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

[Salandriagado]

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.

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Mavorpen]

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Mavorpen]

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!"

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Vilatania]

I know exactly what he is saying.

Is that why, instead of addressing it, you posted the equivalent of "NOPE!"

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.

[Mavorpen]

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.

[Salandriagado]

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.

[Vilatania]

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

[Salandriagado]

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

[Sun Wukong]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Shaggai]

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.

[Vilatania]

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.

[Arbolvine]

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/

[Quensatango]

I believe that God does exist and that he created everything even science, if you believe in God then God bless you. If you don't then may science lead you to the answers you seek, I'm not going to shove my beliefs on you, I only ask you do the same.