Do you believe in God?

[TheDrummingKING]

It's beginning to seem that way. I mean, he asked what the contradictions in the bible were, and I posted a video that points out some three times and it was ignored each time (along with the rest of a post included in those three).

 

[homeforsummer]

That is only partially correct.
Zero probability events are not impossible.
They are non-probable, or strictly possible.

A zero probability event is not an event. It has zero probability of happening, so cannot happen, will not happen, and has never happened. By its nature, something with zero probability cannot exist. The clue is in the number "zero".

Anything greater than zero probability can happen and is likely to happen, again by its nature of being greater than zero.

That you say "zero probability events are not impossible" is virtually a mantra for how little you're understanding the concept of probability.

 

[Scaff]

That is only partially correct.
Zero probability events are not impossible.

Yes they are.

Lets take my last example:

If I have a box of 100 coloured balls, made up as follows:

20 Black
20 Blue
20 Red
20 Yellow
20 Green


Now I take all of them and put them in a bag and we look at the probability of drawing a red ball out of the bag. Its 20 (number of red balls in the bag) in 100 (total number of balls in the bag), which can be reduced to 1 in 5. This would be commonly stated as being a 0.2 or 20% probability.

Now what is the probability of drawing a Pink ball out of the bag?

Its zero, no Pink balls exist in the data set (the balls contained within the bag) and as such zero probability exists that one can be drawn. It is an impossibility.

What you are claiming is that even with no pink balls in the data set one can still be drawn out, which is quite frankly ridiculous.

Now this does lead onto the crux of the issue; does this mean that Pink balls don't exist? No of course it doesn't, I could have a pink ball on the desk and just have not placed it into the bag, if I were to do so and a probability of drawing a Pink ball now exists.

Here's a little challenge for you, can you now calculate the probability of drawing each of the different coloured balls now that I've added the Pink one.

The key factor here however is two fold:

1. Zero probability events are just that, they will not occur
2. Probability can't be used to prove soemthing exists

Now it doesn't matter how much you want the above two points to not be true, they are and will remain so.

They are non-probable, or strictly possible.
Possibility transcends the scale of probability and is infinite in scope.
All probabilities are possibilities, but not vice versa.
Probability is of limited scale, since as you say is confined to known events.
Many things are not probable.
There is nothing that is not possible.
Depending on your perspective, the possibility of something maybe impractical or unlikely to the point of inconceivability, wherein it seems impossible, but nonetheless, however remote it may be, it is still possible.
Hence the saying, "anything is possible".

All of the above = nonsense

Case in point, until the early nineteen hundreds man had never flew by independantly sustained or powered mechanical means.
Therefore prior, it could not be a probability.
Needless to say, it was certainly possible.

Once again you fail to actual demonstrate that you understand probability at all and are simply trying to use it as an abstract concept.

Each attempt at powered flight has a probability of success depending on a very large range of factors; the four key ones however were :

• Structural Integrity (the vehicle has to stay together)
• Aerodynamics (it has to generate lift)
• Speed (it has to be able to reach a speed to generate enough lift)
• Weather (affects aerodynamics, engine efficency, etc)

Now if an attempt is carried out in a vehicle that doesn't generate lift (as in the wing design is wrong) then the probability of it achieving powered flight is zero. It will not occur.

In fact if any of the above (and a huge number of other variables) are not reached, then the attempt has a probability of zero.

Its quite clear to anyone that has an understanding of Probability that it is not a tool to validate the existence of anything (and you are the only one claiming, incorrectly, that it is) and you have now repeatedly failed to prove otherwise (and its a zero probability event of you doing otherwise)

Now stop filibustering with this and actually provide the evidence you claim you have and/or actually answer some of the very direct questions you have been ignoring.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Still waiting.

Of course its worth buying, because there is a risk possibility you will need it.
However as I've pointed out over and over, there is no evidence beyond possibility to compel you to do so.

Edit:
No one who understood what that word means would use it that way.

Certainly you would.

In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of being in a plane crash?

 

[Azuremen]

 

[Exorcet]

In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of being in a plane crash?

The probability was zero. Yes, probability still applies, not this possibility nonsense.

And quite honestly, your example with powered flight is a rather poor one. People didn't wake up one day and start building planes. Aviation dates back to the 1700's at least. The first powered flight was 1903, and the probability of flying a plane in one's lifetime was greater than zero before 1903 because flight science already existed and there was always a chance that a useable aircraft would be invented in the years up to 1903.

The probability that there would be plane crashes or that people would fly has always been 1 though.

 

[Scaff]

Of course its worth buying, because there is a risk possibility you will need it.
However as I've pointed out over and over, there is no evidence beyond possibility to compel you to do so.





Certainly you would.

In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of being in a plane crash?

None of which has anything to do with a standard of evidence, probability is not a tool for measuring evidence.

It can't be used as such and as such you need to stop trying to bastardize it in this way.

Probability is not a tool that can or should be used to provide evidence of the existence of anything, so I strongly suggest you move on from this and actually provide the evidence (that I certainly hope will meet the scientific standard) for God you claim to have an also actually answer some of the questions you have been asked.

 

[homeforsummer]

In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of being in a plane crash?

Greater than zero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher

Both died in the late 1800s, both in winged aircraft.

 

[Teflonicus]

"Do you believe in God?"

Nope. I believe all notions of supernatural-ism are human-made. I believe ancient religions are due to the ancient knowledge available at the time, and humankind's inability to deal with or face the unknown.

I believe that each religion is full of either con-men or dupes, and there is no excuse for being either. All it takes to realise this truth is an awareness of the cultural or psychological basis for you falling upon the religion you fell upon: You believe in X-ism because your parents believed in X-ism. You believe Y-ism is wrong, and Y-ists believe you are wrong. The only material difference between X and Y-ism is the culture you were born within. The fact that humans have fallen upon different beliefs is proof that no omnipotent being knows what we think or cares what we think. If a perfect being wanted us to believe in it, we all would, and we all would believe exactly the same thing; to say otherwise is an admission that such a being is not perfect.

For the sake of argument, I'll admit that I can't prove a deity, deities, or a spirit don't exist (you can't prove a teapot isn't flying around Jupiter either), but if one did manage to exist, somehow, it is certainly not represented by our religions, it has certainly not expressed an interest in us, and it is certainly not knowable to us. Therefore, to believe in it is pointless.

 

[Skuh]

Greater than zero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher

Both died in the late 1800s, both in winged aircraft.

lmao. XD

 

[photonrider]

Link would be nice. Though I doubt it'll really amount to much. *shrugs*

Here you go:

There's more . . . as I said - it's very much current news - not an obscure fact.
Feel free to pick your own malware.

 

[Skuh]

Link would be nice. Though I doubt it'll really amount to much. *shrugs*

You're right it doesn't amount to much, after all there is no eveidence for Jesus outside religeous text from the time. There was no Jesus, so there was no wife.
The story was ridiculed the moment it came out.

 

[PeterJB]

You're right it doesn't amount to much, after all there is no eveidence for Jesus outside religeous text from the time. There was no Jesus, so there was no wife.
The story was ridiculed the moment it came out.

Except for the Jewish, Greek and Roman sources of course.

 

[Teflonicus]

Except for the Jewish, Greek and Roman sources of course.

Outside of the bible, and therefore people who already believed the myth, name them. Name those "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources".

 

[PeterJB]

Outside of the bible, and therefore people who already believed the myth, name them. Name those "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources".

They're secular sources. They describe a man named Jesus living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago who had a cult following, annoyed the authorities, and was crucified. The Jews saw him as a fraud, and the Greeks and Romans didn't think much of him and found him to be a nuisance because of his radical thinking and behavior. Granted, it says virtually nothing of his divinity, but pretty much all modern historians and biblical scholars would agree that Jesus the man did exist.

 

[Teflonicus]

They're secular sources. They describe a man named Jesus living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago who had a cult following, annoyed the authorities, and was crucified. The Jews saw him as a fraud, and the Greeks and Romans didn't think much of him and found him to be a nuisance because of his radical thinking and behavior. Granted, it says virtually nothing of his divinity, but pretty much all modern historians and biblical scholars would agree that Jesus the man did exist.

I didn't ask you to categorise or paraphrase the sources, I asked you to name them...

 

[PeterJB]

I didn't ask you to categorise or paraphrase the sources, I asked you to name them...

The accounts of the 1st century Roman Historians Josephus and Tacitus for one. Jesus appears in chapters 20, 9 and 1 of Josephus' book The antiquities of the Jews, including his baptism by John the Baptist. Pontius Pilate ordering Jesus' crucifixion is in here as well as in the historian Tacitus' book The Annals, written in AD 116. The Talmud also makes several references to 'Jesus the Nazarene'.

 

[Teflonicus]

The accounts of the 1st century Roman Historians Josephus and Tacitus for one. Jesus appears in chapters 20, 9 and 1 of Josephus' book The antiquities of the Jews, including his baptism by John the Baptist. Pontius Pilate ordering Jesus' crucifixion is in here as well as in the historian Tacitus' book The Annals, written in AD 116. The Talmud also makes several references to 'Jesus the Nazarene'.

Josephus, as a source, has been and continues to be questioned. For a start, he wasn't a contemporary of Jesus', he wrote in 92-94 AD. For another, Josephus' own work, The Jewish War, is contradictory in detail to his other writings on Jesus. Josephus' work, Testimonium Flavianum, that deals with the execution of Jesus, is also widely regarded as inauthentic by scholars, who point to subsequent Christian adulteration of the original text.

That's all besides the point though as you stated you had "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources" and you stated as much despite categorically denying, in bold, someone else's suggestion that you couldn't provide that information "outside religious sources".

So why can't you provide "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources" like you said you could "outside religious sources?! How hard can it be for someone who has already claimed that they can do it?

 

[PeterJB]

Josephus, as a source, has been and continues to be questioned. For a start, he wasn't a contemporary of Jesus', he wrote in 92-94 AD. For another, Josephus' own work, The Jewish War, is contradictory in detail to his other writings on Jesus. Josephus' work, Testimonium Flavianum, that deals with the execution of Jesus, is also widely regarded as inauthentic by scholars, who point to subsequent Christian adulteration of the original text.

That's all besides the point though as you stated you had "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources" and you stated as much despite categorically denying, in bold, someone else's suggestion that you couldn't provide that information "outside religious sources".

So why can't you provide "Jewish, Greek and Roman sources" like you said you could "outside religious sources?! How hard can it be for someone who has already claimed that they can do it?

These are outside religious sources. They make no mention of his divinity. Jesus' crucifixion being ordered by Pontius Pilate appears in Josephus' works, Tacitus' (of which virtually modern historians see as genuine), there are also letters by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan informing him of Pilate's order to have Jesus executed (Pilate himself has sources in Philo of Alexandria, and also the Pilate Stone). Tacitus also showed no sympathy towards Christians. Mara-Bar Serapion wrote in a letter to his son about the murder of the Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. There are no Christian themes in the letters and many scholars see little doubt that "The king of the Jews" is a reference to Jesus.

There are also various other sources which talk about the treatment of Jews and Christians during the 1st century, like Suetonius, who, again thouht little of Christians, he calls there leader Cherstus, and again most historians believe this to be Christ.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes they are.

To the contrary they are absolutely possible, and I've already proven it to you.

"In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of flying by independant sustained mechanical means"?

And what was the possibilty?
History is rife with similar examples.

Lets take my last example:

Now what is the probability of drawing a Pink ball out of the bag?

Its zero, no Pink balls exist in the data set (the balls contained within the bag) and as such zero probability exists that one can be drawn. It is an impossibility.

0 probability
remote possibility

To the contrary, in reality its still quite possible.
What you are claiming is that even with no pink balls in the data set one can still be drawn out, which is quite frankly ridiculous.

Now this does lead onto the crux of the issue; does this mean that Pink balls don't exist? No of course it doesn't, I could have a pink ball on the desk and just have not placed it into the bag,

or mistakenly placed it in the bag.
Here's a better one:
The dye or paint on one of the red balls was faulty and it turned pink.

Well there you go.
Remember, we are talking "possibility".

Now it doesn't matter how much you want the above two points to not be true, they are and will remain so.

#1 see above.
#2 I don't have a clue what your talking about.
I don't think you do either.

All of the above = nonsense

There is a lot of nonsense here, but not on my side of the thread.

Once again you fail to actual demonstrate that you understand probability at all and are simply trying to use it as an abstract concept.

At this point, the only thing that appears truly impossible is your ability to correctly distinguish and apply possibility and probability in the reality of life and the universe at large.

 

[Azuremen]

At this point, the only thing that appears truly impossible is your ability to correctly distinguish and apply possibility and probability in the reality of life and the universe at large.

But...

0 probability
remote possibility

It is very clear you are the one having trouble with these words, as everyone else in here is in agreement with what they mean. Everyone but you.

 

[Scaff]

To the contrary they are absolutely possible, and I've already proven it to you.

"In the late eighteen hundreds, what was the probability of flying by independant sustained mechanical means"?

And what was the possibilty?
History is rife with similar examples.



0 probability
remote possibility



or mistakenly placed it in the bag.
Here's a better one:
The dye or paint on one of the red balls was faulty and it turned pink.

Well there you go.
Remember, we are talking "possibility".



#1 see above.
#2 I don't have a clue what your talking about.
I don't think you do either.



There is a lot of nonsense here, but not on my side of the thread.



At this point, the only thing that appears truly impossible is your ability to correctly distinguish and apply possibility and probability in the reality of life and the universe at large.

I will repeat it again just for the cheap seats and the vain hope it will sink in....

None of which has anything to do with a standard of evidence, probability is not a tool for measuring evidence.

It can't be used as such and as such you need to stop trying to bastardize it in this way.

Probability is not a tool that can or should be used to provide evidence of the existence of anything, so I strongly suggest you move on from this and actually provide the evidence (that I certainly hope will meet the scientific standard) for God you claim to have an also actually answer some of the questions you have been asked.

...now move on with your proof as at this stage your doing little more than embarrassing yourself.


Probability and possibility are different things (it could be said that possibility theory is probability for the vague), they do however have one thing in common, neither is a form of evidence.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Probability and possibility are different things (it could be said that possibility theory is probability for the vague), they do however have one thing in common, neither is a form of evidence.

Precisely

...now move on with your proof as at this stage your doing little more than embarrassing yourself.

Nice try, but nothing doing.

None of which has anything to do with a standard of evidence, probability is not a tool for measuring evidence.

The only standard of evidence under examination is yours.

It can't be used as such and as such you need to stop trying to bastardize it in this way.

I think you mean, stop pointing out the "fact of the matter".

so I strongly suggest you move on from this and actually provide the evidence (that I certainly hope will meet the scientific standard) for God you claim to have an also actually answer some of the questions you have been asked.

If I were you, I would strongly suggest the same thing.

However, since you have one standard of evidence(possibility), for yourself, and the other, of scientific proof for me, why should I?

Why should'nt you afford me the same standard you use for yourself?

 

[Scaff]

However, since you have one standard of evidence(possibility), for yourself, and the other, of scientific proof for me, why should I?

Why should'nt you afford me the same standard you use for yourself?

I've not used 'possibility' or 'probability' as a standard of evidence at all, you have simply claimed it can be used as one as I have insurance (and that I have insurance doesn't mean I see it as a standard of evidence at all). As you are the one claiming it is a standard of evidence can you please provide a source to corroborate this.

 

[Villain]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Final attempt: How do you deal with the contradictions in the Bible?

 

[Exorcet]

To the contrary they are absolutely possible, and I've already proven it to you.

So now, is proven the next word that you will redefine?

How about this, find a single math text book not written by monkey's that backs up what you're saying at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

You need to read that at the very least. Desperately.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Final attempt: How do you deal with the contradictions in the Bible?

And I'll even repost this video for the forth time.




All it seems like you're doing SCJ, is refusing to acknowledge that you made a mistake so now you run with it like your life depends on it (and you are using it to ignore dylansan's, Villian's, and my posts(I may have missed a few names)).

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I've not used 'possibility' or 'probability' as a standard of evidence at all, you have simply claimed it can be used as one as I have insurance (and that I have insurance doesn't mean I see it as a standard of evidence at all). As you are the one claiming it is a standard of evidence can you please provide a source to corroborate this.

Just the opposite.
I've spent several posts proving probability is only evidence of occurance exsistence, not future assignment.

At any rate, then you do agree you buy insurance like everyone else, on risk possibility?

 

[Exorcet]

Just the opposite.
I've spent several posts proving probability is only evidence of occurance exsistence, not future assignment.

At any rate, then you do agree you buy insurance like everyone else, on risk possibility?

Everyone who buys insurance (and understands why people buy insurance) buys it because there is a non zero probability it will be needed. Your made up words won't change that.

 

[Scaff]

Just the opposite.
I've spent several posts proving probability is only evidence of occurance exsistence, not future assignment.

Probability is not evidence in itself, it requires already existing events to have a probability above zero.

If you disagree then provide a source to back up your claim, plenty have already been provided that disagree with you.

At any rate, then you do agree you buy insurance like everyone else, on risk possibility?

No on probability above zero and less that one (which is how insurance rates and warranty periods and exclusions are calculated). Which is still beside the point because its not a tool of evidence but a product of it (known existing factors or the probability drops to zero and insurance is pointless - I have no insurance for events that have no chance of occurring, I don't have God insurance in the same way I'm not insured against Unicorn attack).

Probability and Possibility remain different things and both are still not tools for evidence, if they are tools for evidence as you are claiming then please provide a source to prove such (just as you have been asked to do so following your claim that proof of God exists - of course I strongly suspect you are simply trying to change the definitions and use of both Probability and Possibility to then try and cite they as proof of God).