# 'Absolute' Knowledge, or the lack thereof

#### stateofmind

##### seeker of lies
Valued Senior Member
Below is a graph I have created that illustrates the relationship between knowledge and probability. The horizontal axis represents the continuum between absolute ignorance and absolute knowledge. The vertical axis represents the probability of a probability being correct.

You'll notice that the probable correctness of a probability is at 0% at absolute ignorance and 100% at absolute knowledge.

Now atheists, I ask you this; when considering something as unknown as God, of which you admit you are almost wholly ignorant of, what do you think the probable correctness is of your probability on whether God exists or not?

Create all the graphs you like.
You first have to show they're actually valid.
How about numbers of ice creams sold against murders committed?
Would you consider that a valid indicator of anything?

If you're representative I think you've done an excellent job of illustrating Why theists are probably full of shit.

And this from someone who claimed
I don't bash accepted science at all...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567977&postcount=20.
You do a pretty good job of mangling it though.

Create all the graphs you like.
You first have to show they're actually valid.
How about numbers of ice creams sold against murders committed?
Would you consider that a valid indicator of anything?

If you're representative I think you've done an excellent job of illustrating Why theists are probably full of shit.

If you have any disagreements with the graph, then take it up with the graph

There is nothing of whim in that graph. It is all based on logic - so hack as you wish

If you have any disagreements with the graph, then take it up with the graph
Oh, my mistake.
I thought you'd created it - I wonder how I got that impression:
Below is a graph I have created
But apparently it created itself.

There is nothing of whim in that graph. It is all based on logic - so hack as you wish
Crap.
How does probability equate to knowledge?

Crap.
How does probability equate to knowledge?

Oh shit, I forgot I was dealing with dywyd for a second.... excuse me, I have to go to the pantry to get the baby food...

Can one who is completely ignorant of something create a probability about it that's probably correct?

Oh shit, I forgot I was dealing with dywyd for a second.... excuse me, I have to go to the pantry to get the baby food...

Can one who is completely ignorant of something create a probability about it that's probably correct?

Can something exist (probability = 100%) of which we are totally ignorant?
Can something not exist yet that something has a calculated probability of ~100% (i.e. we're wrong)? In which case the knowledge would not be knowledge.

Can something exist (probability = 100%) of which we are totally ignorant?
Can something not exist yet that something has a calculated probability of ~100% (i.e. we're wrong)? In which case the knowledge would not be knowledge.

I'll answer these but it's common courtesy to answer the questions that were asked first, first, which I'm sure you'll do as you're a good sport, ay?

I agree:

You first have to show they're actually valid.
How about numbers of ice creams sold against murders committed?
Would you consider that a valid indicator of anything?
Post #2
How does probability equate to knowledge?
Post #4

I'll wait...

State of mind

considering something as unknown as God, of which you admit you are almost wholly ignorant of,

But you have knowledge of god.

Which is unknown.

So that makes you ?

99.9%

Atheists never claimed 100% knowledge, but with the state of knowledge as it exists now, the existence of a God is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was a court case, God would get the chair.

99.9%

Atheists never claimed 100% knowledge, but with the state of knowledge as it exists now, the existence of a God is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was a court case, God would get the chair.

In order to know you were at 99.9% of all knowledge you would first have to achieve 100% which you say atheists never claimed... you're story's got holes in it...

State of mind

But you have knowledge of god.

Which is unknown.

So that makes you ?

It is irrelevant whether or not I have knowledge of god. This thread is about the probable correctness of probabilities and how this relates to atheists claims such as "God probably does not exist."

In order to know you were at 99.9% of all knowledge you would first have to achieve 100% which you say atheists never claimed... you're story's got holes in it...

I didn't mean 99.9% of ALL knowledge, since most knowledge is not applicable. I mean that 99.9% is an estimation of how certain we can be that there is no Islamic/Judaic/Christian God. Even people that claim knowledge of God do not possess any more evidence of his existence than atheists.

I love this!

I didn't mean 99.9% of ALL knowledge, since most knowledge is not applicable. I mean that 99.9% is an estimation of how certain we can be that there is no Islamic/Judaic/Christian God. Even people that claim knowledge of God do not possess any more evidence of his existence than atheists.

What system do you have 99.9% knowledge of that you can be sure that your probability is 99.9% accurate?

What system do you have 99.9% knowledge of that you can be sure that your probability is 99.9% accurate?

An analysis of the present arguments in favor of God. The .1% is included only because science is seldom 100% certain about anything. Theists disingenuously use the inherent skepticism in science as justification for their irrational beliefs. It's a variation of the God of the Gaps argument.

It is irrelevant whether or not I have knowledge of god. This thread is about the probable correctness of probabilities and how this relates to atheists claims such as "God probably does not exist."

It's totally relevant to the graph.

Your asking us to essentially prove a negative. Prove something does not exist. Your stating that if we don't have knowledge, in this case absolute ignorance about the subject that it affects the probability of the subject being true.

But the problem is there is no way to prove something does not exist.

And nobody has knowledge of god. So we are all in the absolute ignorance corner in that respect.

Which makes the graph useless.

Since there is no evidence or knowledge of god, the best answer is that until such knowledge or evidence is obtained, god is not real.

Which is why I am atheist.

I am also an agnostic because I can not prove the negative. That god does not exist.

An analysis of the present arguments in favor of God. The .1% is included only because science is seldom 100% certain about anything. Theists disingenuously use the inherent skepticism in science as justification for their irrational beliefs. It's a variation of the God of the Gaps argument.

Ah, I see, so what you're actually asserting is not that the existence of God is probably improbable, but that the arguments made by theists for God are probably bad... just to make that clear for everybody.

As you probably know, bad arguments are not evidence of the existence or non-existence of phenomena. You're logic would make sense if God were merely an argument but I think even you are not asserting that, are you?

Ah, I see, so what you're actually asserting is not that the existence of God is probably improbable, but that the arguments made by theists for God are probably bad... just to make that clear for everybody.

As you probably know, bad arguments are not evidence of the existence or non-existence of phenomena. You're logic would make sense if God were merely an argument but I think even you are not asserting that, are you?

You've got this all back to front. Atheists aren't claiming anything, it's the theists that claim that God exists. The atheists just don't buy it.
That's all there is to it. Your graph is irrelevant.