Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac
From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: The Likelihood of Existence
Message-ID: <152@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 14:38:16 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.152
Posted: Mon Nov  4 14:38:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 05:14:09 EST
References: <2294@ukma.UUCP> <121@uscvax.UUCP>, <139@sdcc7.UUCP> <1261@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 56
Xref: linus net.religion:7757 net.origins:2543
Summary: More on existence

In article <1261@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) writes:
> 
>>Just for the sake of asking, what is 'unlikely' about God existing?
> 
> The likelihood of existence strikes me as a bizarre notion.  100
> years ago how likely was it that any particular black hole existed?
> How likely is it now?  For Native Americans in the 1500's, how likely
> was it that Australia existed?  How likely is it now?  After we find
> answers to those questions, I'll ask the big one:  So what?
> 
But we've got a problem here.  Australia existed whether or not people knew 
about it.  We also exist and unless we're willing to say I don't know to the
question of how we got here, we have to either figure out what actually
happened, or, to the best of our ability, figure out what most likely
happened.  The so what is a good question if this reason doesn't apply to us
or if the effort to determine maybe not that much information would make the
attempt unplausible, but we can simply sit and think about uncaused causes
and actually come up with some fairly reasonable pieves of information.

> Admittedly, I've always been a bit befuddled by probability stuff, but
> likelihood only seems reasonable to me when it deals with recurrent
> events like rain, and not with the existence or non-existence of a
> particular object like Australia...or God.  

In some ways it's just a phrasing of the question.  What is the likelihood of
me turning over the top card of a deck of 52 cards and aving it be the Ace of
Spades.  You could look at this as the probability of the card's existence or
of it's specific identity or a number of things.  For another object like
thing, let's try to figure out the probability of you owning a red sweater.
Knowing almost nothing about you, your age, your taste in clothes, your
favorite colors, my base of information is quite limited, but I could assume
that since you work on the computer you're probably fairly affluent, sweaters
are fairly in style right now (actually I have no idea whether or not
sweaters are in style right now but it makes this dumb example alot easier)
and red is a popular color.  And since we all know that women have tons of
clothes (my only solid, substantiated piece of evidence :-) I could say the
likelihood of you having a red sweater is 60%, or 1% or whatever.  But given
information and a question, the likelihood of something can more often than
not be determined.

> Am I befuddled again, or is the likelihood of God's existence as meaningless,
> and hence useless, a notion as I think it is?
> 
I don't have the quote with me, but Winston Chruchill once said (something
along these lines), "One of the most awesome thoughts I've ever entertained
is that some day I will stand before God and be accountable for every deed
I've ever done."  If God exists, and is anything like Christians and the
Bible claims He is, then there is no more important question in the whole
world than your relationship to this God.  And since this issue isn't an
established fact, we're back to dealing with likelihood again.  It's a
meaningless notion if you'll never be able to determine anything one way or
the other or if it doesn't really affect you either way.  God claims that the
effects of knowing Him are eternal and He also says, "If you seek for Me with
all your heart, you shall find Me."

				Rick Frey