NATION

PASSWORD

God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Do you believe in God?

Yes
339
39%
No
375
43%
Maybe
89
10%
I don't care
62
7%
 
Total votes : 865

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:03 pm

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
Vilatania wrote:I just find a lot of inaccurate information on it. It can be edited to have BS information on it as well, I've tested that theory and the moderators didn't fix it and neither did anyone else.


If you find inaccuracies, you should correct them, or at least point them out in the talk pages.

Your asking me to actually waste effort points. Those are better used by sitting here and worshipping JESUS!!!! :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
Last edited by Vilatania on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:10 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
This is gibberish. It is entirely possible to have a situation in which the probability of something happening is zero percent, and yet it happens: for example, if you select a random number (in say, [0,1]) according to a uniform distribution, then the probability of selecting any particular number is zero percent. However, some number must be selected, and so one of those events must happen. See here for more details.
I just read your link. It's Wikipedia. Not very accurate. But I read it. And it doesn't support your position. Your wrong. 0% probability means it can't happen as is. http://www.themathleague.com/index.php/ ... ence?id=81 scroll to the bottom for an explanation of how probability works.


That website is wrong, you are wrong. That is not how probability works in any meaningful sense. Here's how probability works:

A probability space is a measure space (X,A,m) such that the m(X) = 1. In such a setting, for an event a in A, m(a) is called the probability of a.
In particular, for this example, we take X to be the closed interval [0,1], with m the Lebesgue measure on it, and A the set of Lebesgue measurable sets contained in X.
Take Y to be the set of rationals in [0,1], which is Lebesgue measurable, with m(Y) = 0. This corresponds to the probability of randomly selecting any rational number from X according to the uniform distribution.

Further details available here.


Next time, before you are so arrogant as to correct somebody on the subject of their expertise, make damn sure you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

Vilatania wrote:
The Creepoc Infinite wrote:seriously?
wikipedia is reliable
Err April Fools right? I could log into wiki right now and rewrite his entire source however I see fit.


The reliability of wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Last edited by Salandriagado on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:22 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote:I just read your link. It's Wikipedia. Not very accurate. But I read it. And it doesn't support your position. Your wrong. 0% probability means it can't happen as is. http://www.themathleague.com/index.php/ ... ence?id=81 scroll to the bottom for an explanation of how probability works.


That website is wrong, you are wrong. That is not how probability works in any meaningful sense. Here's how probability works:

A probability space is a measure space (X,A,m) such that the m(X) = 1. In such a setting, for an event a in A, m(a) is called the probability of a.
In particular, for this example, we take X to be the closed interval [0,1], with m the Lebesgue measure on it, and A the set of Lebesgue measurable sets contained in X.
Take Y to be the set of rationals in [0,1], which is Lebesgue measurable, with m(Y) = 0. This corresponds to the probability of randomly selecting any rational number from X according to the uniform distribution.

Further details available here.


Next time, before you are so arrogant as to correct somebody on the subject of their expertise, make damn sure you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

Vilatania wrote:Err April Fools right? I could log into wiki right now and rewrite his entire source however I see fit.


The reliability of wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.


Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:24 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
That website is wrong, you are wrong. That is not how probability works in any meaningful sense. Here's how probability works:

A probability space is a measure space (X,A,m) such that the m(X) = 1. In such a setting, for an event a in A, m(a) is called the probability of a.
In particular, for this example, we take X to be the closed interval [0,1], with m the Lebesgue measure on it, and A the set of Lebesgue measurable sets contained in X.
Take Y to be the set of rationals in [0,1], which is Lebesgue measurable, with m(Y) = 0. This corresponds to the probability of randomly selecting any rational number from X according to the uniform distribution.

Further details available here.


Next time, before you are so arrogant as to correct somebody on the subject of their expertise, make damn sure you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.



The reliability of wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.


Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.


Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:26 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
That website is wrong, you are wrong. That is not how probability works in any meaningful sense. Here's how probability works:

A probability space is a measure space (X,A,m) such that the m(X) = 1. In such a setting, for an event a in A, m(a) is called the probability of a.
In particular, for this example, we take X to be the closed interval [0,1], with m the Lebesgue measure on it, and A the set of Lebesgue measurable sets contained in X.
Take Y to be the set of rationals in [0,1], which is Lebesgue measurable, with m(Y) = 0. This corresponds to the probability of randomly selecting any rational number from X according to the uniform distribution.

Further details available here.


Next time, before you are so arrogant as to correct somebody on the subject of their expertise, make damn sure you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.



The reliability of wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.


Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.

From what it looks like, you clearly don't, read his post, thought "Holy shit I have no idea what he's talking about," but don't want to admit that.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:33 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Vilatania wrote:
Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.

From what it looks like, you clearly don't, read his post, thought "Holy shit I have no idea what he's talking about," but don't want to admit that.


For the record: I made a slight mistake above: the website is correct, Vitalia is lying about (or horribly misunderstanding) what it says. I should really learn not to trust what people claim their sources say.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:33 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote:
Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.


Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:34 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.


Words cannot describe how monumentally stupid this statement is. That's actually nearly stupid enough to make it into my sig - and you've got some serious competition there.

I have given you, above, a precise definition of what "probability" means. I suggest you go and read it (you can find the definition of "measure space" in the lecture notes linked.
Last edited by Salandriagado on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:37 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote:By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.


Words cannot describe how monumentally stupid this statement is. That's actually nearly stupid enough to make it into my sig - and you've got some serious competition there.
I couldn't care less what you think is stupid if you can't even understand the concept of 0 probability.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:40 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Words cannot describe how monumentally stupid this statement is. That's actually nearly stupid enough to make it into my sig - and you've got some serious competition there.
I couldn't care less what you think is stupid if you can't even understand the concept of 0 probability.


Actually, you know what, sod it, that shit is going in my sig.

You might also want to note that those are lecture notes from a course that I took during my undergraduate degree, and as you have demonstrated, the concept of "0 probability" is far from simple.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:45 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote:I couldn't care less what you think is stupid if you can't even understand the concept of 0 probability.


Actually, you know what, sod it, that shit is going in my sig.

You might also want to note that those are lecture notes from a course that I took during my undergraduate degree, and as you have demonstrated, the concept of "0 probability" is far from simple.
Alrighty then, quote me stating a fact. I'm honored.
Last edited by Vilatania on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:48 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Vilatania wrote:
Nope and Nope. Done arguing with you, I know how probability works.

From what it looks like, you clearly don't, read his post, thought "Holy shit I have no idea what he's talking about," but don't want to admit that.
I know exactly what he is saying. I can even find numerous sites that actually explain it in more detail than his sources do. It makes sense, until you realize that the probability isn't 0 anymore.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:49 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:From what it looks like, you clearly don't, read his post, thought "Holy shit I have no idea what he's talking about," but don't want to admit that.
I know exactly what he is saying. I can even find numerous sites that actually explain it in more detail than his sources do. It makes sense, until you realize that the probability isn't 0 anymore.


Go on then. Provide a better source than a university course on probability.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:53 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:From what it looks like, you clearly don't, read his post, thought "Holy shit I have no idea what he's talking about," but don't want to admit that.
I know exactly what he is saying.

Is that why, instead of addressing it, you posted the equivalent of "NOPE!"
Vilatania wrote: I can even find numerous sites that actually explain it in more detail than his sources do. It makes sense, until you realize that the probability isn't 0 anymore.

And you won't understand a single one of them based on what's happened here.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:55 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote:I know exactly what he is saying. I can even find numerous sites that actually explain it in more detail than his sources do. It makes sense, until you realize that the probability isn't 0 anymore.


Go on then. Provide a better source than a university course on probability.
Why should I? I said what you are saying makes sense, I just simply don't agree with you and I'm clearly seeing something you either cannot or are too stubborn to actually notice. And the fact of the matter is, this isn't on topic. This thread is about God, and whether he exists or not and a bit about whether religion is justified. It's not a place for you to gloat about your college courses. If that's all your going to do here, then please leave.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:56 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Vilatania wrote:I know exactly what he is saying.

Is that why, instead of addressing it, you posted the equivalent of "NOPE!"
Vilatania wrote: I can even find numerous sites that actually explain it in more detail than his sources do. It makes sense, until you realize that the probability isn't 0 anymore.

And you won't understand a single one of them based on what's happened here.


I fail to see how your contributing to this thread.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:58 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Is that why, instead of addressing it, you posted the equivalent of "NOPE!"

And you won't understand a single one of them based on what's happened here.


I fail to see how your contributing to this thread.

That sounds like a personal problem.

It also sounds like a red herring to further distract from the fact that you didn't even try to address the post in question and avoided it with more fervor than a cocaine addict dodging street corners that they know invoke a desire to use it.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:00 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Go on then. Provide a better source than a university course on probability.
Why should I? I said what you are saying makes sense, I just simply don't agree with you and I'm clearly seeing something you either cannot or are too stubborn to actually notice. And the fact of the matter is, this isn't on topic. This thread is about God, and whether he exists or not and a bit about whether religion is justified. It's not a place for you to gloat about your college courses. If that's all your going to do here, then please leave.


This isn't a matter of agreeing or otherwise. It's a matter of you being simply, factually wrong, in the most absolute way that it is possible to be wrong. There's a reason that your quote is only the second one daft enough to go in my sig after all the years I've been here, next to "60% is not 'most'" of all the damn things. And it is relevant - there are attempts being made, in this thread, to use poorly understood probability to argue in favour of, or against, the existence of a deity. Correcting that lack of understanding is therefore a relevant response to those arguments.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:04 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote: Why should I? I said what you are saying makes sense, I just simply don't agree with you and I'm clearly seeing something you either cannot or are too stubborn to actually notice. And the fact of the matter is, this isn't on topic. This thread is about God, and whether he exists or not and a bit about whether religion is justified. It's not a place for you to gloat about your college courses. If that's all your going to do here, then please leave.


This isn't a matter of agreeing or otherwise. It's a matter of you being simply, factually wrong, in the most absolute way that it is possible to be wrong. There's a reason that your quote is only the second one daft enough to go in my sig after all the years I've been here, next to "60% is not 'most'" of all the damn things. And it is relevant - there are attempts being made, in this thread, to use poorly understood probability to argue in favour of, or against, the existence of a deity. Correcting that lack of understanding is therefore a relevant response to those arguments.
Even if I am wrong, your example doesn't really pertain to the to situation. I'm not wrong btw. This is the LAST post I'm making about this. I'll post again when this thread is back on track.

edit: fixed typo
Last edited by Vilatania on Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17577
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:11 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
This isn't a matter of agreeing or otherwise. It's a matter of you being simply, factually wrong, in the most absolute way that it is possible to be wrong. There's a reason that your quote is only the second one daft enough to go in my sig after all the years I've been here, next to "60% is not 'most'" of all the damn things. And it is relevant - there are attempts being made, in this thread, to use poorly understood probability to argue in favour of, or against, the existence of a deity. Correcting that lack of understanding is therefore a relevant response to those arguments.
Even if I am wrong, your example doesn't really pertain to the to situation. I'm not wrong btw. This is the LAST post I'm making about this. I'll post again when this thread is back on track.

edit: fixed typo


The example absolutely pertains to the situation: if we are to assume that there are uncountably many deity concepts (and in the interest of simplicity, we can assume that there are no more than that - it makes very little difference), then we can assign, by any arbitrary method you like (probably given the axiom of choice, if you're pedantic about things like that) each to a number in the interval (0,1], and apply some probability measure to [0,1]. The probability of selecting any particular number is then the probability that the deity assigned to that number exists, with the probability of zero being selected being the probability that there is no god). Incidentally, if you accept my premise that there are uncountably many deity concepts that we cannot distinguish between, then the distribution must be almost everywhere uniform, and we therefore have a proof that the probability of almost any particular deity existing is zero
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Sun Wukong
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9775
Founded: Oct 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Wukong » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:17 pm

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Go on then. Provide a better source than a university course on probability.
Why should I?

Because it would instantly end the argument in your favor?



I said what you are saying makes sense, I just simply don't agree with you and I'm clearly seeing something you either cannot or are too stubborn to actually notice. And the fact of the matter is, this isn't on topic. This thread is about God, and whether he exists or not and a bit about whether religion is justified. It's not a place for you to gloat about your college courses. If that's all your going to do here, then please leave.

Which makes it all the more ridiculous that you wouldn't just instantly end the argument in your favor. If you were able.
Great Sage, Equal of Heaven.

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:21 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Vilatania wrote: Even if I am wrong, your example doesn't really pertain to the to situation. I'm not wrong btw. This is the LAST post I'm making about this. I'll post again when this thread is back on track.

edit: fixed typo


The example absolutely pertains to the situation: if we are to assume that there are uncountably many deity concepts (and in the interest of simplicity, we can assume that there are no more than that - it makes very little difference), then we can assign, by any arbitrary method you like (probably given the axiom of choice, if you're pedantic about things like that) each to a number in the interval (0,1], and apply some probability measure to [0,1]. The probability of selecting any particular number is then the probability that the deity assigned to that number exists, with the probability of zero being selected being the probability that there is no god). Incidentally, if you accept my premise that there are uncountably many deity concepts that we cannot distinguish between, then the distribution must be almost everywhere uniform, and we therefore have a proof that the probability of almost any particular deity existing is zero
You know, I think we've been arguing about something other than what the other thinks the other is arguing about. I know I said I wasn't going to respond but I'm going to try and step out here and reiterate what I was saying. I find that 0 probability means that the subject that has 0 probability is impossible UNLESS the circumstances change that allow it to be possible. Now my viewpoint, while not college level tells me that logically if 0 probability means something is impossible, but you make it possible then it is no longer 0 probability. Perhaps it was never 0 probability to begin with since it's possible to change the circumstances. It would be something near 0. In which case I'm incorrect in labeling it as 0.

If you have two numbers to choose from, and you have to choose 1. Then you do not have 0 probability of choosing 1. If you did then it wouldn't be 0 probability anymore.
Last edited by Vilatania on Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Shaggai
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9342
Founded: Mar 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shaggai » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:23 pm

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:
Shaggai wrote:What defies logic about God? Nothing has a 0% probability unless it defies logic.

The fact that this:
Physics is irrelevant in the context of an omnipotent being.

Is a moot point since God doesn't exist in the first place, so his supposed existence still defies logic.

You're assuming the conclusion.
If you come into contact with the Shining Trapezohedron, please bring it to me. Or just look into it. Either one is fine.

SEVEN INTO SEVEN INTO SEVEN

The "Who is Salt?" ending of Seeking Mr. Eaten's Name is a link between Fallen London and Cultist Simulator.

User avatar
Vilatania
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: Mar 04, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vilatania » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:26 pm

Shaggai wrote:
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:The fact that this:

Is a moot point since God doesn't exist in the first place, so his supposed existence still defies logic.

You're assuming the conclusion.
He's making it under the premise that no god has a possibility to exist. Which is wrong.

Hell maybe we create God in the future and send him back in time to create the universe. Wouldn't that be a twist.
Last edited by Vilatania on Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agnostic Atheist Libertarian Socialist

Decisions should not be made based solely on the text in a book. Especially a book in which many of it's readers will openly admit that parts of it should not be taken literally.

Zero = Zero. You know who you are.

User avatar
Arbolvine
Envoy
 
Posts: 211
Founded: Feb 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Arbolvine » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:00 pm

Vilatania's understanding of continuous probability is appalling, but you shouldn't be applying continuous values to God's existence anyway. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are discrete, not continuous. Even if you account for all concepts of God as individual instances of God existing, we still have discrete elements. There are a lot of them but they are discrete.
The importance here is that while individual values on a continuous spectrum have probabilities of 0 and only intervals have possibilities, discrete variables ALWAYS have their own probabilities. http://www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-discrete-vs-continuous-variables/
YOU HAVE BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION, COMRADE!
DEMSOC, WHOOOOOO!!!
Our nation is enveloped within the borders of a militaristic fascist regime that has invaded us 5 times in the last 100 years. Any attempt to send delegates or ambassadorial staff to other nations is met with anti-aircraft artillery. If you are reading this message, someone finally got out alive.
My Favorite Quote

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bralia, Canis Rex, EldrichVoid1-3, Greater Hunnia, Ifreann, Kowani, LiberNovusAmericae, Myrensis, New Bremerton, Perchan, Psukhe, Roman Resurgence, San Lumen, Selissu, Tarsonis, Telconi, The Krogan, United States of Devonta, Valrifell, Washington Resistance Army, Xiashu

Advertisement

Remove ads