God doesn't understand iterative probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2015, 07:29 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 07:25 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 07:22 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I think Christian version make no sense, as god said that punishment would be death not original sin. But this is to be expected when one try to merge two differents books.

I think only way for Bible to make sense is merging myth with reality, cause if one looks at Bible as some kind of divine word then it is full of nonsense. If one accept that god (who is plot mechanism himself) must have done something for plot reasons then Bible might be interesting read, which shows what those ho lived before us believed.

If you want to see how christians "try" and merge all of the passages filled with contradictions together look up Kent Hovind doing his thing on you tube (pre-prison of course).

Thx for the info, though I know some of theirs tricks - Jesus geneaology, prophecies, etc.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
08-05-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
It's insanely frustrating that the general public and most atheists delegate Hovind, Ham, and WLC as the paragons of Christian understanding of science and origins instead of people like Collins and Bakker... you know... real scientists.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 07:47 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's insanely frustrating that the general public and most atheists delegate Hovind, Ham, and WLC as the paragons of Christian understanding of science and origins instead of people like Collins and Bakker... you know... real scientists.

Why would we bother with your superior units when there's so many inferior units ripe for slaughter?

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 07:47 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's insanely frustrating that the general public and most atheists delegate Hovind, Ham, and WLC as the paragons of Christian understanding of science and origins instead of people like Collins and Bakker... you know... real scientists.

You are right, Ham and the others are a caricature of christianity. I think there are some reasonable ones out there--like Frank Turek for instance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
08-05-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 07:58 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 07:47 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's insanely frustrating that the general public and most atheists delegate Hovind, Ham, and WLC as the paragons of Christian understanding of science and origins instead of people like Collins and Bakker... you know... real scientists.

You are right, Ham and the others are a caricature of christianity. I think there are some reasonable ones out there--like Frank Turek for instance.

Probably there are reasonable ones, but one could ask what is real face of christianity? Or what common people believe in? It isn't theologically sophisticated faith I think.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 08:02 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 07:58 AM)jennybee Wrote:  You are right, Ham and the others are a caricature of christianity. I think there are some reasonable ones out there--like Frank Turek for instance.

Probably there are reasonable ones, but one could ask what is real face of christianity? Or what common people believe in? It isn't theologically sophisticated faith I think.

No, it's not--but I can tell you when u r in the midst of christianity--somehow it all makes sense. It is weird coming out of it and looking back on it now--I don't know how I could have possibly believed in all of that. But when i was a hardcore christian--i could not imagine believing any other way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
08-05-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 08:07 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 08:02 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Probably there are reasonable ones, but one could ask what is real face of christianity? Or what common people believe in? It isn't theologically sophisticated faith I think.

No, it's not--but I can tell you when u r in the midst of christianity--somehow it all makes sense. It is weird coming out of it and looking back on it now--I don't know how I could have possibly believed in all of that. But when i was a hardcore christian--i could not imagine believing any other way.

I do not know much about faith making sense or not, as it was matter of tradition for me, but I meant my post as kind of answer to Kingchosen question. Though it makes sense - it would be strange I think if believer would find his own faith peculiar.

People talk about radicals cause they're heard, and if one discuss faith then one will probably stop at faith of common men as there is no need to mention theological subtleties.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
08-05-2015, 08:24 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 01:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I like RPGs (the games, although rocket launchers are cool, too), and one thing I've learned to pay attention to in them is iterative probability. In these games, each challenge you face has a non-zero chance of killing your character. Of course, even if this chance is pretty small, it means that the more challenges you face, the more likely it is your character dies. This is just a fundamental truth of statistics. You cannot get around that without reducing the chance to precisely zero. Otherwise, you have to hope it's low enough that you survive the campaign, hope you get lucky, or be blindly ignorant of how these things work.

Now, apply that to the Garden of Eden.

Genesis posits a physical place where Adam and Eve can hang around doing, presumably anything they want, so long as they don't eat from one tree. Now, I cannot fathom any reason why God needed to put that tree there in the first place. Some may say that God needed to test humanity (why?). Now, if that's the case, the only reason for a test is if there's a chance for failure. If humanity was supposed to stay in the garden, as time went on, the likelihood that someone would eat form that tree would approach near certainty. That's just how these things work.

What did God think was going to happen!?

I mean obviously, this is just one more point showing the absurdity of the myth, but how do apologists reconcile this? They blame free will for all of mankind's faults and refuse to make God culpable for making faulty humans. This situation was engineered by someone who wanted humans to fail or by someone who is woefully inept. That's it. There's no magical third option.

While I like this approach, from a mathematical perspective it is technically inaccurate.

This is because you assume that the probability of eating from the tree is fixed as you iterate. To the contrary, it is possible that the probability drops with each iteration, as the habit of eating other food staples gets more ingrained. (Pun intended.) If this were the case, the summation of probabilities approaching infinity might converge to something less than 1.

To put it in RPG terms, lets say you write a script to have your character just forever running around the level 1 area, auto-attacking anything that attacks. And let's say that the script also has your character pop a basic healing item (which randomly drops off the random encounters) when her health is low. Yes, there's a decent chance of her dying because you hit a dry spell with healing items, or a lucky crit got through, or something. But that chance will go down with time, because your character will level, making her less likely to be killed by these level 1 critters, and because the odds of getting a healing item starts exceeding the odds you'll need to use one in any given interval of time, and so you've built up a huge stockpile to survive most dry spells. If she hits the level cap, the odds of her dying even if we extend time out to infinity are effectively 0.

But then God, being omniscient, would know how it would play out without having to play the educated guessing game of probability. And it's possible that the probabilities in this scenario WOULD converge to 1. I'm just saying that the math doesn't work out quite as neatly and assuredly as you're implying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
08-05-2015, 08:49 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 07:01 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, I think I understand the concept, but how does it coincide with God's ineptness in its regards?

It doesn't have to mean inept. It can also mean he knew what was going to happen and wanted it to happen. From what I understand, this might jive perfectly with your theology, although most Christians I know don't like to think about it that way.

The idea is God would have either known that this was bound to happen or God doesn't understand iterative probability. Now, the OP can be rejected if you change the setup. If Adam and Eve aren't meant to encounter the tree repeatedly during their immortal lives, then this wouldn't apply. It assumes they and the tree are in there on a permanent basis and that they will keep encountering the tree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(08-05-2015 06:21 AM)jennybee Wrote:  God kicks them out of the garden, makes women have excruciating pain during childbirth and sanctions their husbands to rule over them, curses the ground, and makes people die as a result of sin. He does punish them and is kind of a jackass.

You think YOU got it bad?! I've got a bump in my throat to remind me that Adam took a big bight. And the snakes have to crawl on the ground...even thou that's probably what they were doing to start off with.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: