Am I so stupid at math or did I just prove God?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
Now, this is a very fun one.

Imagine that you have a box.

In that box, there is 50% chance that there is undetectable God in there.

I say 50%, because God either is in that box or isnt. With both options being equally not proved, their probability must be equal.

So 50% chance that God is in the box.

Now imagine another box which has 50% chance of containing a different undetectable God, following same principle.

So now we have two boxes, each having 50% chance of containing some undetectable God.

By probability, there is 75% chance that at least one box contains God, because there are only 4 options:
1. Both boxes contain God
2. No box contains God
3. First box contains God, while second doesnt
4. Second box contains God, while first one doesnt.

So there is only 25% chance that no box contains God.

Same argument also works with any place and also with any time. Whats interesting is that the more boxes you add, the probability increases due to this simple law:
In order for no God to exist, each box must contain no God, while in order for God to exist, only one box needs to contain God. So basically, "no God" must be true every time in order to be true, while "God" must be true only once in order to be true.

This statistical advantage always favors God.

For example, in case of many Gods:
1. God one exists and God two exists
2. God two exists, while God one doesnt
3. God one exists while God two doesnt
4. God one and God two dont exist.

So statistically, the moment you add multiple places, or multiple Gods, or multiple time periods, the statistical probability of God existing greatly increases.

This is also problem for atheists in other areas. For example, atheist must be right every time to defend own position, while believers need to be right only once to prove their case.

It is not possible to prove that God doesnt exist, thus chance is by default stuck at 50%. Atheists must disprove every single evidence which all theists bring up just to keep chance at 50%, which is why atheism is at a statistical disadvantage in terms of evidence. Also, due to limited knowledge, what cannot be explained by science or knowledge can only be explained by supernatural, and this is another problem because theism gives more answers than atheism.

Even if atheists claim that everything can be explained by natural causes, the problem is that probability argument works against atheism here, because if there are 10 cases which can only be explained by supernatural, even if we assume equal probability of natural explanation existing in each individual case, the chance of supernatural explanation being correct in at least one case out of 10 cases is over 90%.

This is simply because mathematically, if we apply equal probability to each individual case, which we must, we end up with probability increasing as number of cases increase.

Its like saying "if you flip a coin, thers is 50% chance you will get heads." But if you flip it more than once, probability of getting at least one heads increases.
#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Probability is calculated by dividing the total number of times something occurred by the total number of opportunities in which that thing could have occurred.

You cannot calculate the probability of a god until you have at least one example of a god existing.

In your heads/tails example, we know it's 50% because we already know both sides exist. If I held out my hand and said what are the odds that the coin I'm holding will land on the side with a battleship, you wouldn't be able to know that without knowing if the coin has a battleship at all, or hell, without even knowing if there is a coin in the first place.
Topic's author
#3
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Probability is calculated by dividing the total number of times something occurred by the total number of opportunities in which that thing could have occurred.
Not always. In the limited options argument, one option must occur. So we already know that one option is true and has occured, and since no different probability can be assigned to any option, probability is considered equal.

You cannot calculate the probability of a god until you have at least one example of a god existing.
This is a nonsense argument. If we had clear example of God existing, there would be no calculating any probability that God exists. Calculating probability of a God is only possible if there is no clear example of God.
Topic's author
#4
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
Also, these arguments work mostly for polytheism, but can be adjusted for monotheism too.
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,661
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

   Jesus!
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,661
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

David Hume, a significant figure in philosophy, is famous for his strict belief in empiricism and doubt regarding human knowledge. According to Hume, we can only know things based on our impressions (direct experiences) and ideas (memories of those experiences)—and this limits what we can claim to know.
#7
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In the limited options argument, one option must occur. So we already know that one option is true and has occured, and since no different probability can be assigned to any option, probability is considered equal.
That's not how probability works. You cannot assign probability to an unknown - that's a logical contradiction. That's why if you plug the math into a spreadsheet without a number of confirmed examples you get a big fat error message.

Probability is an inference. Inference is using past events as a guide towards expectations of the future. If you have no prior examples then you're not infering anything, you're just making shit up.

If we had clear example of God existing, there would be no calculating any probability that God exists.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. This has nothing to do with probability. God either exists or he doesn't, it's just a question of whether we have any way to know that.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
A tad stupid to think that wordplay can prove GOD.

Anselm, Descartes...They've all had a go.

Though this depends upon ones interpretation of GOD, of course.


If the evolution of matter and it's purpose, is the GOD principle, then GOD is certainly everywhere.

But if you want to pull a MANGOD from the box, you will need to be a magician  .


Topic's author
#9
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
You cannot assign probability to an unknown - that's a logical contradiction
Actually, probability can only be assigned to unknown. If it was known, then it wouldnt be probability.

It was already explained that when no different probability can be assigned to limited options, equal probability is the only one which can be applied, and reasonably so, because if every version of percentage of probability is possible, what follows is that it creates the average where probability is equal. If you take all numbers from 0 to 100 as possible, average is 50. Thats just basic math.

Topic's author
#10
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But if you want to pull a MANGOD from the box, you will need to be a magician
I actually did two Gods.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Hey Presto.
#12
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,290
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But if you want to pull a MANGOD from the box, you will need to be a magician
I actually did two Gods.
You failed your math test. The Bible points to the Trinity of Gods.
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It was already explained that when no different probability can be assigned to limited options, equal probability is the only one which can be applied, and reasonably so, because if every version of percentage of probability is possible, what follows is that it creates the average where probability is equal. If you take all numbers from 0 to 100 as possible, average is 50. Thats just basic math.
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability, it's just assigning it due to a lack of knowledge. In other words, it's a placeholder. That cannot logically be used as a basis for conclusion.

All it takes is 10 seconds of thought to recognize how fallacious your argument is.

I am conceiving of a flying spaghetti monster. Since he either exists or doesn't, the probability of his existence is 50%. Now I'll come up with 98 other versions of this monster, and just like that, the probability of the existence of any FSM is now 99%.

Repeat this process for every being one can imagine, and suddenly there's a 99% chance that every single one of them exists, even if some of them contradict the others.

That's not how it works. Probability is a measurement of outcomes within reality, not your imagination.
#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,290
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Repeat this process for every being one can imagine, and suddenly there's a 99% chance that every single one of them exists, even if some of them contradict the others.

That's not how it works. Probability is a measurement of outcomes within reality, not your imagination.
You gave a poor example of probability.
Topic's author
#15
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability, it's just assigning it due to a lack of knowledge
The only way to assign probability is to assign equal probability when different probability cannot be justified.

I am conceiving of a flying spaghetti monster. Since he either exists or doesn't, the probability of his existence is 50%. Now I'll come up with 98 other versions of this monster, and just like that, the probability of the existence of any FSM is now 99%. Repeat this process for every being one can imagine, and suddenly there's a 99% chance that every single one of them exists, even if some of them contradict the others.
No, my friend. There is a 99% chance that at least one God exists.

As for options, the more Gods you add, you increase probability of one of them existing, yes.

However, you would never end up with each God having 99% chance to exist, because limited options argument cannot be divided on multiple groups. So if you want to strawman my argument, try doing a better job.

Also, you assume Gods contradict each other, but Gods are above logic and created logic, thus dont suffer from such silly argument.
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,661
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Premise—Living things are too poorly designed for God to exist. The argument from poor design states that if God is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, we are vulnerable to many diseases, our bones break easily, and our bodies and minds break down over time. Our spines break down, we develop inflexible knees, and our pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Together, this biological evidence indicates that God does not exist (or that he did not create us well, in which case, there is no reason to worship him).
  • Believers might counter this argument by stating that if God is perfect, then he created us as well as could possibly be expected. They might also argue that what we see as imperfections actually have a purpose in the larger workings of God's design. Point out the logical fallacy in this right away. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise.

#17
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,370
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, you didn't just prove God, so....what was the other option again?
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The only way to assign probability is to assign equal probability when different probability cannot be justified.
Correct, in the absence of any data, that is how you properly assign probability. That doesn't mean the probability is actually equal, that's just the assumption you are making.

Assumptions cannot be used as a rational basis to justify a belief.

What you're trying to argue ultimately is that the absence of evidence can increase the probability of an outcome, that's absurd. If Shaquille O'Neal is shooting a 3 pointer, the probability of him making it is about 5 percent. We know that because we know he's a terrible 3 point shooter (from the data). But to barrow your logic, if we just wipe away the data so that all were left with are two possibilities (make or miss), well now the probability increases to 50%. But that's nonsense.  Your ignorance didn't make him a better 3 point shooter.

Also, you assume Gods contradict each other, but Gods are above logic and created logic, thus dont suffer from such silly argument.
To assert a belief that does not adhere to the principals of logic is by definition irrational. Which is to say it's the silliest argument one can offer.
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,804
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
post #1 the more boxes you add, the probability increases due to
I appreciate the addition of boxes, and I agree probability increases, but the probability is greater by addition of boxes also because of the probability of 9ncreasing the number of gods, as you allege in your post #15. I believe in generations upon generations of gods in both infinite regression and progression.
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,804
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability,
Nope. that's  not how probability works, Among other things, I am a certified Six Sigma Black Belt.  It is particularly not so when speaking of things that exist outside of of empiric knowledge, which includes virtually all but those who have met God face-to-face, and, therefore, for whom God is an empirical reality. But that doers not say God cannot be proven, just not by the empirical method [exercise of our limited five senses. But who says only five are abailablale to us? Other annals have other senses; why must we believe they are unavailable to us? I don 't. I believe they can be learned. We just don't try. Therefore Gods can be proven by other means than just our science, as we know it today. That increases probability, by the way.
#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,804
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Living things are too poorly designed for God to exist. T
What did God create that was perfect at creation? It was not in his purpose to create perfection, and nothing hie created was nor is perfect. He created to allow growth and improvements of all created things. Eden was not perfect,  just perhaps a more beautiful place in which, as is related in Genesis, all things God created were "good," although  none of them were perfect.  Perfection is ours to accomplish, or not, because perfection is a process, not a destination. Otherwise, existence is truly boring, and always will be. Nope, boredom was not God's purpose, either, which is why, even for God, perfection is an ongoing process, even for him, not a destination in which he has already done all things, and learned all things, because knowledge is endless, just as he is, and we will be. Otherwise, heaven is a boring place, and I do not believe God is bored, and I do not ever want to be bored.
#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,661
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw

Why did he create pediatric cancer?
Topic's author
#23
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
That doesn't mean the probability is actually equal, that's just the assumption you are making.
Again, its based on current evidence we have. Thats how probability works. It could be that God 100% exists. It could be that God 0% exists. The average of that is 50%. Now, you are again strawmanning my argument by saying its not actual evidence.

However, another problem for you is that probability in this case doesnt even have to be equal. Any probability above 0% of each God existing ends up giving 99% chance that one God exists. For example, if each God has only 1% chance of existing, if you add 1000 Gods, suddenly the chance is 99% for one to exist. So the only way God can probably not exist is if you prove that he 100% doesnt. Since no one ever proved that, probability remains.
Topic's author
#24
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
To assert a belief that does not adhere to the principals of logic is by definition irrational. Which is to say it's the silliest argument one can offer
Actually, to claim that logic wasnt created is irrational, because then logic itself becomes a circular fallacy with no explanation.
Topic's author
#25
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 580
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@fauxlaw
I appreciate the addition of boxes, and I agree probability increases, but the probability is greater by addition of boxes also because of the probability of 9ncreasing the number of gods, as you allege in your post #15. I believe in generations upon generations of gods in both infinite regression and progression.
Yes, the main cause of rise in probability there is rise in number of Gods. Its more like argument for polytheism and monotheism, because the end result is that one God most likely exists. With infinite number of Gods, that chance reaches 99.9999999...%.
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,661
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheGreatSunGod

Why doesn't God talk to the World from a burning bush on Twitter? He has spoken from a burning bush before.
#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,290
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Why doesn't God talk to the World from a burning bush on Twitter? He has spoken from a burning bush before.
Because his voice will be drowned by Elon Musk.
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Now, you are again strawmanning my argument by saying its not actual evidence.
I'm explaining what your argument amounts to. Whether you intended to make that argument is a different question.

The first problem with your assessment here is that you're applying probability to a claim of existence. That is already fundamentally wrong. Something either exists or it doesn't. Probability doesn't apply to that, probability applies to outcomes which is an entirely different concept.

But I've largely ignored that because I've decided to focus on the more central flaw you are making, which is the idea that probability is something that can be impacted simply by imagining additional possibilities. Again, not how it works. Even if I grant you your 'exists vs doesn't exist' framing, which would make the probability 50/50, it doesn't become 1 in 3 because you imagined an additional god. You still have a true dichotomy, so any additional gods would only fall into the 'exists' category, thereby splitting the 'exists' half of the equation. So adding a second god would make it 50/25/25, and so on. Because of this, the 'no god' option actually becomes the most reasonable single option by far over any of the many thousands of gods people have prayed to over the ages.
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,709
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability,
Nope. that's  not how probability works
Ok. Enlighten me.