Why I am agnostic rather than atheist.

[Eukaryote]

I agree that his position in this scenario is rather absurd, but if we approach probability as a measure of uncertainty his reasoning isn't that far off.

These are the words I've been searching for!

 

[Truronian]

The there' a 50% chance of God existing argument is one I didn't expect to see around these parts again.

I assigned their probabilities to be 50/50 because it maintains the fact that their probabilities are equal. In actuality, the probability of any first cause, conscience or not, is zero. All first causes violate causality and therefore are impossible. Therefore the existence of the entire cosmos/multiverse is impossible. Due to the fact that the odds of a conscience first cause is zero, and the odds of a non-conscience first cause are zero, if I must assign them probabilities under the knowledge that one of them happened, I assign the probabilities to be 50/50 in order to maintain equality between them.

While it has not been proven (nor can it be) cause and effect does certainly seem to apply to all the various things that happen in our universe. There is however no reason to believe that causality also applies to or outside our universe. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't; but you certainly can't proclaim impossibilities like you have done. We simply don't know.

Putting that to one side: your probability reasoning is flawed. If you've got two mutually exclusive events whose probabilities do not add to one, then you've made a mistake in your reasoning somewhere along the line. You can't just ignore all that and declare 'two events, ergo 50:50'.

Spoiler :

[This is the major thing that's wrong with your reasoning, but the maths teacher couldn't let it go.] Two mutually exclusive events does not automatically mean 50:50.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[Lord_Iggy]

You are either a duck or not a duck. Thus, there is a 50% probability that you are a duck. That is the primary flaw in the probability reasoning.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Think of it as a sealed box with 20 black and red marbles. I don't know the number of each type of marble, but there is an answer- it's just not possible for me to know the answer. However, that does not make it correct to arbitrarily declare that there are 10 black and 10 red.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[timtofly]

Think of it as a sealed box containing one marble. You know that the colour is black or red. And you know nothing else.

Then what is the probability of it being red?

100%. It cannot be both colors. There is also the 100% probablilty it is black, you just have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. That is why athiest believe it unfair to make them choose. Agnostics could care less, they know the marble does not exist. IMO saying that it is impossible to guess does not fit either. One can guess and be wrong, or one can know the answer and be right. One can even guess and be right. There are even some who know the answer and choose to be wrong.

 

[Zelig]

100%. It cannot be both colors. There is also the 100% probablilty it is black, you just have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. That is why athiest believe it unfair to make them choose. Agnostics could care less, they know the marble does not exist. IMO saying that it is impossible to guess does not fit either. One can guess and be wrong, or one can know the answer and be right. One can even guess and be right. There are even some who know the answer and choose to be wrong.

This is wrong, uncertainty and randomness are no different in practice.

You are either a duck or not a duck. Thus, there is a 50% probability that you are a duck. That is the primary flaw in the probability reasoning.

This is the correct answer.

 

[Old Hippy]

But the least confident you could be by this metric is 50%.

if you ignore the chance of the coin landing on its side....

 

[duckstab]

Putting that to one side: your probability reasoning is flawed. If you've got two mutually exclusive events whose probabilities do not add to one, then you've made a mistake in your reasoning somewhere along the line. You can't just ignore all that and declare 'two events, ergo 50:50'.

Exactly. If a non-conscious first cause is impossible, its probability is 0%. If a conscious first cause (i.e. God) is also impossible, Its probability is also 0%. What's left? The probability that there is no first cause of either kind, which by subtraction of the other two possibilities, is 100%.

If we accept the premise that no effect can occur without a cause, then the only conclusion that logically follows is that the cosmos has always existed in some form. The only problem the OP seems to have with this conclusion is that he can't fathom how it could actually be so. Frankly, I have a hard time grasping it myself. But one's inability to grasp a conclusion doesn't affect its validity.

Most people have a hard time finding a flaw in Zeno's reasoning that an arrow can never reach its target, but the fact that arrows regularly do so provide all the foundation needed to assert that there is one.

 

[Souron]

if you ignore the chance of the coin landing on its side....

Well there is the law of the excluded middle. . .

 

[Global Skeptic]

Exactly. If a non-conscious first cause is impossible, its probability is 0%. If a conscious first cause (i.e. God) is also impossible, Its probability is also 0%. What's left? The probability that there is no first cause of either kind, which by subtraction of the other two possibilities, is 100%.

If we accept the premise that no effect can occur without a cause, then the only conclusion that logically follows is that the cosmos has always existed in some form. The only problem the OP seems to have with this conclusion is that he can't fathom how it could actually be so. Frankly, I have a hard time grasping it myself. But one's inability to grasp a conclusion doesn't affect its validity.

Most people have a hard time finding a flaw in Zeno's reasoning that an arrow can never reach its target, but the fact that arrows regularly do so provide all the foundation needed to assert that there is one.

What about sound?

 

[Old Hippy]

Well there is the law of the excluded middle. . .

wow... is it the same one that says every so often in CFCOT someone forces you to go and learn something on google... thanks

 

[Truronian]

Think of it as a sealed box containing one marble. You know that the colour is black or red. And you know nothing else.

Then what is the probability of it being red?

That probability cannot be determined; there's insufficient information.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't understand this reasoning at all.

Given that he has no other information, there is no reason for him not to assign a 50:50 split.

No information means not being able to define a split. 50/50 isn't default or a starting position you adjust as information comes available you know.

Think of it as a sealed box containing one marble. You know that the colour is black or red. And you know nothing else.

Then what is the probability of it being red?

50%. But saying: think of it as, does not make it so. We're talking about existence of something.

Do you believe the probability I am the president of the United States is 50% (either I am, or I'm not)? Do you believe the probability I am a programmer is 50% (either I am, or I'm not)?

I don't think so. I think you'll assess the probability I am a programmer higher than the president option. Even though you are technically agnostic on both questions.

 

[Leoreth]

If you don't know anything else about a system, it is indeed not unusual to assign equal probabilities to all available outcomes.

The mistake is to conclude that these probabilities actually say something about this system except that we don't know anything about it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you don't know anything else about a system, it is indeed not unusual to assign equal probabilities to all available outcomes.

The mistake is to conclude that these probabilities actually say something about this system except that we don't know anything about it.

Isn't that self-defeating?

 

[Leoreth]

In most practical scenarios, yes. But math isn't all about practical scenarios

 

[anandus]

I'd call myself an agnost instead of an atheist as well.

Although I fervently believe there is no God and everything points to the fact that there is no god or gods, I can't dismiss it fully.
It can not be disproven, therefore logic dictates there is always a remote possibility, even if it's ever so slight, and therefore I can not fully conclude that there's no chance of the existence of there being a god (or gods).

And indeed, according to this line of thought there's also a remote possibility of Santa and the Easter Bunny being real.