Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

Careful with this.

At any given roll, the probability of rolling a 1 is always 1/6, making it always possible, no matter what came before. For any number of rolls, it is possible to roll entirely 1s, but the probability of rolling only 1s approaches zero as the number approaches infinity

The problem is that doing something an infinite number of times is a tricky condition to begin with, as there is no way to know what the "end" result looks like, as there isn't one. See the infinite monkey problem.

Sorry, it was my wording. You won't get a 1 every 6th roll, but each number should come up the same number of times if you've really rolled an infinite number of rolls, according to the Law of Large Numbers.

You're also right that when going to infinity, things can get tricky. You can roll for "infinity" and get only ones because you're not done yet, as you said.

 

[Famine]

There isn't yet a single comprehensive mathematical theory about how division by zero should be handled.

But it's not something that cannot be done.

Think it with common sense: if you've got three apples, and divide them between zero men, how much each man gets? Three? But there is no man, he can't get three. Zero? How come, why would three apples disappear, makes no sense whatsoever. Because the whole operation makes no sense, there is no answer to it.

Your "common sense" version gives the answer of "what man?"

Also, if it is a legal operation, maths does this:

3/0=0

multiply by 0

Why?

(3/0)x0=0x0

Let's look at each side of that equation:
(3/0)x0 = 0
0x0 = 0

Anything multiplied by zero is zero. So both sides are 0. 0=0. Yep. Of course, this doesn't work in your "common sense version"...

Think it with common sense: if you've got three apples and multiply them zero times, how many apples are there? Zero? How come, why would three apples disappear, makes no sense whatsoever. Because the whole operation makes no sense, there is no answer to it.

No it isn't. No answer in mathematics is pretty far from an answer "nothing". Go ask any mathematician and you'll get that.

No answer is like a mail lost in the post office or a random amount of coins stuck in a slot machine (which doesn't tell how much you can get), something that never comes to the recipient and has its exact contents unknown, but zero is like an empty letter or "no win". As I said, there is a fundamental difference.

No, you've ignored the quite clear explanation.

I could roll the dice for infinity and always get one. The practical occurrence is never the same as theoretic, mathematical probability.

What you're now counting is the practical occurrence itself (as you base the occurrences on real happenings), not mathematical probability. Mathematical probability is counted by multiplying the probability in one try (so-called chance, eg. 1/6 of getting one from a roll) by itself by the number of the rolls. The probability of ever rolling seven would be the probability for it occurring in one roll multiplied by itself the times the dice is(/are) rolled; f(x)=(0/6)^x=0, x≥0, like the probability of ever rolling one is g(x)=(1/6)^x=0.999..., lim(x→&#8734g(x)=1 (while x, the number of the rolls, goes towards infinity the value of the function goes closer and closer to 1, however never reaching it).

The probability of rolling a seven in one try is 0/6 (0). The number of tries thus becomes immaterial.

If that wasn't gibberish, which it is. Probability is an expression of two fields. The divisor is the total of all possible outcomes and the numerator is the frequency of the outcomes you're looking at. The two cannot be separated from each other.

In the case of die rolls there are six possible outcomes of a roll (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Each individual possible outcome has a frequency of 1 in that field. So the frequency, and numerator, is 1 in the field of six possible outcomes and the divisor is thus 6. 1/6.

If you're looking for a seven, seven has a frequency of 0 in that field. Seven is outside the field of possible outcomes. So the frequency, and the numerator, is 0 and the divisor is... non-existant. Seven doesn't occur in that field so there is no way to express its frequency in the field of outcomes. You won't roll a seven in one try, in six tries or an infinite number of tries - seven is not in that field of outcomes. The probability of rolling a seven is not 0/6. It's 0/? - or 0/every number. Every number, you say? Why, that'd be 0/∞...

This is all basic high school level maths

Yes, I think that's the problem here. Division by zero is impossible in basic high school math.

probability in multiple tries is the "chance" (one attempt probability) multiplied by itself by the amount of tries.

Uh-huh, and how many tries will it take to roll a seven on a standard die?

 

[XoravaX]

--

Ah, I failed some maths there, but check my corrections.

Slight change

3/1 = 3

(3/1)x0 = 0x0

Because anything times 0 is 0. That's what you're invoking there. Also, 3/0 is infinity, not 0. And yes, infinity is an exact answer. Diving 3 into segments 0 units long means you get infinite segments.

Indeed, but this is under the false assumption that division by zero results in an answer the same as 0.

After rolling the dice for infinite, you will get exactly one 1 for every six rolls. The chance of getting 1 for infinity is exactly zero.

That's how it should go, yes, but it doesn't have to. There is still a minimal (almost 0) probability of infinitely rolling only one. It is not exactly zero, hence its 1/6 chance in each and every roll.

f(x)=(1/6)^x
lim(x→&#8734f(x)=0, meaning it approaches zero, but never reaching it.

(Yes, I noticed that I actually failed some of the maths, the probability of hitting one over multiple rolls is g(x)=1-(5/6)^x, lim(x→&#8734g(x)=1 (g(x), the value of the function approaches 1, but never reaching it), where x is the number of the rolls)

No, we get 0/infinity, which is zero.

No we don't, as there is no proof for anything opposing God either, he doesn't have to have the exact same attributes as in the Bible to exist. As all gods are unfalsifiable (you cannot say there is no god somewhere), all events in the group in which the event of God existing is are void of any proof. Which results in 0/0.

d(x)=1-(0/0)^x, x→∞

1 minus infinity (that's negative infinity plus one)? In probability maths that is of no use, as the value has to be between 0 and 1. Therefore no answer.

Also, if you check out things like the Riemann sphere model, it gives infinity to all /0 but 0/0, which remains undefined.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Good to see the insults flowing freely again. Oh and I don't believe anyone in this thread has made a claim even close to that, a point that has already been explained and covered.

That was not an insult, as you have assumed, but rather a rebuttle to your statement:

Once again the only person who is stating this is you and once again you have failed to provide a single independent source that can validate it, which to be honest does make it feel like you are simply making it up to try and dig your way out of a hole of your own making

The sole dissenting voice is yours, now either you are wrong or every one else (including every cited source) is wrong? Which is it?

BTW, I already provided your previous quote, that was a direct contradiction, to your reasoning in the above statement.

You have a short memory.

A typo that had already be corrected (a while before you posted this) would you like me to list all of yours?

Not, particularly.
As you know once you hit the quote button, the dialogue box doesn't refresh.

What I like even better is that in an attempt to try and belittle me (fine upstanding Christian values again) you can't even state what a scientific theory is correctly.

Again, thats your assumption.
My apologies, if you have been offended.

Perhaps, it has escaped you, that I do not relate from the the single dimensional perspective of the remote science lab,
but from the all dimensional realities of life in the universe.
Needless to say, it has it's place, but there is more to life than science.

I am not attempting to belittle you personally, just point out any shortcomings in your reasonings, for personal beliefs.
Granted they can be difficult to keep seperate at times.
Especially in, shall we say, the heat of spirited debate.

Sometimes there is a little pushing and shoving, and some toes get stepped on, but there is nothing personal involved, at least for me.
Obviously as well, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum, in that you do not believe God exists, and I know that he does, so we are at odds from the get-go.


Perhaps at this point, we should clear the air and reclarify some things.

Exactly what is your positiion, then?

 

[XoravaX]

Your "common sense" version gives the answer of "what man?"

Actually, "what men?", and that is no answer. The group consisting of zero men. Divide the apples between no men? Just scrap the whole idea. (Logically it would also result in infinite apples per man)

Why?

Because I can - and to use the basic rule in algebra that dividing and multiplying by the same number results in both operations being simplified out.

Let's look at each side of that equation:
(3/0)x0 = 0
0x0 = 0

Anything multiplied by zero is zero. So both sides are 0. 0=0. Yep. Of course, this doesn't work in your "common sense version"...

Indeed. That's why it results in both 3=0 and 0=0. Or that 19437234589238=0. You can prove everything to be zero if division by zero were a legal operation.

Remember basic algebraic rules:
"multiplying something divided by the same number it is now being multiplied by results in the both operations being simplified out (as in (3/10)x10=3)"

(3/0)x0 = 0x0
Therefore
3=0

Were division by zero a legal operation (that gets an exact, mathematical answer, let's mark it with x), the whole maths would fall apart, see:

3/0=x

Under the algebraic rules (multiplying something divided by the same number it is now being multiplied by results in the both operations being simplified out):
3/0=x
multiply by 0
3/0*0=x*0
simplify
3=0

Divide by zero remains undefined (infinity is not a defined answer either).

No, you've ignored the quite clear explanation.

What explanation?

The probability of rolling a seven in one try is 0/6 (0). The number of tries thus becomes immaterial.

If that wasn't gibberish, which it is. Probability is an expression of two fields. The divisor is the total of all possible outcomes and the numerator is the frequency of the outcomes you're looking at. The two cannot be separated from each other.

The frequency of the outcomes doesn't have to follow the theoretical frequency, though in infinite tries it should - but infinite rolls may always result in getting one, though the probability of that happening is 1-(5/6)^∞=1/∞ (incorrectly marked though, once again, infinity is not an exact term).

"The divisor is the total of all possible outcomes and the numerator is the frequency of the outcomes you're looking at."

Frequency has nothing to do with measuring probability. Theoretical frequency is based on probability (the final probability value tells the theoretical frequency of that exact event whose probability was counted, but the frequency can't be used in counting probability).

In the case of die rolls there are six possible outcomes of a roll (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Each individual possible outcome has a frequency of 1 in that field. So the frequency, and numerator, is 1 in the field of six possible outcomes and the divisor is thus 6. 1/6.

If you're looking for a seven, seven has a frequency of 0 in that field. Seven is outside the field of possible outcomes. So the frequency, and the numerator, is 0 and the divisor is... non-existant. Seven doesn't occur in that field so there is no way to express its frequency in the field of outcomes. You won't roll a seven in one try, in six tries or an infinite number of tries - seven is not in that field of outcomes. The probability of rolling a seven is not 0/6. It's 0/? - or 0/every number. Every number, you say? Why, that'd be 0/∞...

Frequency is not the same as probability. Frequency value of an event is (usually) the same as one-roll probability for the wanted event, if there is something to count it from.

If there is only a few rolls, the practical frequency can be and usually is pretty different from the basic probability. Generally it approaches the counted frequency (that is usually the same as the probability of the event happening in one try)

The theoretical frequency of rolling one should be only 1/6, or one in every six rolls, but the probability of always rolling one is g(x)=(1/6)^x, lim(x→&#8734g(x)=0, which means it approaches zero never reaching it - it still remains possible though.

Yes, I think that's the problem here. Division by zero is impossible in basic high school math.

And it is impossible, or it still gets no exact answer in very high level maths either. Mathematics is an exact science, not like other science which is fine with dealing with approximations. Infinity is no exact answer, as there is no value that equals infinity - you can always add zero behind it to it to multiply it by ten, for example.

Uh-huh, and how many tries will it take to roll a seven on a standard die?

It can't roll 7.
1-(6/6)^1=0. 0/6=0.
The probability of it rolling seven is 0.
Its theoretical frequency is also 0. So is its practical frequency in this case.


---


So, clearly explained:

Rolling one (in one roll) has a probability of 1/6 (1 eligible amongst 6 equally possible possibilities). Therefore that event's theoretical frequency is 1/6, one event in six attempts.
But now, rolling always one has a probability of (1/6)^x = 1/x, x→∞. This event doesn't follow the theoretical frequency, as its practical frequency would be 1. However, we can also count the theoretical frequency for that event (amongst other attempts at rolling infinitely), which is that 1/x, x→∞.

Also, as Exorcet said too, that in infinite rolls rolling will never be finished. That's why rolling a die for infinity and always getting one has a probability infinitely close to zero, however not zero.

Also, this:

No we don't, as there is no proof for anything opposing God either, he doesn't have to have the exact same attributes as in the Bible to exist. As all gods are unfalsifiable (you cannot say there is no god somewhere), all possibilities in the group in which the event of God existing is, are void of any proof, both for and against. Which results in 0/0 (probability for one attempt). For infinite attempts:

d(x)=1-(0/0)^x, x→∞

1 minus infinity? In probability maths that is of no use, as the value has to be between 0 and 1. Therefore no answer.

Also, if you check out things like the Riemann sphere model, it gives infinity to all /0 but 0/0, which remains undefined.

If God is void of any proof, so is every other god and their inexistence too.
Thus why this is a matter of faith, which I've said many times.

 

[phil_75]

This is all basic high school level maths

Woah! Not in my school it isn't/wasn't!

I wish i paid more attention at school, i love it when brainy people debate/argue!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I think Scaff has spoken for everyone posting and reading here in regards to your perceived lack of understanding that you claim everyone else suffers from ... Apart from you that is.

The fact that the atom wasn't discovered until recently doesn't mean that it didn't exist before its discovery..

Science clearly did not "invent", the atom, so it is "self evident" it existed prior to discovery, which is one of literally thousands of examples from the historical record.

Do you disagree with that?

Thankfully , as an atheist I personally do not suffer with grand delusions , if this is what Christianity brings then i'd much rather believe in Santa 👍

Sorry in advance, but If you do, you suffer from worse than grand delusions.




This was also said, and is spot-on applicable with regaurd to God's existence.

What I will agree with is that existence of God is untestable by current methods that man has. But if current methods aren't able to say one way or another, it doesn't mean other methods won't be able to.

 

[XoravaX]

I think Scaff has spoken for everyone posting and reading here in regards to your perceived lack of understanding that you [SCJ] claim everyone else suffers from ... Apart from you [SCJ] that is .

Oh, I get SCJ's point. He understands everything his way, like you understand everything your way, as the concept of understanding is subjective. Ie. he has a different opinion of the proof from yours.

Atheists/scientists should tone down the hardline rhetoric a little and be more open-minded. Open-mindedness is what brought the Renaissance and the age of science. Let's not try to become rigid like the clergy of yore.

The best view I've seen on this thread so far. Hunting religions is completely Marxist.

Woah! Not in my school it isn't/wasn't!

Well, high school maths applied. That probability with real values (not infinity) was actually even broader than that used here, but I can't remember all of it.
My teacher just told us to stop thinking how infinity and divide by zero could have values, as they can't - you can always add something to a value. For example, if you give infinity a value of x, what is x+1 then? More than infinity?

This is why operations that have infinity lead nowhere.

However, it's funny that I had (on a scale of 4 to 10, which is in use in Finnish schools) only 7 in maths.


Famine, admit that this doesn't get anywhere, and we can stop this useless maths debate in this thread. Or for the practical frequency of the event of God revealing himself to the humankind happening, the infinity is not yet met. Once it has, please inform me.

 

[Exorcet]

Indeed, but this is under the false assumption that division by zero results in an answer the same as 0.

What? That was your mistake, not mine.

That's how it should go, yes, but it doesn't have to. There is still a minimal (almost 0) probability of infinitely rolling only one. It is not exactly zero, hence its 1/6 chance in each and every roll.

No, the probability of rolling 1 for infinity is exactly zero. This is directly because there is only a 1/6 chance of success in every roll. As long as the chance is less than 1/1, then probability or rolling for infinity, actual infinity, is zero.

f(x)=(1/6)^x
lim(x→&#8734f(x)=0, meaning it approaches zero, but never reaching it.

Which only applies if you don't get to infinity.

No we don't, as there is no proof for anything opposing God either, he doesn't have to have the exact same attributes as in the Bible to exist. As all gods are unfalsifiable (you cannot say there is no god somewhere), all events in the group in which the event of God existing is are void of any proof. Which results in 0/0.

d(x)=1-(0/0)^x, x→∞

1 minus infinity (that's negative infinity plus one)? In probability maths that is of no use, as the value has to be between 0 and 1. Therefore no answer.

Except that's not how probability works. Why is it that you get the concept of dice rolls right, but when it comes to God you set up a nonsense fraction? Probability is success/trials. Not success/failure. Let's assume that there is exactly zero evidence against God, now lets compute the chances of God's existence. Successes (number of times God has been proven) = 0. Trials (number of attempts to prove God exists) > 1. Probability = 0/>1 = 0. There is no 0/0.

What you're doing with the God example is trying to predict the probability of rolling a number on the die and saying that it is something/0.

Again, thats your assumption.
My apologies, if you have been offended.

Perhaps, it has escaped you, that I do not relate from the the single dimensional perspective of the remote science lab,
but from the all dimensional realities of life in the universe.
Needless to say, it has it's place, but there is more to life than science.

Not that we can know anything but science, but seeing as you've denied that so far, I doubt you'll be admitting your mistake anytime soon.

Your position is the definition of single dimensional. You refuse to admit mistakes, refuse basic logic, and refuse to use evidence. It's on you if you to decide if you want to lock yourself away or try to be open to things.


[/QUOTE]

Actually, "what men?", and that is no answer. The group consisting of zero men. Divide the apples between no men? Just scrap the whole idea. (Logically it would also result in infinite apples per man)

What happens when you give 3 apples to .1 men?

There is nothing wrong with infinite apples per man. That's the answer. You could go through an infinite number of apples and no man would get one because there are zero men.

Indeed. That's why it results in both 3=0 and 0=0. Or that 19437234589238=0. You can prove everything to be zero if division by zero were a legal operation.

What? We've both told you, the problem has nothing to do with dividing by zero. You get 0=0 from misusing the fact that (x)0 = 0. anything besides 0 = 0 is not implied by anything posted in the last few posts.

 

[Bobalob]

Science clearly did not "invent", the atom, so it is "self evident" it existed prior to discovery, which is one of literally thousands of examples from the historical record.

Do you disagree with that?

Sorry in advance, but If you do, you suffer from worse than grand delusions.

This was also said, and is spot-on applicable with regaurd to God's existence.

Your mockery of the scientific method amuses me greatly.

If we all thought the same as SCJ we wouldnt even try rubbing sticks together for fire, just pray, and die of small pox/ tb / syphilis / Many many diseases before penicillin, be ignorant of germs, astrology, id love to go on.

Has praying split the atom? Heated your house? Ran your car?

Some of these things werent invented but discovered like you say, but by what? Praying? Or actually, in reality (yes reality) the scientific method.

Maybe we should give it all up in favour of high infant mortality rates and a life expectancy of 35.

 

[Famine]

Indeed. That's why it results in both 3=0 and 0=0. Or that 19437234589238=0. You can prove everything to be zero if division by zero were a legal operation.

Nope. The "proof" requires you to ignore that multiplying by zero results in zero. It's nothing to do with dividing by zero.

Frequency has nothing to do with measuring probability.

The likelihood of (x) occurring in (y) events - the frequency of (x) in the lifetime of (y) - is (x)/(y). You cannot delimit them from one another.

In die rolls, any number from 1-6 has an expected frequency of one occurrence for each six events. Any number outside this range has an expected frequency of zero occurrences for any number of events. Within the range it's 1/6, outside the range it's 0/every number - or 0/∞

If there is only a few rolls, the practical frequency can be and usually is pretty different from the basic probability.

Now you've added a qualifier - "practical". This is the difference between expected (1/6) and observed (what we see). For some reason you're taking the expected to not be the probability in my posts.

The theoretical frequency of rolling one should be only 1/6, or one in every six rolls, but the probability of always rolling one is g(x)=(1/6)^x, lim(x→&#8734g(x)=0, which means it approaches zero never reaching it - it still remains possible though.

Now you're talking about multiple events, for some reason.

For one die roll, the odds of throwing any predicted number within the operational range are 1/6. The next die roll is a new event, so the odds of throwing any predicted number within the operational range are 1/6. For someone to predict each event, the odds are 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. The next die roll is a new event, so the odds of throwing any predicted number within the operational range are 1/6. For someone to predict this event along with the previous ones is six times less likely - and this continues while you reach a number approximating to 1/→∞ - but not 1/∞.

For one die roll, the odds of throwing any predicted number outside the operational range are 0/∞. The odds of doing it on another die roll are 0/∞. It will never happen, even if you had an infinite number of dice and threw them for an infinite amount of time.

And it is impossible, or it still gets no exact answer in very high level maths either. Mathematics is an exact science, not like other science which is fine with dealing with approximations. Infinity is no exact answer, as there is no value that equals infinity - you can always add zero behind it to it to multiply it by ten, for example.

And yet both dividing by zero and the concept of infinity have practical uses in math.

My teacher just told us to stop thinking how infinity and divide by zero could have values, as they can't - you can always add something to a value. For example, if you give infinity a value of x, what is x+1 then? More than infinity?

Aaaa-ha. I think I've spotted part of the problem.

There is not just one infinity. There are multiple infinities - an infinite number, if you like. Infinity has the intrinsic value of infinity. Add one to it and you also have infinity - a different infinity. I suspect your teacher chose to teach you that infinity and (divide by zero) were practically irrelevant so that he didn't have to explain advanced math concepts to a high school class - but then most teaching is done that way (you lie a little bit in order to get the relevant information into kids' heads; when they get older and choose to study that subject more, you lie a little bit less - and so on until the point they're studying research-level concepts).

For more on this, please look up "Hotel Infinity". You ought to find it fascinating - and you can see why a high school teacher didn't want to cover it!

Science clearly did not "invent", the atom, so it is "self evident" it existed prior to discovery, which is one of literally thousands of examples from the historical record.

And this is gibberish. The scientific method succeeded in the instance of the discovery of the atom and of its components thereafter and that... means... it failed somehow?

 

[homeforsummer]

Science clearly did not "invent", the atom, so it is "self evident" it existed prior to discovery, which is one of literally thousands of examples from the historical record.

Your logic is pretty atrocious on this matter.

You appear to be angling on the assumption that because at one point we didn't know about things and now we do, that it essentially proves the existence of anything based on the assumption we just haven't got around to proving it yet.

God cannot be proven on the basis that we just haven't found a way of discovering him yet.

That isn't how science works. If it did work that way, then we can all happily believe in the flying spaghetti monster again. We just haven't found a way of proving it exists yet - but it must do, because everything does until we discover it. Worked for the atom.

 

[BobK]

There is not just one infinity. There are multiple infinities - an infinite number, if you like. Infinity has the intrinsic value of infinity. Add one to it and you also have infinity - a different infinity.

A minor quibble here. Although there are many different infinities, an infinite number of them as you say, adding one to an infinity does not yield a new infinity; it yields the exact same infinity. That's what Hilbert's "hotel infinity" paradox really illustrates. To get a new infinity you have to raise infinity to an infinite power.

For XoravaX, why the obsession with dividing by zero anyway? You mistakenly tried to put zero in the denominator of a probability calculation and honestly, after all the "proofs" of various absurdities and other distractions involving it and infinities and arithmetic involving infinities, I quite forget what your original point was.

 

[Famine]

A minor quibble here. Although there are many different infinities, an infinite number of them as you say, adding one to an infinity does not yield a new infinity; it yields the exact same infinity. That's what Hilbert's "hotel infinity" paradox really illustrates. To get a new infinity you have to raise infinity to an infinite power.

Or divide it by one - remember that all the guests (an infinite number) in the odd numbered rooms (of which there are an infinite number) check out one day, leaving only the even numbered rooms (of which there are also an infinite number) occupied.

Hotel Infinity mixes many infinites and finite quantities. For instance, half of the infinite rooms are occupied - 1/2 x ∞ - while still retaining an infinite number of guests, showing that ∞/2 is ∞ while being a different ∞ to the total number of rooms. In fact it rather demonstrates that there are an infinite number of infinities

 

[JediRage]

[SCJ's] mockery of the scientific method amuses me greatly.

At one time, the clergy's method of relating everything to God was the accepted scientific method of the time. Doesn't make it less inaccurate now than it was then. Challenging the contemporary methods of the time brought about the Renaissance and the age of science.

Newton used 'scientific method' for his Corpuscular Theory of Light and Laws of Motion but they were both theoretically improved in recent times. With proper equipment and technology, imagine how many current theories can be examined and improved upon rather than relying on thought experiments and mental contortions.

I won't go into detail about this because it always ensues in a firestorm, but the power of the human mind has yet to be untapped. Now the reason it is not accepted nowadays is because of the history of people pretending to be messengers of God and controlling state policy as a result. Current scientific methods also heavily insist on methods that can be replicated or duplicated in another experiment under similar conditions. But is the human mind always the same between two people? Getting honest people without intentions of twisting results to prove their own agenda and finding the right questions and theories to test in these conditions are the challenges. This was just an example, there could be many more. All that's required is a little humility. We have not discovered all the secrets of the Universe, not just yet, especially when we can't transport a human to the nearest planet let alone outside the solar system.

On a different thread of reasoning,

God has been said to exist for thousands of years. And not just to attribute fire and thunder and other things but as a being from which they drew solace. Do you mean to say each and every one of them had ulterior motives to control society? It would be as fair to say every scientist wants to create weapons of mass destruction. Organized religion has left a bad impression in history and continues to do so today, but try to separate the institutions of organized religion from the concept of God.

Like many say, there cannot be smoke without fire.

 

[Famine]

Ah, but God has been said to exist for thousands of years. And not just to attribute fire and thunder and other things but as a being from which they drew solace. Do you mean to say each and every one of them had ulterior motives to control society? It would be as fair to say every scientist wants to create weapons of mass destruction. Organized religion has left a bad impression in history and continues to do so today, but try to separate the institutions of organized religion from the concept of God.

I read all of hfs's post and couldn't find any instance of him talking about organised religion or control.

Perhaps you ought to try separating atheists from the concept of attacking religion?

Like many say, there cannot be smoke without fire.

Try spinning the tyres up on your car sometime.

 

[JediRage]

I read all of hfs's post and couldn't find any instance of him talking about organised religion or control.

Perhaps you ought to try separating atheists from the concept of attacking religion?



Try spinning the tyres up on your car sometime.

Wasn't just directed solely at him. I don't breakdown people's posts piece by piece, sentence by sentence, word by word and take them out of context.

As for the last line, smart quip, but I'm not sure I've directed that attitude at anyone here but if we are now going to argue semantics about idioms, then the thread has outlived its usefulness.

 

[Famine]

Wasn't just directed solely at him.

Then don't quote him. You responded to a quote by a user - and made a helpful suggestion to him to change his thinking. If it wasn't directed at him, don't quote him.

I don't breakdown people's posts piece by piece, sentence by sentence, word by word and take them out of context.

What you did do was respond directly to another user to tell them not to do something they hadn't done.

As for the last line, smart quip

It wasn't a quip. It was the scientific method rebuffing a maxim. There is often smoke without fire. You can test it yourself - the scientific method is transparent.

If you're suggesting god or gods exist because many cultures have supposed one existed and they can't all be wrong, you're blowing off the scientific method in a big way.

but I'm not sure I've directed that attitude at anyone here but if we are now going to argue semantics about idioms, then the thread has outlived its usefulness.

If you don't want your opinions - such as "there's no smoke without fire" suggesting that a god or gods probably do exist - discussing, it's not the thread that's the problem. This is a forum, for discussion. This is an opinions forum, for discussion of opinions. This thread is about the belief in god/gods, for discussion of opinions about belief in god/gods.

 

[JediRage]

It wasn't a quip. It was the scientific method rebuffing a maxim. There is often smoke without fire. You can test it yourself - the scientific method is transparent.

If you're suggesting god or gods exist because many cultures have supposed one existed and they can't all be wrong, you're blowing off the scientific method in a big way.

Am I allowed to quote you this time?

I didn't know this was the 'Disprove popular idioms thread'. You know why idioms are used, don't you? 'A taste of one's own medicine' doesn't literally mean someone had to drink their own concoction of cough syrup.

And don't hide attitude behind scientific method when you've just been lecturing another poster about attitude barely a few pages back. I'm happy to find middle ground with posters here, it doesn't mean you can just dismiss entire arguments over the use of language.

You may refute the assertion that all people who have ever said God existed as wrong, you are free to, but going so far as to get into an argument over an important facet of the English language?

I can see why the thread has reached 9000 posts. If arguments over idioms can extend to 3 or 4 posts, who knows how much pointless padding there is in this thread.

 

[Famine]

Am I allowed to quote you this time?

It depends - are you responding to me or are you making random musings directed at no-one in particular?

I didn't know this was the 'Disprove popular idioms thread'. You know why idioms are used, don't you? 'A taste of one's own medicine' doesn't literally mean someone had to drink their own concoction of cough syrup.

Let's revisit the problem:

Ah, but God has been said to exist for thousands of years. And not just to attribute fire and thunder and other things but as a being from which they drew solace. Do you mean to say each and every one of them had ulterior motives to control society? [...]

Like many say, there cannot be smoke without fire.

The idiom was used to support a position. The position was, in short, that all of the assertions used over time that there exists a god or gods (smoke) must have foundation (fire) - that it's unlikely that they are all untrue.

This is not evidence. This is not science. This is subjectivity with a maxim that is demonstrably false.

Feel free to use any other maxim in an opinion to support the existence of a deity. Any other user may feel free to rebuff that maxim and that opinion.

And don't hide attitude behind scientific method when you've just been lecturing another poster about attitude barely a few pages back. I'm happy to find middle ground with posters here, it doesn't mean you can just dismiss entire arguments over the use of language.

I was dismissing both.

You may refute the assertion that all people who have ever said God existed as wrong

I would be repudiating it, not refuting it. Though I wouldn't do that either - I'd largely agree with the assertion because there is no evidence nor has there ever been.

but going so far as to get into an argument over an important facet of the English language?

You've taken it upon yourself to get into an argument. I refuted your position and I rebuffed the maxim you used to support it - after pointing out you were responding unkindly to a user and telling them not to do something they hadn't done.

I can see why the thread has reached 9000 posts. If arguments over idioms can extend to 3 or 4 posts, who knows how much pointless padding there is in this thread.

Quite so.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah, but God has been said to exist for thousands of years. And not just to attribute fire and thunder and other things but as a being from which they drew solace. Do you mean to say each and every one of them had ulterior motives to control society? It would be as fair to say every scientist wants to create weapons of mass destruction. Organized religion has left a bad impression in history and continues to do so today, but try to separate the institutions of organized religion from the concept of God.

I'm utterly at a loss as to how you got that from anything I posted.

SCJ is essentially saying (if I've understood him correctly - and understanding SCJ is worthy of a thread all in itself sometimes) that because atoms have always been there but were only discovered relatively recently, then it proves that God can exist too.

He's drawing a similarity between us knowing about something we didn't used to know about - flight, or atomic particles, for example - and suggesting that God is no different, ergo although we don't have scientific proof, historical trends suggest we've just not found out a way of proving him yet.

None of which has anything to do with controlling society, WMDs or indeed organised religion.

To paraphrase, try to separate what I wrote from the concepts buzzing around inside your head.

Like many say, there cannot be smoke without fire.

So because lots of people believe it, it must be true? Majority opinion shouldn't be a barometer for anything. The majority likes reality TV, McDonalds burgers and buys Toyota Camrys. That must make reality TV, McDonalds burgers and Toyota Camrys the best things available in their respective fields!

 

[Famine]

Depends if it's the 2.2 or not.

 

[homeforsummer]

Depends if it's the 2.2 or not.

Quite. If it's the 2.2, it is the best in its field.

Well, according to some guy. Some guy must be right, no?

 

[JediRage]

It depends - are you responding to me or are you making random musings directed at no-one in particular?

Way to go with the attitude again.

Let's revisit the problem:



The idiom was used to support a position. The position was, in short, that all of the assertions used over time that there exists a god or gods (smoke) must have foundation (fire) - that it's unlikely that they are all untrue.

This is not evidence. This is not science. This is subjectivity with a maxim that is demonstrably false.

Feel free to use any other maxim in an opinion to support the existence of a deity. Any other user may feel free to rebuff that maxim and that opinion.

I wasn't using a maxim, I was using an idiom.

You've taken it upon yourself to get into an argument. I refuted your position and I rebuffed the maxim you used to support it - after pointing out you were responding unkindly to a user and telling them not to do something they hadn't done.

Once again, not maxim, but idiom.

I'm utterly at a loss as to how you got that from anything I posted.

...
blah blah about SCJ
...

To paraphrase, try to separate what I wrote from the concepts buzzing around inside your head.

I've already said I wasn't directing that solely at you but was making a general comment. No need to get butt-hurt when I haven't used language even remotely like you are using above.

So because lots of people believe it, it must be true? Majority opinion shouldn't be a barometer for anything. The majority likes reality TV, McDonalds burgers and buys Toyota Camrys. That must make reality TV, McDonalds burgers and Toyota Camrys the best things available in their respective fields!

Oh, sorry. The people who lived before precious scientific method was codified didn't get the memo about writing the atmospheric conditions and procedures about their experiment. Maybe you would like to go back in time and tell them?

Depends if it's the 2.2 or not.

Quite. If it's the 2.2, it is the best in its field.

Well, according to some guy. Some guy must be right, no?

*OOH, let's clap each other's back about how glibly we've shouted down the idiot here*

I've been perfectly civil in this thread so far but if you're going to take it upon yourself to get insulted over who I quoted and what I was saying to whom, even if it was in the most innocuous language, then I must excuse myself from this bar-fight.

Oh and feel free to ignore what I was saying in my original post while you pick apart the logistics of when to use an idiom.

Peace out.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Famine]

Way to go with the attitude again.

Not really.

You've taken it upon yourself to be insulted. That's fine - you can be insulted by anything you want at any time. Fact is you were merely upbraided for responding directly to a user to, somewhat condescendingly, tell them not to do something they'd not actually done. Notice the user has also made that response.

You've then chosen to get pissy and tried to be smart with "Am I allowed to quote you this time?". Given your excuse last time of quoting someone but not actually responding directly to them, it's a perfectly valid response to ask if you're doing so by way of responding or just by way of musing.

I wasn't using a maxim, I was using an idiom.

Once again, not maxim, but idiom.

Since you seemingly only enjoy the semantics of language when you're the one making the distinctions, you should note that you are wrong.

An idiom is a colloquialism without the meaning being directly discernible - like "Stone the crows" means "Gosh!" not "Pelt some corvidae with rocks!". A maxim is a principle or rule generally held to be true - like "There's no smoke without fire.".

*OOH, let's clap each other's back about how glibly we've shouted down the idiot here*

Actually it's a reference to another user who made a thread saying how fast and awesome his 2.2 Camry was because he could always beat other cars off the lights (but he wasn't racing them). It's a GTPlanet meme, if you will.

Notice again that you have chosen to be insulted.

You have chosen this argument. You have chosen to be insulted. You have chosen to perceive attitude. Why? Because you were picked up on poor etiquette - telling another user not to do something he hadn't even done, then claiming you weren't addressing him despite quoting him. And you think others are displaying a poor attitude?

 

[homeforsummer]

I've already said I wasn't directing that solely at you but was making a general comment. No need to get butt-hurt when I haven't used language even remotely like you are using above.

You responded to my post. With lots of irrelevant rubbish, but it was my post you responded to all the same. If you don't want to be misunderstood, avoid directly responding to something that has nothing to do with what you're blathering on about.

Oh, sorry. The people who lived before precious scientific method was codified didn't get the memo about writing the atmospheric conditions and procedures about their experiment. Maybe you would like to go back in time and tell them?

Eh?

*OOH, let's clap each other's back about how glibly we've shouted down the idiot here*

Shouted down? Nope. You've had the opportunity to respond with some well thought-out points, and so far avoided doing so. It's an open forum, so the only thing stopping you from saying something relevant and/or correct is your apparently inability to do so.

I've been perfectly civil in this thread so far but if you're going to take it upon yourself to get insulted over who I quoted and what I was saying to whom, even if it was in the most innocuous language, then I must excuse myself from this bar-fight.

Yup. Definitely me getting butt-hurt...

 

[JediRage]

@Famine

So we are now going to go phrase by phrase in this long list of phrases ever used and decide which one is a maxim and which one is an idiom? Sure why not? Let's begin.

I used the smoke-fire phrase as an idiom, you chose to take it as a maxim. Nothing I can do about it. Of course I am going to argue semantics of language if you are going to go Mr. English Professor on me. You've chosen to take it as a maxim and also chosen to believe that I was condescending to the guy I quoted. When it had absolutely FA to do with you, apart from moderating possible hateful language? Did I do that?

How exactly was I condescending?

You responded to my post. With lots of irrelevant rubbish, but it was my post you responded to all the same. If you don't want to be misunderstood, avoid directly responding to something that has nothing to do with what you're blathering on about.

Shouted down? Nope. You've had the opportunity to respond with some well thought-out points, and so far avoided doing so. It's an open forum, so the only thing stopping you from saying something relevant and/or correct is your apparently inability to do so.

Your inability to differentiate between well thought out points and 'irrelevant rubbish' should be declared legendary.

Oh, listen folks, take hfs's posts, line by line and sentence by sentence. You are not allowed to state your position AT ALL unless you double post. HFS has spoken.

 

[Famine]

So we are now going to go phrase by phrase in this long list of phrases ever used and decide which one is a maxim and which one is an idiom? Sure why not? Let's begin.

Yes. Let's start with "I must excuse myself from this bar-fight. Peace out."

I used the smoke-fire phrase as an idiom, you chose to take it as a maxim. Nothing I can do about it.

Except take the information on board and remember in future.

Like to remember in future that when you quote someone and tell them to do something in your response, it rather looks like you're talking directly to them.

Of course I am going to argue semantics of language if you are going to go Mr. English Professor on me. You've chosen to take it as a maxim

Rather because it is one. The meaning is plain from the phrase, so it isn't idiom. It is a colloquial phrase that contains a rule generally held to be true - a maxim.

and also chosen to believe that I was condescending to the guy I quoted.

Apart from the believe part. We'll leave the belief to the believers.

When it had absolutely FA to do with you

I couldn't really tell, you see. You quoted a guy and responded directly to him, but apparently that doesn't mean you're responding directly to him so no-one really knows who you're talking to.

Incidentally, you're posting these messages on a public forum. If you don't want anybody else to say anything about them, try Private Messages.

apart from moderating possible hateful language? Did I do that?

I simply told you that the guy whose post you quoted contained none of the things your response indicated. I also pointed out a flaw in your reasoning through your use of a demonstrably incorrect maxim.

You've now dragged it out to a couple of hours' worth.

Your inability to differentiate between well thought out points and 'irrelevant rubbish' should be declared legendary.

Oh, listen folks, take hfs's posts, line by line and sentence by sentence. You are not allowed to state your position AT ALL unless you double post. HFS has spoken.

Yeah, that's not the voice of a bad attitude at all.


You made an error in forum etiquette by, apparently, quoting a guy and addressing a point directly to him when you didn't mean to address a point directly to him. You also made a flawed statement about the notion of deities and illustrated it with a flawed maxim. Quite why this is worth a strop I don't know, but I suggest you stop.

 

[XoravaX]

Fine, I agree well enough with the other parts, Famine.

And yet both dividing by zero and the concept of infinity have practical uses in math.

Care to explain the uses of division by zero, please? I can't get how it could be used. Infinity has, I know that, but to what is division by zero useful for, as it is no legal operation in real number maths?

Aaaa-ha. I think I've spotted part of the problem.

There is not just one infinity. There are multiple infinities - an infinite number, if you like. Infinity has the intrinsic value of infinity. Add one to it and you also have infinity - a different infinity. I suspect your teacher chose to teach you that infinity and (divide by zero) were practically irrelevant so that he didn't have to explain advanced math concepts to a high school class - but then most teaching is done that way (you lie a little bit in order to get the relevant information into kids' heads; when they get older and choose to study that subject more, you lie a little bit less - and so on until the point they're studying research-level concepts).

For more on this, please look up "Hotel Infinity". You ought to find it fascinating - and you can see why a high school teacher didn't want to cover it!

Ah, different infinities, clever indeed.

All the infinities are, well, infinite, but the other infinities are larger than the others, or more rapidly expanding to be exact?

Of course we were taught the concept that there is infinitely many values between any two values (eg. 1 and 1.1), but that infinity inside infinity wasn't. To me, it doesn't still give help in how infinity could be handled as a value in algebra or any real number maths.

For XoravaX, why the obsession with dividing by zero anyway? You mistakenly tried to put zero in the denominator of a probability calculation and honestly, after all the "proofs" of various absurdities and other distractions involving it and infinities and arithmetic involving infinities, I quite forget what your original point was.

My original point was, that God's existence, if not proven, "doesn't have a side in a custom die" (like 7 in a standard die), but the die doesn't have any other values either, as the alternatives to God's existence are unproven too. There are no sides in the die at all, thus why 0/0 probability of anything, from which the division by zero problem came.

No, the probability of rolling 1 for infinity is exactly zero. This is directly because there is only a 1/6 chance of success in every roll. As long as the chance is less than 1/1, then probability or rolling for infinity, actual infinity, is zero.

No it isn't because rolling one has a probability of 1/6 in each roll. You can always hit that 1/6th, nothing denies it. For infinity it will just be infinitely close to 0.

Which only applies if you don't get to infinity.

You can't get to infinity in this. You will always have made a known amount of rolls and can always roll once more - that is no infinity. Infinity is not a value, as that kind of makes it not to be infinity.

Except that's not how probability works. Why is it that you get the concept of dice rolls right, but when it comes to God you set up a nonsense fraction? Probability is success/trials. Not success/failure. Let's assume that there is exactly zero evidence against God, now lets compute the chances of God's existence. Successes (number of times God has been proven) = 0. Trials (number of attempts to prove God exists) > 1. Probability = 0/>1 = 0. There is no 0/0.

What you're doing with the God example is trying to predict the probability of rolling a number on the die and saying that it is something/0.

There is your problem!
Probability is not success/trials (neither is it success/failure), that's practical frequency (and success/failure is the success/failure ratio).
If I rolled one thrice in nine tries, the probability counted with success/trials would be 3/9=1/3. Now see where you failed?

Probability of a wanted event is counted (event)/(group of possible events (which includes both the wanted event and the others)). One side of the die is fit for rolling one, but there are six (equally) possible sides. Therefore 1/6.

Similarly, if we consider only a proven event of God's existence, there is 0. But in the group of possible events (incl. God's existence and unexistence, but also other gods' existence and unexistence (which includes the "no gods" option) there are no proven events either, so 0 too. Therefore 0/0, as in (event)/(group of all possible events).

What happens when you give 3 apples to .1 men?

There is nothing wrong with infinite apples per man. That's the answer. You could go through an infinite number of apples and no man would get one because there are zero men.

If I give 3 apples to 1/10th man, that means 30 apples per (one) man.
But I can't go through infinite apples. If you can, please show how to do it. We're stuck at counting the apples forever without reaching infinity unless we realise that the apples aren't given out at all.

---

To lighten this up a bit:

Feel free to use any other maxim in an opinion--

I wasn't using a maxim--

I am. Couldn't resist the temptation .