Do you believe in God?

[RestlessSoul]

Not even close to being true. Take, for example, the molecules of gas in your room. The probability of those molecules each being on the side of the room that they are is far, far, far lower than that 1 in 10^70 figure. But it objectively is the case.

The problem comes from calculating the probability of some specific outcome as opposed to the probability of there being *some* outcome that meets certain criteria.

Also, as a side note, way too many calculations leading to small probabilities are of specific outcomes and are found by multiplying probabilities that are *known* to not be independent (thereby negating the calculation itself). Often, when even simple experiments or simulations are done, these calculated probabilities are shown to be horribly wrong because consideration was not made of multiple routes to similar results.

Not sure I understand your point about the distribution of gas molecules. If probability is spread out evenly among all possible states, then any random distribution of molecules is equally probable. The 1 in 10^70 figure (it isn't mine and I wish I could remember where I came across it) would only apply, in your example, where an extremely special, low entropy state existed; such as all the gas molecules being gathered on one side of the room.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Einstein's field equations can't be solved without approximations or assumptions. Those approximations and assumptions are where the garbage is inserted into the arguments.

Edit: and not all solutions of an equation are equally probable. As an analogy, you can do the calculations to see that a coin balanced on its edge would have all forces balanced, so it would pop out as a possible solution to the question of "how many ways can a coin flip land?" based just on the math, but the coin is so unstable on its edge that the possibility of it landing on its edge can be generally ignored for all practical purposes.

Edit 2: there are actually 240 ways a quarter could land in a coin flip and be balanced (head, tails, balancing on any of 119 bumps around the edge, or straddling any of the 119 grooves around the edge). A quick scan of the paper you linked to suggests that they've assumed that all solutions to Einstein's Field Equations are equally likely, which is a lot like assuming that the probability of a quarter coming up heads is 1 in 240.

Which is precisely why if you can find somebody who'll offer you 11/10 on the flip of a coin, you should take the bet. Though if it's his coin, he might know something you don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Online dictionary says: a mischievous or cheeky person, especially a child or man (typically used in an affectionate way).
"a lovable rascal"

Additionally, in common Southern use, something or someone that can be slippery, sly, coy, etc.

Okay, the for rascal free will I accept you believe in that, but I don¨t believe in free will as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you give me a sound syllogism that's relevant to one person and irrelevant to another?

Thanks.

Well, it depends on your undestanding of true as a part of sound and then we are back to what truth is.
And I have never for the non-stricly formal ever come across any objectively, universally correct version of truth.

So to me logic is in the mind as cogntive and thus can be true in one sense for which for the world as such truth is different when we hit correspondence, coherence and all the rest of the different versions for truth and the world.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you have any research studies on that? You are generalizing this to the whole.

Yes. Thanks for asking. I have plenty of experience reading and having extensive discourse with theists.

I gave you one example, but for whatever reason, you quote-mined it out.

 

[Polymath257]

Here’s someone else’s workings out on the subject of probability in cosmology, as I have none of my own to offer. You may wish to pay particular attention to section 3.2 Probability of Inflationary Spacetime

And you can find many such examples if you care to search for them.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12229

\
What I found interesting about that article is that it essentially admits that finding an appropriate probability measure in this context is impossible. While there is a uniform measure that can be considered, it is not normalizable and so cannot be used to calculate probabilities.

In other words, the whole question of the probability of getting a universe 'like ours' does not even make sense.

 

[Polymath257]

The garbage in this case (see, again, section 3.2 of the paper) being Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre's independently arrived at solutions to Einstein's field equations; these, whether or not they originated from Einstein's arse, being the axioms on which the standard model of cosmology was based, prior to confirmation by observation (of red-shifting and CMBR).

On the contrary, even the article you gave assumes this as a background. The fact that there is a volume maintaining measure (Louiville measure) on the phase space is of interest, but the fact that it cannot be normalized shows that even talking about probability in this situation isn't meaningful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure I understand your point about the distribution of gas molecules. If probability is spread out evenly among all possible states, then any random distribution of molecules is equally probable.

Doesn't matter if it's equally probable or not. No matter how many possibilities there are, one outcome will happen... even if any given outcome is very unlikely.

The 1 in 10^70 figure (it isn't mine and I wish I could remember where I came across it) would only apply in this example, where an extremely special, low entropy state existed; such as all the gas molecules being gathered on one side of the room.

But in the analogy, you're making assumptions about things like how large the room is (and that the room isn't accelerating laterally).

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Thanks for asking. I have plenty of experience reading and having extensive discourse with theists.

I gave you one example, but for whatever reason, you quote-mined it out.

Sorry if I missed something you said. I will go back and read.

 

[firedragon]

Well, it depends on your undestanding of true as a part of sound and then we are back to what truth is.
And I have never for the non-stricly formal ever come across any objectively, universally correct version of truth.

So to me logic is in the mind as cogntive and thus can be true in one sense for which for the world as such truth is different when we hit correspondence, coherence and all the rest of the different versions for truth and the world.

So give an example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

\
What I found interesting about that article is that it essentially admits that finding an appropriate probability measure in this context is impossible. While there is a uniform measure that can be considered, it is not normalizable and so cannot be used to calculate probabilities.

In other words, the whole question of the probability of getting a universe 'like ours' does not even make sense.

Now I am bookmarking your answers, because of our resident strong knowledge knowers of what the universe is as with evidence and what not.
As I see it, I like you are honest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is precisely why if you can find somebody who'll offer you 11/10 on the flip of a coin, you should take the bet. Though if it's his coin, he might know something you don't.

You missed my point. That's okay.

 

[Polymath257]

So it goes back into infinity, where there lies the Mysteries that are for many, not all, the unknown source "lazily" but humbly referred to as God.

Not necessarily. If time doesn't 'go back infinitely', neither does the universe. That can be the case even if there is no 'originating'.

 

[George-ananda]

What do you say??

I think the question itself 'Do you believe in God?' is no longer a clear question with people increasingly having pantheistic and nondual (God and creation are not-two), New Age and Eastern viewpoints.

The question itself seems stuck in early last century's 'Christianity versus Atheism' debate.

I think a better worded question is 'What are your spiritual beliefs, if any?'.

I'll answer: I believe in nondualism (God and creation are not-two). The universe is a thought form of the One Consciousness (Brahman).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the question itself 'Do you believe in God?' is no longer a clear question when people having pantheistic and nondual (God and creation are not-two), New Age and Eastern viewpoints.

The question itself seems stuck in early last century's 'Christianity versus Atheism' debate.

I think a better worded question is 'What are your spiritual beliefs, if any?'.

I'll answer: I believe in nondualism (God and creation are not-two). The universe is a thought form of the One Consciousness (Brahman).

Considering how vague and amorphous the word "spiritual" is, I don't think your rephrasing makes things any more clear.

 

[firedragon]

This is what can happen when you mix religion with logic.

Could you give a very specific evidence rather than generalizing it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So give an example.

Well, I will start with correspondece. If I as a premiss state the cat is black, then what does the correspond to?

Well, in my understanding in the end the axiomatic assumptions that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable. But then I have had no luck showning these assumptions as true or find anybody else capable of that. I just believe in them as if they are true.
But this in effect cogntive relativism and you don't find that relevant, so we might as well stop here.

 

[firedragon]

I think the question itself 'Do you believe in God?' is no longer a clear question whit people increasingly having pantheistic and nondual (God and creation are not-two), New Age and Eastern viewpoints.

The question itself seems stuck in early last century's 'Christianity versus Atheism' debate.

I think a better worded question is 'What are your spiritual beliefs, if any?'.

I'll answer: I believe in nondualism (God and creation are not-two). The universe is a thought form of the One Consciousness (Brahman).

so you are an advaitha. Are you Advaitha vedantha or Advaitha?

 

[firedragon]

Well, I will start with correspondece. If I as a premiss state the cat is black, then what does the correspond to?

That's not an example of a sound syllogism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not necessarily. If time doesn't 'go back infinitely', neither does the universe. That can be the case even if there is no 'originating'.

We don¨'t know that. Now I get what you are saying but that is a far as I can tell theoretical physics.