-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Probability of God's Existence.
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Sanmario
Active Member
@Jeremiahcp
Dear Jeremi, thanks for your patience, but you are getting to the brink of lapsing into ad hominems.
You say:
"I am gonna go back to studying real statistics and let you go back to pretending you know everything."
You tell me you are "a middle age college student working on a degree in statistics, I study probability almost daily."
If I may, please take up an optional or elective course on semantics.
Dear Jeremi, thanks for your patience, but you are getting to the brink of lapsing into ad hominems.
You say:
"I am gonna go back to studying real statistics and let you go back to pretending you know everything."
You tell me you are "a middle age college student working on a degree in statistics, I study probability almost daily."
If I may, please take up an optional or elective course on semantics.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"you are getting to the brink of lapsing into ad hominems."
If you can't take it in then don't dish it out.
"If I may, please take up an optional or elective course on semantics"
I have a degree in writing; I am working on a second degree.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
For something to exist, Time and Space must be present. But what you call 'permanent existence' is beyond Time and Space. So it does not dwell in existence, but in Being, which is outside of Time and Space. That is The Absolute, and the only thing that qualifies as Being outside of Time and Space is Nothingness, which is none other than Consciousness. The divine nature cannot be 'something' as 'something' is limited and finite, and The Infinite cannot be encapsulated by an idea called 'something'. However, the divine nature can indeed play itself as if it is 'something', and so we have, ta da: 'The World'. Only Nothingness, vast and infinite, can allow Everything.
You think that 'something' is being brought into existence, but you are mistaken. It only SEEMS as if that is the case; that you and I and Everything actually 'exists', but that is what people who are asleep and dreaming believe, and on that level of reality, it is true. Only when they awaken do they realize the illusory nature of the dream. Well, the same is true for this level of 'material' reality: it is just a dream from which we must awaken in order to understand that we have been asleep, dreaming, and that a higher state of conscious awareness exists that is the True Reality.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, I do not follow. There is no reason something of transient existence can not bring into existence something of transient existence.
Say we flip a quarter and cover it up so we can't see the result. It could either be heads or tails. The probability of it being heads is 50%. But the coin has already been flipped. So, based on your argument above, the probability for it being heads is either 100% or 0% based on whether or not it actually is heads.
Does probability not apply to things that have already happened, even if we don't know the outcome? It seems that you are arguing that probability can only apply to future possibilities and can't really be applied to something that already is, regardless of whether we know the outcome.
Is there a difference in the mathematical sense between probability and possibility?
You bring up a very astute point that probability is being used as an asssesment of someone's certainty and not the actual outcome.
My only caveat is that this doesn't preclude a probability being assigned to god's existence. Though, how it could honestly be anything other than 50/50, I don't know. (How would you weight an argument or a piece of evidence? It seems like it would be necessarily arbitrary.)
Very good point. Doesn't matter how certain someone thinks they are. Their certainty has not bearing on whether it's actually true.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"Say we flip a quarter and cover it up so we can't see the result. It could either be heads or tails. The probability of it being heads is 50%. But the coin has already been flipped. So, based on your argument above, the probability for it being heads is either 100% or 0% based on whether or not it actually is heads.
Does probability not apply to things that have already happened, even if we don't know the outcome? It seems that you are arguing that probability can only apply to future possibilities and can't really be applied to something that already is, regardless of whether we know the outcome."
That is correct. The coin flip example was exactly how one of my stats instructors explained the difference.
If you flip a coin it has a chance to land on heads or tails. This chance exist every time you flip the coin, you can get either heads or tails. There are two possible outcomes. However, after the coin has landed it is either heads or tails and that will not change no matter how many times you go away and come back to look at it. There are no possible outcomes as the outcome has already resolved.
Probability needs a chance mechanism, as it is a measurement of possible outcomes.
"cover it up so we can't see the result. It could either be heads or tails."
That just means you are taking a guess on what the outcome was (past tense). The probability of you being right is associated with your guess, not the potential outcome of the coin flip (as the coin landed, there is no more potential out come). You can use empirical data and probability to help you make a more reliable guess.
"Is there a difference in the mathematical sense between probability and possibility?"
Here is what every stats teacher keeps drilling into every stats student (paraphrased of course). Statistics does not prove anything, it is not the truth. It is not meant to be considered alone, it is meant to be considered with the rest of the evidence.
A probability distribution is an approximation, it is not the true distribution. Sometimes we can know all possible out comes, like with the coin flip there are only two possible outcomes. We say each side has a 50% chance but that is not exactly the truth, the real chance is based on a number of factors such as which side was face up when was it flipped, the strength of the flip etc, etc, etc.
Now there are also times when the range of possible outcomes is just something we cannot possibly know or is far to large to actually calculate. So we have to use a random selection method, and use either a parametric distribution (and there is a bunch of stuff that goes with that) or we can simulate an distribution based on our data we collected.
"My only caveat is that this doesn't preclude a probability being assigned to god's existence. Though, how it could honestly be anything other than 50/50, I don't know. (How would you weight an argument or a piece of evidence? It seems like it would be necessarily arbitrary.)"
It does not exclude it in a subjective non-scientific sense, but it does exclude it from statistics, as stats is a science that adheres to the scientific method. If God is unfalsifiable for all the other sciences, then the same is true for stats. It really would be nothing other than just the arbitrary assignment of a number.
"How would you weight an argument or a piece of evidence? It seems like it would be necessarily arbitrary."
That would take a lot of explaining, because that is what stats does examines the evidence, but it comes down to the fact that you actually need evidence that fits the scientific criteria to examine.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I like the post.
It is human who need time and space to perceive reality, reality does not need dimensions of time and pace.
Regards
Sanmario
Active Member
I like to bring to the notice of everyone that probability is all in the mind of us humans.
Now with our computation of probability in our mind, we can use it to go into objective reality and await the probable event of concern to turn up sooner than later, depending on its probability measure which is in our mind, thus when our measure is greater in %, then the event will occur earlier in time than when our computation is lesser in %.
With a coin landing heads or tails, in objective reality we can record every landing of the coin and see whether there are more heads or tails instead of at least roughly 50% to 50%.
Has anyone expert socalled in statistics done such an experiment?
With computer technology today, we can set up a mechanical system by which a coin is tossed up, and this mechanism will record whether it lands heads or tails, and record on display scores of heads and scores of tails, and the mechanical system can go on and on and on while we observe the scores.
That is what I call the distinction between the objectival realm in reality outside our mind, and the conceptival realm which is all in our mind, but which we can use as a guide for us to negotiate our ways in the objectival realm of existing things outside of thoughts in our mind, and independent of our mind - namely: the measure of probability in our mind, and the experiment described above outside our mind.
Now, I will await and witness what the posters at this point in time, how they will react to this post from me.
Will they take into account the distinction between what I call and describe as the objectival realm and the conceptival realm, or talk indistinctively or mostly without realizing it that they are talking always only in the conceptival realm, for not factoring into their thinking the experiment I describe above?
I almost forgot, with a coin landing heads or tails there are only two possibilities, but with the physical elements of chemistry when will it be ever at all that these elements like iron, oxygen, silver, etc. self-change and self-assemble themselves to become a jumbo jet airplane?
Paging experts or even students of statistics, what is the probability measurement of elements getting to become a jumbo jet airplane and staying stable indefinitely upon reaching the existence of a jumbo jet airplane?
So, I will now sit back and witness what and how posters here, in particular experts or at least students of statistics react to my post here.
I want to see whether and when they react to this post here, they will factor into their thinking and writing, the distinction between what I call the objectival realm and the conceptival realm.
Now with our computation of probability in our mind, we can use it to go into objective reality and await the probable event of concern to turn up sooner than later, depending on its probability measure which is in our mind, thus when our measure is greater in %, then the event will occur earlier in time than when our computation is lesser in %.
With a coin landing heads or tails, in objective reality we can record every landing of the coin and see whether there are more heads or tails instead of at least roughly 50% to 50%.
Has anyone expert socalled in statistics done such an experiment?
With computer technology today, we can set up a mechanical system by which a coin is tossed up, and this mechanism will record whether it lands heads or tails, and record on display scores of heads and scores of tails, and the mechanical system can go on and on and on while we observe the scores.
That is what I call the distinction between the objectival realm in reality outside our mind, and the conceptival realm which is all in our mind, but which we can use as a guide for us to negotiate our ways in the objectival realm of existing things outside of thoughts in our mind, and independent of our mind - namely: the measure of probability in our mind, and the experiment described above outside our mind.
Now, I will await and witness what the posters at this point in time, how they will react to this post from me.
Will they take into account the distinction between what I call and describe as the objectival realm and the conceptival realm, or talk indistinctively or mostly without realizing it that they are talking always only in the conceptival realm, for not factoring into their thinking the experiment I describe above?
I almost forgot, with a coin landing heads or tails there are only two possibilities, but with the physical elements of chemistry when will it be ever at all that these elements like iron, oxygen, silver, etc. self-change and self-assemble themselves to become a jumbo jet airplane?
Paging experts or even students of statistics, what is the probability measurement of elements getting to become a jumbo jet airplane and staying stable indefinitely upon reaching the existence of a jumbo jet airplane?
So, I will now sit back and witness what and how posters here, in particular experts or at least students of statistics react to my post here.
I want to see whether and when they react to this post here, they will factor into their thinking and writing, the distinction between what I call the objectival realm and the conceptival realm.
Sanmario
Active Member
@Jeremiahcp
I still maintain, dear Jeremi, that you change the title of this thread, into Probability of the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster's Existence.
You see, with your present title, Probability of God's Existence, your OP is similar to the title of a news piece in a tabloid, that after you read the piece, you are left wondering where is the substance of the title in the body of the news text.
That should be easy, because you have also taken up writing.
I still maintain, dear Jeremi, that you change the title of this thread, into Probability of the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster's Existence.
You see, with your present title, Probability of God's Existence, your OP is similar to the title of a news piece in a tabloid, that after you read the piece, you are left wondering where is the substance of the title in the body of the news text.
That should be easy, because you have also taken up writing.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"That should be easy, because you have also taken up writing."
I can also spell my name correctly. Want to see?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"Has anyone expert socalled in statistics done such an experiment?"
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/headswithJ.pdf
Btw, coin flipping is not used as a random selection method.
Also you could use a few of those writing courses yourself.
Sanmario
Active Member
Thanks, Jeremi, for the reference.
In No. 6, the researchers take the scruple to remind readers that they are dealing with tossed coins, that is already in the title of their study.
Is that, dear Jeremi, that 1/2 in No. 6, does it denote 50% heads and 50% tails?
So, all the thinking in their minds, assumptions and the assumed conclusion of 50-50 heads-tails in their mind, when they get into the objective reality of undertaking the experiment, they are full of caveats and admission of difficulty and trouble.
Here is my challenge to you, in less than 100 words what exactly are you driving at with your OP?
DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/headswithJ.pdf
[Listing and underlining by Sanmario]
DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS
[...]
Conclusion:
1. Despite these important caveats we find that the bias we have found fascinating.
2. The discussion also highlights the true difficulty of carefully studying random phenomena.
3. If we can find this much trouble analyzing a common coin toss,
4. the reader can imagine the difficulty we have with interpreting typical stochastic assumptions in an econometric analysis.
5. The caveats and analysis also point to the following
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/headswithJ.pdf
Conclusion: Despite these important caveats we find that the bias we have found
fascinating. The discussion also highlights the true difficulty of carefully studying random
phenomena. If we can find this much trouble analyzing a common coin toss, the reader
can imagine the difficulty we have with interpreting typical stochastic assumptions in an
econometric analysis.
The caveats and analysis also point to the following conclusion: For tossed coins, the
classical assumptions of independence with probability 1/2 are pretty solid.
fascinating. The discussion also highlights the true difficulty of carefully studying random
phenomena. If we can find this much trouble analyzing a common coin toss, the reader
can imagine the difficulty we have with interpreting typical stochastic assumptions in an
econometric analysis.
The caveats and analysis also point to the following conclusion: For tossed coins, the
classical assumptions of independence with probability 1/2 are pretty solid.
[Listing and underlining by Sanmario]
DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS
[...]
Conclusion:
1. Despite these important caveats we find that the bias we have found fascinating.
2. The discussion also highlights the true difficulty of carefully studying random phenomena.
3. If we can find this much trouble analyzing a common coin toss,
4. the reader can imagine the difficulty we have with interpreting typical stochastic assumptions in an econometric analysis.
5. The caveats and analysis also point to the following
conclusion:
6. For tossed coins, the classical assumptions of independence with probability 1/2 are pretty solid.
6. For tossed coins, the classical assumptions of independence with probability 1/2 are pretty solid.
In No. 6, the researchers take the scruple to remind readers that they are dealing with tossed coins, that is already in the title of their study.
Is that, dear Jeremi, that 1/2 in No. 6, does it denote 50% heads and 50% tails?
So, all the thinking in their minds, assumptions and the assumed conclusion of 50-50 heads-tails in their mind, when they get into the objective reality of undertaking the experiment, they are full of caveats and admission of difficulty and trouble.
Here is my challenge to you, in less than 100 words what exactly are you driving at with your OP?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"Here is my challenge to you, in less than 100 words what exactly are you driving at with your OP?"
If you have not figured it out by now, then I don't think further explanation will help you.
Sanmario
Active Member
@Jeremiahcp
That is a good drill for you to focus on what exactly is the point you want to convey in your PO.
It works like this:
1. You write as you feel like saying things freely.
2. Then you go over it and demand on yourself that you will only deliver your message in just say 2/3 of the length of what you have written.
3. That requires you to pinpoint more exactly what you are most concerned to tell your readers about.
4. So you still distill your text to now 1/3 of the original.
5. And on and on until finally you realize that you have come to a concise and precise delivery of your message, and that is achieving focus - you see there is no focus in many words.
6. Now you work on the title of what you now have for a well drafted write-up of your message which is going to be the OP.
7. You employ the same method as from Nos. 1 to 5 of this enumeration, reducing more and more the title, and at the same time keeping track of ensuring that readers will get what is your intent with your thread, by just reading the title.
That is what I will do with your OP, see how I can reduce its present length more and more until I finally get to a focus of your thoughts, which should be concise and precise on what you are driving at exactly.
Have you not noticed that posters from the start were at a loss what to make of your OP; you tell readers that you are not into proving or disproving the probability of God existing - that is why I am asking: Why then the title of your thread, Probability of God's Existence, at all?
That is a good drill for you to focus on what exactly is the point you want to convey in your PO.
It works like this:
1. You write as you feel like saying things freely.
2. Then you go over it and demand on yourself that you will only deliver your message in just say 2/3 of the length of what you have written.
3. That requires you to pinpoint more exactly what you are most concerned to tell your readers about.
4. So you still distill your text to now 1/3 of the original.
5. And on and on until finally you realize that you have come to a concise and precise delivery of your message, and that is achieving focus - you see there is no focus in many words.
6. Now you work on the title of what you now have for a well drafted write-up of your message which is going to be the OP.
7. You employ the same method as from Nos. 1 to 5 of this enumeration, reducing more and more the title, and at the same time keeping track of ensuring that readers will get what is your intent with your thread, by just reading the title.
That is what I will do with your OP, see how I can reduce its present length more and more until I finally get to a focus of your thoughts, which should be concise and precise on what you are driving at exactly.
Have you not noticed that posters from the start were at a loss what to make of your OP; you tell readers that you are not into proving or disproving the probability of God existing - that is why I am asking: Why then the title of your thread, Probability of God's Existence, at all?
Sanmario
Active Member
Dear readers here, I am now into examining the OP of Jeremiahcp in his thread, Probability of God's Existence.
After reading it the OP several times, I decided that I should resort to listing every sentence or line carrying a thought one by one, so that I can discern how his mind works.
Let you also read the OP as redacted into numbered lines, this will serve also very well for us to refer to his thought from one to another, by the corresponding numbers prefixed to each sentence or line of words.
_________________________
1. OK this needs to be cleared up.
2. Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event.
3. A random event in this context is random sampling or random assignment.
4. Arguments about the probability of God's existence are nonsensical.
5. Remember that probability is a measurement, and
6. it is not the same thing as possibility.
7. So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all.
8. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist.
9. If God does not exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God does not exist.
10. So the argument makes no sense at all,
11. Remember that it is possible outcomes;
12. generally the debate is not about the outcome of God's existence,
13. instead the debate is about whether or not God already exist.
14. Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist,
15. but since there are no empirical data,
16, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.
17. Just because someone assigns a chance or suggest there is a chance to one of their beliefs,
18. that alone does not prove that belief is or could be true.
19. Probability does not define existence,
20. it is tool with limitations, and
21. is only useful when applied within its proper context and support by empirical data and rational thought.
After reading it the OP several times, I decided that I should resort to listing every sentence or line carrying a thought one by one, so that I can discern how his mind works.
Let you also read the OP as redacted into numbered lines, this will serve also very well for us to refer to his thought from one to another, by the corresponding numbers prefixed to each sentence or line of words.
_________________________
1. OK this needs to be cleared up.
2. Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event.
3. A random event in this context is random sampling or random assignment.
4. Arguments about the probability of God's existence are nonsensical.
5. Remember that probability is a measurement, and
6. it is not the same thing as possibility.
7. So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all.
8. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist.
9. If God does not exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God does not exist.
10. So the argument makes no sense at all,
11. Remember that it is possible outcomes;
12. generally the debate is not about the outcome of God's existence,
13. instead the debate is about whether or not God already exist.
14. Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist,
15. but since there are no empirical data,
16, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.
17. Just because someone assigns a chance or suggest there is a chance to one of their beliefs,
18. that alone does not prove that belief is or could be true.
19. Probability does not define existence,
20. it is tool with limitations, and
21. is only useful when applied within its proper context and support by empirical data and rational thought.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I know how word economy works.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Responding to a thread you didn't read is silly as well.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
You say, "So if we say that God has a 50% chance of existing then that make no sense at all. If God exist then God does not have a 50% chance to exist, as God already exist." That's a logical fallacy, you're denying your own given. The fact is we have no evidence for or against God. So given the existence of the universe and the lack of evidence for a God (spiritual super-being whatever) as it's creator or not, that "either/or" makes is 50-50--until we come up with some evidence to favor one possibility or the other.
We have no evidence for or against