Is Talking About Probabilities Useful Here?

[PeterCarlington]

As an agnostic, I would say that there is less than a 5% chance that there is a God as described in the Bible.

On the other hand, I have a colleague who is 100% sure that Jesus is the son of God and that the Bible is fully accurate. I once asked him if he would concede that there is even a one-in-a-million chance that the God he believes in does not exist, and he said " No " God has directly revealed Himself to me. I am 100% sure.

For argument purposes, is it useful to talk in terms of percentages?
- How many Christians have this 100% certainty that their God exits? How many, if asked, would say there is an 80% chance, or a 60% chance? Can you be called a -true Christian if you say that there is anything less than a 100% chance?
- Does being an atheist mean that you assert that there is a 0% chance that the Christian God exists?
-Does being an agnostic mean that you put the chance as less than 100%, but more than 0%?
- I talk about a 5% chance that the Biblical God exists, but how sensible is that? Why not 3% or 27%?
- Is talking about percentages (or odds) useful in the debate about God?I

[Adamoriens]

As an agnostic, I would say that there is less than a 5% chance that there is a God as described in the Bible.

On the other hand, I have a colleague who is 100% sure that Jesus is the son of God and that the Bible is fully accurate. I once asked him if he would concede that there is even a one-in-a-million chance that the God he believes in does not exist, and he said " No " God has directly revealed Himself to me. I am 100% sure.

For argument purposes, is it useful to talk in terms of percentages?
- How many Christians have this 100% certainty that their God exits? How many, if asked, would say there is an 80% chance, or a 60% chance? Can you be called a -true Christian if you say that there is anything less than a 100% chance?
- Does being an atheist mean that you assert that there is a 0% chance that the Christian God exists?
-Does being an agnostic mean that you put the chance as less than 100%, but more than 0%?
- I talk about a 5% chance that the Biblical God exists, but how sensible is that? Why not 3% or 27%?
- Is talking about percentages (or odds) useful in the debate about God?I

You seem to be talking about epistemic probability, which is the probability of a proposition given the knowledge we do in fact have (and our certainty about that knowledge). While our probability estimates of the truth of any given proposition may be somewhat arbitrary, it is possible to systematically calculate the probability of a hypothesis given our state of knowledge. Bayes' theorem can do this for us, though it's an open question whether Bayes' theorem itself is coextensive with logic (objectivist) or simply pragmatism. I go with a more subjective explanationist approach when thinking about God, though Bayes' fun to use when working out hypothetical probabilities.

Both approaches have a few obstacles to overcome when it comes to philosophy of religion. The first one is what prior probability to assign to the concept of God, which will be a function of how well the sort of being like God fits into common sense ontology ie. is he simple or complex? Is he a material being? Is he a commonly-observed sort of thing? The other major obstacle is figuring out what the existence of God would deductively and inductively entail. Is the universe more likely to exist? Would he allow gratuitous evil? In some ways this is the worst of the two, since it's exacerbated by conflicting theological doctrines. If the character or motivations of God are beyond us, then any probability estimates are unjustified. On the other hand, we might have some but not all knowledge of what God would be like and what he would do, so we have to figure what we would and wouldn't expect of him; no easy task. Often, both of these views are taken by the same person at different times.

So it's not impossible to come to a considered (non-arbitrary) probability about God's existence, but pretty much everybody is awful at thinking coherently and consistently about it.

Atheist <0.5 that God exists. Theist >0.5. Agnostic=0.5 or N/A.

[McCulloch]

So it's not impossible to come to a considered (non-arbitrary) probability about God's existence, but pretty much everybody is awful at thinking coherently and consistently about it.

Atheist <0.5 that God exists. Theist >0.5. Agnostic=0.5 or N/A.

As they say, "Garbage in, garbage out." If it were possible to come to a non-arbitrary probability about God's existence, we would have done so by now. Unless you have access to some secret information I am not aware of, he probabilities you input into Baye's theorem are all arbitrary, thus whatever answer you get is arbitrary.

[Adamoriens]

As they say, "Garbage in, garbage out." If it were possible to come to a non-arbitrary probability about God's existence, we would have done so by now. Unless you have access to some secret information I am not aware of, the probabilities you input into Baye's theorem are all arbitrary, thus whatever answer you get is arbitrary.

Given some insight into what the existence of God might entail or make more probable, it wouldn't be impossible to designate a probability. Though the designation of any single probability would be arbitrary, the selection of a probability that falls into a range would not be. But this is why I prefer explanationist approaches, since they don't give the false impression of mathematical precision.