Probability of God's Existence.

[Curious George]

@Curious George

Hope this gets to you.

So, what is your point about nothingness, see my immediately preceding post here.

Yes, thand you very, very, very much. It is so much easier to respond and follow when you do this.

Nothingness is simply the state of no thing. If we are talking about something specific then that specific thing will shape our view of money. We can talk of no thing in abstract terms but likely a person is not referring to the most abstract concept. As usually concepts are defined by those c ok ncepts of which we are aware. If for instance we state that our universe consisted of nothing we are referring to those things of which our known universe now consists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have to apologize to everyone, because I expect posters to visit the threads they have reacted to, to follow up on their earlier contributions there.

Now, I just learned from Columbus that I have to put a @ before the name of the poster I have in mind to get him to react to my post.

So, I hope that works, with the @ before the name of the poster I want to get to.

@Jeremiahcp
As you say that I am derailing your thread, the fact is that the title of your thread is Probability of God's Existence.

Suppose you just revise the title of your thread, please?

Or just write less than a 100 words what is the point you are driving at?

And I really have to learn how to get to link up with posters I want to interact with, like with using tags.

I came to this thread because it was at the end of a page where other new threads are listed, same also with the thread on Challenge to Theists and Atheists, which I find to be also as with the present one, all speculative to the core.

"As you say that I am derailing your thread, the fact is that the title of your thread is Probability of God's Existence."

And what exactly do you think probability is? Give me a concise answer please, as I don't want to have a 5 page discussion about semantics. I am a middle age college student working on a degree in statistics, I study probability almost daily. So I am not going to haggle on the meaning, I just don't think you really understand the OP.

 

[Sanmario]

Probability is the possible occurrence of an event in objective reality, but we don't know when and where, at least when, for it can occur in long long long time when we are no longer around; so it's the when and where the event will occur, but the event itself is possible of existing, because a similar event has occurred previously, that is a already proof of the possibility of the event occurring, or it is intrinsically possible insofar as the concept itself is concerned: because the concept is endowed with coherency and consistency among its components.

"As you say that I am derailing your thread, the fact is that the title of your thread is Probability of God's Existence."

And what exactly do you think probability is? Give me a concise answer please, as I don't want to have a 5 page discussion about semantics. I am a middle age college student working on a degree in statistics, I study probability almost daily. So I am not going to haggle on the meaning, I just don't think you really understand the OP.

 

[Sanmario]

@Jeremiahcp

That is why I am asking you what is your concept of God, for God is also an event that is existing; now if you call God a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then literally that is not the God event that is understood by the thinkers of the theistic religions.

Let me read your reaction to my thinking, okay?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George


You say, George, that: "Nothingness is simply the state of no thing."

Literally complete nothingness in term of existence or non-existence is not even a state [of anything]; it is plain nothingness, i.e., non-existence.

So when you postulate that there was nothing at all completely exhaustively totally, then you have to stop talking because that you still talk it is not literally nothingness, completely, totally, exhaustively, and irremediably.

That is the transcendental nothingness.

Everything else that is not transcendental nothingness is improperly understood as nothingness, like nothing of money, or nothing of space even, or nothing of vacuum even: all such instances of nothingness that is not absolute, literally complete, total, exhaustive, it is still within the what I call the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

So, what is the implication that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

The implication is that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Yes, thand you very, very, very much. It is so much easier to respond and follow when you do this.

Nothingness is simply the state of no thing. If we are talking about something specific then that specific thing will shape our view of money. We can talk of no thing in abstract terms but likely a person is not referring to the most abstract concept. As usually concepts are defined by those c ok ncepts of which we are aware. If for instance we state that our universe consisted of nothing we are referring to those things of which our known universe now consists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Probability is the possible occurrence of an event in objective reality, but we don't know when and where, at least when, for it can occur in long long long time when we are no longer around; so it's the when and where the event will occur, but the event itself is possible of existing, because a similar event has occurred previously, that is a already proof of the possibility of the event occurring, or it is intrinsically possible insofar as the concept itself is concerned: because the concept is endowed with coherency and consistency among its components.

Man, that is very rough. Instead of just assuming you know how it works you many want to read up on it, I could suggest some books if you like. You are confusing possibility with probability. Probability is a measurement we use to make estimates, test statistical hypotheses, and make predictions. Without us there is no probability, just like without us those little markings on rulers have no meaning.

This thread is not about the possibility of God, I am not saying God is not possible. This thread is about probability and why we can't use it to determine if God exist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@Jeremiahcp

That is why I am asking you what is your concept of God, for God is also an event that is existing; now if you call God a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then literally that is not the God event that is understood by the thinkers of the theistic religions.

Let me read your reaction to my thinking, okay?

I never called God a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Let me read your reaction to my thinking, okay?"

You can barely read the thread.

 

[Sanmario]

There, this is the list at the top of every page of Religiousforums.com:

• Watched Threads
• Recent Posts
• New Posts
• New Watched Posts

You see, alerting a poster could be useless if a poster does not care to continue the interaction with another poster, or will no longer contribute in a thread.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George


You say, George, that: "Nothingness is simply the state of no thing."

Literally complete nothingness in term of existence or non-existence is not even a state [of anything]; it is plain nothingness, i.e., non-existence.

So when you postulate that there was nothing at all completely exhaustively totally, then you have to stop talking because that you still talk it is not literally nothingness, completely, totally, exhaustively, and irremediably.

That is the transcendental nothingness.

Everything else that is not transcendental nothingness is improperly understood as nothingness, like nothing of money, or nothing of space even, or nothing of vacuum even: all such instances of nothingness that is not absolute, literally complete, total, exhaustive, it is still within the what I call the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

So, what is the implication that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

The implication is that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

That is a non sequitur. If we are going to have a logical discussion using logical reasoning we should not stray from such a path.

Nothing is no thing. This means that nothing is contingent on the thing or things about which we are talking. When people try to take the concept of nothing to an abstraction they often confuse themselves. They lead to strange questions such as does nothingness contain nothing? Is nothing really something? It is a very confusing term and concept, like infinity. So I can understand if it takes a step or two for us to find an agreement. Nothing is a relative term. It stands only in relation to other pointsites of our dialogue. For instance, if existence is the "default state" and by such you mean that something has always existed? Then I were to ask, what existed before that....you would have to answer nothing. Hence nothing existed before something must be true. There is really no way around this simple fact. It is a logical deduction that we can't escape.

What you are trying to suggest is that thereally was never a time when something did not exist. Now that may be true. But that still leaves us with the simple deduction, supposing you are correct, that nothing existed before that.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

There, this is the list at the top of every page of Religiousforums.com:

• Watched Threads
• Recent Posts
• New Posts
• New Watched Posts

You see, alerting a poster could be useless if a poster does not care to continue the interaction with another poster, or will no longer contribute in a thread.

While I understand what you are saying, and I do check on the threads, alerting me is very helpful. Especially if the thread progresses and there are many pages between which the reply was sandwiched.

Carry on as you will, but know that it is helpful and I appreciate when you tag or reply to my actual post as I appreciate the notifications.

 

[Sanmario]

@Jeremiahcp


"This thread is not about the possibility of God, I am not saying God is not possible. This thread is about probability and why we can't use it to determine if God exist."

Well, which comes first, possibility of an event or probability of an event?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George

You say: "That is a non sequitur. If we are going to have a logical discussion using logical reasoning we should not stray from such a path."

What is not a non-sequiture statement in my post?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, which comes first, possibility of an event or probability of an event?

Could be either.....
If P=0, then the probability comes first.
If P>0, then possibility comes first.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George

You say: "That is a non sequitur. If we are going to have a logical discussion using logical reasoning we should not stray from such a path."

What is not a non-sequiture statement in my post?

Any premise

 

[Sanmario]

When a thing even in concept alone is not possible to exist, like for example a non-circular circle, then there cannot be any probability of it existing at all, no matter that we can think about it in a way in our mind.

Now, this thread has the title Probability of God's Existence, it assumes that God can exist, so we must ask ourselves when and where does God exist?

This brings in the question of our concept of God.

That is why the author of the thread should state his concept of God, to justify his title: Probability of God's Existence, and then make things clear, whatever he wants to make clear; but he cannot dispense himself from presenting his concept of God, no matter that he keeps insisting that people can't read, on the other hand, he is editing his OP time and again.

Could be either.....
If P=0, then the probability comes first.
If P>0, then possibility comes first.

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George


Any premise?

Let you just choose what you want to present even any premise you read in my post, okay?

Which you take to be a non-sequitur - to what?

Any premise

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George


Any premise?

Let you just choose what you want to present even any premise you read in my post, okay?

Which you take to be a non-sequitur - to what?

The default status of the totality of reality is existence. Is the premise

Your conclusion that this implies:

that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Is the non-sequitur.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear readers here, I will return later to see whether there are any reactions to my thinking here so far, in this thread with the title, Probability of God's Existence.

The author says he doesn't call God a Flying Spaghetti Monster, please see Annex below, the line in bold from me.

I am glad that the author sees his OP to be in need of editing, although he tells us at the start of the OP, "OK this needs to be cleared up."

OK this needs to be cleared up.

Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. A random event in this context is random [etc.].

Wednesday at 6:14 AM Last edited: Wednesday at 10:01 AM

Annex

"You see, and forgive me or forbear with me, don't you see that you must have a concept of God, to ask about the probability of God existing or not existing: otherwise I can't see you to be talking logically."

I didn't ask about the probability of God, I explained how probability works, you could stick the Flying Spaghetti Monster in for God and it would still be the same.

Sanmario said: ↑

Dear Jeremi, if I may, when you ask what is the probability of bird's poop landing on your head as you stroll in a park, you do have a concept of bird's poop.

You see, and forgive me or forbear with me, don't you see that you must have a concept of God, to ask about the probability of God existing or not existing: otherwise I can't see you to be talking logically.

And also the person taking the task to exchange thoughts with you on the probability of God existing or not, he must also have a concept of God.

What I want to tell you that anyone taking the care to to talk with you at all about probability of God existing, both sides must have the same concept of God.

Just as both sides talking about the probability of bird's poop landing on a person's head.

So also with the question on which side a twirling coin will land on.

I like very much to exchange thoughts with you further; please, can we keep to logic as we talk about the probability of God existing?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

When a thing even in concept alone is not possible to exist, like for example a non-circular circle, then there cannot be any probability of it existing at all, no matter that we can think about it in a way in our mind.

Now, this thread has the title Probability of God's Existence, it assumes that God can exist, so we must ask ourselves when and where does God exist?

This brings in the question of our concept of God.

That is why the author of the thread should state his concept of God, to justify his title: Probability of God's Existence, and then make things clear, whatever he wants to make clear; but he cannot dispense himself from presenting his concept of God, no matter that he keeps insisting that people can't read, on the other hand, he is editing his OP time and again.

"Now, this thread has the title Probability of God's Existence, it assumes that God can exist, so we must ask ourselves when and where does God exist?"

Ya no, that is wrong. See the title is meant to be taken in context with the OP (that is typically how titles work), which clarifies that probability can make no valid assumptions on God's existence.

"editing his OP time and again."

I edited it last Tuesday, the same day I created the thread. I edited it for grammatical errors. If you could read you'd have seen the time stamps.

I am gonna go back to studying real statistics and let you go back to pretending you know everything.

 

[Sanmario]

The default status of the totality of reality is existence. Is the premise

Your conclusion that this implies:

Sanmario said: ↑
that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
​

Is the non-sequitur.

Well, we can work together so that you will see it follows from the default status with things in the totality of reality is existence.

Existence is of ultimately two kinds:
a. Permanent existence
b. Transient existence

It follows that things of transient existence are brought to existence by a thing in permanent existence.

Do you follow me, dear Curious George?