Total posts: 1,395
-->
@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:
- Probability each God does not exist = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5
- Probability none of the 3 Gods exist = 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.125
- 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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Pakistan has lost all the wars against India so far
If it was non-nuclear war, yes, India would most likely win. But if nuclear weapons are used, then India would still likely win due to having much more population, but the damage to the country would be huge. We are talking about heavily populated areas on both sides. Like, 1 successful nuke would probably kill over 500.000 people in a city. With hundreds of nukes on both sides, both countries will suffer massive losses. Sure, Pakistan would suffer much more, and would probably lose quickly, but India could lose over 50 million people from just nukes. Yes, I know India has 1 billion population, and 50 million is like 5% of population. But it would be the most destructive war in history so far, and this is even when assuming no other countries get involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Probably, but the main problem is in the fact that these are huge countries. If they go to war, its going to be hell on Earth. War in Ukraine will look like a joke compared to this. Pakistan alone has more population than Russia and Ukraine combined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Hitler was horrible and everyone should hate him for murdering 10 million people; 60% of which were Jewish), but they will let the, "Jews control the media" fact be known to people (because the Jews now have egos and they want people to know who's in charge
🤣
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
You probably heard about attack which happened, and now the question remains: what follows?
India and Pakistan dont really get along. Never did. But now, they are one step away from being at war with each other, with Pakistan saying war will start in 2 days.
But this wouldnt be an ordinary war. The problems here are:
1. Both countries have large population and large armies, India having billion population
2. Both countries have nuclear weapons
Clearly, war is not in anyone's interest if we assume that nuclear weapons make such war mutual loss.
The mass use of nuclear weapons in such war would destroy plenty of land in both countries.
India has Hinduism, which is promoted as religion of peace. But now that is put to a great test as India says they will respond with attack on Pakistan. This attack could trigger a war where there would be more casualties than in both world wars. Each nuclear bomb would wipe out hundreds of thousands, some maybe even million people. In just one day of such nuclear war, it is possible that dozens of millions would die, as per military nuclear strategy, the main goal with nuclear weapons is to achieve greatest possible destruction of the other side, which could mean rush to use as much nuclear weapons as possible to possibly take out enemy's nuclear weapons.
People dont understand how serious this is or how serious it can become. If this war happens, not only will these two countries destroy each other, but nuclear spread will cover most of the region. One nuclear bomb dropped on Japan caused great destruction. Nuclear bombs of these countries are much more destructive, and if great war starts, the nuclear weapons stop acting as means to prevent war and start acting according to the quite opposite strategy: "use as much nuclear weapons as fast as possible to prevent enemy from using theirs".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Free speech is the main condition for a debate and flow of information. To make an informed choice, one must be aware of all possibilities and options, and have all knowledge. Banning free speech makes informed choice impossible, and then you dont really have a choice. Another problem is knowing what is true and what not - this is impossible without free flow of information.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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% no2) Allah exists: 50% yes, 50% no3) Zeus exists: 50% yes, 50% noSo 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?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I dont know. I used to do a lot of ranting myself. Its usually a way to pass time. Most people rant all the time. Could be just boredom.
Created:
-->
@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?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
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
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.
Your argument would be:
1. Some God exists
2. No God exists.
And then you go around giving each option 50% chance.
However, the problem in your argument is very obvious. First, it is not an excluded middle. Second, if you agree to always by default assign equal probability to limited options, then this would follow:
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%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Not everyone approves of homosexuality being legalized; you won't find 100% approval on any policy and that's par for the course
I wasnt making an argument against your case. I was saying who could debate against your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Blacks should demand reparations. Slavery is what led to black poverty.
Not just slavery. There was extreme racism in the USA for a long time. Even after slavery ended, getting a good job, decent place to live in and good education as a black person was very difficult. This improved over time, but the disadvantage still remains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
They have to willingly get deported
So your argument is that they should be allowed to move to Africa if they want, and get help in moving there if they want?
Okay. I guess the part where people can disagree is in "getting help to move there". Not everyone approves of encouraging people to leave America, even if almost no one would agree to move to Africa.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The main problem for filling the universe with life is food. Food only grows on Earth. It can under specific conditions grow in space, but in very small amount because it can only grow indoors where there isnt enough space for any large harvest. Outside is either too cold or too hot for most plants, and usually lack of air and CO2. You would actually have to change entire planet to successfully grow plants on it. The easiest plant to grow is grass which can then be fed to animals and insects, animals then provide milk and eggs. That is most simple possible way, yet very difficult to get grass to grow on Mars.
Created:
-->
@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...%.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But if you want to pull a MANGOD from the box, you will need to be a magician
I actually did two Gods.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Also, these arguments work mostly for polytheism, but can be adjusted for monotheism too.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Civilians are the back bone of any war machine. Without them there is no war machine to fight a war.
Yes, but such position suffers from probability argument when it comes to what people support.
There are 3 options:
1. Israel military is good and Hamas military is bad.
2. Israel military is bad and Hamas military is good.
3. Israel military is bad and Hamas military is bad.
In only 1 out of 3 cases is Israel military considered good. This is because person doesnt need to consider Hamas as good in order to consider Israel military bad.
You may be stuck in dichotomy where "If Hamas bad, then Israel good", but when it comes to many people, they are not choosing between these two. They will say that both are bad, and due to this high probability, Israel loses allies and loses support it needs.
The main problem in Israel's war crimes is that Israel for some reason assumed its war crimes will be compared to Hamas's and thus be justified. But that is a terrible mistake, because war crimes dont stop being war crimes if both sides do them. It doesnt make any side good. It makes both sides bad, and this is what Israel failed to understand from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This debate covers it in greater details:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Do you view each act as equal in severity? Such as:RapeIntentional killing of a civilianUnintentional killing of a civilianTortureTorturing, then killing a civilianExecuting a prisonerTaking a hostageUsing a human shieldMutilating a corpse
Israel has done all those, but when it comes to numbers, it clearly shows.
For example, Hamas killed about 700 civilians and 300 soldiers during their attack. So 70% of people Hamas killed were civilians.
But Israel killed about 10000 Hamas fighters, while killing over 50000 civilians.
So over 80% of people Israel kills are civilians.
Also, in total number, Israel killed 70 times more civilians than Hamas did.
As for other crimes, I already covered that in my debate called "Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas's war crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Give me solid proof those things are an existential threat
I never claimed that polluted rivers are existential threat. I just want clean rivers and clean air.
Created:
Posted in:
Because they decide policy. People who voted them do not directly determine policy
This is a very stupid statement. If people wanted full freedom, they would simply vote for politicians who give that. People too decide the policy.
I said those nations have no right to exist and that policy makers are at fault and should be treated as treasonous
So who has no right to exist: nations or policy makers?
You contradict yourself in each comment. Maybe make up your mind.
you than are either retarded and did not know that citizens are not politicians
The problem is that your original claim was about countries, nations and people, and now you are changing it to only politicians, which again happen to be given those powers by the people, people who in most cases are against full freedom, thus people again being the main cause and politicians just being the result.
So again, what is your logic here?
You ran away from "those who are against full freedom shouldnt exist" and replaced it with "politicians who are against full freedom shouldnt exist", which again doesnt work because people would still be against full freedom even without those politicians.
And you make false dichotomy between "liberty" and "no liberty".
No country on Earth has full liberty.
There are degrees of liberty, and I dont think politicians who fined you for saying "nigger" deserve death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I never really understood people who violate nature which gave them life. Really, I prefer clean rivers and clean air over factories, coal burning and concrete.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Every socialtial change at one point had less than 50% support; annexing Canada should be viewed no differently.
If we should not respect what people want, then your entire argument falls apart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
even though the left thinks you're a fascist now
Yeah, thats what fascist is.
If the majority of Canadians wanted to join the US, then would you be on board with it?
Maybe if 70% of people wanted it, and the rights of remaining 30% were guaranteed.
Anyone that is against the US annexing Canada solely because most Canadians don't want it is really neutral on the issue
Neutral =/= against
I dont even know where you get these ideas.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I bet there is plenty of fun in Hell.
Created:
Posted in:
Since I specified politicians not those that support them your false equivalency fails
No. You said:
"A nation should not survive for example if they don't believe in values like free speech or in capitalism"
"Then you may ask. What about temporary restrictions in freedom. Then you temporarily lose your right to exist and when it comes time to expand freedom, those who restricted it, even if it resulted in saving the country should be executed for treason."
So again, running from your own words.
But anyway, whats the difference? If reducing freedom is a crime which deserves to be punished by death, why would you limit punishment to politicians? You would still anyway need to fight the masses which support them. So if masses support reducing freedom, which in many cases is the case, much more often than not, you would have to fight them all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It’s hardly irrelevant. If both sides are committing war crimes, then the one sided disadvantage you have described becomes virtually meaningless.
No, it is still a disadvantage. If one side didnt commit war crimes, they would be in a better position. If you want to compare Israel's crimes to crimes of Hamas, then thats a completely different topic. But by numbers, Israel has committed more war crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
What war are you thinking of where only one side is/was committing war crimes?
I never said there was such war. Maybe there was, but its irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying that doing war crimes tends to be a disadvantage for a side which does them, especially today with all the media coverage.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
You could claim that; but someone can not want Trump while giving him merit on an issue
It means he wants the merit, but doesnt want it through Trump.
The people, but the people elect the government, they don't own the government.
They can change the government if they want. Its their choice. They choose Canada over USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
That's vague. Be specific.
Why would I be specific? Each person has thousands of wants.
So do you want Crimea to join Russia? If so, then you got cancelled by the left.
Lol okay
Because you said you don't like Canada
That doesnt mean I want it to become part of USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Every individual has wants. How do you measure it when it's a collection of individuals?
By respecting wants of each to some degree.
Same is true for Ukraine holding onto Crimea; most Crimeans are against it.
Sure.
Then don't defend their independence
Why wouldnt I?
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
Often, but not necessarily. If Person A thinks Transwomen are men and is anti ICE, then if they vote for or against Trump, then they're going to disagree with Trump on one issue and agree with him on the other.
Thats not even a negation of what I said. I didnt say person. I said any merit for Trump must be wanted. You said merits arent wants. They are. Not all people equally want same things.
That means Canadian national parks aren't owned by Canadians; they are owned by their government
Who do you think elects the government?
Anyway, I never even mentioned national parks. I am not sure why you are attacking an argument no one made, while dodging the one which was made.
Again, your position is to take Canada away from Canadians. Its that simple.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I wouldnt really want to live forever, but if Satan gives me that gift too, who am I to question his will? Satan has a plan for me. I know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
My position is that what people want matters.
I dont exactly pick rule of majority as a standard, but more like, each individual has wants and wants of each individual matter.
How is it applied in case of countries is complicated, but Canada is a better country than USA. Why would wants of USA matter more?
If USA tried to take Canada, that would be against Canada's wants and would only cause conflict.
Again, I dont feel too sorry for Canada here. Canada made a mistake of being ally with USA and now they are paying for that mistake. I just understand that this isnt what Canada wants.
Created:
Posted in:
Governments are made up of the ruling class and are individuals
Often at least 30% of people support the government. Otherwise, would be very hard to even govern. Not everyone supports "full freedom". Not everyone supports what you support.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
A want is merely a vote. You Want Trump; or you don't want Trump. A merit is a pro for Trump (or con for Trump and a pro for opposing Trump).
Both of those are wants. Whats pro for Trump must be wanted as well.
When the US took over, the Mexican individuals should be allowed to keep the land
Again,
Canada = belongs to Canadians.
You want for USA to take Canada away from Canadians. That is your position here in this topic. Canadians dont want that.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
with a cost of side A being a merit of side B and vice versa
Thats just a different term for wants. Wants determine what is a merit and what is a cost.
In the 1840s, the US annexed half of Mexico. If we translate that to humans, then that would be like an American man eating half the body of a Mexican man
No, it would be US violating Mexican population, their property, laws...ect.
No Canadian resident would be forced to lose their land
Well, lets see.
Canada = belongs to Canadians
Losing Canada = losing what belongs to Canadians.
Created: