Concise Argument to Assign a Low Probability for the Existence of God

[MrLovingKindness]

In order to be logically consistent, I should assign the same probability of existence to those objects having the same evidence of support for their existence. On the assumption there is no evidence for the existence of god, I should assign the same very low probability of existence as I assign for leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, indeed everything I could possibly conceive of having no supporting evidence.

 

Thoughts?

[Triumph]

First unicorns are real.

 

Second there are two ways about going about the god probability, both of which will piss of the standard theist.  The first is as you say, come up with some sort of existence probability.  Which won't be much different from numbers calculated by theists for the moment life began, they use to argue against evolution. 

 

The second, a possibly better option, is to calculate the probability that challenges their particular version of god.  Cuz every religion is the correct religion and they can trace it back to the beginning of time.  And thus their blend of religion was somehow unchanged by time, language, and culture.  It would be a lot of work to do, but I think it would be far more valuable then existence probability.

 

That stated, I'm not sure either would be particularly useful.

[Kevin Beal]

You are perfectly within your right to dismiss people's gods entirely and without argument or counter evidence.

 

But if you do, I would personally shy away from arguments from probability. You can say the probability is infinitesimally small and it won't matter a teeny bit to believers. You might as well be saying their god does exist.

 

The only rational atheist position is the strong atheist position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1boMRKWDj1I

[RealP]

There can't be evidence of the existence of gods, that's the point of religion, otherwise it would be science.

[Infinite Limit]

You are perfectly within your right to dismiss people's gods entirely and without argument or counter evidence.But if you do, I would personally shy away from arguments from probability. You can say the probability is infinitesimally small and it won't matter a teeny bit to believers. You might as well be saying their god does exist.The only rational atheist position is the strong atheist position:

This so much. It's like attempting to assign a probability to the existence of square circles. Considering square circles are logically self-contradictory, you don't need to delve into mathematics to know the probability is 0 (i.e. impossible). In fact, the very act of arguing from probability gives the false impression that logically self-contradictory concepts are worth investigating beyond the first logical step. But there is another, far worse problem with using probability. If you use an argument from probability, as Kevin pointed out, you've already erroneously acknowledged the possibility of a god because probability analysis assumes internal consistency in whatever you're analyzing. Then you have to complete the (logically) insurmountable task of developing a valid framework for determining such a probability. Base rates (which most probability analysis depends on) for the existence of god cannot possibly be calculated because base rates are derived directly from observation.In other words, particularly with Bayesian probability analysis, the argument from probability allows the religious to pull numbers, equations, and base rates out of their asses to tip the scales in their favor because those numbers, base rates, and equations cannot be objective because they aren't falsifiable. Stephen Unwin attempted (unsuccessfully) to do this in a book titled "The Probability of God". He assumed a base rate of 50% to mean total ignorance about god's existence and assigned arbitrary multipliers regarding the likelihood of god existing given that moral goodness, moral evil, natural evil, religious miracles, and other concepts to arrive at the conclusion that the probability of god existing is 67%. This implies that ignorance can have anything to do with the principles of existence and that a base rate can be based on ignorance and the impossibility of direct observation. At best, Unwin has wasted his time.Although you can use probability to discuss the infinitesimally small probability that any individual god from any given religion could exist, I would not employ that as your main argument. As Kevin stated, the strong atheist position is far more consistent and valid (and saves you far more time lol).