Infinite Existence

103 posts / 0 new

The probability you have a 1st in math's is 0.076% ...LOL.

@Dan

"At what percent would you suggest we start bearing in mind that we have (initially) admitted no evidence either for or against the proposition 'was the a creator of the universe'?"

Let me alter a phrase so you can see how nonsensical that statement is.

At what percent would you suggest we start bearing in mind that we have (initially) admitted no evidence either for or against the proposition 'is Bugs Bunny real'?

It is not incumbent on anyone here to disprove your assertion. It is incumbent upon you to prove it.

I take it, from the responses of others, that you have been here a while...And you still don't understand the burden of proof?

Terraphon: "And you still don't understand the burden of proof?"

You are correct. We all have explained the Burden of Proof to Dan. He either refuses to accept it, or just cannot comprehend it.

rmfr

"There is no absolute proof of God... merely evidence suggesting a high probability that he exits."

Wrong, if you are measuring all probability, the validity of supernatural events within our known universe, makes the p-value almost infinite in favor of the NON-existence of any god...let alone yours. The supernatural doesn't exist dum dum.

But creation itself can't of been a natural event else there must be multiple instances of creation (infinite instances with infinite time).

Creation has to have a 0% probability of occurring naturally... IE a non-natural event.

Well, how can the god of your creation (excuse the pun), even exist, if he is supernatural in nature? There are several big bang/big crunch perpetual universe hypothesis out there...including multiverse representations of said. We can measure things in the natural world...we just can't in the supernatural world...without evidence that the supernatural is a part of our reality, anything in that realm is considered not real. Your whole hypothesis is moot.

Dan - But if the natural creation of matter/energy is possible, with infinite time, matter/energy density would be infinite...

There are many reasons this is false, but perhaps the simplest reason is just the fact that:
[energy] ≠ [energy density]

Put a whole bunch of bad evidence and poor assertions together and they do not add up to one good argument for the existence of a God.

"Creation has to have a 0% probability of occurring naturally... IE a non-natural event." FINE - CONCEDED - Now prove you god did it and not my left big toe.

Dan - BTW I have a 1st in maths.

Then let's get real Dan:

Given two events (A and B) each with two possible Boolean outcomes that you know nothing else about; please use your "rule" to calculate:

1. P(A) = ?
2. P(B) = ?
3. Using those results, calculate the probability of the 4 possible outcomes:
4. P(A ∧ B) = ?
5. P(¬A ∧ B) ?
6. P(A ∧ ¬B) = ?
7. P(¬A ∧ ¬B) = ?
8. And finally what is the probability of getting one of the previous listed outcomes (#4, #5, #6, #7)?

1. P(A) = 50%
2. P(B) = 50%
4. P(A ∧ B) = 25%
5. P(¬A ∧ B) 25%
6. P(A ∧ ¬B) = 25%
7. P(¬A ∧ ¬B) = 25%
And finally what is the probability of getting one of the previous listed outcomes (#4, #5, #6, #7)? 100%

@ Dan

You have several "mistakes"; for example the following question:
4. P(A ∧ B)

That is a Boolean proposition, and we don't know anything else about it, so according to your rule that should be 50% (you said: Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition). If you are still interested; make this correction(s) and try again.

But we do know something else about P(A ∧ B)... we know its composed of two propositions each of which are only 50% likely so thats 25% probability for the combination of both.

The proposition 'is there a creator' does not decompose into two separate propositions... it is a single boolean proposition with a boolean sample space underlying it.

Dan - we know its composed of two propositions each of which are only 50% likely so thats 25% probability for the combination of both.

Who told you those events are independent?!? I never told you they were independent! In fact I specifically said two possible Boolean outcomes that you know nothing else about. You can't use the properties of independence, if you don't know whether or not they are independent.

Well the chances of them being independent are much larger than the chances of them being dependent. Almost infinitely so.

Dan - Well the chances of them being independent are much larger than the chances of them being dependent.

Isn't it interesting that when you don't know the values you just put in whatever you want. This is the same bahvior that lead to your nonsense "rule". You are continuing to craft insane rules when you need them, then disregarding them the instant they are inconvenient. I suggest you write one of your professors and ask them about it. Why don't you post the email and their response here? Anyway, I think you are beyond reach.

For anyone interested I'll fill in the answers (that is, the answers given Dan's "rule").

• P(A) = 0.5 (50%)
• P(B) = 0.5
• P(A ∧ B) = 0.5
• P(¬A ∧ B) = 0.5
• P(A ∧ ¬B) = 0.5
• P(¬A ∧ ¬B) = 0.5
• The probability of getting one of the previous listed outcomes? = 2 (200%)

Don't miss the forest for the trees: the probability of anything is a real number that lies on the interval [0, 1] (probability only runs from 0 to 1, or 0% to 100%). Dan's "rule" leads to a probability that can not be a probability! We have actually proven (and I mean that in the strongest terms, not a word you will see me throw around much) by contradiction that Dan's rule MUST be false.

-----------------------------
Oh and the answers you will be given by any mathematician on the planet (if we don't use Dan's "rule"):

• P(A) = unknown
• P(B) = unknown
• P(A ∧ B) = unknown
• P(¬A ∧ B) =unknown
• P(A ∧ ¬B) = unknown
• P(¬A ∧ ¬B) = unknown
• The probability of getting one of the previous listed outcomes? = 1 (100%)

Notice the probability falls into the range previously mentioned [0, 1].

I agree completely! How could anyone not understand this? Anyone want some chocolate milk?

@ Pirate Jack

Nah. I'd rather have Tin-Man's egg nog. It does wonders for my foliage. Kind of makes it glow.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep: Thank you!

Don't mind us,

....time for another Nyar spanking!

Attach Image/Video?:

Yes

....*lugging 55 gallon barrel into the room*..... EGGNOG IS HERE, EVERYBODY!!!... Sorry it took so long. Had to make a whole new batch. Hope I'm not too late.

What!!! No cheese? It's okayyyy, I'll have another egg of rum - cup noggg.

He remembers his first time having sex? I'm still trying to forget mine. I just hate disappointing people.

Edit: meant to say "disappointing" instead of "disappointment." I'm so disappointed in myself.

You poor bastard. I hope things are looking up now. :p

Potential TMI:

I've started on anti-depressants since my first, and the most common side effects are sexual, so let's say that my performance hasn't improved :P

Still better than the alternative though.

Ugh, yes most tricyclic's do that...your doc can prescribe the "blue pill" ya know.

What the fuck! The god damned notes from building lunar rockets aren’t this complicated! You may want to watch porn or something useful with your time. Holy Shit!

We need to protect Nyar now, his congregation will think hes doing witchcraft!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.