Some more evidence

[brian Embry]

It seems to me that it's a trivial matter establishing that there is evidence for God's existence. How about this:

G = God exists

S = Something exists

Obviously, P(G|S)>P(G) - i.e., the probability that God exists given the evidence that something exists is greater than the probability that God exists without the evidence that something exists (the latter probability is 0). So the fact that something exists is evidence for the existence of God. Or am I missing something?

[Alexander]

Aurelius wrote: It seems to me that it's a trivial matter establishing that there is evidence for God's existence. How about this:

G = God exists

S = Something exists

Obviously, P(G|S)>P(G) - i.e., the probability that God exists given the evidence that something exists is greater than the probability that God exists without the evidence that something exists (the latter probability is 0). So the fact that something exists is evidence for the existence of God. Or am I missing something?

You could just as easily say that by adding additional properties to "something" makes the proposition much less likely. Such as, something exists is more likely than saying something exists plus God exists. Arguments like this don't go anywhere, at least not for people who don't already agree with the conclusion.

[dcherchenko]

Check this out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZdtCKC2mUaKxL0_1Zf5BMO-un5ccKnad_JeLxXE3mIw/edit

[Bookiglove]

Made out to be great.

[Vimbiso]

It seems to me that it's a trivial matter establishing that there is evidence for God's existence. How about this:


G = God exists
S = Something exists


Obviously, P(G|S)>P(G) - i.e., the probability that God exists given the evidence that something exists is greater than the probability that God exists without the evidence that something exists (the latter probability is 0). So the fact that something exists is evidence for the existence of God. Or am I missing something?

Just a quick question Brian. Does evidence make it more likely for something to exist or does evidence make it easier to establish that something exists?

What I am getting at is that evidence does not cause whatever it is evidence for to exist so the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence though in some cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence. My understanding of your argument is that it is impossible to establish God exists if God exists alone. For us yes but for God no since He is conscious of his own existence. But if God exists alone who, other than God, cares that God exists?

[Verb]

It seems to me that it's a trivial matter establishing that there is evidence for God's existence. How about this:<div>
</div><div>G = God exists</div><div>S = Something exists</div><div>
</div><div>Obviously, P(G|S)>P(G) - i.e., the probability that God exists given the evidence that something exists is greater than the probability that God exists without the evidence that something exists (the latter probability is 0). So the fact that something exists is evidence for the existence of God. Or am I missing something?</div>

By this logic, everything else exists as well. So this might make God true, but it wouldn't make your sense of reality true.