I rejected religion when I was 7 years old, I was raised a christian til then. As soon as I found out that there was more than one religion, that was enough reason for me to completely dismiss them all as untrue.

.. The same logic stays with me today thankfully.

So I'm curious how Theists feel about the statistics. The most popular religion (according to wiki) is Christianity currently at 31.5%. So still, even if you are a member of the worlds most popular religion, there is still a 68.5% chance that you are wrong, and so devoting your life to a lie.. No matter what religion you believe in, the odds are ALWAYS against you. Tough gamble.

.. Statistically speaking, you're probably all wrong, but woddya reckon.. fancy your chances?

## Subscription Note:

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the *subscriptions* tab.

Ive argued that point myself. Fact is since no religion has real evidence they all have equal probability.

How can that be if only one can be right the probabilities cannot be identical. So this tells me all are wrong.

Until/unless one can provide some evidence that seems to be the only logical conclusion.

The statistics of that argument are fascinating but as we all know, a devout Christian will still argue with the fact that those numbers are wrong. Many of them still don't believe in the dinosaurs.

Well creationists do believe in dinosaurs but claim they were all vegetarian and coexisted with humans roflmao

Yea i have a thought of a christian dying seeing allah and arguing with him that he does not exist.

Yes atheists accept they may be wrong. Theists in general dont even see it as a possibility.

Besides better to be wrong than to believe the wrong god religions tend to show their gods are jealous.

Nah your right, the same rules work against Atheists.. And that's fine. I do fancy my chances :)

And yea I agree with Lmale. Better to die knowing you don't know, than claiming you know the impossible to know

Lol

Satistically speaking, given the number of religions there are and have been, vs the number of possibilities as to what the truth actually is (infinite) whatever *any* of us believe is probably wrong. The odds of any religion having just somehow correctly guessed the exact origin of the universe are infinitesimal!

That makes sense if you start with the assumption that there isn't a god. You're thinking like an atheist. If there is a god and He/She is powerful enough to kick off a universe, then that changes this kind of philosophising quite a lot.

Well said.

Hey i just happened to research the origins of christianity because of a utube debate.

Did you know its only 2000 or so years old well we have written records going back 15000 years so ive 2 questions.

1 what the hell took god so long lol

2 given that anyone not believing in god goes to hell how fair is it that for 13000 years everyone went to hell (if christianity is right). And thats only written records the fossils show mans been around over 100000 years.

Hey, if you're a being that somehow spans the length of eternity, 13000 years is still within the range of fashionably late.

Lets remember, until pretty recent times the planet was effectively divided into a few different 'worlds' with only relatively minimal contact. If you lived in medieval Europe, pretty much European Christendom was 'the world'...yes, you knew on the edges of this world there were other peoples, but they were barbarians and heathens living in darkness. Living in pre-modern China one would have thought the same thing of those who lived outside of the 'Middle Kingdom'.

God being merciful sent different religions to the different worlds, religions suited to the peoples in those worlds.

Now of course we live in an age when all the old barriers have broken down, and all the sudden anyone anywhere has access to all the worlds religions. Considering the religions are different in their outward forms, this can be very confusing to many people, so they just abandon religion altogether.

However, if one looks at the religions in depth, you will begin to see, once you get past the surface, a striking uniformity. All Orthodox religions teach people to pray, to meditate, to seek the Truth, they all inculcate morals and virtues, and create in general an ambience of beauty and symbolism, rites and doctrines, to lead one to the Truth.

I

I hate arguments from probability for two reasons:

1. Probabilities are misleading. Let us say we sat down to play a game of 7 card stud poker. The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1. That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand. But that is not true, is it. After receiving the cards, no matter what they are, the probability that you got them becomes approximately 1 to 1. Probabilistic arguments can make anything, no matter how mundane or inevitable, seem impossible.

2. Probability isn't a reliable predictor for truth. If probability determined truth, nobody would win the lottery, none of us would be born, and our Earth would never have formed. Things happen, whether they are probable or not, and assessing the probability of what has occurred is like administering medication to the dead.

hmm, i think you need to revise probabilities lol

"The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1."

This is not:

"That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand."

I don't know if that claim is true, but what is being said there is:

It means that to find any particular order of 7 cards is 134 million to 1.

Order you mean numerical, suit, or any cards?

But the probability for finding any cards is 1 to 1(100 %) because if you draw any 7 cards you will surly match a particular hand.

On the other hand if you meant a numerical order or suit order, or whatever, then the probability of getting that is not 1 to 1.

Thus making this claim wrong:

"That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand."

The probability of getting any hand is 1 to 1 and not to get any order.

Probabilities become mundane yes when the probability space(set) is not defined.

Sometimes wannabe theologians make this mistake true.

That is why possibility becomes a more accurate word for it.

How possible is something given our current knowledge of things?

This takes in a lot of assumptions into considerations.(those should be stated)

Eg:

How possible it is to find a frog on the moon?

After making a lot of assumptions like:

No secret bases(which were doing lab tests on frogs)

No space station waste(which includes dead frogs)

etc...

The the possibility that an astronaut will find a frog on the moon is close to impossible. (nothing is impossible)

Jeff Vella Leone:

"hmm, i think you need to revise probabilities lol"

We will see.

"It means that to find any particular order of 7 cards is 134 million to 1.

Order you mean numerical, suit, or any cards?"

Any, all hands, no defined values or result. 52*51*50*49*48*47*46=133,784,560 possible 7 card sequences possible from a full deck. As long as we do not designate a specific result, say a royal straight flush(which is a specific set in any order), we can't whittle down the odds.

"But the probability for finding any cards is 1 to 1(100 %) because if you draw any 7 cards you will surly match a particular hand."

Wasn't that exactly the point I made? I swear it was. Perhaps you didn't understand exactly what I said?

"On the other hand if you meant a numerical order or suit order, or whatever, then the probability of getting that is not 1 to 1."

This only happens when you define the result, we haven't done that yet. Once you add defined specifics, the odds always change, duh.

"Thus making this claim wrong:

"That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand."

The probability of getting any hand is 1 to 1 and not to get any order."

Did you even read my post? I already said that once you HAVE a hand the odds of you getting it become 1 to 1. Read the part after "But that is not true, is it". Why do you insist on stating the EXACT same thing I did?

"Probabilities become mundane yes when the probability space(set) is not defined."

Exactly my point. I'm glad you understood it, even if you didn't understand me making it!

"Sometimes wannabe theologians make this mistake true."

Not just theologians, this mistake is very common in probabilistic arguments in general.

"That is why possibility becomes a more accurate word for it."

Depends on how one defines possible, I suppose. There is always the EXTREMELY small improbability that the next time you jump you might get stuck or escape terminal velocity and find yourself in space. I am not sure I would define that as a possibility.

"any particular order"

I understand it that there are several orders (suit order, numerical order)

but any cards meaning there is no order but just any card.

I think your original message did not come clear if you meant any card.

However if you meant any card then the probability is 1 to 1 and there is no way to put the "insurmountable odds" in there.

There is simply no way to be:

You would have passed those "insurmountable odds" if and only if you define the result.

If you haven't defined the result yet, then how can it be "already insurmountable odds"????

To clarify:

you claimed that when you take any 7 cards you get "already insurmountable odds" just because that particular hand would require "insurmountable odds" if you WANTED to get just that one.

Then after you said that:

"This only happens when you define the result, we haven't done that yet."

If you still want to claim that I am agreeing with you please choose on which is your claim:

are there:

"already insurmountable odds" to get one specific hand thus "define the result" or WANTING that result

Or

"This only happens when you define the result, we haven't done that yet."

"Depends on how one defines possible, I suppose. There is always the EXTREMELY small improbability that the next time you jump you might get stuck or escape terminal velocity and find yourself in space. I am not sure I would define that as a possibility."

"There is always the EXTREMELY small improbability that"....

There is always the EXTREMELY small possibility that....

Probability can only be used when you define the probability space, you haven't defined it.

EXTREMELY small was the correct wording to use with possibilities since they are approximations.

Probability is numerical and can only be used when the probability space is defined.

You haven't defined the probability of how fast can anybody jump since you do not know if anybody(or anything) can jump like that yet.

When dealing with an unknown, probability cannot be used.

But if you take 5 people and test them and know their jump limits and several statistics, then after making the assumption that:

Under normal circumstances.

The probability that jack will jump higher this time round is....e.g 50%

If you are given 1 out of 133,784,560 possible hands, what are the chances that you got that hand?

Here is the disconnect, you are trying to say that I need to define the set when I already have a set, the set of all possible hands. This means when you decide to play, you are going to get 1 out of 133,784,560 possible hands. Just because you have a 100% chance of getting a hand in general, does NOT in any way make the hand you get any more likely. It is only when you define the result, like any straight flush, or any two pair, with no attention to sequence that you lower that probability. Once you buy a lottery ticket, you have a 100% chance of having the lottery ticket, but that does not increase the chances of your ticket being chosen. It is, essentially, the same concept.

This argument, however, is moot. Simply because once you have the hand you get, the odds of you getting it become 1 to 1.

Also, as a side note:

I said it depended on how one defined possible, we are obviously operating under different definitions. I certainly don't equate probability and possibility. If I did, probable things would be possible, and improbable things would be.... possible? See what I mean. Probability is a construct of mathematics, possibility is a construct of logic, they are not the same.

I tend to agree with what you are saying here but this is not what you said originally.

"Probabilities are misleading. Let us say we sat down to play a game of 7 card stud poker. The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1. That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand. But that is not true, is it."

First you said that the probability of getting any particular cards is approximately 134 million to 1.(that is how Nyarlathotep understood it anyway)

or

are you saying getting ANY Cards(which you explained later) which in that case would be 1 to 1 not approximately 134 million to 1.

Then you are using this unclear concept to justify your first claim that "Probabilities are misleading".

I more think that the way you described probabilities originally was misleading.

"If I did, probable things would be possible, and improbable things would be.... possible? See what I mean."

probable things ARE possible

improbable things ARE still possible

There is no confusion here.

"Probability is a construct of mathematics, possibility is a construct of logic, they are not the same."

agree.

Actually he said "The chance of getting any SET of 7 cards" (emphasis is mine). That is 52C7. If he had not used the term set, there might be some wiggle room, but he did in fact did use the word set.

"I tend to agree with what you are saying here but this is not what you said originally."

Yes, it is, my position has not changed once since we started.

"Probabilities are misleading. Let us say we sat down to play a game of 7 card stud poker. The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1. That means, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand. But that is not true, is it."

That is what I said, not everything I said, but I did say that.

"First you said that the probability of getting any particular cards is approximately 134 million to 1.(that is how Nyarlathotep understood it anyway)"

Any particular hand of cards, that is the set.

"or

are you saying getting ANY Cards(which you explained later) which in that case would be 1 to 1 not approximately 134 million to 1."

The fact that you are guaranteed to get a hand in no way diminishes the probability of the hand you get. I have said this at least three separate times already, at this point I despair over the possibility that you will never recognize that fact.

"Then you are using this unclear concept to justify your first claim that "Probabilities are misleading"."

The concept was clear, you muddied it far more than I did.

"I more think that the way you described probabilities originally was misleading."

It wasn't, but thanks for your opinion.

""If I did, probable things would be possible, and improbable things would be.... possible? See what I mean."

probable things ARE possible

improbable things ARE still possible

There is no confusion here."

There is, actually. You seemed to conflate the two as being equal.

""Probability is a construct of mathematics, possibility is a construct of logic, they are not the same."

agree."

Then if something is logically impossible, yet has a small mathematical probability, is it possible or impossible? Having a probability does NOT make something possible. We can assign probability to anything, no matter how idiotic, and will never wind up with a probability of zero. While we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are HIGHLY improbable, their probability wouldn't be zero, so according to you they have to automatically be possible. This seems to make your earlier statement somewhat suspect...

you are dishonestly leaving out the "That means," part that connects the 2 sentences to try to twist what you said.

"The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1. THAT MEANS, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand. "

support your claim that "Probabilities are misleading" then?

Because this is what I did not agree with in the first place.

"The fact that you are guaranteed to get a hand in no way diminishes the probability of the hand you get. I have said this at least three separate times already, at this point I despair over the possibility that you will never recognize that fact."

where did I ever disagree with that?

"Then if something is logically impossible, yet has a small mathematical probability, is it possible or impossible?"

Example?

probability is a subset of what is possible not the other way round.

"Having a probability does NOT make something possible."

What are you smoking? something has to be possible first to even imagine a probability of it happening.

probability needs a probability space= some knowledge is required, possibility is limitless, it can deal with the unknowns, it does not require a probability space.

Is it possible to lift a planet, yes it is, is it probable to do so, I still cannot find a probable way of it happening.

If you can imagine it, it is possible, if you cannot even find a logical way of it happening its improbable.

"We can assign probability to anything, no matter how idiotic, and will never wind up with a probability of zero."

I really overestimated you, thought you were smarter then this.

We assign probability to things that we can define it's probability space, for the rest we use possibility.

what is the possibility that you will stop before reading this sentence?

0

lol

Or what is the possibility of finding 5 balls in a sack which has of 4 balls= 0

Or what is the possibility that 2+3 =7 it is 0

While we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are HIGHLY improbable, their probability wouldn't be zero, so according to you they have to automatically be possible.

Yes they aren't probable(degree) but possible(degree) since the probability space of the entire universe is unknown. We don't know everything that exists.

"This seems to make your earlier statement somewhat suspect"

Instead of being hard headed about a discussion try to learn something.

Jeff Vella Leone:

"you are dishonestly leaving out the "That means," part that connects the 2 sentences to try to twist what you said."

Actually, YOU are dishonestly leaving out the "But that isn't true, is it" part out to attempt to quote mine me into saying something I did not say. And if YOU don't stop doing it, this conversations will end with THIS post.

""The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1. THAT MEANS, before you even turn the cards over, you have passed already insurmountable odds to get that hand. "

support your claim that "Probabilities are misleading" then?

Because this is what I did not agree with in the first place."

Read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote, and then try having an honest conversation with me. I have said at least three times in three different ways that you have a 100% chance of getting a set of cards, but a 1 in approximately 134 million of getting any specific set.

""The fact that you are guaranteed to get a hand in no way diminishes the probability of the hand you get. I have said this at least three separate times already, at this point I despair over the possibility that you will never recognize that fact."

where did I ever disagree with that?"

This whole argument.

""Then if something is logically impossible, yet has a small mathematical probability, is it possible or impossible?"

Example?

probability is a subset of what is possible not the other way round."

Nope.

""Having a probability does NOT make something possible."

What are you smoking? something has to be possible first to even imagine a probability of it happening."

Nope. Hypothetical scenarios abound.

"probability needs a probability space= some knowledge is required, possibility is limitless, it can deal with the unknowns, it does not require a probability space."

This is why probability is mathematical and possibility is logical, something can be mathematically probable without being either true or possible.

"Is it possible to lift a planet, yes it is, is it probable to do so, I still cannot find a probable way of it happening.

If you can imagine it, it is possible, if you cannot even find a logical way of it happening its improbable."

""We can assign probability to anything, no matter how idiotic, and will never wind up with a probability of zero."

I really overestimated you, thought you were smarter then this."

That is it, no more Mr Nice Guy.

"We assign probability to things that we can define it's probability space, for the rest we use possibility."

We have assigned probabilities inside hypothetical models for years, this kind of specious reasoning demeans science in its most basic fundamentals.

"what is the possibility that you will stop before reading this sentence?

0

lol"

I was very tempted, don't encourage me.

"Or what is the possibility of finding 5 balls in a sack which has of 4 balls= 0

Or what is the possibility that 2+3 =7 it is 0"

Did you really just try to assign mathematical probabilities to math?

"While we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are HIGHLY improbable, their probability wouldn't be zero, so according to you they have to automatically be possible.

Yes they aren't probable(degree) but possible(degree) since the probability space of the entire universe is unknown. We don't know everything that exists."

Invisible pink things can't exist in logic.

""This seems to make your earlier statement somewhat suspect"

Instead of being hard headed about a discussion try to learn something."

I did, you offered nothing to learn.

"Read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote, and then try having an honest conversation with me. I have said at least three times in three different ways that you have a 100% chance of getting a set of cards, but a 1 in approximately 134 million of getting any specific set."

you said that after but it is not what you actually wrote originally.

The "That means," part

That is the problem, it DOES NOT MEAN that and thus makes your claim invalid.

Since you claimed it is confusing because it means something, but it does not and now you are agreeing (3 different ways)saying that it does not .

You are mixing the confusion you had in your head(op) and claiming that everybody makes such a confusion.

Again support your claim that "Probabilities are misleading" then?

You are mixing probabilities with possibilities no wonder you have such a confusion.

If i had to do something similar to what you did:

All dogs are confusing, see most just jump to die in the middle of the street. This means they have a mental disorder. NO, in fact they do it by accident and not so often.

Your original claim has nothing to do with the explanation you gave for it and then contradicted it.(even if the contradiction was correct)

"Did you really just try to assign mathematical probabilities to math?"

No, you are still mixing up probability with possibility. possibility does not include maths, it is just possible or not.

"Invisible pink things can't exist in logic."

how do you know?

Do you claim that everything is visible to your eyes?

I can imagine a pink unicorn becoming slowly invisible and then popping back up.

Jeff Vella Leone:

"Your original claim has nothing to do with the explanation you gave for it and then contradicted it.(even if the contradiction was correct)"

Prove this, prove it without quote mining me, or simply fuck off and never talk to me again you dishonest prick.

Travis -"The chance of getting any set of 7 cards in any order is approximately 134 million to 1."

That is correct. 52C7 = 133,784,560

Now a better probability question:

Given: 1% of the population has floobieitis. Jack has created a test for floobieitis that is 95% accurate. Joe picks Jack randomly out of the population and administers his test and gets a positive result. What is the probability Joe has floobieitis?

None, since Joe picked jack out of the population, meaning he picked nothing.

Did Joe even take the test?

Hope you don't do exam questions lol

sorry I revered the name at one point. Jack picked Joe out of the population and administered the test to Joe. The result was positive. What is the probability that Joe has the disease.?

So from my rusty probability memory, correct me if I am wrong:

1% have that disease

95% chance of success in the test

When you say the result was positive, you mean that the result came successful, that the result did not fall in the other 5% right?

Assuming that the test was successful(taking only the 95%) the the probability remains still 1% since the test results does not effect the fact that Joe has 1% chance of having that disease.

If on the other hand you mean that the other 5% mean that the test could give wrong results then the 5% must be added to the 1% chance.(assuming wrong results mean that they could show that he has the disease or not)

here we need clarification since wrong results could mean either opposite or simply cut out from the probability.

1/100 * 5/100= 1/2000 ---> both diseased and wrong results(assuming the opposite so this one does not count)

1/100* 95/100=19/2000 ---> both diseased and right results

99/100* 5/100=99/2000 ---> both not diseased and wrong results

118/2000 = 59/1000

Which means that there is 59/1000 chance of the test showing that Joe has a disease, not that Joe actually has a disease.

Jeff - "When you say the result was positive, you mean that the result came successful, that the result did not fall in the other 5% right?"

a positive test result means simply the test was positive for the disease (the test says he has the disease).

Jeff - "Which means that there is 59/1000 chance of the test showing that Joe has a disease, not that Joe actually has a disease."

That is not the question I asked. I asked: what is the probability that Joe has the disease?

but the question is misleading, more like a trick question.

If you go to the doctor and he tells you that the test says you have a disease but the test is 95% accurate, then it is irrelevant if he picked you from a million people or 10 million.

So there is 95% chance of Joe actually has the disease.

## Pages