species? Even if it's the only one, I don't see what else it could be.
Just as other species have certain traits, this one is supposed to be
immortal, invisible, telekinetic, telepathic, a fire starter,
omniscient, omnipresent, a shape shifter, dwells in a land that is
similarly invisible (etc), and have all manner of other
characteristics that no life form we've seen possess. Supernatural
traits. It can even violate the laws of physics. And this creature is
supposed to have existed BEFORE the creation of the universe, let
alone billions of years before life began to form? It is supposed to
exist, despite there being no evidence for it's existence, nor any
evidence for the supernatural traits it is said to possess?
I'd say god's existence is not improbable, it is impossible.
Either God exists or its impossible.
I believe its impossible - I cant prove it - but I am quite relaxed
about that.
Since nothing can violate the laws of physics except the imagination,
I think that's proof enough that god is a product of the imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
03 Mar 2007 01:02:13 PM |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2007 15:59:31 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Feb 21, 3:43 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
Special pleading. Theology does not get a free pass as far as I'm
concerned.
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And we know something about the universe.
I don't allow that god "just exists" and I don't think the universe
exists without cause.
'Cause' such as? Don't forget physics breaks down at some 10 -47
seconds *after* some *event*.
Natural
selection by comparison isn't such a long shot. We have evidence to support
it but they still say it is improbable - I mean, come on !
Yes I understand all that - I just dont know how to understand how
improbable "God existing" is.
Would you consider "god" to be a life form?
Tricky - if its life its not as we know it.
Would a theist say that god isn't alive?
Depends on the theist.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 06:57:11 PM |
|
|
On Feb 22, 10:59 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:43 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
Special pleading. Theology does not get a free pass as far as I'm
concerned.
I know what you are saying - but there are actually things that are :
(1) a matter of logic - not evidence
For example you cant have a married batchelor or a square circle - and
there is no evidence needed to know this.
So you dont need "evidence" for things which are logically necessary
- matters of pure reason.
(2) there must be things that are forever beyond evidence.
For example why is there anything in existence at all?
For example - physics comes up with a "Theory of everything" that
explains everything from x basic forces and y laws of symetry.
Why is existence that way and not another?
Unaswerable question that is forever beyond eveidence.
Now what happens is that people *mistakenly* think they have reached
the end of knowledge - but if the human race survives long enough and
progresses in science far enough eventually we will reach the limit
beyond which the answer is forever "just because".
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And we know something about the universe.
I don't allow that god "just exists" and I don't think the universe
exists without cause.
Ah! Then you havent quite understood the idea of infinite regress of
causes.
The universe is finite in time - you cannot go back infinitely in
time.
Eventually there is something that is causeless.
The causeless thing may be an infinite and eternal "metaverse" * in
which universes like ours pop into existence or it could be "God" or
it could just be that our Big Bang universe exists without cause.
It doesnt matter in a way what the ultimate state or being or whatever
is - but there has to be an end.
If you follow the chain of cause back far enough you get to something
which exists for no reason at all.
I know you dont want to believe it - nobody does - but logically there
is no alternative.
(That's the short version - the long version is ... longer.)
Cheers, Mark.
* The puported metaverse (the Cosmos that contains our "universe") is
a little like "God" it must be eternal, infinite and therfore
causeless.
Until the Big Bang we could think that our universe was eternal and
causeless - unfortunately the big bang makes this incorrect - but it
must be correct "ultimately" - just not locally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
26 Feb 2007 05:46:51 PM |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2007 16:57:11 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
On Feb 22, 10:59 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:43 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
Special pleading. Theology does not get a free pass as far as I'm
concerned.
I know what you are saying - but there are actually things that are :
(1) a matter of logic - not evidence
For example you cant have a married batchelor or a square circle - and
there is no evidence needed to know this.
So you dont need "evidence" for things which are logically necessary
- matters of pure reason.
(2) there must be things that are forever beyond evidence.
For example why is there anything in existence at all?
For example - physics comes up with a "Theory of everything" that
explains everything from x basic forces and y laws of symetry.
Why is existence that way and not another?
Unaswerable question that is forever beyond eveidence.
Now what happens is that people *mistakenly* think they have reached
the end of knowledge - but if the human race survives long enough and
progresses in science far enough eventually we will reach the limit
beyond which the answer is forever "just because".
The thing is if you allow that God "just exists" without cause then
you can just skip God and have the universe "just exist" without
cause.
And we know something about the universe.
I don't allow that god "just exists" and I don't think the universe
exists without cause.
Ah! Then you havent quite understood the idea of infinite regress of
causes.
The universe is finite in time - you cannot go back infinitely in
time.
Eventually there is something that is causeless.
The causeless thing may be an infinite and eternal "metaverse" * in
which universes like ours pop into existence or it could be "God" or
it could just be that our Big Bang universe exists without cause.
It doesnt matter in a way what the ultimate state or being or whatever
is - but there has to be an end.
If you follow the chain of cause back far enough you get to something
which exists for no reason at all.
I know you dont want to believe it - nobody does - but logically there
is no alternative.
(That's the short version - the long version is ... longer.)
That's utterly fascinating.
Any book suggestions covering the subject?
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
03 Mar 2007 01:03:40 PM |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2007 16:57:11 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Feb 22, 10:59 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:43 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:30 am, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think he is referring back the argument - is natural selection
improbable?
No it solves the improbability problem.
What seems improbable is complex life comming about spontaneously -
natural selection explains how.
If that is so then having some superfabulous being floating
around controlling everything would seem even more improbable.
God comming into existence might be improbable in some sense that I
dont quite understand - but no one is suggesting that God comes into
being.
I think theists are avoiding this issue. It's a legitimate question,
who created the creator? Some of them say it was always there, but
there is no evidence for that just as there is no evidence for this
god.
Evidence doesnt really come into it - this is theology!
8-)
Special pleading. Theology does not get a free pass as far as I'm
concerned.
I know what you are saying - but there are actually things that are :
(1) a matter of logic - not evidence
For example you cant have a married batchelor or a square circle - and
there is no evidence needed to know this.
So you dont need "evidence" for things which are logically necessary
- matters of pure reason.
(2) there must be things that are forever beyond evidence.
For example why is there anything in existence at all?
Not all questions are valid.
For example - physics comes up with a "Theory of everything" that
explains everything from x basic forces and y laws of symetry.
Why is existence that way and not another?
Unaswerable question that is forever beyond eveidence.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
22 Feb 2007 06:48:01 AM |
|
|
Richo <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
If you follow the chain of cause back far enough you get to something
which exists for no reason at all.
I know you dont want to believe it - nobody does - but logically there
is no alternative.
It's a lot easier for me to believe that the first cause wasn't
actually intelligent to begin with, just like I think it's easier to
believe that the very first forms of life on Earth weren't intelligent
to the degree that we are.
The idea that the first cause is some intelligent being who knows
everything there is to know is pure fantasy, imo. I could possibly
believe in some universe creator if that creator had to evolve and go
through a learning process itself, but the all-perfect all-knowing
creator idea is impossible for me to believe, and I don't think
there's a shred of evidence for such a being.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
20 Feb 2007 10:11:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1172016581.328919.132400@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au says...
....
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Why not? You can certainly calculate the probabilities for a
single event, such as a coin toss.
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I haven't read the book, but I have read a number of critiques on
the 'net. Dawkins does not attempt a direct calculation of the
probability of a designer. Rather, he argues that the idea of
natural selection has so much in it's favour that the probability
of it being correct is very high. Thus, the probability of a
designer must be quite low. And as you noted in your post, a
designer would need an explanation and without one is a useless
hypothesis. Natural selection is an adequate explanation for what
is observed because it works with complexity arising by natural
means.
Regards,
Josef
Everything that is beautiful and noble is the product of reason
and calculation.
-- Charles Baudelaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
20 Feb 2007 11:20:06 PM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 3:11 pm, Josef Balluch <josef.ball...@sympatico.can> wrote:
In article <1172016581.328919.132...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
m.richard...@utas.edu.au says...
...
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Why not? You can certainly calculate the probabilities for a
single event, such as a coin toss.
Sure - because you know that there is a space of two possible equally
likely outcomes and so the probability of heads is 1/2.
You can carry out the experiment 10000 times and count the number of
heads.
How many existences do we know of?
1
How many of these existences contains an eternal God?
Dont know.
So we no that the probability of an existence containing a God is
Dont know / 1.
Which is 0 or 1 or 42.
Then we examine "10000 totalities of existence" and count the number
which contain an eternal and infinite God.
Hmmmm - seems a difficult to me!
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I haven't read the book, but I have read a number of critiques on
the 'net. Dawkins does not attempt a direct calculation of the
probability of a designer.
True.
Rather, he argues that the idea of
natural selection has so much in it's favour that the probability
of it being correct is very high. Thus, the probability of a
designer must be quite low. And as you noted in your post, a
designer would need an explanation and without one is a useless
hypothesis. Natural selection is an adequate explanation for what
is observed because it works with complexity arising by natural
means.
Sure - what Dawkins seems to do is to then argue from analogy form his
triumph over design to then say
that God suffers from the problem of being improbable and complex.
I agree with the complexity part - but complexity is a problem for
life or perhaps the universe because life and (arguably) the universe
have come into existence somehow.
I dont see complexity as a problem for eternally existing things.
I dont see the concept of probability as applying to such things.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 09:25:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1172035205.968311.276400
@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Feb 21, 3:11 pm, Josef Balluch <josef.ball...@sympatico.can> wrote:
In article <1172016581.328919.132...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
m.richard...@utas.edu.au says...
....
Then we examine "10000 totalities of existence" and count the number
which contain an eternal and infinite God.
Hmmmm - seems a difficult to me!
Agreed. But Dawkins side-steps the problem, as I pointed out.
....
Rather, he argues that the idea of
natural selection has so much in it's favour that the probability
of it being correct is very high. Thus, the probability of a
designer must be quite low. And as you noted in your post, a
designer would need an explanation and without one is a useless
hypothesis. Natural selection is an adequate explanation for what
is observed because it works with complexity arising by natural
means.
Sure - what Dawkins seems to do is to then argue from analogy form his
triumph over design to then say
that God suffers from the problem of being improbable and complex.
I agree with the complexity part - but complexity is a problem for
life or perhaps the universe because life and (arguably) the universe
have come into existence somehow.
I dont see complexity as a problem for eternally existing things.
Granted, it need not be a problem for "eternally existing things",
but it IS a problem for the theist. :^D They cannot produce an
explanation for this complex thing, while natural selection CAN
produce an explanation for those complex biological things that
are observed to exist.
I dont see the concept of probability as applying to such things.
As an interesting aside, some theists do indeed think that the
concept applies. See for example:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1329
We can make a meaningful calculation of the probabilities for a
coin toss, but it isn't clear if we can make a meaningful
calculation for the probability that a statement is true
(Swinburne aside). What Dawkins does instead is to call upon our
common sense and experience that statements that have much solid
support are most often true. In this sense they are probably true.
Regards,
Josef
No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience.
-- John Locke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
03 Mar 2007 12:17:20 PM |
|
|
On 20 Feb 2007 16:09:41 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
in alt.atheism
I am currently reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and I find
myself agreeing with most of what he is saying.
In chapter 4 - he talks about "Why there is almost certainly no God"
and he relies on his speciality - Darwinian natural selection.
[]
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What's a g-o-d? Until that is solved there's nothing to look for or
examine.
What do you tink?
Cheers, Mark.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 04:27:04 AM |
|
|
On 21 Feb, 00:09, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
I am currently reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and I find
myself agreeing with most of what he is saying.
In chapter 4 - he talks about "Why there is almost certainly no God"
and he relies on his speciality - Darwinian natural selection.
In some ways this is the section that I am least comfortable with and
I will try and explain why.
The basic idea of design vs natural selection is this:
On the face of it the complexity of living entities seems improbable.
To me, it doesn't seem improbable at all, because "complexity" is an
entirely human construct. Why is it "more improbable" that life
emerges in a particular way than in another? Or, to put it another
way, the probability of life emerging as it has is irrelevant, because
it's a measure for which we can have no relative context. In fact, by
necessity, the probability of life emerging as it has is 1. The facts
that we as humans find it difficult to understand that; that we cannot
reproduce it; and that we have not (as yet) found any examples of life
emerging elsewhere in our universe, have no bearing on its liklihood
whatsoever. What we *do* know is that natural selection as a theory
explains very well the way in which life as we see now it has
emerged. But it says nothing about the actual origin of life.
<snip>
Now the bit I have trouble with:
Dawkins says that the designer is itself highly improbable.
Indeed. It is improbable because there is no evidence that would
support it's existence, whereas there is plenty for natural selection.
(The ultimate 747 - after talk of a 747 self assembling in a
hurricane...)
What can I possibly have a problem with here?
Probability and statistics refer to frequency - how often x happens
given y opportunities.
The Probability that a protein just falls together from its component
atoms for example can be calculated
I would disagree that this is so, in any meaningful way. We simply
don't have enough information about the early state of earth to make
reasonably accurate assessments of this.
- its a strawman argument against
natural selection of course - but in principle this pointless
calculation is possible and Fred Hoyle has done it.
The correct response to Fred Hoyle is not "That's not the probablity"
its "So what?".
He has calculated a probability of something that no one is arguing
for - natural selection is not chance.
Agreed. But natural selection has nothing to say about the origin of
life. We must be careful not to conflate this, as creationists would
like us to do, simply because we don't have enough knowledge of the
chemistry of life, as yet, and thus can't make the sort strong
statements about it that we *can* make about natural selection.
But how many ways can I arrange x things in y spots IS a meaningful
probability calculation.
Similarly, in principle, if we know of 1 billion planets and 137 of
them have life on them then we can do a quick calculation on the
"probability of life arrising on a randomly chosen planet" - we can
then say its unlikey and put a number on it.
Mmf. That may seem to be the case intuitively, but it's not an
accurate method of performing the calculation, because of those 1
billion planets, we first need to define "life", and then need to know
how many of the planets could potentially support it. We may well
find that in *every* case where a planet *could* support life, it
does, of course, but we may not.
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
So speaking of the (im) probability of Gods existence is both
meaningless AND a kind of Strawman argument.
What do you tink?
I think that the whole point of talking about the "probability" of a
god is to frame it in a way that theists will comprehend, because they
tend to dwell in the realms of wishful thinking, and what they
personally find plausible, as opposed to testable hypotheses. What I
mean is, we make the statement "If evolved complexity is improbable,
an creator god is, by definition, infinitely complex, and therefore
infinitely improbable" to appeal to their sensibilites, rather than
their atrophied rationality.
Incidentally, I don't tink, but according to Frank Zappa, ''Tink Walks
Amok'. :-)
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "flightlessvacuum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
20 Feb 2007 06:19:50 PM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 1:09 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
What do you tink?
Jesus, that flew right over my head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 12:08:11 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "flightlessvacuum"
<flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> bloodied us up with this:
On Feb 21, 1:09 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
What do you tink?
Jesus, that flew right over my head.
Get a copy of the book. Read it *slow* for comprehension. Dawkins is a
genius. He speaks like one, and he writes like one. I find myself re-
reading paragraphs three or four times before I understand what he is
getting at. The understanding is worth the wait.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "flightlessvacuum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 03:19:16 AM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
Get a copy of the book. Read it *slow* for comprehension. Dawkins is a
genius. He speaks like one, and he writes like one. I find myself re-
reading paragraphs three or four times before I understand what he is
getting at. The understanding is worth the wait.
What sort of IQ do you reckon Dawkins has roughly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 04:28:36 PM |
|
|
"flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1172049556.742279.131580@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
Get a copy of the book. Read it *slow* for comprehension. Dawkins
is a genius. He speaks like one, and he writes like one. I find
myself re- reading paragraphs three or four times before I understand
what he is getting at. The understanding is worth the wait.
What sort of IQ do you reckon Dawkins has roughly?
Gotta be about 180+.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Convicted by Earthquack
Plonked by Fester
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 05:32:57 PM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 10:28 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
"flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuums...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1172049556.742279.131580@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
Get a copy of the book. Read it *slow* for comprehension. Dawkins
is a genius. He speaks like one, and he writes like one. I find
myself re- reading paragraphs three or four times before I understand
what he is getting at. The understanding is worth the wait.
What sort of IQ do you reckon Dawkins has roughly?
Gotta be about 180+.
No idea, but the fact that he is a professor at Oxford (probably the
best university in the world, bar perhaps Cambridge) says quite a lot
really.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "flightlessvacuum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 05:00:45 PM |
|
|
On Feb 22, 11:28 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
What sort of IQ do you reckon Dawkins has roughly?
Gotta be about 180+.
Jolly smart man then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 12:05:01 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> bloodied us
up with this:
What do you tink?
Same as RD, mostly. Keep in mind, he said "It only had to happen once".
And that it did.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
21 Feb 2007 04:19:59 AM |
|
|
On Feb 21, 5:05 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> bloodied us
up with this:
What do you tink?
Same as RD, mostly.
Yeah me too - I suppose I am just nit-picking here.
Keep in mind, he said "It only had to happen once".
And that it did.
Yeah - I suppose what I am trying to get at is that if
You are talking about a unique thing that didnt ever not exist then
its meaningless to speak of it being improbable.
- for an example that doesnt use the concept God.
Let us suppose there is only one universe and we are in it (no
multiverse - no branes colliding in 11 dimensions etc) and it had no
cause and came from no pre-existing state
THEN
this universe is unique, singular, causeless - it didnt "happen" it
simply is.
In that case - calling this universe "improbable" is as good as
calling it crunchy or delicious or clean shaven.
It lterally has no application.
Same for God - if it exists then it didnt "happen" - not even once -
it just is.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
22 Feb 2007 07:15:23 AM |
|
|
Richo <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in alt.atheism
Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> bloodied us up with this:
What do you tink?
Same as RD, mostly.
Yeah me too - I suppose I am just nit-picking here.
Keep in mind, he said "It only had to happen once".
And that it did.
Yeah - I suppose what I am trying to get at is that if
You are talking about a unique thing that didnt ever not exist then
its meaningless to speak of it being improbable.
- for an example that doesnt use the concept God.
Let us suppose there is only one universe and we are in it (no
multiverse - no branes colliding in 11 dimensions etc) and it had no
cause and came from no pre-existing state
THEN
this universe is unique, singular, causeless - it didnt "happen" it
simply is.
In that case - calling this universe "improbable" is as good as
calling it crunchy or delicious or clean shaven.
It lterally has no application.
Same for God - if it exists then it didnt "happen" - not even once -
it just is.
But even if such a god did exist, it doesn't mean that it created our
universe on purpose, or designed it, or cares about what happens to
it. It might have been an accident or a cosmic fart.
That's a far cry from some god who created mankind on purpose and
is interested in our sex lives and what kind of food we eat.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
23 Feb 2007 12:56:16 AM |
|
|
On Feb 23, 12:15 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in alt.atheism
Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> bloodied us up with this:
What do you tink?
Same as RD, mostly.
Yeah me too - I suppose I am just nit-picking here.
Keep in mind, he said "It only had to happen once".
And that it did.
Yeah - I suppose what I am trying to get at is that if
You are talking about a unique thing that didnt ever not exist then
its meaningless to speak of it being improbable.
- for an example that doesnt use the concept God.
Let us suppose there is only one universe and we are in it (no
multiverse - no branes colliding in 11 dimensions etc) and it had no
cause and came from no pre-existing state
THEN
this universe is unique, singular, causeless - it didnt "happen" it
simply is.
In that case - calling this universe "improbable" is as good as
calling it crunchy or delicious or clean shaven.
It lterally has no application.
Same for God - if it exists then it didnt "happen" - not even once -
it just is.
But even if such a god did exist, it doesn't mean that it created our
universe on purpose, or designed it, or cares about what happens to
it. It might have been an accident or a cosmic fart.
That's a far cry from some god who created mankind on purpose and
is interested in our sex lives and what kind of food we eat.
Absolutely.
Why an eternal singular "mind" would *do* anything I cannot imagine.
We do stuff because we are mortal and finite - we get hungry, horny,
scared and angry.
The God thing makes no sense on many levels - I just think this was a
weak spot in Dawkins book.
The very next chapter, on why there are religions, "The Roots of
religion" was excellent and I cant fault it.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
23 Feb 2007 02:15:33 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Of course you can. I haven't finished that chapter yet, but the fact
that something has already happened or hasn't happened, does not imply
that it can't have a probability. With enough data, we can definitely
make an informed opinion about its probability.
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
What you're saying is "If God exists, he exists. If he doesn't, he
doesn't." (a probability of 1 means "it is a fact that ...". A
probability of zero inversely means "the negation is a fact". I'm sure
you agree this is meaningless. Probability, OTOH, is meaningful,
although it may not be enough to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Let me illustrate with a standard deck of cards. Let's say we shuffle
the deck, draw a card and place it face down on the table. Now, the card
is either black or red. Exactly one of the statements "it is black" and
"it is red" is true, while the other one is false. However, the
probability of the card being black is still 0.5 (or 50%). It is
definitely not meaningless to talk about this probability. What *is*
meaningless is saying "if it's black, it's black".
Now to the data-part: if we look at five cards and see they're all
black, then we now know that the probability of the card on the table
being black is ca. 0.45. If we look at another five black cards, the
probability shrinks to 0.38. The actual colour does not influence the
probability until we actually know which one it is, either by looking at
it or by seeing that all the cards of the other colour are still in the
deck. The probability is very meaningful for a gambler making a bet.
Likewise, the fantastically low probability of Gods existence is
meaningful. It is as meaningful as the improbability of the celestial
teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, neither of which we allow to
influence our lives.
--
Alex
e-mail: Domain is iki dot fi. Local-part is alext.
local-part at domain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
23 Feb 2007 06:23:01 AM |
|
|
On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, Alex <check....@for.email.invalid> wrote:
Richo wrote:
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Of course you can. I haven't finished that chapter yet, but the fact
that something has already happened or hasn't happened, does not imply
that it can't have a probability. With enough data, we can definitely
make an informed opinion about its probability.
Yes but God cannot happen - he either *is* and always have been or he
isnt - how is the concept "probable" applicable to such a thing?
Also theists are not saying that God arose - they are not saying God
happened - they are saying He is.
If God exists then we have 1 God existing in 1 one totality of
existence - and the "probability" is 1.
If God doesnt exist its because he cannot - and the "probability" is
zero.
What you're saying is "If God exists, he exists. If he doesn't, he
doesn't." (a probability of 1 means "it is a fact that ...". A
probability of zero inversely means "the negation is a fact". I'm sure
you agree this is meaningless. Probability, OTOH, is meaningful,
although it may not be enough to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Probability is meaningful as a expression of frequency - you perform
(observe) x times and see something occurs y times - or you expect to
see something y times.
Let me illustrate with a standard deck of cards.
For a correct analogy have a deck of one card - the card is drawn - it
has always been drawn for an infinite time - you cannot undraw the
card - the card occupies all space and all time.
Now what is the probability that the card is the card?
Let's say we shuffle
the deck, draw a card and place it face down on the table. Now, the card
is either black or red. Exactly one of the statements "it is black" and
"it is red" is true, while the other one is false. However, the
probability of the card being black is still 0.5 (or 50%). It is
definitely not meaningless to talk about this probability. What *is*
meaningless is saying "if it's black, it's black".
Agreed.
Now to the data-part: if we look at five cards and see they're all
black, then we now know that the probability of the card on the table
being black is ca. 0.45. If we look at another five black cards, the
probability shrinks to 0.38. The actual colour does not influence the
probability until we actually know which one it is, either by looking at
it or by seeing that all the cards of the other colour are still in the
deck. The probability is very meaningful for a gambler making a bet.
All true - all irrelavent to considering the probability of singular
unique outcome with one trial.
(it may even be less than one trial - its hard to think about such
weird stuff)
Likewise, the fantastically low probability of Gods existence is
meaningful.
Not as I understand probability.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on The Improbability of God |
23 Feb 2007 01:58:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1172233381.529282.113820@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au says...
On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, Alex <check....@for.email.invalid> wrote:
Richo wrote:
How would Dawkins do this with God?
He cant.
You cannot meaningfully talk of the probability or improbability of a
unique thing or event.
Of course you can. I haven't finished that chapter yet, but the fact
that something has already happened or hasn't happened, does not imply
that it can't have a probability. With enough data, we can definitely
make an informed opinion about its probability.
Yes but God cannot happen - he either *is* and always have been or he
isnt - how is the concept "probable" applicable to such a thing?
In the classical view probability applies not to the thing, but to
our knowledge or certainty. The thing is or is not, but our
knowledge is tentative, or uncertain.
....
Probability is meaningful as a expression of frequency - you perform
(observe) x times and see something occurs y times - or you expect to
see something y times.
No, probability can be calculated correctly in advance, and even
in situations where the experiment is never carried out.
For a correct analogy have a deck of one card - the card is drawn - it
has always been drawn for an infinite time - you cannot undraw the
card - the card occupies all space and all time.
Now what is the probability that the card is the card?
Wrong question, Mark. We cannot see whether there is a card. What
we are trying to do is state the probability that the card exists.
....
Regards,
Josef
A problem is never as permanent as a solution.
-- Harvey Fierstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
