How to assign a probability to an unknown.

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will use Wikipedia as not as a primary source, but a reference to a source.
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.

Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.

My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.

So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:

• The act or cause of creation is not the same as the effect and we only have the effect. We are looking at the universe as the effect, not the cause.
• If God has chosen to speak differently, then we have no fixed reference point to determine, which God exists.

We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.

So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.

So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.

My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.

So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[night912]

I will use Wikipedia as not as a primary source, but a reference to a source.
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.

Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.

My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.

So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:

• The act or cause of creation is not the same as the effect and we only have the effect. We are looking at the universe as the effect, not the cause.
• If God has chosen to speak differently, then we have no fixed reference point to determine, which God exists.

We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.

So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.

So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.

My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.

So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?

Regards
Mikkel

Because Dawkins wasn't talking about the probability of the existence/nonexistence of a god, but the probability of the individual's belief of the existence/nonexistence of a god. On his scale, you are in the category of type 1.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I will use Wikipedia as not as a primary source, but a reference to a source.
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.

Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.

My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.

So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:

• The act or cause of creation is not the same as the effect and we only have the effect. We are looking at the universe as the effect, not the cause.
• If God has chosen to speak differently, then we have no fixed reference point to determine, which God exists.

We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.

So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.

So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.

My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.

So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?

Regards
Mikkel

Probability doesn't even apply to God.

N/A.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because Dawkins wasn't talking about the probability of the existence/nonexistence of a god, but the probability of the individual's belief of the existence/nonexistence of a god. On his scale, you are in the category of type 1.

But I don't know anything about God. Even if God exists. I accept that it could be that God doesn't exist, I can't say that I know that God exists.
So no, I don't fit type 1.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Probability doesn't even apply to God.

N/A.

What do you mean?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Koldo]

I will use Wikipedia as not as a primary source, but a reference to a source.
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

Note before I begin. I accept that you as human can believe as you believe when it comes to god/gods or indeed God/Gods including know that there is/are or isn't/aren't God/Gods. I further accept, if you claim, I really can't believe, as I do, in God, because I am doing it anyway.

Richard Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.

My question is this: How do you assign a probability to a theistic creator god/gods, if you can't know if that happened?
Note, it is not about deism, so it includes that the god/gods speak to humans.

So here it is: I will use God, but it could be Gods. If God created the universe, but speaks differently to different humans, then it becomes impossible to assign a probability.
How? Well, because there is no fix reference point to assign probability to in the following two senses:

• The act or cause of creation is not the same as the effect and we only have the effect. We are looking at the universe as the effect, not the cause.
• If God has chosen to speak differently, then we have no fixed reference point to determine, which God exists.

We have been here before. If by logic all human claims about God amounts to contradictions, it only tells us that human claims amounts to contradictions. It does tell us anything about God.

So I reject the idea that you can use probability on God.
Now in detail for how it breaks down in Dawkins' model is 4:
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." How would you know that? How would you know for an unknown, that it is exactly 50%.
I am an agnostic as to knowledge of God and thus I can't assign a probability on the existence of God, but I am 100% sure, that I believe in God.

So here is 2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
I mean the assumption of God being there is not a probability, it is an assumption of God existing, but I assign no probability to it. I believe with faith in God, but I wouldn't use science and probability on it.

My beef is that, Dawkins seemed to believe, he could use science on my beliefs. He can't, because my belief is not scientific and has not to do with probability. It has to do with faith.
So what about 1: Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
Well, that doesn't cut it either, since I am an agnostic. But as faith goes right now as I can't speak for the future, I am 100% certain of my faith in God.

So it appears, that Dawkins is not objective, because it appears, that he assumes something of God. That is possible to assign probabilities to God. I would like to know, how you think, he could know that?

Regards
Mikkel

I might be wrong but whenever you read probability in that scale I take it as 'certainty'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you mean?

Regards
Mikkel

Well at least one established point of reference has to be identified first to even begin the feasibility of calculating probability.

 

[night912]

But I don't know anything about God. Even if God exists. I accept that it could be that God doesn't exist, I can't say that I know that God exists.
So no, I don't fit type 1.

Regards
Mikkel

Yes, you do fit type 1. The reason that you are so confused right just shows that Dawkins out "Mikkeled" Mikkel with the word game.

Hint:
Know the reality of "objective" and "subjective" and you will know the reality of what Dawkins was saying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I might be wrong but whenever you read probability in that scale I take it as 'certainty'.

I have no certainty one way or the other when it comes to the existence of God. Not even 50/50. I am certain that I believe in God, that I am certain of.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you do fit type 1. The reason that you are so confused right just shows that Dawkins out "Mikkeled" Mikkel with the word game.

Hint:
Know the reality of "objective" and "subjective" and you will know the reality of what Dawkins was saying.

Okay, word games it is. I believe that is an invisible dragon in my garden, so I know that there is an invisible dragon in my garden. If you want to conflate believe and know in such a manner you can do it. I don't want to do that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is because of your bringing up and culture. We call it 'Samskaras' in Hinduism.

"In Indian philosophy and Indian religions, samskaras or sanskaras are mental impressions, recollections, or psychological imprints. In Hindu philosophies, samskaras are a basis for the development of karma theory. In Buddhism the Sanskrit term Samskara is used to describe 'formations'. In Pali it is referred to as 'Saṅkhāra'."
Samskara (Indian philosophy) - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is because of your bringing up and culture. We call it 'Samskaras' in Hinduism.

"In Indian philosophy and Indian religions, samskaras or sanskaras are mental impressions, recollections, or psychological imprints. In Hindu philosophies, samskaras are a basis for the development of karma theory. In Buddhism the Sanskrit term Samskara is used to describe 'formations'. In Pali it is referred to as 'Saṅkhāra'."
Samskara (Indian philosophy) - Wikipedia

Okay. We also have that in western tradition. We just use different words in part, but it ends the same place.
What is the point of your post?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[night912]

Okay, word games it is. I believe that is an invisible dragon in my garden, so I know that there is an invisible dragon in my garden. If you want to conflate believe and know in such a manner you can do it. I don't want to do that.

Do you know that you don't want to do that, or do you believe that you don't want to do that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That I am not surprised that you believe in God without having any rational reason to do that.
Abandoning God / Gods / Goddesses of one's culture is catharsis. I faced that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know that you don't want to do that, or do you believe that you don't want to do that?

It works that way for me.
We can play knowledge if you want to, but I am no fun there, since I am a philosophy skeptic. I use "know" as a specific set of beliefs, which work in a specific sense.

Regards
Mikkel

PS I can do - I know nothing and even don't know that. Great fun.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That I am not surprised that you believe in God without having any rational reason to do that.

Yes, it works for me psychologically and I am rational enough to admit that. I don't believe in rationality like you apparently do.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

I bring probability into it when we might discuss religious beliefs, that is, the probability of any of them being correct and not just human inventions (or correct and human inventions). I'm a bit agnostic as to the existence of any God-type being or creator, but mostly I'm a non-believer.

 

[PureX]

It does end up being mostly a semantic problem caused by the confusion inherent to the concept of knowledge, and of relative certainty. Example: how can certainty be anything less than 100% certain? Isn't certitude by definition the lack of doubt? So that our claims of "relative certainty" are basically a contradiction in terminology such that "probability" cannot include "relative certainty" or it becomes an incoherent proposition.

For a conversation about probability to make sense, we have to eliminate the whole idea of certainty from the set of ideas being considered. And if we eliminate certainty, what does our claiming to "know" something even mean? 'Knowledge' is really just strongly held opinion.

 

[night912]

It works that way for me.
We can play knowledge if you want to, but I am no fun there, since I am a philosophy skeptic. I use "know" as a specific set of beliefs, which work in a specific sense.

Regards
Mikkel

PS I can do - I know nothing and even don't know that. Great fun.

Do you know nothing and believe that you don't know that or do you believe that you know nothing and don't know that you believe that?

 

[night912]

PS I can do - I know nothing and even don't know that. Great fun.

That's why I'm here, to show that you know nothing and don't know that.