Probability of God's Existence.

[Jeremiahcp]

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

 

[paarsurrey]

Probability of God's Existence

God of the truthful religion is Evident, it is one of His attributes, He absolutely exists, it is, therefore not reasonable to discuss His possibility or probability. Please
If at all it is to be rated it is infinity. Please
Regards

 

[sunray]

Responding to a thread you didn't read is silly as well.

Did look in the mirror then? God knows what I read and what I didn't. Perhaps you should look again?

 

[sunray]

Sometimes I think, you guys will go round and round in cropper circles. Using two coins one on each hand I do a double cross over and get 100% results.
No doubt about it. Its all in a sonic triangle easy to see and hear from an apex clash!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Did look in the mirror then? God knows what I read and what I didn't. Perhaps you should look again?

Then you know what it says in post #21.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear reader here, I am leaving this thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

Probability of God's Existence
coming to the topic

God exists, one may describe it with infinity raised to the power of eternity or the Eternal ONE who always existed, there is none unto Him.
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Probability of God's Existence
coming to the topic

God exists, one may describe it with infinity raised to the power of eternity or the Eternal ONE who always existed, there is none unto Him.
Regards

That makes no sense. Probability ranges from 0 to 1.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

???

 

[Jeremiahcp]

???

You completely misunderstood the content you quoted. Try reading it in context.

 

[paarsurrey]

Probability of God's Existence
coming to the topic

God exists, one may describe it with infinity raised to the power of eternity or the Eternal ONE who always existed, there is none unto Him.
Regards

That makes no sense. Probability ranges from 0 to 1.

Please read post
#162, it is further to that:
God of the truthful religion is Evident, it is one of His attributes, He absolutely exists, it is, therefore not reasonable to discuss His possibility or probability. Please
If at all it is to be rated it is infinity. Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Please read post
#162, it is further to that:
God of the truthful religion is Evident, it is one of His attributes, He absolutely exists, it is, therefore not reasonable to discuss His possibility or probability. Please
If at all it is to be rated it is infinity. Please
Regards

Still not buying it. One, it is a load of donkey poop, and two probability only ranges from 0 - 1.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The problem with the post Its understanding God as a definition. I hate to point out but you can't have both a universal set and an infinite amount of sets be the same thing. That creates a paradox or contradiction according to the Russell paradox in naive set theory. This was already commented on 2,600 years ago. The problem I know Lays in perceptions and I speculate it has to do at least partially with perception of scale and the primacy of thought over experience as a "normal" behavior. Definitely evolution is at work here somewhere, because Its really curious that this was clearly addressed 2,600 years ago in two different set of writings. Yet here we are, 2600 years later confused. One writer was in China and the other in ancient Greece at the same time. For all the doubters, ignoring antiquity is a form of intellect design and just as confused as religion which likes to pretend it totally understands antiquity! Clearly that is not true.

Giving the lack of information of everything lol, there is at this time no way to arrive at an accurate answer. But I did find your reply interesting.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You completely misunderstood the content you quoted. Try reading it in context.

I did. How did I misunderstand the quote and/or take it out of context? And did you understand (or even read) mine, since your responses lack any specifics.

 

[David T]

Giving the lack of information of everything lol, there is at this time no way to arrive at an accurate answer. But I did find your reply interesting.

George cantor developed set theory. He spent the later part of his life trying to convince people in the religious world the universal set was god. And they matches perfect with the Taoism written 2600 years earlier. " why ever you say the Tao is, is not the tao". Poor gorg though be died in a mentAl institution be forgot to breathe.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You completely misunderstood the content you quoted. Try reading it in context.

The only time people refuse to clarify is when they're not sure of what it was they really said in the first place. Or as Stanley Kubrick said (or maybe it was Lewis Carroll), "If you can't say what you mean, you don't know what you mean." That little nut has served me well over time, whoever said it. Hmmm, maybe it was me.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The only time people refuse to clarify is when they're not sure of what it was they really said in the first place. Or as Stanley Kubrick said (or maybe it was Lewis Carroll), "If you can't say what you mean, you don't know what you mean." That little nut has served me well over time, whoever said it. Hmmm, maybe it was me.

I know exactly what I said. It was almost the same thing you said, that is why I gave the:

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I know exactly what I said. It was almost the same thing you said, that is why I gave the:

Then what's the difference? What did I take out of context?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Then what's the difference? What did I take out of context?

This is the part here that you quoted:

"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."

This is not saying God exist, or that there is a 50% chance God exist, it is explaining why probability does not apply to things that already exist. It is a fallacy, which is what I am pointing out. If someone says God has a 50% chance to exist that makes no sense. Do you have a 50% chance exist? No, you don't as you already exist.

You suggested that an "'either/or' makes is 50-50", but that is not true the "50-50" is your guess, your arbitrary assignment of numbers. Things that exist don't have a probability to exist and things that don't exist don't have a probability of existing.

Either God exist or God does not exist, probability has nothing to do with that. You can give numbers to your guess of God's existence but with no evidence they have no meaning; which I addressed here:

Now you can say I am 50% confidant (the difference here is the 50% applies to your guess) that God exist, but since there are no empirical data, you are really just arbitrarily assigning a number to your guess of God's existence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

....it is explaining why probability does not apply to things that already exist.

I agree, probability doesn't apply to things that already exist, or don't exist. But we don't know if God exists, there is no evidence that God does exist or doesn't exist. It isn't taking your statement out of context to say you assume that God "already exist"--you state it outright.

It is a fallacy, which is what I am pointing out. If someone says God has a 50% chance to exist that makes no sense. Do you have a 50% chance exist?

We know, due to the evidence which can be examined, that I exist. But there is no evidence, either way, that God exists.