Two proofs of God and the revision of Freedom of Thoughts

[questfortruth]

Not what I asked you, but if this is your best answer . . . . . . .

I assume therefore that your Christianity is not a pseudo religion because, although like atheism it talks about a god, it's also scientific. Meaning that it follows the scientific method, which involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.
.

The methods of Theology include the methods of technical sciences (however in critical revision: look the file attached. As example, the scientists have investigated the famous Church Wonders, which are happening in our days) and much more: the methods of Theology include reading Holy Scripture and following the divine wisdom of Church Fathers; Church Sacraments, and Praying to clean the mind:

 

[Skwim]

The methods of Theology include the methods of technical sciences (however in critical revision: look the file attached. As example, the scientists have investigated the famous Church Wonders, which are happening in our days) and much more:

This is not a method of theology, theology being the study of the nature of God and religious beliefs. In the examples you have given the procedures amount to nothing more than a religion asking others to use the physical tools of science to determine the nature of a particular object or event. As I pointed out, to incorporate science into a religion, the religion itself would have to (1) make conjectures (hypotheses), (2) derive predictions from them as logical consequences, and (3) then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

It appears that not only do you not understand what science is, but you don't understand what theology is as well.

.

 

[HonestJoe]

Probable Omnipresent God MUST exist. To avoid it atheists give absolute zero probability of God in my room: atheism is groundless denial of theism.

Again, the proposal of a god in your room is not the same as the proposal of an omnipresent god. There’s a floor in every room but that doesn’t mean there is a single omnipresent floor.

Also, let’s not forget your predicate of “If an omnipresent god can exist”. If you can’t support that, the rest is pointless regardless.

How come, that scientific papers have finite size?

Because they don’t contain anything close to all knowledge.

 

[questfortruth]

This is not a method of theology, theology being the study of the nature of God and religious beliefs. In the examples you have given the procedures amount to nothing more than a religion asking others to use the physical tools of science to determine the nature of a particular object or event. As I pointed out, to incorporate science into a religion, the religion itself would have to (1) make conjectures (hypotheses), (2) derive predictions from them as logical consequences, and (3) then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

It appears that not only do you not understand what science is, but you don't understand what theology is as well.

.

You are just so liking the godless nonsense. That is why you dislike my paper. Look: Theology uses the Technical Science, latter uses the Methodology. Conclusion: Theology uses Methodology.

 

[Skwim]

You are just so liking the godless nonsense. That is why you dislike my paper.

What paper?

Look: Theology uses the Technical Science, latter uses the Methodology. Conclusion: Theology uses Methodology.

I disagree, but as long as my reasoning for why I do is unacceptable there's no reason to continue this discussion.

Have a good day.

,

 

[questfortruth]

Again, the proposal of a god in your room is not the same as the proposal of an omnipresent god.

If there is "no God" in my room, then there is "no" Omnipresent God. The Omnipresent God must be present in any room and time.

 

[questfortruth]

What paper?


I disagree, but as long as my reasoning for why I do is unacceptable there's no reason to continue this discussion.

Have a good day.

,

Haven't you watched the video how science (Steven H.) meets religion (pope)?

 

[Skwim]

Haven't you watched the video how science (Steven H.) meets religion (pope)?

What paper?

.

 

[questfortruth]

What paper?

.

the file is in the beginning of the thread

 

[HonestJoe]

If there is "no God" in my room, then there is "no" Omnipresent God. The Omnipresent God must be present in any room and time.

Correct, but if there is a god in your room, that isn’t necessarily an omnipresent god; they’re two separate propositions with two separate odds. Also, since the omnipresent god must be in every room, your odds combine as “AND” rather than “OR” so get infinitesimally smaller with each room counted. If anything, you’d demonstrate than an omnipresent god is almost impossible. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

[questfortruth]

since the omnipresent god must be in every room, your odds combine as “AND” rather than “OR” so get infinitesimally smaller with each room counted. If anything, you’d demonstrate than an omnipresent god is almost impossible.

If there are N rooms with probability p of God in a room, then probability of God in all rooms is not simply p^N, because the simple multiplication would be applicable, if the events are independent: the probability of god is independent from number of rooms. But the logic is following: look for God in different rooms, in one of the rooms you will find Him, because probability to find God is non-zero. But because the God is omnipresent, He exists in every room.

 

[HonestJoe]

But the logic is following: look for God in different rooms, in one of the rooms you will find Him, because probability to find God is non-zero. But because the God is omnipresent, He exists in every room.

Your immediate issue here is lazy language. The “god of a room” is an entirely different concept to the “omnipotent god”. Simply using the same word for them doesn’t change that in any way and logically proving the existence of one would not prove the existence of the other.

 

[Skwim]

the file is in the beginning of the thread

I see.

In answer to your comment, "You are just so liking the godless nonsense. That is why you dislike my paper."
No, I dislike your paper because it's poorly constructed and written, and almost unreadable. In fact, so poorly written that it's obvious English is not your primary language, which should have told you that it would be wise to get it edited by someone fluent in English. But aside from this, many of your statements are simply irrelevant and incoherent (to put it nicely) and have no place in a paper purporting to be an abstract that "unites Religion and Science." (And I suggest you look up the meaning of "abstract.")

For instance, what is a remark such as "Anyone, who groundlessly disagrees with a proof (or publiclydoubts it; what ever proof, like in mathematics) is the liar" doing in an an abstract on the methodology of science? Frankly, this is just stupid. Or your incoherent, "We know God's True objective opinions through the conscience, latter anyone (including atheists) has, because the God of Absolute Truth is telling him, that, e.g., 2 + 2 = 4."

To say nothing about including a picture of yourself.

Honestly, questfortruth, I doubt you ever went to the University of Tartu, or any university for that matter.


.

 

[questfortruth]

Frankly, this is just stupid. Or your incoherent,
To say nothing about including a picture of yourself.

Honestly, questfortruth, I doubt you ever went to the University of Tartu, or any university.
.

O! Atheists got angry. Well, soon I will be banned.

 

[ChristineM]

Look: Jesse Hoey, God exists with probability 1/(H+1), arXiv:1206.6752 [physics.hist-ph].

If Omnipresent God can exist. then He exists: the nonzero probability of God in my room is added by all number of rooms (because God is omnipresent), so His probability is 100%. Because Omniscient God must know about own existence, then God exists.

God is fighting the injustice and tyranny. So, not all ideas of human must be protected by ``freedom of thought'' law, e.g. fascism must be oppressed. The freedom of thought is simply own patience, hope, and suffering (``for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard'' 2 Peter 2:8), which is the Church blessed Love to mental patients.
God is a sovereign King, but not a tyrant. Tyranny, by definition, is satan’s “reign” with the goal of -- homicide:
"So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water." Matthew 8:32

The paper misses out the crucial bit out about how it was shown that omnipresence was a factor then i read

man cannot simultaneously be (i) rational and (ii) believe that an infinitely powerful God exists.


And i thought Ahh!!!

 

[questfortruth]

The paper misses out the crucial bit out about how it was shown that omnipresence was a factor then i read

man cannot simultaneously be (i) rational and (ii) believe that an infinitely powerful God exists.


And i thought Ahh!!!

That is not quote from the file. Why to lie?

 

[ChristineM]

That is not quote from the file. Why to lie?

It is a quote from the arxiv synopsis you quoted

God exists with probability 1/(H+1)
Jesse Hoey
(Submitted on 21 Jun 2012)
This note will address the issue of the existence of God from a game theoretic perspective. We will show that, under certain assumptions, man cannot simultaneously be (i) rational and (ii) believe that an infinitely powerful God exists. Game theory and decision theory have long been used to address this thorny question.
[1206.6752] God exists with probability 1/(H+1)

Now i suggest you apologize for claiming i lied

 

[questfortruth]

Now i suggest you apologize for claiming i lied

Fact: satan is liar.

 

[ChristineM]

Fact: satan is liar.

So why are you denying fact?
Fact, that is what your quote pointed to, dont blame me for your errors

 

[viole]

If Omnipresent God can exist. then He exists: the nonzero probability of God in my room is added by all number of rooms (because God is omnipresent), so His probability is 100%.
8:32

Let's address this first.

Suppose, for sake of discussion. that His probability to be in one room is 10%. According to your reasoning, then His probability to be in 20 rooms is 200%. Since this is absurd, because probabilities cannot be greater than 100%, then there is a flaw in your reasoning.

Where the flaw is, is left as a simple exercise to the reader.

Spoiler: Solution

Suppose you have n boxes and an event that can occur in boxes, with probability p.
If the event is such that its occurrence in a box entails its occurrence on all boxes then
if we call p(i) the probability that the event occurs in i boxes we have

1 = p(0) + p(1) + p(2) + .... + p(n) since these are all disjoint event and one of them must surely happen

But p(j) 1 <= j < n must be zero, because the premises rule out such an event (either it occurs in all boxes or none)

Therefore

1 = p(0) + p(n)

Therefore, the probability that the event occur is 1 - p(0) = p, which is obviously independent from the number of boxes.

To think otherwise, not only generates absurd results, but is logically fallacious. Like all so-called proofs of God, by the way.

Ciao

- viole