The odds on God

As we report, bookmakers Paddy Power have opened a book on whether there is a God. This comes in the wake of the Richard Dawkins 'bus' campaign with its enigmatic 'probably'. The 'probably', combined with his charming manifestations of grace during my own interview with him a few months ago, confirms belief that Dawkins' atheism contains a kernel of doubt that could in itself be proof of the existence of God. Anyway, some folks at Paddy Power must have been having the same doubts over the scientific proofs for atheism, because the odds on God's existence have shortened from 33-1 to a mere 4-1. They seem to be expecting big things from tiny matter when it is finally imploded in the Geneva hadron collider.

Comments

[Theo Dexter]

CP36

Amen.

And for you.

[cp36]

To Theo Dexter,

Thanks for your reply. We are all learning and someday we will know as we are known. Hope that will be a glorious day for you.

Cheers

[Theo Dexter]

Alan

I do understand CP36.

There are limits to exactness in science and truth may be found in other forms of study.

Reflect on Proverbs 16 verse 33.

The mystery of life?

Maybe just maybe there is a creator.

[alan]

I think we've made our points about Shakespeare, monkeys and probability. No need for further discussion.
Unfortunately this has absolutely nothing to do with the evolutionary process.
Evolution doesn't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again - like the monkeys would.
Once a path has proved less adapted to survival, this path "dies out" and the better path is continued. This reduces the odds and accelerates the process towards better adaptation to survival.
So, taking into account the time that life on earth has existed, it is easy to understand how forms of life existing today - including humans - have, well, just "evolved". They have continuously become better adapted to survival in their environment in a process of natural selection.
But please, please, never forget that evolution does not, repeat not, explain how life originated.
That remains a mystery.

[cp36]

To Alan,

>>"The probability of correctly predicting sixteen numbers in a lottery is 1 000 000 000 000. This is "extremely unlikely" to occur by chance. OK. (I hope the figures are correct.) The inference is that a correct prediction is more likely to happen by "design" than by chance."

I assume that you mean predicting 16 digits in a lottery. The first digit can be chosen form any of the 10 digits, 0-9. So there are 10 ways of choosing the first digit. Similarly there are 10 ways for choosing the second digit if the numbers are allowed to be repeated. For two digits there are 10^2=100 ways. Similarly for 16 digits there are 10^16 ways. So the probability of choosing the winning number is 1/10^16. This number is so close to zero that it can be dismissed as impossible for all practical purposes. All gambling devices are designed so that the vendor will make tons of money. You are quite right that if gambling is left to chance, nobody will win anything in a very long, long time and the vendors will be out of business. There has to be some kind of manipulation of the results if anybody is going to win anything. It is in the interest of the vendors that somebody wins something sometime to stay in business.

Cheers

[alan]

Ah, Theo, now I get your point. And I accept it. You are obviously talking about the practicality of this enterprise.
I'm talking simply about the mathematical probability, which has nothing to do with real monkeys or material limits. Theoretically, given enough time, monkeys, typewriters etc., every possible combination (permutation), of letters will eventually emerge. In fact one monkey and one typrewriter would do the trick too.
I hope we can differ on this - and accept each other's argument.
PS. Do you understand what CP36 is on about, because I don't (except for his first paagraph).

[cp36]

For those people who are interested in the monkey business, The Monkey Theorem is, give a monkey of infinite patience, a typewriter of infinite durability and it will eventually type out a Shakespeare sonnet.

On Probability, if a is the number of elements in A and N is the sample space then the Probability of A, p(A) = a/N, as N approaches infinity. The best we can do is to find a good estimate p, i.e. a number between 0 and 1, that is as close as possible to the true p.

Science is no longer an exact subject and there is no getting away form the world of Probability in anything that concerns this life. As for the life of the world to come, it is as the Bible says, all of faith. I don't believe anybody is going to to prove anything in this life. St Paul said, "We walk by faith and not by sight".

Cheers

[Theo Dexter]

Alan

10 to the power 81 means a lot to me because I used to work with “to the power” nomenclature.

You are not a mathematician. Please realise it is not simply the number of letters in the complete works but each letter with a probability of 1 in 26 (assuming no other keys on the typewriter) times the next letter probability I in 26 times the next letter and so forth. This becomes a “big” number. The number of atoms in the universe is not irrelevant because you may not have more monkeys than atoms! You therefore may not be given anywhere near the requisite number of participants to fulfil your criteria. In other words there are limits.

Some points on biology, monkeys do not act like random letter generators and you cannot attribute, as you did in an earlier post, purpose to the nonsentient.

[alan]

Theo - Write out the number 10 to the power of 81 in longhand , and tell if it means anything to you.
And there are much greater "numbers" than that - take 10 to the power of 55555555 - just as an example. And numbers don't stop there either. (10 to the power of 55555555 + 1. for example).
That makes the number of letters in Shakespeare's works look rather small, don't you think?
The number of atoms in the universe is irrrelevant. Another red herring on the part of the faithful.
And Ngel - OK, perhaps I shouldn't have said these astronomical numbers were beyond human comprehension. If you can comprehend (grasp, imagine) them, my congatulations. You've proved me wrong. But that has no relevancy for my monkeys.
Given enough monkeys, enough typewriters and enough time, and they'll type out the works of Shakespeare lots of times.
(I'm not a mathematician, and I'd be wiser if someone could prove me wrong.)

[Theo Dexter]

It is estimated that the number of atoms in the universe ranges from 10 to the power 78 to 10 to the power 81.

“They just can't grasp that there are things beyond human comprehension.”

On what independent study do you base this ad hominem remark?

[Nigel Nicholson]

No, no, no. The theory of an infinate number of monkeys on an infinate number of keyboards banging out Shakespeare has in fact been proven wrong by the Internet. Sorry, try again.

[alan]

Theo - I'm not sure who counted how many atoms there are in the universe - or how.
But that doesn't alter my point about calculating probability. There are numbers - just like space and time - that go beyond human imagination. The important thing is to realize this.
Because that's where creationists go wrong. They just can't grasp that there are things beyond human comprehension.
Like where life came from; where space ends and what is beyond; when time began and what was there before.
Let's not be too arrogant to admit we are ignorant. By ignorant I simply mean "not knowing".

[Theo Dexter]

One by one - George.

Not everyone reads every thread.

[George Parr]

Theo: "Finally, what is your answer to the following question?

How did everything come from nothing in the first place?"

I thought that we established ten days ago that none of us knew and that the question was unanswerable!

[Theo Dexter]

Alan

I think that it is most probable that the RSPCA would stop any such experiment. It would take more monkeys than there are estimated atoms in the Universe to complete the sonnet alone.

To that question

None of us”know” the answer. However some have faith in an explanation which you do not accept at present.

No worries.

[alan]

Theo - sorry, in my reply I forgot to answer your second question. How did everything come from nothing? (If it did!)
Quite simply, I don't know. And this doesn't worry me.
Do YOU know? - Of course not.
I hope this doesn't worry you either.

[alan]

Thanks for your reply, Theo. I was just trying to point out what stupid arguments some people put forward to "prove" their idea of a creator.
Now to your argument: I've thought about this problem many times. The enormity of it is certainly mind-boggling.
But having said that, consider the following:
Let's take the COMPLETE works of Shakespeare. The adds against getting them randomly correct, word for word is almost infinitesimally remote. But it could be worked out mathematically by counting the words and doing the necessary calculations.
Now let's take this enormous figure. And let's try randomly as many times and with as many monkeys that the law of probability requires to get Shakespeare correct. And we're pretty sure to get it right at least once. If not, we try a few more times.
OK, I'm talking about numbers that go beyond our human imagination (not comprehension though). But it is theoretically possible?
This, Theo, and I'm sure you'll agree with me (!), makes the problem of the monkeys and the mere sonnet look dead easy.
The only problem is getting enough monkeys and giving them sufficient time. Then they'll produce Shakespeare for you.

[Theo Dexter]

Try this Alan

You know the old one about monkeys and Shakespeare.

Let us consider not the complete works but just a single sonnet

For example “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”

There are 488 letters in the sonnet and 26 letters in the alphabet.

Work out the probability of the sonnet being produced completely by randomly pressing keyboard keys.

The number of trials needed to achieve this exceeds the estimated number of atoms in the universe. You will never get a sonnet let alone the “complete works” by chance but the world just thinks that monkey’s can do it every time.

Finally, what is your answer to the following question?

How did everything come from nothing in the first place?

[alan]

I've just been looking at a web-site on "Which religion to choose". It gives an exammple of "probability" to back up its claim that the universe must have been "designed". It goes like this:
The probability of correctly predicting sixteen numbers in a lottery is 1 000 000 000 000. This is "extremely unlikely" to occur by chance. OK. (I hope the figures are corrrect.)
The inference is that a correct prediction is more likely to happen by "design" than by chance.
Well, at first sight, perhaps. But consider the following:
Say China has 1 000 000 000 inhabitants. (It has more.)
Let all Chinese take part in the lottery. The chances of one getting the right numbers in then 1000 to 1.
Let them take part, say, a hundred times a day for a amere ten days (and not 14 billion years, the age of the universe), and the chances are that one will get the numbers right.
No designer is needed.
Another stupid argument by creationist believers.
Apart from these bizarre figures, evolution doesn't work like that. It contiually progresses on a kind of "trial and error" basis. What doesn't work is discarded. What works is bult upon for the next stage.
But I expect creationist believers will not understand this - because they don't want to understand it.

[alan]

What are the odds on the non-existence of god? And does failure to produce proof of his existence by 31st December 2009 count as a win?
I'm tempted to have a flutter.

[Tony B]

How on Earth the questionable kernel of doubt in the mind of one person, however prominent, could be proof of the existence of God is utterly beyond me. The discussion of God is a junkyard of poor reasoning.

[Chris Wallis]

As far as I can see, the shortening of the odds signifies nothing but the opinion of this bookie. To make a market, we would need the opportunity to bet in the other direction: that no proof will emerge. I'd be up for that bet.

[j]

I was just going to post the same quote, david. I love it: scientific proof by a given date. So that's OK then. Glad we will finally have it all wrapped up in time for Christmas 2010.

Whatever happened to the concept of not putting god to the test- I seem to remember it is forbidden?

Have you noticed they are giving 500 to 1 that Russell Brand is god? so it's official: he is only 125 times more unlikely to be god than the official candidate.

Not a lot, in the scheme of things.

It's a glimpse into a whole new way of wasting time and money, the "novelty bets" section of that website.

[David Keen]

The odds are not on whether God exists, but on whether proof will be found. This is just a moneyspinner: what counts as proof? The betting site says: "Scientific proof must emerge by 31st Dec 2009, to confirm his omnipresence in order for bets to be deemed winners." So we must have scientists in every corner of the known universe to verify it. Houston we have a problem.

Unscrupulous people have been making money out of fools, and out of religion, for years, so I guess this is nothing new.

[Yakoub]

Gambling is something I detest, having seen it destroy people's lives, and New Labour's deregulation of the industry epitomises neoliberalism's fundamental amorality. Betting on God's existence is as absurd as putting money on whether you're gonna burn in hell after you're dead!

[andrew holden]

"Betting on the existence of a God is like betting on a horse race with no horses."

Actually, Cliff, the horses are running - there are plenty to choose between.

The wager is about which, if any, will finish the race?

[j]

"belief that Dawkins' atheism contains a kernel of doubt that could in itself be proof of the existence of God"

Oh Ruth, that is not good. I'm sorry, but the possibility of being wrong is something that both christians and atheists must intellectually accept.

But in itself it is not proof of a god any more than it is proof of an eternal pink banana.

And certainly it is no kind of proof of a preference for the christian tradition over, say, Baal.

[cp36]

I understand that the The British Methodist Church has welcomed Professor Richard Dawkins part funding of the advertisement on the buses.

The Rev Jenny Ellis, who is the Spirituality and Discipleship Officer for the Methodist Church, said, "We are grateful to Richard for his continued interest in God and for encouraging people to think about these issues. This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life."

Responding to Dawkins’ comment that "thinking is anathema to religion", Ms Ellis said: "As Christians, we respond to Jesus’ call to love God with our minds as well as our hearts, souls and strength. Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, believed that no one should be saved from the trouble of thinking - because that is the path to understanding God."

I agree that one should use all of one's mind to try and find out as much as possible about God. St Paul was a logical thinker.

Cheers.

[Cliff Fraser]

Betting on the existence of a God is like betting on a horse race with no horses.

[Mark]

The bookies usually stipulate a final arbiter for bets like this, I'd like to know who Paddy Power have appointed.

PS It is a hadron (not halogen) collider.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Interesting. But I would still ask, as did Billy Graham, would you want to take a chance of hell if there were even just a 1% chance?

[Chris]

What shallow minded nonsense. With thinking such as this its no wonder the world is in the mess we currently endure. Fairy stories? You couldn't make 'em up.

[Chris Gillibrand]

We have been here before- Pascal discusses (at great length) taking a wager on God's existence in Section 3 of the Pensees- see especially para 233.

In the modern world, we hear so much about the precautionary principal: yet few are concerned about the salvation of their soul. To neglect this, could be considered the greatest risk of all, especially on today's Feast of All Souls.

[Rachel]

Further proof that God works for the good in all things.(Rom 8:28) Amazing that people might come to faith through Dawkins. With God, anything is possible. How encouraging!