there seems to be 4/38 left over.

Actually, I'm rather like that. Nothing is absolute: it's all Probabilities and odds for me. Though ? In calculating the probability of this or that - including the existence of God - there are many other factors to include, beyond coin toss, or roulette probabilities. There's the evidence of the complexity of the universe ("argument from Design&quot and other stuff too, to consider.

Still, this seems interesting.

By the way? If you think God is 42% likely? That's a nice number. And it would mean you are not quite a full believer; but not quite an atheist either.

Nice way to think of things in fact, I'd hazard to say.

Isn't that an absolute?

Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Probabilistic theology!

AND either a professional statistician or a very serious gambler.

it is quite visible and the ball will hit in after a number of tries. There is no indication that God exists or that there is a probability he does.
It is more like asking the probability of hitting purple.
The answer to your question is no.

brown. You would need a blue space for purple.

For the sake of argument I could also have said yellow or white. The point is the same.

And that's spelled right.


--imm

Red and black do not. Second, if you insist on misunderstanding the example (or just being funny about it), then let's try this one. It's like throwing a ball into a roulette wheel of red and black marks and asking the probability of the ball landing on a square within that wheel which is neon yellow with psychedelic rainbow lettering swirling and blinking and flashing the words "I am god!" like an applause sign.

Likely you'd say the probability of anyone seeing that on the wheel exists only if the person is on drugs, mentally ill...or if there really is a god who can not only alter one of those squares into such a thing but make the ball land in it.

Do we understand now what an atheist is? An atheist says that the possibility of god does't exist on the wheel and, therefore, the probability is nil. Unless god does exist and provides factual evidence of his existence, in which case the probability goes to 100%. Until that happens, however, there is no probability of god. None. You might as well ask what the probability is of a ball in a roulette wheel landing on the back of a green flying elephant. Or anything else you'd care to imagine is on that roulette wheel which isn't.

Play poker; slot machines; spin the bottle. Then compare all the games, looking for master principles? Then leave all the games. And have an Elvis sandwich, with a half-ripe bananna. Then meet Wayne Newton's butler and ...

In fact, the universe is not just one game with only two colors (and a sly dealer/house advantage, that accounts for some funny odds?). So where do you define "the" boundary, and frame the game, to say the field in which we consider evidence stops?

To be sure, I'd have to agree there's an awful lot of evidence, against miracles especially. The vast preponderance of evidence in fact.

By the way? In florescent light (which shifts the light to the blue end of the spectrum), and with a few drinks, and no sleep for a few days? It can be rather purple. Though "maroon" might be a bit closer; and has great, relevant poetic resonances here too.

Can any of us say that we absolutely know the exact boundaries of "The Big Game"?

...the existence of god. The answer is no.

Let me try to get this across to you this way: if there are infinite universes, then there must be ones where gods like Huehuecoyotl and Roua exist. Do you now believe in them knowing that there's a probability of their existence? If not, why not? By your logic, you MUST believe in every god ever imagined--or that anyone can imagine--because there is a probability of their existence. Which means you must also believe in a lot of things you may not believe in, like devils, demons, and that universe where the evangelical god exists and sends homosexuals and unbaptized children to hell. Do you believe in that? And yet, that intolerant god must have a game table in the game room if every game exists there.

Your infinite probability theory means that you must believe in EVERYTHING--and if you don't, then you haven't the right to point out to an Atheist that they should believe in a god because there is a probability of it existing.

There may be infinite universes with infinite probabilities; atheists accept this as a scientific possibility. But not as scientific fact as no one has proved it. Until it is proven, atheists don't have to ascribe to any probability of there being any imaginary thing that you--or anyone else--can imagine.

...which means, the percentage of God's (with the capital "G&quot existence, by definition, has to be either 0% or 100%. There may be an infinite number of universes and the percentage of a "a god" existing in one can go up or down. Like a 43% chance of Thor existing in this one universe or a 33% chance of Apollo existing in another. But "God"--by the definition most people have as the creator of EVERYTHING--has to exist everywhere. Every universe, God created. Every universe, God exists in.

That is the definition of God.

Which means you've got a problem with your argument about the no-boundaries of the big game. If the big game is infinite, and every possibility exists somewhere, then there is a universe where there is no God. But God (with a capital "G&quot , by definition, has to exist everywhere.

That's the sort of interesting contradictions you get when you see the larger spectrum--not just that smallest and most limited area of light but radio waves and radiation as well

In The God Delusion chapter entitled 'The poverty of agnosticism', Richard Dawkins identifies two categories of agnostics(p. 47):

1) Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, or TAP, which denotes that there “is a truth out there and one day we hope to know it, though for the moment we don’t.”

2) Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, or PAP, for questions that can never be answered. Some people assign the question of God’s existence to PAP, which means that they “cannot say anything, one way or the other, about whether or not God exists” (p. 51). He, however, believes that “the God question is not in principle and forever outside the remit of science” (p. 71).

If your hypothetical person believes it's EXACTLY 42%, and is not willing to revise that number on further evidence, then he would be a PAP, which is the lamer of the two categories.

Lostpedia "The Numbers"
http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Numbers
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

The Answer to Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29

Many say you can see evidence for some kind of organizational power, structure, even intelligence in the universe; but is that evidence for specifically the Judeo-Christian God? Or is it another god?

Why isn't it, say, Zeus? Or Ahura Mazda? Or Posidon? Or Odin? Where's the evidence that it is specially, God?

Why isn't it the Great Pumpkin?

Revised version:
If we assume that you believe that the probability that there is at least one god is exactly 42%, then can we conclude that you are an atheist?

The question does change, but it seems that the original approach to answering it might work despite the change to the question.

If you believe that it is more likely to be false than true that there is at least one god, then in particular you lack belief in a god. After all, if 42% were enough, then 58% would be more than enough and, on the same grounds that somebody alleged that you believe in a god, we would have to conclude even more strongly that you believe there is no god.

It is not just possible but very probable to believe that it is 99% likely that a god exists and still be an absolute atheist. Theism is quite simply the belief that a god exists, not might exist or even probably exists, but the belief that one DOES exist. if you are assigning a probability to the idea that a god exists, that is anything but 100%, then you remain an atheist. Remember that belief does not equal knowledge.

interpretations of quantum mechanics also meaningless?

Suppose a superposition of universes, with worlds with religious experiences of loving-kindness, infinite mercy and dunno what available to all who want them; and experiences of fully materialistic and deterministic clock-work universes where 'materialistic eliminativism' truly applies? And lots of between states/realisations...

For example, suppose one believes in the following gods with probabilities according to the following table:
0.1 = jewish jehovah
0.1 = evangelical protestant god
0.1 = mainline protestant god
0.1 = catholic god
0.1 = orthodox god
0.1 = allah
0.1 = one or more of the hindu pantheon
0.1 = buddha etc
0.05 = japanese emperor
0.15 = others

Such a person would not be an atheist, but would probably be unwelcome by most religions.

Therefore, the critical theological question is not whether god exists, but what is the nature of god, and who speaks for him?

Atheists don't believe in God.

The belief that God has a 42/100 chance of existing is not a belief in God.

Therefore, the person in your scenario is an atheist.

Almost sertainly? You would be called an "agnostic."

Which has been, by they way, by far, the fastest-growing segment in the American population; by some estimates, now comprising 9% of the total population.

Agnostics do not dis-believe in God or gods; but they suggest that for all practical purposes, God would be so complex, that we can't really adequately know what he is like.

of religion, the fastest growing segment were believers that were unaffiliated with any specific religious institution.

I can try and find it, if you are interested.

FWIW, I don't think that contradicts your statement at all. If anything, it is totally consistent with it.

No need for LOTS of research here for the moment; the numbers are always shifting.

Either way? There's a certain restlessless and openness and questioning out there, it seems. And something less than total committment.

So a 42-percenter is rather in tune with a general trend, we might say.

By the way? Some here might have implied that "faith" is total: either you believe, or you don't. But amazingly enough, the BIble itself often implied that most "faith" was variable. The apostles for instance asked for "more" faith; implying they had less than 100%. Yet ... they were considered believers.

Even more interestingly? Regarding those who were less than 100%? The Bible did not condemn them. But told Christians this:

As for "those of weak faith? Welcome them"!

Wecome, 42 percenters!

IF you want to join.

"The fastest-growing religious category in the country is “none”: people who believe in God but don’t affiliate with any denomination."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/the-religion-and-politics-of-division/2012/02/22/gIQArmLVVR_story.html

I would wonder whether this represents a trend in how people describe themselves or a shift in how they behave.

The framing and then interpretation of statistical surveys, is infinitely complex. And not always disinterested. Consider this case.

There are two or three possible meanings for this category of "none"s: 1) those who are Christian, who believe, but have no particular church affiliation or denomination (Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, etc.) Or 2) those with some vague religious leanings ... but who not only do not claim any particular Christian denomination, but claim no particular religion - i.e. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Mithraism - at all. Or it might mean, to many respondents ,3) persons with no religion; none at all.

The survey MAY have tried to specify which; or may not have. Or may have specified ... but in fine print, that respondents ignored.

However? The general sense of the "none"s as they are now called? Is that they are at best vaguely religious; with no specific affiliation. And are very close to say ... agnostics.

By the way? There are many, many interested religious parties working successfully, to control PEW. And then to frame and interpret the PEW questionaires and data. I have not found PEW entirely reliable in the past. See readers' comments on PEW results on say church attendance, in journals like First Things.

When looking at stats in general? When listing to people allegedly proving things with numbers? Always remember a few famous, cautionary quotes: "Figures don't lie ... but liars can figure." Or remember Disraeli condemning, in order of awfulness: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Its hard to get any good statistics; PEW is only fair at best. But my sense of the state of religion in the US, from my viewpoint here on groundlevel, is that those of very weak or "no" religious affiliation ... are increasing. Rapidly.

Last figure I heard - was that about 10% of the US population would now be considered atheist (1%) or agnostic (9%).

Being an atheist is a binary position on whether one believes in a god or does NOT believe in a god.

Dealing with probabilities is in the realm of gnosticism, so your question is fundamentally flawed.