If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.

If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"

-UE

# This atheist argument on another forum.

"Let's examine, instead, unfalsifiable versions of god. [...] Alright, let's consider the space of all unfalsifiable hypotheses. This space has an infinite cardinality, at least that of R, and almost certainly larger than that. The claims of unfalsifiable gods only represent a very tiny proportion of that space. Now, because unfalsifiable claims are something that we cannot directly have empirical access too, the only intellectually honest probability measure to assign to the space of all unfalsifiable hypotheses is that of the uniform distribution. With this measure, any subset of the space which is finite in "generalized hypervolume" has probability measure 0 for being true. Hence, the probability that an unfalsifiable god exists is 0."
All I see is Word Salad. Lots and lots of Word Salad.
Also, it makes no sense whatsoever.

## Comments

That was kinda silly.

So you should probably have a discussion about atheism and vocalised linguistics and see who tires out first.

There are an infinite number of unfalsifiable hypotheses, including several that are of unfalsifiable Gods. Any of these claims has, before any evidence is gathered for them, a probability of 1/infinity, or zero. Since we can't gather evidence for any of these claims, we have to assume the general probabilty for all these claims, which is zero. Since God is one of these claims, the probability of God is zero.

And the problem with that argument is that the probability for a claim with no evidence is not actually zero; it's "so close to zero as makes no odds". And you don't get that from dividing it by the class of all unfalsifiable probabilities, because they're not mutually exclusive.

mutually exclusive,is silly.^^^ But its probability is zero. Though they're still not mutually exclusive, so the point stands (I think).