Evidence for God from Science

I don't have much more to say, but I just realized I said something misleading, the "50/50" comment. The argument wouldn't rely on prior probability at all. So saying that it makes the existence of God more likely than not, like you say it depends on what you believe the prior probability to be (or whether that is determinable). But I still contend that my scenario is valid. If you had to answer a question to win money, A would be the most logical choice. You say that you shouldn't make any choice.

At least its worth talking about.

narnia4 wrote:I don't have much more to say, but I just realized I said something misleading, the "50/50" comment. The argument wouldn't rely on prior probability at all. So saying that it makes the existence of God more likely than not, like you say it depends on what you believe the prior probability to be (or whether that is determinable). But I still contend that my scenario is valid. If you had to answer a question to win money, A would be the most logical choice. You say that you shouldn't make any choice.

At least its worth talking about.

That's not true, if I have good reason to believe the audience has knowledge of the question, I'd say A is a fine choice. A historical fact, pop culture factoid, or some other piece of worldly trivia is not the same as a question about theistic claims. It just doesn't make sense to compare them in that way. What I'm saying is that if we are deciding on the existence of something that hasn't been established and is, for purposes of the experiment, functionally unknowable, this argument lends no credence to the existence of God because they would have no way of knowing. If they did, then we could use that method of knowing instead of this experiment. If we have no idea as to why they've formed their beliefs, we cannot infer why they did so. Humans are known to form beliefs for a slew of bad reasons and are known to be, without intention, wrong about a great deal. We can't use any sort of probabilistic inference based on how often they are correct about more trivial things without committing an induction fallacy. I understand that yes, we do things and believe things because a majority of people believe them, but that doesn't make it logical unless you make an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy. Just because we WOULD do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. If it can't be said that they are knowledgeable about the subject, then the decision to listen to them can't be said to be rational, only understandable.

edit: I suppose what it comes down to is one of two scenarios: Either you can prove God's existence with a reliable method and God exists, or, you can't prove God's existence and his existence is unknowable. In either case, this method has gone no where.

Already arguing in circles, but how can you conclude that its unknowable to them? You can't, you only know that its unknowable (not even that, only unknown at the present time) to you. The very fact that such a strong majority picked A is prima facie evidence that they, as a collective whole, believe they know the right answer. Our cognitive abilities generally lead us to be truth-seeking. I daresay that when 99% of people say one thing, its more likely that what they say is right than the opposite.

You don't deny that- Were you put in that situation (with no option to walk) and 80% of the people answered A, you would also pick A over B, C, or D? I think that anyone would, they would pick A and cross their fingers.

narnia4 wrote:Already arguing in circles, but how can you conclude that its unknowable to them? You can't, you only know that its unknowable (not even that, only unknown at the present time) to you. The very fact that such a strong majority picked A is prima facie evidence that they, as a collective whole, believe they know the right answer. Our cognitive abilities generally lead us to be truth-seeking. I daresay that when 99% of people say one thing, its more likely that what they say is right than the opposite.

You don't deny that- Were you put in that situation (with no option to walk) and 80% of the people answered A, you would also pick A over B, C, or D? I think that anyone would, they would pick A and cross their fingers.

Sure, I just don't think it helps establish any amount of truth. Suppose the question was simply A, B, C, or D, which letter is the answer? I have no idea. The people who voted A might have just voted A because a lot of their names started with A. I have no idea what the right answer is. Trying to apply beysian probability to these events is also undoable because I simply don't have even an estimate on the probabilities involved. In the example you gave of a game-show, I would likely have a personal intuition into those events and can make many inferences about the audience members. In the other example, however, where I have no memories and am running down a hallway.. the probabilities are unknown and any analysis is impossible. It's just not an equivalency.

Just because we're truth seeking doesn't mean much, the truth can be rather elusive, and without knowing why those people hold the beliefs they do, I can't say much. When 99% of people say one thing, I don't personally find it more likely or not to be the truth, I simply find that unreliable and the probability that people are right to be unknown. It's a rather strange probability to measure, the probability that a group of people are right, because to know that, we'd have to know what's right. And right about what? They may get 5 arithmetic problems in a row, but what bearing does that have on any other sort of question? I have no idea.

We may be arguing in circles, but I'm not sure what you're trying to argue exactly - I'm just trying to explain statistics. They just aren't meant for this type of scenario. They use previous data and history to predict future events. With no previous data no predictions can seem to be made. I've done a lot of learning on statistics and probabilistic reasoning in my studies into artificial intelligence, sociological epistemology just can't account for the unknowns here.

Even if the principle of the argument is correct, it isn't really supported that well by reality. It only gets you as far as spiritualism, and it seems to provide arguments against any one specific religion. So, statistics aside, the two objections combined don't allow for this to work as an argument.

I don't think the argument has to be taken as a statistical one though. It can be a simple inference to the best explanation or simple probability. We don't have to know prior probability or how much more probable it is, only that the fact that 80% of people answered A makes it a better choice to conclude that A is the right choice yourself.

Come to think of it though, I think your objections work better against the actual argument than they do against my example. You can argue for agnosticism related to God, that there's no reason to believe that other people would have more information available concerning God than you have (or that God is unknowable). With my example, however, it seems reasonable to infer from the situation that the question is one that is answerable. With game shows you know that the game creators have one correct answer in mind.