No Hippy, you have to demonstrate how your argument applies to my argument. Not just say, "There's no way, we can even talk about anything". Have you heard of a straw man argument? It's where a person constructs an argument that no one is talking about, then attacks that repeatedly while claiming, "See, your argument is wrong!"

So yes, your conclusion is magical. Which was fine for a post or two. But you are not coming into the conversation as I have asked you to, or started your own thread on this separate topic as I have asked you to. You might be right on your separate topic. Post it, I will gladly debate you there. Your insistence on not doing either of those is ego and a lack of respect. Am I mistaken? Are you actually a nice person who got a little carried away, and appreciates the reminder and starts their own thread?

Or by imagining that our reasoning powers are relevant to everything everywhere. — Hippyhead

If Reason is irrelevant to God questions, what would you suggest : Intuition? Or is it a waste of time to philosophize about such abstract concepts as First Cause? I suspect that the majority of those who believe in God, or gods, do so on the basis of tradition and intuition. Only a few philosophers, driven by reasonable curiosity, actually try to reason out the "Whys" of existence. I'm retired, so these forum speculations beyond reality are an affordable hobby for me. :smile:

No Hippy, you have to demonstrate how your argument applies to my argument. — Philosophim

Your argument is based upon the assumption that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful useful statements about gods. But you offer no proof. You're essentially making a "because it's in the Bible" type argument, where we are supposed to accept reason's qualifications for this job as a matter of faith just as you do. If we decline to adopt your faith position, then we are declared off topic, various dodge and weave tactics are deployed etc.

My argument applies to the foundation your logic dancing house is built upon. If that foundation is not solid, then there's no point in entering your house and following you around while you show off the furniture.

But you are not coming into the conversation as I have asked you to

I'm certainly in the conversation, just not on the terms that you demand. Sorry, but to my knowledge you don't own the forum, this thread, or anybody else's posts. If you don't enjoy a particular post or poster, free scroll bars are readily available on every page.

Are you actually a nice person who got a little carried away, and appreciates the reminder and starts their own thread? — Philosophim

No, I'm not a nice person, I'm a wannabe philosopher. :-) As such, my job is to present inconvenient reasoning where I am able, and accept in advance that doing so will not enhance my popularity.

"There's no way, we can even talk about anything". — Philosophim

I never said that. You're arguing against assertions of your own invention here. And as you might have noticed, I'm not having any trouble talking.

And I'm talking specifically to the topic highlighted in the thread title "Probability of God". You're asserting that we are in a position to make that calculation. I'm counter asserting that we are not. It's called debate. Philosophers do that sometimes.

There are two ways out of this box for you.

1) Ignore my challenge and continue to pretend that your faith based belief in the infinite scope of reason is an act of philosophy.

2) Meet the challenge, and explain to us why we should assume as a matter of faith that something as small and imperfect as human reason is qualified to calculate the probability of gods.

BTW, don't take this personally, I routinely present this challenge all over this and other philosophy forums, and it is routinely dodged or ignored, just as you are doing. Just another day in the office.

If Reason is irrelevant to God questions, what would you suggest — Gnomon

If you should conclude and publicly state that you sincerely feel that reason is irrelevant to God questions, I would be happy to present alternatives. But there's no point in presenting alternatives to those who are convinced that they already have a suitable methodology. If you would like to pursue the God debate for a couple thousand more years to see if anything new happens that hasn't already happened about a million billion times, ok, go for it, do the experiment, find out for yourself.

If you don't have a thousand years available :-) this forum can provide a useful sample. Have you noticed that there are about a zillion "does God exist" threads on this forum going back years, and that not a one of them has ever proven any position on the topic? What is the rational response to any methodology which has consistently failed to meet it's stated goals over a very long period? Should we keep on trying to pound the round peg in to the square hole, over and over and over again, for even more years? Would that be intelligent?

We don't need an alternative on the table to face the fact that what we're doing is going endlessly round in circles to nowhere like riding a children's merry-go-round.

I'm retired, so these forum speculations beyond reality are an affordable hobby for me. — Gnomon

Same here. For the better and the worse, forums randomly lump people of every age and every experience all in to one pot, and so the great geezer sages like us :-) are required to learn more about patience than perhaps we are capable of. Well, that's my situation in any case, don't mean to speak for anyone else on that.

Your argument is based upon the assumption that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful useful statements about gods. But you offer no proof. You're essentially making a "because it's in the Bible" type argument — Hippyhead

See Hippy, I never make a biblical argument even once. There is no faith in the argument. You haven't read the actual argument. This is what I keep harping on, and where its rude of you to criticize something you haven't even read.

My proof that we can reason about a God is in points 1 - 12. I will say this again. Its there. In the argument. Please go read them, quote the portion you disagree with and you think exposes a flaw, and I will happily debate you.

As such, my job is to present inconvenient reasoning where I am able — Hippyhead

I would love it if you would apply actual inconvenient reasoning to the actual argument. I enjoy challenging my ideas to make sure I have something that actually works. You seem like an intelligent person, and it seems wasteful that you are not addressing the actual points. Its not inconvenient, it makes you look confused.

And I'm talking specifically to the topic highlighted in the thread title "Probability of God". You're asserting that we are in a position to make that calculation. I'm counter asserting that we are not. It's called debate. Philosophers do that sometimes. — Hippyhead

If your argument is based on the thread title, and you haven't read the argument, that's not a debate about the argument. That's a debate which avoids the argument. Read points 1-12 Hippy, then we'll discuss your opinion on them.

This isn't a box. I think you have a bias or opinion about these types of arguments, and have leapt to a judgement that isn't there. I will reiterate once again: There is no faith. There is no bible. There is simply logic. You either agree with the stated logic, or you point out the stated logic's flaws. If you can point out its flaws, I will then have something I can discuss with you. Until then, you're just somewhere else Hippy.

If you should conclude and publicly state that you sincerely feel that reason is irrelevant to God questions, I would be happy to present alternatives. — Hippyhead

The "God questions" I was referring to were philosophical queries, not religious statements of Faith. Intuitive Faith is typically impervious to Logical Reason. Most of the God questioners on this forum are either open to the notion of some kind of supernatural deity, or closed to such non-empirical beliefs. So, they use rational methods, not to prove or disprove the existence of a ghostly god, but to rationalize their own position on the question.

I will state publicly, that Reason is relevant to philosophical god-questions, but irrelevant to religious god-beliefs. My own non-biblical notion of G*D was derived by rational methods, but began as an intuitive feeling that our space-time world is not self-existent, hence some kind of First Cause is logically necessary. The specific nature of that unseen implicit Creator is debatable though, so on this forum we discuss the various logical alternatives. What is your alternative to a pre-Big-Bang origin for our universe? Is that concept based on Reason or Intuition or Speculation? :smile:

First Cause Alternative : Is such a multiverse merely speculation? Certainly it is not as widely accepted by scientists as quantum physics or the Standard Model of particle physics. But it is motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe.
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

Note : My personal eccentric notion of First Cause was "motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe". But it was also Enformed by Information Theory & Evolutionary Theory & Quantum Theory. Yet, it was sparked by an intuitive feeling that Reductive science can only determine what causes are effective in the real world, so a Holistic approach is necessary to deal with speculations on Causes that are out-of-this-world, such as the self-caused Multiverse, or the organizing Platonic Logos, or Aristotle's all-powerful Unmoved Mover.

See Hippy, I never make a biblical argument even once. — Philosophim

I said "because it's in the Bible type argument".

My proof that we can reason about a God is in points 1 - 12. — Philosophim

Your logical points 1-12 are built upon the assumption that logic is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. As example, your point #1:

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow.

This is a logical statement, right? Logic is an invention of human beings, right? Human beings are indescribably small in comparison to the reality which is being discussed, right? Can you present any proof that something as small and half insane as human beings can generate useful logical statements about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner?

You wish for us to engage your logical points one by one, much in the same way a Bible believer might wish for us to engage their scriptural analysis. But until the Bible believer can demonstrate that the Bible is a qualified authority on the subjects at hand, there is no point in going through their scriptural analysis one by one by one.

The problem we're having is that you believe in the infinite reach of human reason so deeply that you don't realize it's an experience of faith. And thus you're baffled when anyone challenges your faith, because you don't know that you have faith. This is very very common, especially on philosophy forums.

Like the Bible believer, you want us to accept your faith and not challenge it, so that we can proceed immediately to the thing you think you're good at, reason. But if you were good at reason, you'd be challenging the foundation you are attempting to build on before you started construction.

I will state publicly, that Reason is relevant to philosophical god-questions — Gnomon

Ok then, so you have a methodology which you believe to be qualified, and therefore aren't in the market for an alternative.

The specific nature of that unseen implicit Creator is debatable though, so on this forum we discuss the various logical alternatives. — Gnomon

Yes, this process has been going on for thousands of years in one form or another, has been led by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides, and has proven exactly nothing.

At what point do you feel it would be reasonable to question the usefulness of this process? Another thousand years perhaps? Something else?

This is a logical statement, right? Logic is an invention of human beings, right? Human beings are indescribably small in comparison to the reality which is being discussed, right? Can you present any proof that something as small and half insane as human beings can generate useful logical statements about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner? — Hippyhead

Yes. That is what the points continue to show. Each point follows, and eventually does define what a God is within the framework of logical understanding.

Lets start with point one. Is there anything in point one that you disagree with? Do you understand what I mean by causality and a first cause? It can help to read until point 6 to get an overview, but feel free to ask if there is something you do not understand, or find flawed if point one is a hard sticking point.

Yes. That is what the points continue to show. Each point follows, and eventually does define what a God is within the framework of logical understanding. — Philosophim

What if frameworks of logical understanding are not capable of commenting usefully on such large topics?

As example, you can sit your dog down in front of the Internet, and he'll be able to see and hear it. But, even if he is the smartest dog who ever lived, he'll never be able to understand it. Dogs simply aren't able to grasp the level of abstraction necessary to understand the Internet.

Lets start with point one. Is there anything in point one that you disagree with? — Philosophim

Yes. It's based upon an unproven assumption. :-)

What if frameworks of logical understanding are not capable of commenting usefully on such large topics? — Hippyhead

If you continue to read the points, I'm sure you'll get your answer. If my points are unable to comment usefully on that, simply point out why my statements are wrong.

Yes. It's based upon an unproven assumption. — Hippyhead

Ok, what is this specific unproven assumption? Do you understand what causality is as defined? Do you not believe that causality is real? Do you not like the idea of a first cause? I have already told you I am not making an assumption that logic can lead to the understanding of a God at this point in the argument. I form the logic of this through points 12, but this does not begin at point 1. Be careful not to put your own assumption where there is none.

If my points are unable to comment usefully on that, simply point out why my statements are wrong. — Philosophim

I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. You're apparently determined to avoid that at all costs, which I can do nothing about.

I just told you. Points 1-12 explain how this leads to the scale of Gods. I'm not going to retype everything that's already written down. There's my proof Hippyhead. Now you have to read it, and point out if it does, or does not apply to the scale of Gods.

So far, since you cannot, you have not invalidated my claim that logic can enter the scale of Gods. Are you afraid Hippyhead? Are you unable to refute it? Its the only things I can conclude at this point. I've made my claim, I have not avoided your question. Its on you now.

Ok then, so you have a methodology which you believe to be qualified, and therefore aren't in the market for an alternative. — Hippyhead

I asked what alternative "X" you would propose. I may or may not be in the market for "X", but you haven't explicitly said what it is. Except to denigrate Reason as a tool for Cosmology. Is Faith in Science or Revelation your "X"?

Cosmology : the science of the origin and development of the universe.

At what point do you feel it would be reasonable to question the usefulness of this process? Another thousand years perhaps? Something else? — Hippyhead

I assume that, by "this process", you mean Philosophy. If so, you may think that Empirical Science has made old-fashioned philosophy obsolete. Some prominent scientists would disagree.

What's your problem with rational dialogue on unsettled questions? Hey, It works for me! :joke:

Philosophy Obsolete? : https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/30/no-science-will-never-make-philosophy-or-religion-obsolete/#45bddf5d5ef0

Physics Needs Philosophy : by Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

I asked what alternative "X" you would propose. I may or may not be in the market for "X", but you haven't explicitly said what it is. — Gnomon

Yes, that's true. You asked, and I didn't answer. I did try to explain why.

Except to denigrate Reason as a tool for Cosmology. — Gnomon

That's a fair claim, as I do sometimes get carried away with the rhetoric in the attempt to generate engagement. But really all I'm doing is applying the very same test to reason that atheists apply to holy books. No proof, no belief.

I assume that, by "this process", you mean Philosophy. — Gnomon

I meant the God debate process, all sides of it. Chanting memorized phrases from holy books, fancy talk logic dancing, debate, conflict, referencing various "authorities" and so on. It's like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which give the illusion of travel, but really the merry-go-round goes eternally round and round in a tiny circle to nowhere. No answer is reached, no one's claims are proven or disproven.

If we were trying to fix our car and our repair strategy failed over and over and over again, sooner or later we'd dump the strategy. It wouldn't take a thousand years, but maybe just an afternoon. Maybe we don't yet have any idea of a better strategy. But we know what's not going to work. So we'd stop doing that. See? Nothing too clever about this, it's just common sense.

What's your problem with rational dialogue on unsettled questions? — Gnomon

I'm not referring to unsettled questions in general. I'm referring to super huge claims and counter claims regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner. I'm referring to the God debate.

Everyone on philosophy forums seems to want to demonstrate their talent for rational thought, but then they so often insist on continuing to do the same God debate dance over and over, in spite of the fact there is no evidence that debate will ever lead to anything but more of the same.

"Hey everybody, look at me! I'm a laser smart reason expert, and I ignore any and all evidence I find inconvenient!!"

Um, see what I mean about getting carried away with the rhetoric? :-)

I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods.

↪Philosophim I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. — Hippyhead

Well, I did exactly that in points 1-12. You have not been able to show this is wrong.

You have in essence done exactly what you accused me of. You have not demonstrated that your assumption about my work has any merit, because you will not evaluate the evidence I have presented in response to your query. Like the Bible believer, you ask me to accept your faith and not challenge it, so that you can proceed immediately to the thing you think you're good at, reason. But if you were good at reason, you'd let me challenge the foundation you are attempting to build on before you started construction. Since you refuse to look or discuss my challenge to your query, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.

So that's it then Hippy, I gave you what you wanted, but you retreated. Perhaps another day, perhaps another post.

16. But, if we are to gamble and wonder whether our universe formed without a God as a primary cause, versus a God as a primary cause, it is infinite to 1 that our universe was formed by a God instead of simply forming on its own. — Philosophim

Since it declined into name-calling at the end, I resurrect this thread with trepidation, simply to add my two-cents-worth on the question of gambling odds for God. Apparently, you are placing your bet, based on your calculation of "infinite to one" odds in favor of a Prime Cause. I previously linked to an article reviewing the book by Steven Unwin -- The Probability of God : A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth. The author calculated somewhat more modest 67% odds that our world was created by The Christian God. I must congratulate him on a good try, presented with reason and humor. FWIW, here's my review of the book, posted some time after this faded into infinity. Enjoy! :smile:

The Probability of God : The Hard Question of Divine Existence
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page60.html

The "Fun Puzzle" continues . . . . for those of us who can discuss "god questions" with a sense of humor and fair play.

PS___I never did find your "flaw"

Consider the theist who takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God. Starting from that foundation, they then proceed to make various claims by referencing Bible verses which they feel support those claims. Note the two step process...

1) First one chooses an authority which one deems qualified, and then...

2) One references that authority to come to various conclusions.

What's happening in this thread is that human reason has been chosen as the authority which is deemed qualified to consider the subject of gods. And then various conclusions have been derived by reference to that authority. The original poster is agreeable to accepting challenges on Step 2, but not on Step 1.

Consider the theist who wishes to have a debate about the correct interpretations of various Bible verses. To them, the only valid debate is one in which one person says the Bible verse means X while another speaker says the Bible verse means Y.

And then you come along and ask, "Where is the proof the Bible is the word of God?" They can not provide proof, which tends to make the Bible verse interpretation game seem kind of meaningless. And so you become an unpopular person who is interrupting the game they wish to play.

Hello and sorry to break into your discussion. I've a more direct underlying question. I'm a Christian, so I don't know whether or not there's any kind of god, I just have a fuzzy belief or hope or whatever. Having read various philosophy books treating on and around this topic "is there a god?", my perception is that this aspect of philosophy seems to be mainly a waste of time and (mental) energy. It seems to me that given the nature of what Christians and other monotheists call 'God' there just can't be a way to prove or disprove his, her or their existence - or otherwise.

Appreciate that for those who are so minded, studying all the efforts from historic times through today might be fruitful mental exercise and might even, for some individuals, lead to some personally useful outcomes, but not much chance (in my view, no chance at all) of answering the question.

So my own question is, are there philosophers who actually expect the question to be answered some day? If so, what's their underlying argument that makes them confident the question will be answerable in some definite way?

Consider the theist who takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God. — Hippyhead

I don't accept the Bible as the "word of God". That's why I was interested in an argument that uses Mathematics, instead of Scripture, as evidence for belief in God. It didn't convince me. But it might work for those who accept the authority of both Scripture and Mathematics. :smile:

It seems to me that given the nature of what Christians and other monotheists call 'God' there just can't be a way to prove or disprove his, her or their existence - or otherwise. — Horace

The author of the referenced book seems to agree with you. The existence of anything invisible & intangible must be inferred from circumstantial evidence : Dark Matter, for example. That's why some religious believers reluctantly admit that Faith comes down to an act of will, or of personal experience, not logical or mathematical reasoning. :nerd:

The Probability of God : "he admits that, according to Catholic doctrine, “it is the human faculty of will, and not reason, that plays the crucial role in achieving faith”. Moreover, “this position is fully consistent with . . . the notion that faith ultimately rests on an accumulation of probabilities”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page64.html

Understood. Though I fancy the Catholic doctrinal quote misses (deliberately?) the fact that the Catholic church regards the existence of God as a matter not open to analytical ot other reasoning, as opposed to 'faith'.

Either way, that still begs my main question, whether effort by philosophers to prove or disprove the existing of god or gods is and endless quest with not hope of a generally agreed proof?

Either way, that still begs my main question, whether effort by philosophers to prove or disprove the existing of god or gods is and endless quest with not hope of a generally agreed proof? — Horace

Yes. But then, the "God" question is the ultimate philosophical game. Science asks relatively soft "how" questions that are amenable to hard evidence. But the hard questions are always, not "what" or "how, but the childish "why, why, why." Questions about verifiable facts can be proven to the satisfaction of reasonable people. But questions about "Meaning" are always subjective, and debatable.

That the physical world, "in which we live and move and have our being", exists is (almost) beyond question. But why? That my thinking mind exists, is (almost) un-doubtable. But why? Most animals seem to take existence for granted, so death comes as a surprise, except for humans. But why? So, asking "why" questions seems to come with the human genome.

Yet, after several thousand years of philosophizing, these questions remain unanswered, except for those who take the easy-out of Faith. Yet, what else will human questers find to do with their free time? The search for subjective Meaning is an open-ended non-linear multi-player game. Your move. :cool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay

So it really is simply a game or pastime. That's OK with me. And I can see why some questions, for example about the morality or otherwise of assisted suicide (perennially in political debate here in the UK), have deep philosophical aspects that can be assisted by research and discussion. I can see that philosophical argument can help to advance our thinking and potentially deliver benefit, as opposed to entertainment.

And of course I recognise that people with 'faiths' have a view (or an axe to grind) in such debates, though in most cases perhaps not a view based on reasoned and unbiased argument.

That still leaves me wondering whether (and if so why) it's a priority for my taxes to be spent on professional philosophers and pilosophy teachers continuing to debate the existence or otherwise of a god or gods? This certainly is, as you say, debatable.

I've seen arguments for 'philosophy in general' on the basis of "I've learned a lot from it", or "it teaches people how to think more clearly about issues". And I can see no reason why anyone should be constrained from choosing the subects they want to think about.
But why choose "is there a god" when there appears to be no way of getting past "we don't know and never will know". Unless of course "in the afterlife". But that's a matter of belief, not argument . . .

The atheists believe there is no god. Some people of faith believe there is. In my experience neither party brings much fun (or wisdom) to the 'game' of discussing the question.

So it really is simply a game or pastime. . . . That still leaves me wondering whether (and if so why) it's a priority for my taxes to be spent on professional philosophers and pilosophy teachers continuing to debate the existence or otherwise of a god or gods? This certainly is, as you say, debatable. — Horace

Philosophy is indeed a mind-game or personal pastime. And some scientists call philosophers "feckless", because their introverted activities typically make no physical difference in the material world. But philosophical investigations are intended to get us "closer to Truth" about the world --- to change minds, not to change material reality. Philosophy refines Beliefs about the world, and those Beliefs and Intentions have Political and Physical consequences in the world. That's why the philosophical game goes on long after the ninth inning. :smile:


“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." ___Karl Marx.
Note -- Changing the world is the job of Politics, not Philosophy.

Aboutness : In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Closer To Truth : presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
https://www.closertotruth.com/about/overview

Hello again Gnomon.

The sad fact is that playing this 'game' can also do real damage out in the real world.

Here in the UK we have a long history of young people who, deciding on a career in politics, head to Oxford* to read PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) with a view to 'making it' in politics, where they can make or influence national decisions. They choose PPE because that's how many earlier prime ministers and cabinet ministers got into politics.

Unfortunately, based on the evidence, reading PPE means in most cases that they have little connection with or understanding of the real world; cannot or dare not question 'experts' from other disciplines who present (for example) scientific or statistical evidence; and are not good at assessing candidates for jobs or promotion - for example they'll recruit other PPE graduates rather than risk having to deal with anyone competent in maths or sciences or engineering or business and such. Economists they can of course cope with, given that most economists are not good at maths.

They succeed in politics because they are, of course, good at arguing their case, so long as the case only involves politics, philosophy or economics, and no-one raises any real-world aspects.

*Oxford is a small industrial city in the south midlands of England, where some kind of academic institution is based. The French do it even better - they have a whole academic institution designed to keep prospective politicians and civil servants isolated from the real world.

A God would be a being that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. — Philosophim

'God' as a fun topic even beats out poor old Trump; a mere mortal can hardly compete with the Mysterious Fun-With-Da-Mental ways of the curiously invisible proposed Almighty.

Seriously, 'God', as the Fundamental Entity (as often dishonestly claimed to be truth), intentionaly thinks, plans, designs, and implements all that goes on, either utilizing just Himself, as the All, or by forming outside stuff and incorporating it within His All Encompassing Domain.

Surely, then this proposed 'God' Being is a system of mind; but, this Personhood isn't at all in favor of His being fundamental, for, as with any system, the parts would have to be even more fundamental. His probability falls, for what we do see happening is that beings such as ourselves evolved and if we are to evolve higher then this will happen in the future, which thus becomes the right direction to look in, not the past.

We see, indeed, that the deep and deeper past was of the simpler and simpler, unto continuous and partless covariant quantum fields whose quantized excitations are what we call 'particles'.

The Theory of 'God' is not a good one because it assumes a lot and shows nothing, for the 'Supernatural' that is supposed to be everywhere is ever AWOL. Good theories, like evolution, show a lot and assume practically nothing, such as the Standard Model / Quantum Fields which has plenty to show.

More to the point and more seriously… next time, through philosophy, science, and logic… this is just an intro. I have read all the posts.

G = God exists
E = Evidence

P(A/B) = Probability of A given B

P(A) = Probability of A

P(G/E) = [P(E/G) * P(G)]/P(E) according to Bayes' theorem.

I hate to say this--it is merely meant for humor and not to be flippant (blasphemous?)--but it needs to be said in light of the question implied by the title of the post... Answer: 5 to1