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

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 179
Topic's author
#31
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Something either exists or it doesn't. Probability doesn't apply to that
So if probability doesnt apply to things which exist and to things which dont exist, or chance of existence, what does it apply to then?

#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,856
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Your response to Ra [my moniker for TheGreatSunGod] re: probability increasing was spot on, you need no further enlightenment there. My argument was that wee can also increase the probability of existence of God [or Gods]  increase by the number of natural senses we can use to gain further knowledge of all things. Science, today, depends on the five with which we're familiar. But other animals have, mostly in addition to those, senses like echo location, identification of magnetic north, of blood in vessels, and perhaps we might acquire reading of other minds. These skills can only increase our knowledge, and may serve to find evidence of God. I believe faith, as described by Paul in Hebrew's 11: 1 [really the entire chapter] is such a sense we can acquire and depend upon for further empirical understanding.
Faith, to me, is much more than mere belief. Faith demands action on it. Belief demands nothing of us. We can believe whatever, but we cannot have true faith in whatever. That in which we have faith must already be true, and we, only by extreme effort to engage faith, can learn of its truth.
#33
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Again, thats not how limited options work or how the law of excluded middle works. These Gods are options separate from each other. They are not same options. In law of excluded middle, all options must be present for it to be an excluded middle.
I'm sorry, you are confused on what the law of excluded middle states and how it applies.

"for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true, and there are no other possibilities"

The law of excluded middle explicitly limits every proposition to just two options. It can be expressed as: "X or not X". The whole point is that one of these two must be true and one of these must be not true.

You cannot combine different propositions into this, that is explicitly creating the middle ground the law of excluded middle... Excludes.

So if the proposition is made "a god exists", the law says that is either true or not true. That's it. That's all.

You're trying to create other possibilities by asserting god A, god B, etc. But none of those escape the original claim, they all fit into "a god exists". So if god A exists, the statement is true. If god B exists, the statement is true. And so on. Conversely, of none of them exist, the statement is false. There are no claims outside of this unless you're changing the subject entirely.

There is no middle ground between true and not true. That's the point of the law.

1. Christian God exists
2. Christian God doesnt exist.
This is also a perfect law of excluded middle, and by your logic, Christian God now has 50% chance to exist. This then negates your argument that individual Gods decrease in chance with increase in number, and negates the idea that probability of option "some God exists" is 50% because, if you havent noticed, math says that its over 50%.
If the claim is that the Christian god exists, then you are correct in that the negation of that claim is that no Christian god exists. The problem now is that if any other god exists instead of the Christan god, then the claim is wrong. So if the Muslims have it right and Allah exists, the claim is wrong.

So to argue that you have just increased the odds of a god existing by doing this you have created yourself a mathematical contradiction, because we can now do the same with Allah and every other god ever asserted. Observe;
1) the Cristian god exists: 50% yes, 50% no
2) Allah exists: 50% yes, 50% no
3) Zeus exists: 50% yes, 50% no

So now you have 3 gods, all of which directly contradict each other and each has a 50% chance of existing, so you're now at a 150% chance one of them exists. That's not logically possible.

This is why in my last post I told you the framing of this is wrong but I'm indulging you anyway to show you where your flaws are and that requires meeting you where you are. It's not my argument that the proper way to think of this is in terms of equally assigned probability, that's your assertion.

So if probability doesnt apply to things which exist and to things which dont exist, or chance of existence, what does it apply to then?
Probability applies to outcomes that are not yet decided. You acknowledged this yourself when you said that if something happened already, probability can't be applied to it. So what's the probability of Trump winning the election? He already did so there's nothing to calculate.

The answer to the question of whether a god (or anything for that matter) exists has already been decided. If a god exists then it already existed yesterday, and the day before, etc. We just don't know whether one does or whether none do.

What you're confusing is that probability can be applied to the outcome that is selection process itself. If you are given a multiple choice question with 4 choices, one of those choices is correct. The probability of you choosing the right answer is 1 in 4, but that doesn't mean the probability of any individual answer being right is 1 in 4 because the correctness or incorrectness of any individual answer has already been decided.

So let's say the question was who won the 2024 election and 4 different choices are given, Trump is choice B. What are the odds that a random selection will land on B? 1 in 4. What are the odds that Trump won? 1 in 1. What you're doing by adding gods is equivalent to me adding options to this question in an attempt to reduce the odds that Trump is president right now. That's not how logic works.
Topic's author
#34
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
There is no middle ground between true and not true. That's the point of the law
Again, you dont know what the law of excluded middle even is. It is the law of limited options. However, the problem in your logic is that you are NOT limiting it to two options.

This is your logic:
1. A or B or C
2. D

This isnt law of excluded middle, because option 1 has multiple options which give further split, while option 2 does not.

Again, you are trying to fit multiple contradicting options into one option to hope it excludes the middle.

But the law of excluded middle doesnt always mean just 2 options. Obviously, there are cases where there are 4 opposite claims and only one must be true while all others must be false.

The problem now is that if any other god exists instead of the Christan god, then the claim is wrong
The Christian God was just one example. Obviously, multiple Gods can exist, and many ancient people believed in multiple Gods. I can believe in any number of Gods which dont contradict each other, but even if they did contradict each other, they are supernatural and not affected by contradictions by their own definition.

So to argue that you have just increased the odds of a god existing by doing this you have created yourself a mathematical contradiction, because we can now do the same with Allah and every other god ever asserted. Observe;
1) the Cristian god exists: 50% yes, 50% no
2) Allah exists: 50% yes, 50% no
3) Zeus exists: 50% yes, 50% no
So now you have 3 gods, all of which directly contradict each other and each has a 50% chance of existing, so you're now at a 150% chance one of them exists
150%? Oh God... in math of probability, chances arent summed up. Seriously, what the fuck?
Topic's author
#35
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Probability applies to outcomes that are not yet decided
Is the existence of God decided? If not, then we are stuck with probability.

#36
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,514
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Probability applies to outcomes that are not yet decided
Is the existence of God decided? If not, then we are stuck with probability.
The existence of God has been decided, probability is arriving at the same conclusion.
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But the law of excluded middle doesnt always mean just 2 options. Obviously, there are cases where there are 4 opposite claims and only one must be true while all others must be false.
Here is the law of excluded middle (again):

"In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true."

That, by definition, necessarily, means that we're only talking about two possibilities.

1. The proposition
2. The negation of the proposition

That's 2. Not 4.

You can apply the law to as many propositions as you like, the law itself only applies to one proposition at a time. The whole point is that there is no middle ground between those two. You cannot claim there is a third option from X or not X. That's it, it's only X or not X. Nothing else.

That's two.

This is your logic:
1. A or B or C
2. D

This isnt law of excluded middle, because option 1 has multiple options which give further split, while option 2 does not.
This is exactly how the law of excluded middle works. In this case it works out to:

1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist

Does not is the negation.

If God of the bible exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.

If Allah exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.

If Zeus exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.

If no gods exist then that affirms statement 2 is true, which necessitates that statement 1 is not true.

Notice how all of the first 3 affirm the same statement, while the 4th affirms the last? That's why A & B & C etc. all fit into statement 1. That's not "my logic", that's just logic.

You cannot claim X or not X or... Some other version of X.

If it's another version of X, then that, by it's very own label, makes it... fit... under... X. So it's X.

And if you want to claim that this other version of X is not the same as plain old X, then that makes it... Not X.

Again, you are trying to fit multiple contradicting options into one option to hope it excludes the middle.
There is no middle. That's the point of the law.

The Christian God was just one example. Obviously, multiple Gods can exist, and many ancient people believed in multiple Gods.
Whether multiple gods can simultaneously exist is an entirely different conversion which ultimately comes down to their definitions. I use God vs Allah vs Zeus because they are all explicitly defined as being the ultimate creator and ruler of the universe. That is where the contradiction in asserting their existences simultaneously is. You can remove that along with any other contradictions all you like, that only makes their existence possible, not probable.

I can believe in any number of Gods which dont contradict each other, but even if they did contradict each other, they are supernatural and not affected by contradictions by their own definition.
Again, if you believe gods are not subject to the laws of logic then your belief is by definition irrational. At that point argument is pointless.

Is the existence of God decided?
Yes, by reality. A god either exists or no gods exist. Whatever the truth of that proposition is, is so today just as it was yesterday just as it was the day before, and so on. It is not subject to the concept of probability, the only tool we have to tell for ourselves which it is is via the use of reason. That's about evidence, not a game of applying math to our own imagination.

150%? Oh God... in math of probability, chances arent summed up.
Yes, 150% according to your argument when traced to it's logical conclusion. That's the point, your argument is logically absurd.

Seriously, what the fuck?
My question exactly.

Topic's author
#38
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
You cannot claim there is a third option from X or not X. That's it, it's only X or not X. Nothing else.
When you say its X or not X, thats false.
Because X happens to contain multiple contradicting options, which also contain or.

Notice how all of the first 3 affirm the same statement
Not really. 

Saying Allah exists isnt the same statement as Zeus exists.
So its Zeus(not Allah) or Allah(Not Zeus) or both(Allah and Zeus). These are all contradictive options. You do realize that you cannot place contradictive options into one option?

If you could, then:

1. Allah exists
2. Some other God exists and not Allah, or no God exists

So now Allah is more likely than "no God exists"?

Again, if you believe gods are not subject to the laws of logic then your belief is by definition irrational
So saying that Gods are not subject to the laws of logic isnt subject to the laws of logic? This is only if you assume that all beings must be subject to logic.

Well, lets test that by using your logic.

You say: "Being which violates logic cannot exist because it violates logic".

That is circular reasoning, which violates logic.

So your belief is irrational.
Topic's author
#39
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Yes, 150% according to your argument when traced to it's logical conclusion
Alright. Lets test your claim.

Coin has 50% chance landing on heads. So if I throw coin 3 times, its 150% chance?

Thats amazing logic you used there.
#40
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,744
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for making the striking claim that God is dead. He writes, “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!” .
What does this mean? Straightforwardly, it seems nonsensical. God is supposed to be eternal, and thus cannot die. Nietzsche’s claim, however, is that “God” is a fiction created by human beings. Thus, God “dies” when there is no good reason to believe that God exists.
#41
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,318
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Be realistic guys ,    Gods dont fit in boxes, ya dumb dumb heads

You couldn't get a god to hop in the box, because ya can't like ummm , talk with him. 


GOD INA BOX
Get your god in a box today
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When you say its X or not X, thats false.
That's literally what the law of excluded middle states. At this point you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with logic 101.

Because X happens to contain multiple contradicting options, which also contain or.
The fact that some of the options contained within X contradict each other is irrelevant. If any of those options were to exist then that would satisfy the proposition.

Again, we have Allah and we have Zeus. Two god options that definitionally contradict each other. If the proposition is: "a god exists", then either of those gods existing would make the proposition true. There is nothing about the proposition as stated that would require multiple options to exist simultaneously because the proposition states "a" god, as in "any" god. Does Allah fit into "any god"? Yes. Does Zeus fit into "any god"? Yes. Either of them will work.

Let's try another one. You can turn left, turn right, or go straight. If I say "do not turn left", then you have a choice: turn left, do not turn left. If you do not turn left, then that leaves you with two possibilities; go straight or turn right. Can you turn right and go straight? No, they contradict each other. Does that matter? No. Turning right satisfies the direction to not turn left. Going straight satisfies the direction to not turn left.

The law of excluded middle has nothing to do with how many possibilities there are. It is telling you that there are two categories of possibilities for which there is no third alternative. The lack of a third category is the point. Every possible must for into one of those two categories. That's the point.

You do realize that you cannot place contradictive options into one option?

If you could, then:

1. Allah exists
2. Some other God exists and not Allah, or no God exists

So now Allah is more likely than "no God exists"?
No, because as I have been explaining to you since the start of this thread, that is not how probability works.

The fact that "not Allah" can include the existence of multiple god options or no gods at all doesn't have anything to do with likelihood. The law of excluded middle is purely about narrowing down your options into what is logically possible. Possible has nothing to do with probable.

You say: "Being which violates logic cannot exist because it violates logic".

That is circular reasoning, which violates logic.
That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when both sides of the chain affirm each other, thereby leaving no starting point.

In this case the starting point is simple: the laws of logic apply. 

If you begin with this as your premise, then you can be a rational person and have rational conversations, because to be rational is by definition to be in accordance with the laws of logic.

If you do not begin with this starting point then you are by definition irrational, which is to say you do not value the foundational laws of thought, consistency and coherence the laws of logic establish. At that point trying to have any conversation with you is utterly pointless because once you throw the laws of logic away you can believe anything you want with no rules at all. That's useless and ultimately self defeating.

So back to the point: the laws of logic apply. Therefore any assertion which requires them to not apply is irrational and can therefore justifiably be discarded, such as the assertion that gods are not subject to the laws of logic.
#43
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Alright. Lets test your claim.

Coin has 50% chance landing on heads. So if I throw coin 3 times, its 150% chance?

Thats amazing logic you used there.
lol, it wasn't my logic, that was yours.

You are the one who argued that you can increase the odds of a god existing by singling out each god on its own. If that were true, then you would end up with a scenario where the proposition "a god exists" would exceed 100%. That's the natural conclusion of your argument, not mine. I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand.
Topic's author
#44
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
In this case the starting point is simple: the laws of logic apply
This is again circular reasoning.

Laws of logic apply to God, so God cannot be above logic.

Your premise is the same as your conclusion.

You begin with the premise that laws of logic apply to God, and you end up with conclusion that laws of logic apply to God. Thats nonsense.

It is telling you that there are two categories of possibilities for which there is no third alternative. 
Sadly, there are many versions of your "excluded middle", so there are alternatives to it, thus not a true excluded middle.

True excluded middle would be:
1. A exists
2. A doesnt exist.

But in your version, you are putting contradictive options as one option. Its like rolling dice and saying: its 6 or not 6. So I have 50% chance at getting 6.
Topic's author
#45
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
lol, it wasn't my logic, that was yours.

You are the one who argued that you can increase the odds of a god existing by singling out each god on its own. If that were true, then you would end up with a scenario where the proposition "a god exists" would exceed 100%. That's the natural conclusion of your argument, not mine. I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand.
No, it would never exceed 100%.

If you take 2 coins, each having 50% chance of getting heads, there is in total 75% chance that one of them gets heads. For 3 coins, it would be around 90%. Never would it exceed 100%, because chances arent summed  up.
Topic's author
#46
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You couldn't get a god to hop in the box
Well, those are different difficulties.

But imagine a God who is located in 50% of all space.

So each box has 50% chance of containing God.

If you have 2 boxes, there is 75% chance that there is God in one of them.
Topic's author
#47
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Lets see what our friend ChatGPT says.

To find the probability that at least one of the three Gods exists, when each has a 50% chance of existing independently, you can use the complement rule.
Step-by-step:
  1. Probability each God does not exist = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5
  2. Probability none of the 3 Gods exist = 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.125
  3. So, probability that at least one exists = 1 - 0.125 = 0.875
Final Answer:
87.5% chance that at least one of the three Gods exists.



Looks like AI agrees with me on this one.
Topic's author
#48
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Here is AI on those boxes:

I asked AI:
"If there are two Gods and each have 50% chance to exist and each of them occupy 50% of all space, then if I have 4 boxes in my room, what are the chances of at least one box containing one of those two Gods?"

AI answer. Just skip to the answer at the end.

Let's break this down step by step using probabilities:

Given: Two Gods (A and B). Each has a 50% chance to exist independently. If they exist, each occupies 50% of all space (not necessarily mutually exclusive). There are 4 boxes in your room. 

You want the probability that at least one of the 4 boxes contains one of the two Gods.

Step 1: Enumerate possible existence scenarios: 

There are 3 relevant possibilities:

Neither A nor B exists: Probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25 Only A exists: Probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25 Only B exists: Probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25 Both A and B exist: Probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25 Step 2: For each existence case, compute the chance that none of the 4 boxes contain a God. 

Let’s assume "occupies 50% of all space" means randomly distributed and independently from the boxes.

For any existing God, the chance that one box does not contain them = 50%
So, for 4 boxes: chance that none of the boxes contain the God = 

Now compute for each case:

Case 1: Neither exists Probability = 0.25 Then none of the boxes can contain a God: certainly 0 boxes have Gods Case 2: Only A exists Probability = 0.25 Chance that none of the 4 boxes contain A = 0.0625 So, chance at least one box contains A = 1 - 0.0625 = 0.9375 Case 3: Only B exists Same as above: Probability = 0.25, chance at least one box contains B = 0.9375 Case 4: Both A and B exist Probability = 0.25 For each box: chance that it does not contain A or B = 0.5 (miss A) × 0.5 (miss B) = 0.25 So for 4 boxes: chance none of them contain A or B = So, chance at least one box has A or B = 1 - 0.00390625 = 0.99609375 Step 3: Combine all cases P(\text{at least one box has a God}) = (0.25 \times 0) + (0.25 \times 0.9375) + (0.25 \times 0.9375) + (0.25 \times 0.99609375) = 0 + 0.234375 + 0.234375 + 0.2490234375 = \boxed{0.7177734375} Final Answer: 

There is approximately a 71.78% chance that at least one of the 4 boxes contains one of the two Gods.
Topic's author
#49
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Another version is that God in each minute has 50% chance to create himself out of nothing. So after 5 minutes, we get this:


This is a probability problem involving repeated independent events over time.

Let’s define the problem more precisely:

There is a 50% (i.e., 0.5) chance per minute that God is created out of nothing.
We want to find the probability that this happens at some point within 5 minutes.

Step-by-step:

The easiest way to calculate this is to first compute the probability that God is not created in any given minute, and then use that to find the probability he is not created in any of the 5 minutes.

Probability God is not created in one minute:
Probability God is not created in 5 minutes:
Therefore, the probability that God is created at least once in 5 minutes:

Final Answer:

96.875% chance that God is created out of nothing within 5 minutes.

Do you want to visualize this probability growing over time?
Topic's author
#50
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@FLRW
I asked AI and it agreed with me.
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In this case the starting point is simple: the laws of logic apply
This is again circular reasoning.
I already explained what circular reasoning is and how this statement clearly and explicitly differs from that. Did you read it? Do you understand it?

Circular reasoning is an invalid form of reasoning. What makes it invalid is that it violates how logic works. In case you aren't aware, the word invalid means that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

So all of this is an evaluation of whether these arguments are themselves logical, therefore any criticism you offer only has meaning if we assume logic at the outset, and that's what you don't seem to be getting. What your arguments really boil down to in this thread is that you are trying to use logic to argue against logic.

The reason we assume logic at the outset is because we have no other choice. It does not matter whether you're trying to affirm it or invalidate it, any attempt to do either requires the use of it, which prepossess its validity.

So when you claim that the necessary acceptance of logic is circular you are in fact arguing against the very tool you are using to make your argument in the first place. That is absurd.

You begin with the premise that laws of logic apply to God, and you end up with conclusion that laws of logic apply to God.
The premise was never that the laws of logic apply to God, it's that the laws of logic apply. Explained that already, and you obviously read it because you snipped it and replied directly to it.

True excluded middle would be:
1. A exists
2. A doesnt exist.

But in your version, you are putting contradictive options as one option.
Why is this so difficult for you?

Let's try this...

Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe

Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe

Proposition A: a god exists

Q1: if Zeus exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?

Q2: if Allah exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?

Q3: Does the option of Zeus existing contradict the option of Allah existing, and vice versa?

Answer these three questions, then explain what, according to the law of excluded middle, are the options for proposition A.

Its like rolling dice and saying: its 6 or not 6. So I have 50% chance at getting 6.
For the, what (?), 4th or 5th time now...

The law of excluded middle has absolutely nothing to do with probability.

Read that sentence over again, as many times as you need. Then proceed.

You are the one who is trying to frame the true dichotomy that the law of excluded middle necessitates in terms of probability. You are the trying to warp the math on that probability towards proving the existence of god. That is you doing that, not me.

The most I did was indulge in your fallacious reasoning by showing you where your own logic leads, you have since grabbed right onto that in an attempt to shift your own fallacious reasoning on me. That's BS and if you were arguing in good faith you would know that.

If you roll a dice, 6 or not 6 are your only two options within the framing of whether the dice will roll a 6. The same framing can be applied to 5, 4, etc. The dice example only further illustrates the point I've been making since the start of this thread. You cannot use the A/not A framing to determine probability. That's not how that works.

Looks like AI agrees with me on this one.
OMG.

It agrees with you because you explicitly asked it what the odds would be if each god had a 50% chance of existing independently. That's why it concluded an 87.5% chance of at least one god existing. That's not what we're talking about. 

I used the examples of God/Allah/Zeus specifically because they are all mutually exclusive. That means the odds of any one of them existing, if that could be calculated, would directly impact the odds of the others existing. So in that example, if one of them had a 50% chance of existing, that would only leave a 50% chance for all other possibilities.

On the other hand, if we're limiting this to gods that can coexist, then this math checks out fine. The problem is that you have yet to put forward a means by which we can calculate the probability of any god since the law of excluded middle has nothing to do with probability.
Topic's author
#52
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
The premise was never that the laws of logic apply to God, it's that the laws of logic apply
Laws of logic apply to what? If you say that laws of logic apply to everything, including God, then your premise is that laws of logic apply to God. Again, this is circular reasoning.

Its like saying:
1. Animals include cats and dogs.
2. Cats and dogs include cats
C. Animals include cats

Your conclusion merely repeats the premise.

So again, if you say that being which violates logic cannot exist, you are going to have to prove your claim.

I can easily prove that it can exist, because such being logically cannot be prevented anyway.


I used the examples of God/Allah/Zeus specifically because they are all mutually exclusive
So you tried to strawman my argument here? Well, it is good AI disproved you totally.

Topic's author
#53
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
You cannot use the A/not A framing to determine probability. That's not how that works.
Actually, you can use. You just used it wrong and reached at wrong conclusion. This is because you dont understand limited options.

For example, when casting a dice, its not this:
6 or not 6

But it is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.

So again, my logic works while yours happens to fail.
#54
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,514
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You cannot use the A/not A framing to determine probability. That's not how that works.
Actually, you can use. You just used it wrong and reached at wrong conclusion. This is because you dont understand limited options. 

For example, when casting a dice, its not this:
6 or not 6

But it is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.

So again, my logic works while yours happens to fail.
What logic comes out of a dice casting? The numbers are all arbitrary.
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Laws of logic apply to what? If you say that laws of logic apply to everything, including God, then your premise is that laws of logic apply to God. Again, this is circular reasoning.
After you even trying at this point, or just trolling? I'm having a really hard time telling the difference. 

Again, circular reasoning is when both ends of the argument are used to affirm each other, thereby leaving no starting point. So in order to show that what I'm presenting is circular, you would have to show that the conclusion is being used to justify the premise. Yet you yourself acknowledged that the premise is "repeating itself" which by definition means the argument is not circular. What that means at worst is that the premise is not supported. An unsupported premise is not circular reasoning, those are two different things.

So back to this point, what I'm saying is that the laws of logic always apply. God would thus be included in that. I am therefore not beginning with the premise that the laws of logic apply to God and therefore apply to everything, I'm beginning with the laws of logic apply to everything and therefore apply to God. That's only one direction, it does not go both ways as you are trying to spin it into (which would make it circular).

if you say that being which violates logic cannot exist, you are going to have to prove your claim.
Even theologians accept this premis, so you are really reaching. But ok, let's discuss it.

We'll start by talking about what it means to say something is possible since the term has different usages. It's best illustrated by contrasting possible with impossible. As far as I would put it, there are 3 categories of impossible:

[Practically] impossible, meaning unrealistic. i.e. "it's impossible for me to get all this work done today"

[Physically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of physics.

[Logically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of logic.

There are, as far as I am aware, no other usages of the term impossible. And of these usages, the highest form of impossibility is logically impossible.

What you are claiming is that a being who can violate the laws of logic is possible. The problem is not that you are necessarily wrong, but that as a matter of coherent reasoning, if it is possible to violate the laws of logic then the term "possible" itself has no longer has any meaning because at that point literally anything is possible. Why? Because at that point you have violated the laws of logic in which case you are, by definition, no longer bound by reason, aka irrational.

The truth is, you are actually getting at something important here because there is point where the laws of logic break down, physicists call this a singularity. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is no way to answer this question without contradicting logic itself. But the fact that we can't answer the question within logic simply means that it is an answer for which we have no way to knowing, so you cannot assert anything about it. And yet you are asserting things here (such as a god that can violate logic). That is a statement that cannot, possibly, be justified.

You started this thread claiming that probability proves god. But by definition, proving anything requires sound reasoning, which requires adherence to logic. You cannot, definitionally, prove anything via an inherently irrational argument because argument presupposes logic, which you are actively arguing against. Your entire case here is one massive contradiction.

If you want to keep believing in god because of faith then that is your business, but just say that and stop arguing your point here since at that point you are presenting a case that cannot possibly be justified.
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,755
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
For example, when casting a dice, its not this:
6 or not 6

But it is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.

So again, my logic works while yours happens to fail.
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe

Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe

Proposition A: a god exists

Q1: if Zeus exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?

Q2: if Allah exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?

Q3: Does the option of Zeus existing contradict the option of Allah existing, and vice versa?

Answer these three questions, then explain what, according to the law of excluded middle, are the options for proposition A.

Topic's author
#57
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Yet you yourself acknowledged that the premise is "repeating itself" which by definition means the argument is not circular
Heh, so lets see..

Your first premise was "logic applies to God", and your conclusion is "logic applies to God".

I'm beginning with the laws of logic apply to everything and therefore apply to God
So again, your first premise already includes the conclusion.

You begin with premise that logic applies to everything, including God himself. And then you end up with conclusion that logic applies to God.

The problem, again, is in the fact that you already assume as a premise the thing which you are trying to prove as conclusion.

I could apply exactly same but opposite logic.

Logic doesnt apply to Gods, including Zeus.
So logic doesnt apply to Zeus.

Or a much better version which is true by tautology:

P1. Logic doesnt apply to things which are above logic, which includes Gods and supernaturals.
P2. Gods are included in things which are above logic.
C. Logic doesnt apply to Gods.

Now, the difference between your logic and my logic is that your first premise is unproved, while my first premise is true by tautology.

So looks like I win.
Topic's author
#58
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Again, you are stuck on that definition which I am not even using. Monotheist religions arent the only religions.
Topic's author
#59
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 866
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
We'll start by talking about what it means to say something is possible since the term has different usages. It's best illustrated by contrasting possible with impossible. As far as I would put it, there are 3 categories of impossible:
[Practically] impossible, meaning unrealistic. i.e. "it's impossible for me to get all this work done today"
[Physically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of physics.
[Logically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of logic.
There are, as far as I am aware, no other usages of the term impossible. And of these usages, the highest form of impossibility is logically impossible.
What you are claiming is that a being who can violate the laws of logic is possible
This is just strawman. My argument was never "being which violates logic can exist by not violating logic".

And again, you make a logical circle by saying only things which dont violate logic can exist. The problem, again, is that you assume as true the thing which you are supposed to prove as true first.

Its a flawed reasoning there. Really, if you want to prove something, that something should be in your conclusion, not in your premise as assumption.

Its like me defining God as supernatural being which exists, and then using that definition to prove that God exists.
#60
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,318
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
You got calculators.
Thennnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
Scientific calculators. 
Imagine 
Religious calculators.   
Ha.