What is the probability there is NO higher power?

Thought this might be an interesting thought experiment for people.

What is the probability that there is NO higher power?

For the purposes here, we'll define higher power very broadly and vaguely and could be anything from the god of the Abrahamic religions or Hindu, but other things like some sort of "nature" based force (what my understanding of many wiccans would hold as a belef), to an Einsteinian belief is a sort of non-active creative force for the Universe and even to the possiblity that we are a simulation and therefore the simulators would be a higher power.

100% is you are SURE none of those things exist. 0% is you are SURE that AT LEAST one exist.

Feel free to justify your answer.

**EDIT**

To be clear, the idea of that higher power I mean is generally expressed in the examples given. In each case, said higher power did (e.g. created the universe we live in) or does interact in a manner that has/does substantially affected humans (i.e. if there is no universe, we wouldn't be here). I do want to limit it to what I'll call purposeful actions though so things like the laws of physics are not valid as things like physics don't have purposes in of to themselves.

You either have an infinite god or an infinite universe. Otherwise, nothing would exist.

I think there is a higher truth to the Universe which none of us will ever conclusively know of in our lifetimes.

I don't know how to quantify this as a percentage.

I think there is a higher truth to the Universe which none of us will ever conclusively know of in our lifetimes.

I don't know how to quantify this as a percentage.

I'll have what he's having.

I guess for the agnostic like myself, it's around 50%. Although I generally tend to find myself believing more on the side that there is likely something, rather than there is nothing.

I have no reason to believe one way or the other, so I don't know how to justify it. I chalk it up to limited human knowledge and my own personal wishful thinking.

I guess for the agnostic like myself, it's around 50%. Although I generally tend to find myself believing more on the side that there is likely something, rather than there is nothing.

I have no reason to believe one way or the other, so I don't know how to justify it. I chalk it up to limited human knowledge and my own personal wishful thinking.

Is there a reason to place all forms of higher powers in one basket?

Or do you really have many different baskets?

And vice versa.

For some reason, I'm imagining a perfect bell curve when this is all said and done.

Is there a reason to place all forms of higher powers in one basket?

Or do you really have many different baskets?

And vice versa.

I think it depends on how you define 'higher power'. In the criteria proposed in the OP, an 'Einsteinian' higher power is much, much different in nature than an Abrahamic or Hindu (short: lets say religious) higher power.

I don't think both can be lumped together. They require the acceptance of a different set of assumptions, although they may lead to the same conclusion in a much broader sense.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Bayes.pdf

"Now let's look at Ford's alternate estimate of these numbers. First he notes,

"propositions that postulate existence have a far less than 50% chance of being correct."

Another way to say this is that absence of any evidence or other reason for us to believe

some entity such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster exists, it is highly unlikely that it

does. So the prior probability of God should be more like one in a million or less. So let's

take Pbefore = 10-6."

Do you think this is true?

Does it matter how much people have looked and the probability that they would have found something based on the techniques that they used to look?

In 1980, would it have been reasonable to place the probability that there is a Higgs-Boson at about 1E-6?

Or standing in 1980 would you have given the probability that a Higgs-Boson existed a much higher probability than BigFoot and the LochNess monster because nobody had done a credibile experiment to detect a Higgs-Boson?

Do you think this is true?

It's as defensible position as another. In spite of however many thousand years of searching for evidence, there is nothing that suggests a higher power. You might disagree with that, but there is the discussion. The probabilities follow from that.

Statistically? That can't be put into a number.

Personally, I have a hard time looking at the complexities of everything in this world and chalking it all up to one accident after another. I do think a certain degree of evolution has taken place though.

Statistically? That can't be put into a number.

Personally, I have a hard time looking at the complexities of everything in this world and chalking it all up to one accident after another. I do think a certain degree of evolution has taken place though.

How does only a certain degree of evolution take place? Where do you draw the line and based on what do you say 'this is due to evolution' and 'this is not due to evolution'?

How does only a certain degree of evolution take place? Where do you draw the line and based on what do you say 'this is due to evolution' and 'this is not due to evolution'?

How? My own views

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong with every belief I have, but what the hell...

For example (I'm sure I won't get this out right), the whole idea of Noah's Ark. How many animals would've needed to fit on a boat that wasn't all that big? I believe that Noah's Ark happened, but the variety of animals in existence at that time was much smaller than it is now. I guess I think the number of different animals was smaller, but those that did exist held the ability to mate and evolve into other species, etc.

Yep. I'm sure I ****ed up writing that. Oh well

You mean just this god or the other 2,869 gods we've had over the last few thousand years?

100% there is no Higher Power. I do believe in the "nature thing", but that isn't a higher power. More of a conscienceness thing.

It's as defensible position as another. In spite of however many thousand years of searching for evidence, there is nothing that suggests a higher power. You might disagree with that, but there is the discussion. The probabilities follow from that.

I didn't ask if it was defensible. I asked if you thought the FIRST assumption in a link you posted is correct.

You posted it as if it has some validity. That's the initial assumption. Do you think that assumpition is correct?

Is the probability that there is a protein involved in determining people's sexual preference the same as the probability that there is a Big Foot and extremely low like 1E-6?

Fascinating tri-modal distribution (though with a tiny sample size). Paints the picture of how truly firm many are in our beliefs, even the "middle of the roaders"

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 06:54 AM ----------

You mean just this god or the other 2,869 gods we've had over the last few thousand years?

100% there is no Higher Power. I do believe in the "nature thing", but that isn't a higher power. More of a conscienceness thing.

You could have faith in "consciousnesses" and "nature" yet reject 100% any possibility of a higher power? That doesnt make a ton of sense to me rationally speaking.

I didn't ask if it was defensible. I asked if you thought the FIRST assumption in a link you posted is correct.

You posted it as if it has some validity. That's the initial assumption. Do you think that assumpition is correct?

It's a correct assumption from my perspective as there is no evidence. If you disagree with that assessment you probably adopt a different set of assumptions and will get a radically different probability.

But all we're doing here is multiplying probabilities based on a set of assumptions. Correctness is wishful thinking.

I'm one of the 9.99 - 0.01 folks. I believe in God, but my faith is not so blind (which I suppose could be considered a detriment) that I won't consider the possibility that I'm wrong. Even if the Big Bang theory were conclusively proven, I still have trouble grasping for the before. So we were just a giant ball of hot gas floating around that exploded, forming the universe, starts, planets, etc., over time. Well, what was the giant ball of hot gas floating around in? Some weird sort of nothingness? Did it just come to be? That's why I truly believe there's something higher or unknowing involved. It doesn't have to be a Christian God, though that happens to be my preferred version of faith. Maybe it's nature based, who knows. I just don't believe this was all a series of random coincidences. However, I voted the low percentage I did because hey, maybe that's all it is. I'm willing to consider everything.

It's a correct assumption from my perspective as there is no evidence. If you disagree with that assessment you probably adopt a different set of assumptions and will get a radically different probability.

But all we're doing here is multiplying probabilities based on a set of assumptions. Correctness is wishful thinking.

I disagree with the assertion that EVERYTHING that there is no evidence has a low value in terms of the probability of its exsistence.

I think not taking into account the quality and likelihood of success of the search for evidence in any such calculation is badly flawed.

**EDIT**

I am going to try and speed this conversation up some based on making some assumptions on the conversation.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

You will make some point about the the number of different possibilities and probabilities.

Borrowing from a recent thread, I will point out that there are cases where we essentially assume high probabilities of exsistence where there is little to no evidence of them existing. I will point out that the evidence that stars are real physical things where real physical nuclear reactions happen is based on assumptions for which we have little real data.

You will talk about our ability to measure things from stars.

I will tell you that those are based on the underlying assumptions of science having a certain state (i.e. they exist) and the evidnece for that is weak, and you can't boot strap evidence from assuming an assumption is true as evidence that the assumption is true. And that the reasoning used in your link would force you to conclude that the probability that stars are made up of real matter and there are real nuclear reactions happening there is something less than 1E-6 because they can't have a higher probability than the probability of the underlying assumption.

From there, you will make a point related to the statements being meaningless philosophical pondering.

And I will either ignore your response or tell you I don't care what you think, depending on my mood and what else I am doing.

I wouldn't describe this probability in terms of percentage. I prefer to use a fraction.

Infinity over infinity.

About the same probability that everything came from nothing.......0........

0% probability. There is a higher power. It is called the Sun. If it explodes tomorrow, we all die.

What is the probability that there is no power higher then the higher power? What is the probability that there is no power higher than power that is higher than the higher power?

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 09:48 AM ----------

About the same probability that everything came from nothing.......0........

About the same as a probability that a higher power came from nothing.

0% probability. There is a higher power. It is called the Sun. If it explodes tomorrow, we all die.

While I'll admit that I did state in the OP that we would define it vaguely and broadly, I think it is a bit disengenous to suggest that a reasonable reading of the OP would allow one to conclude that I meant the sun as a valid option.

Do you have a number you'd like to share in the context of the OP?

While I'll admit that I did state in the OP that we would define it vaguely and broadly, I think it is a bit disengenous to suggest that a reasonable reading of the OP would allow one to conclude that I meant the sun as a valid option.

Do you have a number you'd like to share?

I do not know what you are talking about.

Are you talking about an omnipresent omnipotent intelligent being? I still have no idea what you are talking about... and frankly, I do not think you do either. It's just a bunch of attributes thrown together. What is it made of? What does it eat? What color is it?