Do you believe in God?

[TheDrummingKING]

That's quite the aggressive tone, he's not even arguing with you, too..

 

[Scaff]

Calming down right now would be strongly advised to all involved.

 

[Skuh]

That's quite the aggressive tone, he's not even arguing with you, too..

If thats aimed at me. No, It isn't, I wrote it so I know the tone it was written in

Its really hard to read a tone from black type on a screen, people really shouldn't try and do it.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Okay well it seemed aggressive.

 

[Skuh]

Okay well it seemed aggressive.

Point taken

 

[Scaff]

If thats aimed at me. No, It isn't, I wrote it so I know the tone it was written in

Its really hard to read a tone from black type on a screen, people really shouldn't try and do it.

Then I suggest you re-read your posts before hitting the submit button, because it most certainly does have an aggressive tone to it, that's from the point of view of the staff and our opinion on it is one I advise you take on board.

 

[Skuh]

Then I suggest you re-read your posts before hitting the submit button, because it most certainly does have an aggressive tone to it, that's from the point of view of the staff and our opinion on it is one I advise you take on board.

I stand by what I said above regarding my tone. However I have no desire to break rules or despite what you may think cause anyone to think I was being aggresive with them.
As I said above, point taken.

 

[TJC_69]

Still .... Waiting .... For .... Evidence ....

C'mon SCJ , if you've got something to show or tell us all , ( That's not to do with probabability or other irrelevant topics etc .. ) , then now is the time to do so sir .

If your evidence is concrete and real , it will stand up to the testing standards aforementioned by the mods and previous contributors in this thread .

..... Unless your evidence relied upon the scientist mods here buying into your theories that is ...

In which case I would probably quit whilst I was behind 👍

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What historical facts?

Going to dummy-up on me, huh.

We'll do it again then, and as said earlier, history is rife with them.

In all of histroy, prior to December 1903, no person had ever flown by independantly sustained or powered mechanical means.

In the prior it did not exist and there was absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, so according to your assumption, there was zero probability of the occurance, and therefore should be rendered completely dismissable, as a future fact of reality. This is by your own words and statements, expressed in your standard of evidence for the existence of God.

In reality, not only was there possibility, prior to evidence for known exsistence, some numerical positive probability had to exist, even though it would have been considered improbable.

Either way, by mathematical consideration for zero probability, or finite fraction of probability, an evidentially absent, non-existent event became reality.
The point, as I've proved numerous times now, is, a heretofore unknown, is always a possibility, and is subject to manifesting at any time.

Again history is rife with these examples.

BTW a few people believed in the reality, prior to the the manifestation, although I don't think it was in the neighborhood of 40 billion.

Could you please post something that makes sense

Thats absolutely laughable.

You best be able to quote me doing so then.

OK, you have claimed repeatedly, you buy insurance based on evidence of probability.

Once again Probability and Possibility are different things so do try and be clear which one your talking about and stop using them interchangeably..

Well take a wack at explaining it to me.
This ought to be interesting.

Oh and my seats fine thanks and the laws of thermodynamics are a valid example, the conservation of energy being one.

I'm glad to here that, hopefully your chair has an insulated cushion.

Zero probability events most certainly exist (tell us what the probability of destroying energy is), however it is perfectly possible for the elements of a probability calculation to change and therefore change the calculations outcome. Which goes back to the root of this (and your major misunderstanding of it) a probability is not evidence in itself but a product of evidence. Should the evidence change then the probability changes, which may make an event more or less probable or even raise a zero probability event above zero.

Zero probabilty events do not exist, only the acceptable practice of considering them such, at extremely low fractions of margin.
Otherwise I have no problem with that statement, except technically, zero probability does not exist for anything.
This is true whether there is evidence, and it changes or there is no evidence.
In the above historical example, it really doesn't matter.

BTW probability for existence of God does not fall in the, considering zero category, as you have assumed it does.

Which will have changed the elements within the probability not the calculation itself.

So glad you finally acknowledge that the elements with a probability calculation would have to change before it changes. Which quite clearly shows that new evidence has to be entered into the probability for it to change, which also invalidates probability as an evidentiary tool (as I have now been saying for days).

Perhaps you do not realize, by that statement you are agreeing you buy insurance on improbable risk possibility.

In short you can't use probability as a source of evidence, its simply a tool for determining how probable an event is based upon the (existing) evidence that is placed into it, making it useless for proving the existence of god.

Proving the existence of God, by your standard of evidence, isn't the point, as I have spent several pages of posts showing.
The point is, just like it is possible to have an accident, it is, by most references I've checked, not only possible for God to exist, but probable he exists and at greater than 2% probability.

All of which brings this back to the origin of this which was you asking if any of use had insurance, a question you posed to then claim we used it as a form of evidence:.

And you claimed you bought it on probability.
To which I proved probability was not evidence of the need or personal result, beyond risk possibility.

You have utterly failed to prove that any of us use probability as a form of evidence (a claim you attributed falsely to us) despite many attempts to do so, rather we have consistently and independently stated why its not a form of evidence. Now unless you can provide proof that any of us use probability as evidence (and that we have insurance does not do that) then I would ask that you stop spamming the thread up with this diversionary noise and provide the clear proof of God you claim you have.

See above.
You made the claim, and as I clearly pointed out it is non evidential.

Likewise you completely fail to comprehend,
the establishment and existence of possibility and probabilty are not evidence dependant.
I've proven this repeatedly now.
See the above historical example.
They may employ it, or not employ it.
They exist either way.

In the fact of reality nutshell, that's the whole point, only point, and complete point.

Therefore your standard of evidence, and zero probability assumptions are historically unapplicable and irrelevant.
You, at least in appearance, fail to comprehend that as well.
Continued insistence on your evidence standard for the existence of God, is a good example of "appeal to probability" as well as "intellectual fantasy".
The possibility and probability of God's existence, like flight prior to 1903, as well as thousands of other examples,
does not depend on your demand for clear proof, so you can quit demanding it.

 

[Exorcet]

Going to dummy-up on me, huh.

We'll do it again then, and as said earlier, history is rife with them.

In all of histroy, prior to December 1903, no person had ever flown by independantly sustained or powered mechanical means.

In the prior it did not exist and there was absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, so according to your assumption, there was zero probability of the occurance, and therefore should be rendered completely dismissable, as a future fact of reality. This is by your own words and statements, expressed in your standard of evidence for the existence of God.

In reality, not only was there possibility, prior to evidence for known exsistence, some numerical positive probability had to exist, even though it would have been considered improbable.

Only you're ignoring that people had bee flying hot air balloons for over a century before then, that people had working aerodynamic theories, and that flight had been observed in nature. In other words, hundreds of years before the Wright Brothers, flight was already backed by evidence and human flight was much more plausible than 0%*. On the other hand, God is limited to 0%. It doesn't matter if he's really there and just hiding, God will have a 0% probability of existing until there is evidence for God. Like I said before, what happens tomorrow or next week doesn't matter. Probability is inherently uncertain. And this is all off topic anyway, as it just branched off from you comparing God to insurance when they're completely unrelated due to God having a 0% probability and insurance events having greater than 0% probability.

*This only applies to the probability at the time, as the current probability of true airplanes flying before 1903 is zero.

 

[Villain]

If it isn't important to you why do you keep saying that something that happened after somebody died, is from their lifetime.

I never said that.

The fact that they were born after Jesus supposed death means they CANNOT be from his lifetime. This is not debatable. This is Mathematics. Not religion. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant. Only the facts are relevant.

Your posts and utter denial in the face of absolute facts actually suggests this is important to you and that is why you keep responding despite being clearly wrong.

Just so you can get this straight. The earliest of the people quoted was born around 60 CE. Jesus ha d long since gone.

Is it the words or the really basic maths that are confusing you.

I think you are crusading against windmills.

 

[Gedi69]

Yes I believe in god I believe his name is gedi 👍

 

[TheDrummingKING]

In the prior it did not exist and there was absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, so according to your assumption, there was zero probability of the occurance, and therefore should be rendered completely dismissable, as a future fact of reality. This is by your own words and statements, expressed in your standard of evidence for the existence of God.

No evidence = no probability. You still have to provide evidence for God if you want to prove his existence though.

OK, you have claimed repeatedly, you buy insurance based on evidence of probability.

Clever wording, but no. He bought insurance because of a non-zero probability based on evidence. Probability is not a form of evidence as it is a product of evidence. You keep trying to skew things by deliberately wording them in ways such as this.

Zero probabilty events do not exist, only the acceptable practice of considering them such, at extremely low fractions of margin.
Otherwise I have no problem with that statement, except technically, zero probability does not exist for anything.
This is true whether there is evidence, and it changes or there is no evidence.
In the above historical example, it really doesn't matter.

Oh. My. God. You can't be serious. Yes they do! What is the probability of a rock speaking? The probability—based on the evidence of no rock ever being recorded speaking—is zero, and will remain that way until there is new evidence showing otherwise.

BTW probability for existence of God does not fall in the, considering zero category, as you have assumed it does.

Depending on whether you consider the earth not being created in seven days and not being less than 10,000 years old (and other things from the bible that are known to be false) as evidence against God or not, he either has a zero probability of existing, or no probability at all (as there is no evidence for God and you have yet to provide any).

Perhaps you do not realize, by that statement you are agreeing you buy insurance on improbable risk possibility.

No, see above to where I explained this please.

Proving the existence of God, by your standard of evidence, isn't the point, as I have spent several pages of posts showing.
The point is, just like it is possible to have an accident, it is, by most references I've checked, not only possible for God to exist, but probable he exists and at greater than 2% probability.

Please post links to said references.

And you claimed you bought it on probability.

Yes.

To which I proved probability was not evidence of the need or personal result, beyond risk possibility.

"beyond risk possibility" Again, clever wording. What you mean by that is the non zero probability of being in an accident as based on evidence. You proved nothing of probability not being evidence because probability is not a form of evidence as it is a product of evidence. How many times does everyone need to say this for you to understand it?

Likewise you completely fail to comprehend,
the establishment and existence of possibility and probabilty are not evidence dependant.
I've proven this repeatedly now.
See the above historical example.
They may employ it, or not employ it.
They exist either way.

Please tell me you're not serious. How exactly would you go about determining the probability of an event occurring without anything (evidence) to base it on? You can't just pull probabilities out of thin air you know.

Continued insistence on your evidence standard for the existence of God, is a good example of "appeal to probability" as well as "intellectual fantasy".
The possibility and probability of God's existence, like flight prior to 1903, as well as thousands of other examples,
does not depend on your demand for clear proof, so you can quit demanding it.

So what exactly then do you base the probability of God existing on if not evidence? Faith? I sure hope not. Oh and continued insistence on evidence (as your whole idea of Scaff's "evidence standard" being irrelevant is ridiculous as I have hopefully shown) for God is a good example of rational thought.

-------------------------------------------------​

Oh, also, it would be nice if you actually replied to me this time, rather than ignoring me like you have every other time. It really makes me feel like you think of yourself as above me and therefore have no need to answer to me. But I could just be crazy.

 

[Scaff]

Going to dummy-up on me, huh.

The petty insults are not needed at all.

We'll do it again then, and as said earlier, history is rife with them.

In all of histroy, prior to December 1903, no person had ever flown by independantly sustained or powered mechanical means.

In the prior it did not exist and there was absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, so according to your assumption, there was zero probability of the occurance, and therefore should be rendered completely dismissable, as a future fact of reality. This is by your own words and statements, expressed in your standard of evidence for the existence of God.

In reality, not only was there possibility, prior to evidence for known exsistence, some numerical positive probability had to exist, even though it would have been considered improbable.

Either way, by mathematical consideration for zero probability, or finite fraction of probability, an evidentially absent, non-existent event became reality.
The point, as I've proved numerous times now, is, a heretofore unknown, is always a possibility, and is subject to manifesting at any time.

Again history is rife with these examples.

BTW a few people believed in the reality, prior to the the manifestation, although I don't think it was in the neighborhood of 40 billion.

Once again you are assuming that the elements contained within the calculation remain static, I've already quite clearly shown how this is not the case using the example of powered flight.

Thats absolutely laughable.

Nothing about it was amusing at all, your sentence made no sense at all.

OK, you have claimed repeatedly, you buy insurance based on evidence of probability.

I said quote me saying that I consider probability to be a form of evidence or tool used for evidentiary purposes.

You are taking your bastardized version of probability and stating that I share the same view, which I quite clearly have not done.

Do not attribute statements to me that I have not made, doing so is incredibly underhand and misleading.

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Now either quote me directly saying it or retract the claim.

Well take a wack at explaining it to me.
This ought to be interesting.

Probability Theory
Possibility Theory

The core difference between the two, possibility theory allows for the use of assumptions with its elements, probability theory does not; it requires known values (proven elements) to be used.

Zero probabilty events do not exist, only the acceptable practice of considering them such, at extremely low fractions of margin.
Otherwise I have no problem with that statement, except technically, zero probability does not exist for anything.

Can you please explain the half dozen or some sources that numerous people have posted that quite clearly state that zero probability events do exist?

As they all wrong and you alone correct?

This is true whether there is evidence, and it changes or there is no evidence.
In the above historical example, it really doesn't matter.

BTW probability for existence of God does not fall in the, considering zero category, as you have assumed it does.

No, no and no.

Probability theory requires known events to allow it to be calculated, these events are a result of evidence (as they are known to exist), the probability calculation is a product of evidence and not evidence itself.

Perhaps you do not realize, by that statement you are agreeing you buy insurance on improbable risk possibility.

Once again you are mixing possibility theory (which is not used to calculate insurance) and probability theory (which is), and it still remains a totally moot point as neither are used as evidentiary tools (as have been shown by example and source to you repeatedly and by way of counterpoint to date we simply have your word).

The possibility and probability of God's existence, like flight prior to 1903, as well as thousands of other examples,
does not depend on your demand for clear proof, so you can quit demanding it.

As your claim is based upon an argument that is a logical fallacy of your own invention (and one you are unable to provide a single corroborating source for) then no I don't think I will quit asking for it.

Proving the existence of God, by your standard of evidence, isn't the point, as I have spent several pages of posts showing.
The point is, just like it is possible to have an accident, it is, by most references I've checked, not only possible for God to exist, but probable he exists and at greater than 2% probability.

Once again you are mixing possibility theory and probability theory.

Now answer the following.

• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of an automotive accident?
• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of divine intervention?

Now I am strictly talking about probability theory here, so no assumed values are permitted (that would be possibility theory) and I have (at this stage) no interest in the actual calculation or final probability value. I am simply interested in your answers to the two above questions.

 

[XoravaX]

No evidence = zero probability

It doesn't necessarily go like this in the common sense.

For example, if a man commits a crime but there is no evidence to prove it, that would render it zero probability under your logic.


Also, if we go into a rough scientific probability, it's just an assumption unless you account all the examples, ie. wait until the last man/living being dies or the universe collapses (or whatever happens to it). The experiment is going on so to say.

I would also be interested in from where you got that 0% (that is the same as 0 divided with anything except 0)? The zero is the amount of the watertight proof, but to what do you compare it to, ie. what is the denominator? Zero divided by zero isn't zero, as you simply cannot divide by zero. Under my knowledge of maths, such a probability value doesn't exist.

 

[Scaff]

It doesn't necessarily go like this in the common sense.

For example, if a man commits a crime but there is no evidence to prove it, that would render it zero probability under your logic.

Define no evidence in this example.

If the evidence exists but is not enough for a court of law then its not a zero probability (just a low one).

If no evidence exists then how do you know the person did it (BTW under probability theory if you know he did it that its evidence and once again not a zero probability event).

Also, if we go into a rough scientific probability, it's just an assumption unless you account all the examples, ie. wait until the last man/living being dies or the universe collapses (or whatever happens to it). The experiment is going on so to say.

No its not an assumption, please go back and follow the links to both probability and possibility theories. One deals with assumptions the other doesn't.

I would also be interested in from where you got that 0% (that is the same as 0 divided with anything except 0)? The zero is the amount of the watertight proof, but to what do you compare it to, ie. what is the denominator? Zero divided by zero isn't zero, as you simply cannot divide by zero. Under my knowledge of maths, such a probability value doesn't exist.

Probability is measured as having a value between 0 and 1, percentages have been thrown in by you to try and muddy the water. If you are so insistent that probability can't have a value of zero then explain all the sources (many from mathematicians who work in this field) that quite clearly state that probability can have a value of zero? Its quite simple, if the probability can't be calculated (because one or more of the elements can't be proven and no they can't be assumed because that would be possibility theory) then its zero, anything that can be calculated will have a value >0 but <= 1.

The final value of zero is also not the amount of watertight proof (not sure how you came to this) but the probability of the event occurring based upon the elements contained within the probability calculation.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked SCJ:

• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of an automotive accident?
• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of divine intervention?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

It doesn't necessarily go like this in the common sense.

For example, if a man commits a crime but there is no evidence to prove it, that would render it zero probability under your logic.

Well, yeah. The probability of him being the murderer—as based on the evidence (or lack there of)—is zero until evidence shows otherwise.

Also, if we go into a rough scientific probability, it's just an assumption unless you account all the examples, ie. wait until the last man/living being dies or the universe collapses (or whatever happens to it). The experiment is going on so to say.

I would also be interested in from where you got that 0% (that is the same as 0 divided with anything except 0)? The zero is the amount of the watertight proof, but to what do you compare it to, ie. what is the denominator? Zero divided by zero isn't zero, as you simply cannot divide by zero. Under my knowledge of maths, such a probability value doesn't exist.

I've been awake for the past 24 hours so my brain doesn't quite understand what you're saying, so I'll just go with what Scaff said as I trust what he says.

 

[XoravaX]

Probability is measured as having a value between 0 and 1, percentages have been thrown in by you to try and muddy the water. If you are so insistent that probability can't have a value of zero then explain all the sources (many from mathematicians who work in this field) that quite clearly state that probability can have a value of zero? Its quite simple, if the probability can't be calculated (because one or more of the elements can't be proven and no they can't be assumed because that would be possibility theory) then its zero, anything that can be calculated will have a value >0 but <= 1.

The final value of zero is also not the amount of watertight proof (not sure how you came to this) but the probability of the event occurring based upon the elements contained within the probability calculation.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked SCJ:

• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of an automotive accident?
• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of divine intervention?

Indeed, but in maths probability (of God's existence or anything) needs the group of possibilities the probability is counted from.

Eg. in lottery there are millions of possible combinations. Let's say that there are flat one million possible combinations (this has to be proven and exact, otherwise there is no exact mathematical probability). This makes the probability one in a million, or as a fraction (still a number between 0 and 1) 1/1000000, or 0.0001%.

But in the case of God's existence, there is no watertight proof. So mathematically, we are going to divide zero (the (scientifically proven) occasions of God's existence) by the group of conflicting possibilities (where God doesn't exist) which would be no problem for us, unless there aren't them either. But the conflicting possibilities? What is the group the existence of God is a possibility of? There is no proof for anything belonging to that either (only belief or disbelief). Ie. that is zero too.
So, we have a zero in zero probability, 0/0. Mathematically this creates a huge problem, since division by zero doesn't algebraically exist (because if it does, one can prove that 1=2). Mathematicians have thought it out to be either positive or negative infinity if anything (or that it approaches infinity), which is far from zero.

As much as this makes the possibility of God's existence infinite, so does this to the existence of any other god(s), but also to the common counterargument that God/a god/gods don't exist. But since the probability value, as you said has to be between 0 and 1, there isn't one. And if you say it's zero, you conflict with mathematics big time.

Of course, if we count belief and unproven "proof" into that we will get something (one in, say 2700 different religious beliefs and one disbelief, 1/2701 for example), but that doesn't work under scientific standards.

Thus why God's existence remains as a matter of belief that science has heavy difficulties handling.

However, I grant that you are right about the zero exact scientifically proven occasions of God's existence I used in the first probability values.


Also, check out the problem of division by zero, as you don't seem to be familiar with it.

Eg. proving 1=2:
0x1=0
0x2=0

Therefore
0x1=0x2

Then, divide by zero
(0/0)x1=(0/0)x2

Finally, simplify
1=2

This is what happens were it possible to divide by zero.

 

[Scaff]

Indeed, but in maths probability (of God's existence or anything) needs the group of possibilities the probability is counted from.

Eg. in lottery there are millions of possible combinations. Let's say that there are flat one million possible combinations (this has to be proven and exact, otherwise there is no exact mathematical probability). This makes the probability one in a million, or as a fraction (still a number between 0 and 1) 1/1000000, or 0.0001%.

But in the case of God's existence, there is no watertight proof. So mathematically, we are going to divide zero (the (scientifically proven) occasions of God's existence) by the group of conflicting possibilities (where God doesn't exist) which would be no problem for us, unless there aren't them either. But the conflicting possibilities? What is the group the existence of God is a possibility of? There is no proof for anything belonging to that either (only belief or disbelief). Ie. that is zero too.
So, we have a zero in zero probability, 0/0. Mathematically this creates a huge problem, since division by zero doesn't algebraically exist (because if it does, one can prove that 1=2). Mathematicians have thought it out to be either positive or negative infinity if anything (or that it approaches infinity), which is far from zero.

As much as this makes the possibility of God's existence infinite, so does this to the existence of any other god(s), but also to the common counterargument that God/a god/gods don't exist. But since the probability value, as you said has to be between 0 and 1, there isn't one. And if you say it's zero, you conflict with mathematics big time.

Of course, if we count belief and unproven "proof" into that we will get something (one in, say 2700 different religious beliefs and one disbelief, 1/2701 for example), but that doesn't work under scientific standards.

Thus why God's existence remains as a matter of belief that science has heavy difficulties handling.

However, I grant that you are right about the zero exact scientifically proven occasions of God's existence I used in the first probability values.


Also, check out the problem of division by zero, as you don't seem to be familiar with it.

Eg. proving 1=2:
0x1=0
0x2=0

Therefore
0x1=0x2

Then, divide by zero
(0/0)x1=(0/0)x2

Finally, simplify
1=2

This is what happens were it possible to divide by zero.

Wow one of the most basic logical fallacies in division by zero gets used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies_based_on_division_by_zero

Divide by zero is an illegal mathematical operation (the most commonly accepted view) and as such any calculation involving it is impossible. Which not that strangely is the view held by probability theory.

Do not be fooled by the fact that it is represented by zero means that is is falling into the divide by zero fallacy. It's extremely common to error trap /0 calculations and simply replace them as a zero for convenience and convention sake (I commonly do this when dealing with /0 errors in database reporting).

Given the above please this time answer the question:

If you are so insistent that probability can't have a value of zero then explain all the sources (many from mathematicians who work in this field) that quite clearly state that probability can have a value of zero?

Oh and these as well:

• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of an automotive accident?
• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of divine intervention?

 

[XoravaX]

Given the above please this time answer the question:

If you are so insistent that probability can't have a value of zero then explain all the sources (many from mathematicians who work in this field) that quite clearly state that probability can have a value of zero?

Oh and these as well:

• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of an automotive accident?
• Can independently verifiable evidence to a scientific standard be produced for all the elements required to calculate the probability of divine intervention?

Of course a probability can have a value of 0. Re-read my post and you'll see my point. It can be 0 if there is a definite group to count it from.

Indeed, but in maths probability (of God's existence or anything) needs the group of possibilities the probability is counted from.

Eg. in lottery there are millions of possible combinations. Let's say that there are flat one million possible combinations (this has to be proven and exact, otherwise there is no exact mathematical probability). This makes the probability one in a million, or as a fraction (still a number between 0 and 1) 1/1000000, or 0.0001%.

But in the case of God's existence, there is no watertight proof. So mathematically, we are going to divide zero (the (scientifically proven) occasions of God's existence) by the group of conflicting possibilities (where God doesn't exist) which would be no problem for us, unless there aren't them either. But the conflicting possibilities? What is the group the existence of God is a possibility of? There is no proof for anything belonging to that either (only belief or disbelief). Ie. that is zero too.
So, we have a zero in zero probability, 0/0. Mathematically this creates a huge problem, since division by zero doesn't algebraically exist (because if it does, one can prove that 1=2). Mathematicians have thought it out to be either positive or negative infinity if anything (or that it approaches infinity), which is far from zero.

---

My point is that in the whole group you are basing the probability on there are no proven occasions of anything (eg. existence of something (or proof of inexistence) that would make God's existence impossible), which leads to 0/0 probability (no probability value) due to the lack of them, not eg. 0/2=0 which would have a probability of 0.

And mathematically and therefore scientifically too, making /0 calculations equal zero is erroneous (it should be that such an occasion can't be created). If you are bending science to your will, everything after will become unscientific and erroneous in terms of science. Divide by zero is not 0 (nor is 1=2). Or then the foundations of science, mathematics and algebra are fundamentally erroneous, is that what the makers of the probability theory are saying? To how I understood the theory is that you shouldn't even try to count probability for something that can't have one, something that hasn't a group to be counted from (since logically such a thing doesn't exist, the operation itself is zero, inexisting; it's not the answer to /0 that is 0 since it can't get one).

Marking division by zero with zero means that the operation doesn't exist (eg. computers would crash trying to count infinity were this not done), not that the answer would be zero - there is a fundamental difference in this. Were it zero, then 1=2.

So, the "0 possibility" of God's existence means that such a value doesn't exist, not that it would be 0.
On the contrary, "0 possibility of our inexistence in a form or another" is 0/1=0, it gets a mathematical answer that is 0.


Oh, and we needn't a divine intervention (on Earth or something we could possibly notice) for God to exist. We need it only to prove it for sure (after which the probability would be 1/1=1).

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I think I get what you're saying. As there is no evidence for or against god, there is no probability for his at all (as there is nothing to calculate one from). I'm still thinking about this one though so this post might get edited shortly.

 

[XoravaX]

I think I get what you're saying. As there is no evidence for or against god, there is no probability for his at all (as there is nothing to calculate one from). I'm still thinking about this one though so this post might get edited shortly.

Indeed. There is nothing to calculate it from, hence the lack of all possible conflicting evidence too.

If there were conflicting evidence but not evidence for God, it would be mathematically 0, which is fundamentally different. This would disprove God once and for all, while the first just says there is no such probability that exists.

And we are back at the starting point with no evidence added either way.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Actually hang on, there is evidence against God (as we are specifically talking about the God of the Bible), isn't there? He is said to have created the earth in seven days and blah blah, but we know that to be false, and according to the bible (it is supposed to be the word of God afterall, and is often used by Christians as evidence for him) the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and we know that to be false, too. Is that not evidence against God (evidence that can then be used to calculate the probability of his existence)?

 

[Scaff]

Of course a probability can have a value of 0. Re-read my post and you'll see my point. It can be 0 if there is a definite group to count it from.



My point is that in the whole group you are basing the probability on there are no proven occasions of anything (eg. existence of something (or inexistence) that would make God's existence impossible), which leads to 0/0 probability (no probability value) due to the lack of them, not eg. 0/2=0 which would have a probability of 0.

And mathematically and therefore scientifically too, making /0 calculations equal zero is erroneous (it should be that such an occasion can't be created). If you are bending science to your will, everything after will become unscientific and erroneous in terms of science. Divide by zero is not 0 (nor is 1=2). Or then the foundations of science, mathematics and algebra are fundamentally erroneous, is that what the makers of the probability theory are saying? To how I understood the theory is that you shouldn't even try to count probability for something that can't have one, something that hasn't a group to be counted from (since logically such a thing doesn't exist, the operation itself is zero, inexisting; it's not the answer to /0 that is 0 since it can't get one).

Marking division by zero with zero means that the operation doesn't exist (eg. computers would crash trying to count infinity were this not done), not that the answer would be zero - there is a fundamental difference in this. Were it zero, then 1=2.

So, the "0 possibility" of God's existence means that such a value doesn't exist, not that it would be 0.
On the contrary, "0 possibility of our inexistence in a form or another" is 0/1=0, it gets a mathematical answer that is 0.


Oh, and we needn't a divine intervention (on Earth or something we could possibly notice) for God to exist. We need it only to prove it for sure (after which the probability would be 1/1=1).

Sorry but no, /0 does not mean the operation doesn't exist at all ("Marking division by zero with zero means that the operation doesn't exist") it means that the calculation is impossible (which ties in exactly with probability theory). Don't be fooled by the fact that it then gets represented by a zero in a probability calculation.

However the one thing I do believe we agree on is that probability is not a tool that can be used to prove the existence of anything, but the probability of an event (based on proved and existing factors) occurring. If these factors do not exist then the probability can't be calculated (and is considered impossible by probability theory), convention in probability theory marks this as zero or impossible.

 

[XoravaX]

Actually hang on, there is evidence against God (as we are specifically talking about the God of the Bible), isn't there? He is said to have created the earth in seven days and blah blah, but we know that to be false, and according to the bible (it is supposed to be the word of God afterall, and is often used by Christians as evidence for him) the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and we know that to be false, too. Is that not evidence against God (evidence that can then be used to calculate the probability of his existence)?

Well, there is evidence against how God is portrayed in the Bible, yes. And we can count the probability of Bible being the scientific truth to 0/1=0. But God itself in a form that is quite the Abrahamic God we can't (somewhat like the one in the Bible were it taken symbolically). Neither can we do so with the Hindu gods, the Japanese, the Roman/Greek nor ancient German/Scandinavian nor the inexistence of God/a god/gods.

Sorry but no, /0 does not mean the operation doesn't exist at all ("Marking division by zero with zero means that the operation doesn't exist") it means that the calculation is impossible (which ties in exactly with probability theory). Don't be fooled by the fact that it then gets represented by a zero in a probability calculation.

Fine, its illegality as an operation is represented by 0, which is effectively the same thing as it doesn't exist and would be marked as 0; it just can't get an answer.

However the one thing I do believe we agree on is that probability is not a tool that can be used to prove the existence of anything, but the probability of an event (based on proved and existing factors) occurring. If these factors do not exist then the probability can't be calculated (and is considered impossible by probability theory), convention in probability theory marks this as zero or impossible.

Indeed it can't be, and a no-to-questionable-proof situation is one it's difficult to apply.

In (an atheistic person's) common sense the probability is quite understood as the same as 0 - but in raw science it is indeterminate. And a believer interprets it as 1 given the "religious evidence".

But marking it zero without explaining that it isn't algebraic zero causes misinterpretation, like it has done here too. And try saying that divide by zero is zero to a maths teacher without explaining it first.

The convention of marking it 0 is handy because it doesn't cause computers to crash or "no answer" answers. However, in exact maths it should be marked as "no probability value" or "no answer", or "illegal operation" in calculators and such.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Only you're ignoring that people had bee flying hot air balloons for over a century before then, that people had working aerodynamic theories, and that flight had been observed in nature. In other words, hundreds of years before the Wright Brothers, flight was already backed by evidence and human flight was much more plausible than 0%*. On the other hand, God is limited to 0%. It doesn't matter if he's really there and just hiding, God will have a 0% probability of existing until there is evidence for God. Like I said before, what happens tomorrow or next week doesn't matter. Probability is inherently uncertain. And this is all off topic anyway, as it just branched off from you comparing God to insurance when they're completely unrelated due to God having a 0% probability and insurance events having greater than 0% probability.

*This only applies to the probability at the time, as the current probability of true airplanes flying before 1903 is zero.

The point is, by the historical fact of record, faith in your standard of evidence, has failed miserably, and repeatedly.
Therefore, why would you insist on clinging to it, as a legitimate means for validation.

 

[Famine]

Why would one have "faith" in evidence? Faith and evidence are the antithesis of each other.

The scientific method has never failed as a standard of evidence. Or in fact the standard of evidence, for all that exists. And that's still where we were two weeks ago, before you started your bizarre little segue down the road of probability.

 

[Bobalob]

SCJ, How can you attack the scientific method like this while enjoying its many, many benefits? (I actually asked this months ago too)

What has praying got you?

Incidentally the reason i don't believe in god is because of some study i have done into the history of medicine and finding that the church and religion in general has thwarted every attempt at progressing medical science (obviously seeing its threat) and it really annoyed me.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The petty insults are not needed at all..

Likewise, neither is your continued drift, from intellectual integrity.

Once again you are assuming that the elements contained within the calculation remain static, I've already quite clearly shown how this is not the case using the example of powered flight..

I'm not assuming anything, that is your standard of evidence(scientific proof of existence), in comparison with one example of the historical record.

As clearly shown, your standard is completely useless, as to validation, prior to existence.

As a matter of fact, when compared to any group, or all of the examples of the historical record,
it's failure rate is 100%. Thats a bonifide fact.

Now, using that standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?


At this juncture, your other questions, have been rendered somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Exorcet]

Indeed, but in maths probability (of God's existence or anything) needs the group of possibilities the probability is counted from.

Eg. in lottery there are millions of possible combinations. Let's say that there are flat one million possible combinations (this has to be proven and exact, otherwise there is no exact mathematical probability). This makes the probability one in a million, or as a fraction (still a number between 0 and 1) 1/1000000, or 0.0001%.

But in the case of God's existence, there is no watertight proof. So mathematically, we are going to divide zero (the (scientifically proven) occasions of God's existence) by the group of conflicting possibilities (where God doesn't exist) which would be no problem for us, unless there aren't them either. But the conflicting possibilities? What is the group the existence of God is a possibility of? There is no proof for anything belonging to that either (only belief or disbelief). Ie. that is zero too.
So, we have a zero in zero probability, 0/0. Mathematically this creates a huge problem, since division by zero doesn't algebraically exist (because if it does, one can prove that 1=2). Mathematicians have thought it out to be either positive or negative infinity if anything (or that it approaches infinity), which is far from zero.

As much as this makes the possibility of God's existence infinite, so does this to the existence of any other god(s), but also to the common counterargument that God/a god/gods don't exist. But since the probability value, as you said has to be between 0 and 1, there isn't one. And if you say it's zero, you conflict with mathematics big time.

Of course, if we count belief and unproven "proof" into that we will get something (one in, say 2700 different religious beliefs and one disbelief, 1/2701 for example), but that doesn't work under scientific standards.

Thus why God's existence remains as a matter of belief that science has heavy difficulties handling.

However, I grant that you are right about the zero exact scientifically proven occasions of God's existence I used in the first probability values.


Also, check out the problem of division by zero, as you don't seem to be familiar with it.

Eg. proving 1=2:
0x1=0
0x2=0

Therefore
0x1=0x2

Then, divide by zero
(0/0)x1=(0/0)x2

Finally, simplify
1=2

This is what happens were it possible to divide by zero.

There is more than one way to do probability. But basically, God boils down to this. There has been a large number of attempts to communicate with/invoke/find/etc God. Zero have succeeded. It's 0/finite number not 0/0. And 0/finite number = 0, meaning probability of 0.

The point is, by the historical fact of record, faith in your standard of evidence, has failed miserably, and repeatedly.
Therefore, why would you insist on clinging to it, as a legitimate means for validation.

Faith? You haven't been paying attention. Faith is pointless, sorry, I don't do faith. However I do have an obvious lack in evidence for God, which makes believing in him rather pointless.

Likewise, neither is your continued drift, from intellectual integrity.



I'm not assuming anything, that is your standard of evidence(scientific proof of existence), in comparison with one example of the historical record.

As clearly shown, your standard is completely useless, as to validation, prior to existence.

As a matter of fact, when compared to any group, or all of the examples of the historical record,
it's failure rate is 100%. Thats a bonifide fact.

Now, using that standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?


At this juncture, your other questions, have been rendered somewhat irrelevant.

You're still way off.