Statistics ≠ God

I have never seen the question of the existence of God posited as a statistical equation before. This is a first for me but it makes so much sense when you think about it

If P(X) ≠ P(X)irc → P(X) ≅ 0
P(X)irc = Information required for calculation (of Probability of X)

Which can be read as follows: Where insufficient stats exist to properly calculate the probability of an event’s occurrence, it is not reasonable to conclude that the event will/did occur.

Explained a bit more:

If it is not possible to calculate the probability of the existence of God, then it is unreasonable to assume a god exists.

If it can be considered unreasonable to assume it, it should be thought unconscionable to promote the concept as fact.

Yet the fraud continues.

I love it!!

I like his reply to one commenter:

So you DO believe that non-living chemicals somehow combined to make amino acids, then proteins and then cells, do you?__Despite the astronomical unlikelihood of so much as a protein coming about that way.__Incredible belief.__But a harmless one.

To which he replys:

I can't say that I do or don't, and I don't think one can assume I do from the post.
The truth is I, personally, am uninterested in how it's all here. It would be nice to know how it all started, you know, like it's nice to know the moon causes the tides but it's not necessary information for 'living'.


The post is not about whether Big Bang or Big God is true but rather is merely asserting that one should not promote as fact that which is even more improbable than everything coming from 'nothing'.

Thanks Crispy for such a succint thought on the matter.

Too Many Questions: The God of Insufficient Statistics?