Probability for existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2017, 09:48 PM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can't calculate a god into existence.

Of course not. That's why we having wishing. Smile

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like brunumb's post
08-11-2017, 09:58 PM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 09:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. Radioactive decay happens randomly. There is no known cause, and no entity is involved.
Virtual particles came and go from existence all the time. No entity and no known cause involved.
Your generalizations and assertions are simply false.

I must admit that when this argument of;

".. Because all actions are caused by entities and the nature of the action is determined by the nature of the entity which acts..."

I think...

"Well.. there are volcanoes. Should we go back to worshipping volcanoes? Obviously something powerful is creating the volcanoes, so we should obviously worship something so powerful."

Who's up for throwing some one into the big, glowing holes in Hawaii? Consider

* raises hand *
Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-11-2017, 10:16 PM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 09:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. Radioactive decay happens randomly. There is no known cause, and no entity is involved.
Virtual particles came and go from existence all the time. No entity and no known cause involved.
Your generalizations and assertions are simply false.

I must admit that when this argument of;

".. Because all actions are caused by entities and the nature of the action is determined by the nature of the entity which acts..."

I think...

"Well.. there are volcanoes. Should we go back to worshipping volcanoes? Obviously something powerful is creating the volcanoes, so we should obviously worship something so powerful."

Who's up for throwing some one into the big, glowing holes in Hawaii? Consider

[Image: 1484595]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-11-2017, 11:34 PM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 06:30 PM)Henri Wrote:  In case of OP there is no such background information that would allow you to diminish 50/50 probability that God created the universe.

Henri, do you know how many creator-gods have been worshipped in human history? There's quite a few (and in fact, three of them -- Oðinn, Vili and Vé -- are in My own family tree). There's also the possibility of an indeterminate number of possible creator-gods that don't announce themselves to humanity.

If you add Dad and My two uncles to the equation, the probability drops to about 33%. (I'm treating Them as a single creator-god unit for the purpose of simplicity here.) The more gods come under consideration, the lower the probability that it's your favourite god.

Personally, I believe that the basic quark-type stuff that makes up the universe has always existed in some form or another. I also believe that creation ex nihilo is a contradiction in terms, because a god would require energy in order to do anything (and therefore energy/matter had to previously exist). At most, a god could rearrange something that was already there, which is how things play out in the Norse creation myth. There was a realm of intense heat and a realm of intense cold and a void in between them, and then a frozen giant and a cow, and then the gods showed up and started building things.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
08-11-2017, 11:59 PM
RE: Probability for existence of God
Why should I care about this "God" fellow?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 12:25 AM (This post was last modified: 09-11-2017 02:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  Within reality we can reach, it is impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that creator who consciously created our universe exists.

Oh, this should be enlightening...


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  At the same time it is possible to calculate almost 100% chance that such creator exists based on available measurements. The more measurements about our reality one uses in calculation, the closer to 100% chance that creator exists it gets.

I'm starting to think you failed Statistics 101, right?


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  Why is it impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that creator who consciously created our universe exists?

Ineptitude or willful ignorance?


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  (1) There are two encompassing options - that universe got to exist through unconscious means or through consciouns[sic] means, where conscious means include consciousness at or above human level. Human level is taken as delimiting point because humans are highest measurable beings with ability to plan and work with purpose toward complex and new end goal, so that's the best reference point available. Any other being, by what we can measure and observe, is absolutely not able to consciously plan and work with purpose to create a universe, so if an entity with consciousness less of a human's created the universe, that would practically be as if universe got to exist through literal unconscious means, because it would still be through chance.

First error is assuming that is a variable at all. From what little we know of consciousness from our own experience on Earth, consciousness is a gradient. Turning a gradient into a binary choice, especially when we have no idea what the upper limit is, seems incredibly unwise. It also would cause all uses of this 'variable' in any statistical calculation to result in astronomical error bars, because the upper limit is effectively unknown and could be infinite.

Congrats, you've broken the model on the first assumption.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  (2) As far as we are aware, humans cannot reach and measure any conscious means, or at least nothing of essence of any such entity, that is powerful enough to create a universe.

You are also assuming that the 'creation' of such things is possible, let alone possible by a sufficiently intelligent being. Again, this is another huge zero to be factored into your calculation.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  (3) At the same time, humans do measure various aspects of unconscious means within the universe, primarily those that are labeled as elements and laws of nature. But measuring those things cannot in any way affect the probability of the existence of the conscious creator of the universe, because there is no known natural law that says that if creator of the universe exists, then such creator would create the universe within certain distribution pattern of it's various characteristics. Measurements we have at most point to some parts of seeming profile of the creator, but not whether creator exists or not.

No creator is needed to explain anything, all assuming a creator does is add another layer of obfuscation between us and the answers we seek. Inserting a creator into 'how gravity works' doesn't actually solve how gravity works, because now we'd want to know 'how does the creator make gravity work'. So then we're a step behind, but on shakier ground because our baseline assumption is unsupported by any evidence (the existence of said creator). Adding a creator (or any other unsubstantiated assumptions) into the mix solves nothing, and only muddies the waters.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  (4) As a result, measurable information, or background information, we have about source of creation is symmetric respective to universe coming to existence from either unconscious or consciouns[sic] means.

Nope. Sure, we have examples of conscious and unconscious 'creation', but we have zero examples of anything creating a universe or reality. Snowflakes follow patterns as dictated by the simple laws of physics, emergence is a known phenomena. But as of yet, we've never seen a universe created, and we do not know if it is even possible, let alone which two of a arbitrarily imposed false dichotomy is more likely.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  (5) That means that probability that consciouns[sic] means, conscious entity, created the universe is 50/50.

Nope. Arbitrary dichotomy attempting to split a gradient which we have no way of knowing the upper limit of, and then trying to impose that onto the 'creation of the universe' when we have zero evidence to know what the creation of such things entail (even assuming that it is possible to 'create' such a thing in the first place).

You are trying to run a marathon, when you haven't even tied your shoelaces yet. That would be quaint, if it weren't so inane.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  Now, this doesn't take into account specific measurements that are available to us about reality. It doesn't need to because none of the measurements changes the probability for the existence of the creator from 50/50 to some less favorable chance.

Again, it is abundantly clear you have no idea how to properly evaluate evidence and calculate probability.


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  But, when we start to calculate probability for the creation through unconscious means, using available measurements, then the more measurements we include in our calculation the less chance there is for unconscious means to be the source of creation of the universe.

Again, when was the last time you witnessed the creation of a universe, conscious or otherwise?


(08-11-2017 12:39 PM)Henri Wrote:  There are many calculations already done in that direction, many of which are way beyond mathematical possibility, which makes probability for existence of God, based on available measurements, to be almost 100%. To present it somewhat more precisely, they point to 99.9999999...with practically untold number of 9s more...% chance that God exists. It can never be absolutely 100% though, because that's impossible within what we can reach and measure.

Forgive me if, after that display of staggering ineptitude, we all don't just take you at your word when you say 'no really guys, god totes exists, the maths says so!'.

Even assuming you were right (an assumption I am not granting), that would gt you to what exactly? Some 'conscious' being that exists outside of perceptible space-time and never intervenes within the universe it created? That is effectively identical to a non-existent god. It certainly won't get you to any form of theism, to any sort of god who answered prayer or who game a shit what people do when they're naked or whom they're naked with. It won't get you to heaven or hell, any afterlife, sins, karma, reincarnation, Qi, condemnation, absolution, or any ethical standards.

It is just as 'probable' that the universe was created by a consciousness, as it was created by Steve the Doughnut.

Do not question Steve. He is a doughnut.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-11-2017, 02:37 AM
RE: Probability for existence of God
I had to stop playing with chew toy at page 5 and go to bed. I see you had a lot of fun with him in the meantime, 10 pages to be precise.

And like in so many other but similar threads i am inclined to say: "Noone is possibly (or probably, pun intended) so stupid and ignorant, he must be a troll", and then some of you will provide me with counterevidence of people they met who are, indeed, so misinformed, uneducated and/or indoctrinated into christianity that Henri is not even st the edge of this distribution.

*sigh*

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 02:45 AM
RE: Probability for existence of God
Here's a way of proving that dice are guided by unseen magical forces.

Roll a die a thousand times, recording the results.

Do you know what the probability is that you would have got that exact sequence? It's 1 in 6^1000. How unlikely is that? Super unlikely. Therefor, some magical force must have wanted it to happen, and guided it.

If it's not unlikely enough to jump to that conclusion, feel free to roll it a million or a billion times, until you get the point.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Robvalue's post
09-11-2017, 02:58 AM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 06:57 PM)Henri Wrote:  If you say there is, for example, 0% for God, I would like to read how you come to that conclusion through probability methods.

The statement "God created the universe" can be assigned a probability of zero. Creation is an action requiring both space and time, however space-time are a feature of the universe. That means that creation can only be accomplished from within the universe. Obviously, the universe cannot be created from within the universe. Similarly the universe cannot be created from "outside" of the universe due to the aforementioned lack of space-time. Thus, the universe cannot be created at all.

This blather about the universe being created is a classic example of what happens when you take every day common sense and extend it to the least common of phenomena. The assumptions that you make a grossly wrong and the answers that result are absurdities.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
09-11-2017, 03:26 AM
RE: Probability for existence of God
(08-11-2017 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Radioactive decay happens randomly. There is no known cause, and no entity is involved.

More accurately, it is known that there is no cause.

Radioactive decay occurs when quantum vacuum fluctuations impart sufficient energy to a particle that it is able to tunnel out of the nucleus and escape. These quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause.

This has some interesting implications. A nuclear chain reaction begins with a single neutron. The emission of that first neutron is an uncaused event and all subsequent events that can inevitably be tied back to it are just as causeless. This means that it is literally true that 130,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died for no reason whatsoever.

This is not restricted solely to radioactive decay and can be extended to cover all forms of emissive radiation.

Why does the sun shine? No reason at all.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: