# Evolution and God

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at **Atheist Republic**, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.

Well I disagree with all of the above but life is short so I’ll just focus in on one area. So for the fine tuning argument you acknowledge above that the probability of a fine tuner is not 0%. What figure would you put on it?

@Dan

How about that infamous number the Absolutists use: 1 x 10^-508?

Still virtually 0%.

rmfr

"Well I disagree with all of the above but life is short so I’ll just focus in on one area. So for the fine tuning argument you acknowledge above that the probability of a fine tuner is not 0%. What figure would you put on it?"

It's the same as the odds for anything no one can demonstrate any evidence for. What are the odds invisible unicorns exist?

[removed by moderator, read it here.]

balance fallacy

For example if you were to flip a coin, you would start at 50% heads. Same here

Then you take evidence for and against, eg a coin weighted to heads 50% + 50% x 90% etc...

Coins are typically assigned 50/50 odds because of symmetry. What symmetry are you appealing to for your 50/50 set up?

Well if you start with no evidence either way then that is symmetric; each outcome is equally likely as far as you can tell. So it’s 50% / 50% always until you allow for any evidence you may have...

Again, that is known as the balance fallacy. We have very good reasons (symmetry, empirical results, etc) to assign a coin flip 50/50 odds.

If you have no evidence either way, 50% is statistically more accurate than 0% or 100% (assuming an even probability distribution which we have to as no evidence):

1. If you choose 0%, the value has to come to <25% for you to ‘win’

2. if you choose 100%, the value has to come to >75% for you to ‘win’

3. If you choose 50%, you ‘win’ for anything >25% and <75%

So option 3 is twice as likely to be correct as option 2 or 1. Option 3, 50% the midpoint or average of a normal probability distribution is always the best bet.

An interesting point! If we were guessing at a 10-digit number from 0 to 1, and if we got 10 points for being within .25, 3 points for being withing .50, and 1 point for being within .75, then going for the middle would be an optimal strategy. Choosing 0, for example, would be a bad choice in that there is nothing in this setup to the left of 0. It's a smaller target as is 1.

I'm having a problem seeing how this applies to evaluating a totally unknown situation. No evidence means that no choice can be better than another. Either you are right or you are wrong and being close collects no points because the situation can't be, say, 70% probable because it has already happened. Bets are only being taken on "yes" and "no" and accumulating evidence won't change what has actually happened. Therefore, there would be no point in starting in the middle since there is no middle. I would think that the best strategy would be to assign probabilities that each of the two outcomes would yield the incoming data.

If you either had a loaded coin (75% chance of heads) or a normal coin (50% chance of heads) you could evaluate the probability of each predicting the incoming data. But if you have no model at all, I would think that you could do no more than tally the incoming data and use statistics to create a model. I don't see beginning with a model when no model is available is a useful step.

How can there be a 50% chance of a claim being true with zero evidence for it? I am dubious.

The big bang doesn't demonstrate any evidence for a deity, neither does the assumption the universe is fine tuned, which is a claim that would itself have to be evidenced. What universes are you comparing this one to, in order to assert it is fine tuned? The prime mover argument isn't an argument for a deity, we already covered the objections to it and you dismissed them without any comment.

I'm bored with you making up stats now. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence at all?

Sheldon,

I'm thinking that Dan is starting with a model that assigns a 50% probability, a model to be modified as data comes in. However, as you noted, the initial model has no credibility. As the model evolves one way or another, as data comes in, degrees of credibility would be statistically attached. So, the initial 50% is merely a token figure, a convenient starting point from which the real probability emerges. If we have no data then, of course, we can say nothing.

" I’m not sure you are getting the math? You always start at 50% probability for a two-valued unknown,"

So you're claiming there is a 50% chance that invisible unicorns exist?

Again, I am dubious.

Try this...

"The balance fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits, which (in turn) can lead to the conclusion that the answer to a problem is always to be found between two extremes. The latter is effectively an inverse false dilemma, discarding the two extremes rather than the middle.

While the rational position on a topic is often between two extremes, this cannot be assumed without actually considering the evidence. Sometimes the extreme position is actually the correct one, and sometimes the entire spectrum of belief is wrong, and truth exists in an orthogonal direction that hasn't yet been considered."

Chance of invisible unicorns:

Start at 50% chance

Evidence against: Invisibility in nature not seen 10%

50% x 10% = 5%

Evidence against: no mythical creatures yet discovered 10%

5% x 10% = 0.5% chance of invisible unicorns

You can obviously use the same method to put together a case for why there is not a creator...

"Chance of invisible unicorns:

Start at 50% chance"

So non existent things have a 50% chance of being real?

"Invisibility in nature not seen "

Now that's fucking priceless fair play to you.

This has to be a fucking windup? Between you and someone I think I'm going to take a break for a while. At least until some halfway cogent apologetics are posted.

You are just being rude because you either don’t get or refuse to get the math.

Although I may not be an expert on the Laws of Probability, I do know enough to know that your calculations are completely wrong.

For instance, it is not 50% + 50% x 60% = 80%

When you say there is a 0.5 chance of something happening and then add another factor that is 0.6 chance, the equation is NOT:

0.5 + (0.5 x 0.6) = 0.8.

The actual equation IS: 0.5 x 0.6 = 0.3. Or if you want it in %ages: 50% x 60% = 30%.

And I just asked a friend of mine who is a Professor who teaches Advanced mathematics at UNM.

rmfr

No you have the math wrong. Evidence against you use multiplication, evidence for you use addition.

It helps if you think about the probability space as a box. Let’s start with the proposition ‘the dog is nice’. Let’s assume you know nothing about this or any dog then the chance of the dog being nice is 50%. So imagine the probability space cut 50% / 50% dog is nice / dog is nasty.

Now we can add a peice of evidence FOR the proposition. The owner says the dog is nice and we trust him 75%. So we already know that 50% of dogs are nice what about the 50% of dogs unknown? Well we can multiply that 50% by 75% and add it to the 50% we already had for dog is nice: 50% + 50% x 75% = 87.5%. Think of the original 50/50 probability space growing to 87.5/12.5 dog is nice / dog is nasty.

So above is how you compute ‘evidence FOR’. ‘Evidence AGAINST’ is a different calculation:

Starting with dog is nice 50%

Now add a piece of evidence AGAINST: ‘the dog bit me’. 90% chance dog is nasty so that’s a 10% chance the dog is nice. So we take 50% x 10% = 5% chance dog is nice. NOTICE THE CACULATION IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSITION.

Hope this makes sense...

You are chasing your own tail. With that logic you can get any result you want. You are basically doing numerology.

No you have it wrong.

The form of probability you are proposing is multiplicative. The more factors you add for something occurring, makes the single occurrence YOU desire less likely to occur. In other words, the factors are multiplicative, NOT additive. As said, I asked a professor of math at UNM.

rmfr

No you have it wrong. It additive when the factors are reenforcing but multiplicative when the factors are undermining. For example:

- murderer had blood on his cloths. Makes him 70% likely to be the killer according to an expert witness

- the murderers prints are on the knife. Makes him 90% likely to be the killer according to an expert witness

- taking BOTH pieces of evidence into account, how likely is it that he is guilty?

- 70% + 30% x 90% = 97% likely he is guilty

- So the two pieces of evidence combined make the killer more likely to be guilty than each individual piece of evidence alone does.

So I guess you know more about math than the professor I have conversed with at UNM who happens to have a PhD in Mathematics.

What fallacy is that? Argumentum ignorantum?

rmfr

Well what’s your (or his) version of the calculation? Maybe best to use the short simple example of the murderer I gave above...

OKAY. Let's rip it apart piece by piece.

Who's blood? What expert witness? Blood on his clothes could be his own. see below.

This just proves he handled the knife, could have cut himself, got blood on his clothes, went to the bathroom to deal with cut. While in bathroom, the other person was murdered.

And with both pieces of evidence, I have created enough "shadow of doubt" to...

Final Verdict: Not Guilty.

rmfr

Sheldon has already well explained that these claims are falsifiable:

Chance god exists because of fine tuning 50%

Chance god exists because of Big Bang 50%

Change god exists because of Prime Mover 50%

As none of your claims are falsifiable, they can all safely be given a 0% probability.

Apart from the asinine nature of the assumption in your absurd analogy, it is at least dealing with testable empirical evidence now, though hopelessly misunderstanding how reliably objective it is in your conclusions. The maths as always is risible nonsense. Could you link some citations for these formulas you appear to be plucking out of thin air?

" So the two pieces of evidence combined make the killer more likely to be guilty than each individual piece of evidence alone does."

Not really as both pieces of evidences are circumstantial. You're also spuriously conflating legal standards of evidence with epistemological standards for knowledge claims, which is another reason it's a poor analogy. Worst of all you're confusing cumulative probability with that of single events.

Our universe can only be viewed as a single event as we have only 1 universe to test, so making claims about the odds of it turning out the way it has is fallacious. Your bias is a derivative of your desire to know, and your inability to show the intellectual humility to admit we don't yet know, and indeed may never know some of the things you want answers to is making you ignore the truth in favour of answers you like. This is precisely what religions and superstitions do, they fulfil an innate need in humans for answers, but they are superficial as they have no objective evidence to support them.

Science is slow and tedious most of the time, far easier to just assert what you want to believe and twist the facts to suit, can I get a hallelujah?

The difference between you and the others in this thread is not that they don't care, or don't want to know, it's just that they aren't prepared (like you) to use assumptions and bias in place of proper evidence. They'd rather admit they don't know than believe something that is not true.

All you do is rubbish my math without providing alternatives. For example what is your calculation of the chance the murderer is guilty?

I’m not willing to take ‘I don’t know’ as an answer. Science, reason and probability allow a meta-analysis of the problem that at least gives an approximation.

I already showed he is Not Guilty. As for probability of guilt, well... that is always going to be subjective, NEVER objective. As long as a believable shadow of doubt can be cast, he shall never be found Guilty. And always remember this: Not Guilty ≠ Innocent.

Everything you have provided is SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. No evidence.

As for your rubbish math, well, it is rubbish. Probability does not work, nor is it calculated the way you are doing it. At least I know that much about probability. You are purposefully skewing everything to be in your favor. It reminds me of this cartoon (https://i.imgur.com/XU0Rf55.jpg).

You are purposefully performing apologetics to make everything line up with your presupposed conclusion.

Meta-analysis = Apologetics. Apologetics = Huge Pile of Horse Hoowhee.

rmfr

My estimate is 100%. You described the defendant as a "murderer" throughout.

## Pages