Statistical proof of God

[questfortruth]

Let us find probability of Omniscient being, called “God”. God must know own existence. Thus, among the available knowledge exists the knowledge of God's existence. Thus, the God exists with exact 100% probability.

This very good correlates with YEC calculation of the probability of Divine Creator:
much more than 100-(10^(-19)*100)=99,99999999999999999 %.
Source: Self-replicating enzymes? - creation.com

What can help you to repent? Follow my advise: DO NOT MODIFY THE PROOF, for satanic aim to make it sound ridiculous. It is the straw-man fallacy! If is written: “God must know own existence” then agree with that. Do not add the “IF God exists, then God must know own existence.” The latter is part of different proof (proof of contradiction, Wikipedia 2017), not mine statistical proof.

Analogously, the YEC has calculated the minimum probability of Divine Wonder of Life 99,99999999999999999 %, but not the ridiculous conditional probability: “the Creator exists with exact 100%, if the Creator exists.” Similar is the following madness: “What is probability of Life in Universe? It is 100%, because we are here.” Asked is not the conditional probability (condition - “we are here”). Latter is the Texas sharp shooter fallacy, do not fall into that madness while trying to “scientifically” kill Holy God in your soul: do not modify any of the proofs!

The papers in scientific sources dealing with fine-tuning of Universe, tell us, that there is extremely low probability (much less than that YEC for Earth: 100-99,99999999999999999=0.0000...), what our fundamental physical constants would produce any complex life inside our Universe. It is the “fine tuning” of the fundamental constants. So, the God-killers came up with infinite number of parallel universes – Multiverse. But in the string theory this Multiverse is in fact one gigantic Universe, which, thus, needs more fine fine-tuning. But suppose, that string theory is not correct, and there are infinite number of non-connected, independent Universes. How can we say, that they exists, if they are non-connected and totally isolated: the science in our Universe will never detect another universe? They exist only if there is True God -Holy Spirit-, who exists also outside space and time between them, thus, He can detect them both. Moreover, a place with different constants will change the Metrology Instruments (thermometer, meter, voltmeter, etc.), thus, they will become ruined. But the Nature is what the Instruments are measuring, and Instruments is what measures the Nature. Therefore, there are no parallel universes, which would have provided (for the True God) the infinite casual choice of the fundamental constants.

These considerations are fully scientific. But they contradict the “scientific” method called “methodological atheism”. According to it any proofs of divine inside the top Scientific Journals are forbidden. Any discussions of divine are forbidden. Any reasoning using Church matters in CNN NEWS is strongly forbidden. Even Donald Trump shames to talk quoting Holy Commandments in his tweets. State and Church separation (in England it is non-official separation, because they have killed own God blessed King) is in fact the atheism: “God exists only in Holy Church buildings.”
Atheism is total solipsism, because reality (and Existence) is defined as “all, that comes from Holy God.” Reality can not be defined by “all, that all see all times”, because of persistent mass-hallucinations. The German Nation has hallucinated (about 7 years?) of a criminal manipulator Adolf Hitler as their “Führer”. Therefore, the emptiness of solipsism fills in the Scientific community and the Social community: empty envy, empty wars, empty terror, empty trolling, empty unproven criticism, empty antipathy, empty ignorance, empty obscurantism, empty scientism, empty egoism, empty blaspheme, empty respect-less, empty authority-less, empty love-less, empty Verity-less, empty lies and info-wars, empty lie of Darwinism-Evolutionism, etc.

The cat is looking through the glass,
The emptiness approaches us,
It quiets any sound of pain,
The roof is hit by acid rain.
But don't you worry,
Dear mom,
I am your cat till Trumpet sound.

(the cat and window are in my profile photo)

 

[Sunstone]

God would not know of God's existence if God did not exist. Since that possibility exists (e.g. the possibility that God does not exist), the proof is unsatisfactory.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So somebody's imagination equates proof?

You imagine God, someone else imagines God, so therefore God exists?

And how in the world is probability even calculated ?

 

[Father]

if there is a multiverse and each universe has a different start and different compounds and rules. then there is a good likely hood of some having a God or omniscient being,

if an alien species of advanced technology possibly a Kardashev III civilization wished to run Simulations. for whatever reason. there is a good chance they would run many of them. so probably wise we are of the simulation. then the real thing.

so the probability of An omniscient being existing somewhere or at least Omniscient as in knowing everything of a Universe is absolute. there being one in this Universe, however, is a gamble.

 

[questfortruth]

Analogously, the YEC has calculated the minimum probability of Divine Wonder of Life 99,99999999999999999 %, but not the ridiculous conditional probability: “the Creator exists with exact 100%, if the Creator exists.” Similar is the following madness: “What is probability of Life in Universe? It is 100%, because we are here.” Asked is not the conditional probability (condition - “we are here”). Latter is the Texas sharp shooter fallacy, do not fall into that madness while trying to “scientifically” kill Holy God in your soul: do not modify any of the proofs!

 

[Father]

Analogously, the YEC has calculated the minimum probability of Divine Wonder of Life 99,99999999999999999 %, but not the ridiculous conditional probability: “the Creator exists with exact 100%, if the Creator exists.” Similar is the following madness: “What is probability of Life in Universe? It is 100%, because we are here.” Asked is not the conditional probability (condition - “we are here”). Latter is the Texas sharp shooter fallacy, do not fall into that madness while trying to “scientifically” kill Holy God in your soul: do not modify any of the proofs!

yes while everything is either a yes or no on the probability that is based on having all variables. for example rolling a die if you knew the temperature of the room the velocity and energy of the die and angle which its rolled. you could probably predict it 100% accurately. however since most Humans. I would say 99% of us lack the ability to even come close to analyzing all variables we have to break it down into 10-90% probabilities.
so for trying to conclude a God you may never get a 100% answer as you would need every variable. however, if you measure as many as you can you may be able to draw an answer. and even if you're wrong you cant really be faulted so long as you look at it like that

 

[questfortruth]

The papers in scientific sources dealing with fine-tuning of Universe, tell us, that there is extremely low probability (much less than that YEC for Earth: 100-99,99999999999999999=0.0000...), what our fundamental physical constants would produce any complex life inside our Universe. It is the “fine tuning” of the fundamental constants. So, the God-killers came up with infinite number of parallel universes – Multiverse. But in the string theory this Multiverse is in fact one gigantic Universe, which, thus, needs more fine fine-tuning. But suppose, that string theory is not correct, and there are infinite number of non-connected, independent Universes. How can we say, that they exists, if they are non-connected and totally isolated: the science in our Universe will never detect another universe? They exist only if there is True God -Holy Spirit-, who exists also outside space and time between them, thus, He can detect them both. Moreover, a place with different constants will change the Metrology Instruments (thermometer, meter, voltmeter, etc.), thus, they will become ruined. But the Nature is what the Instruments are measuring, and Instruments is what measures the Nature. Therefore, there are no parallel universes, which would have provided (for the True God) the infinite casual choice of the fundamental constants.

 

[zahra67]

SURA 1. AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING)

1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
2. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
3. The Beneficent, the Merciful.
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
6. Keep us on the right path.
7. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not [the path] of
those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

reciting of the chapter which i sent its translation for you, is obligatory in our five times daily prayers.

and in the next chapter of the holy Quran which i bring now, God introduces himself.

SURA 112. AL-IKHLAS (SINCERITY)
1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

2. Say: He, Allah, is One.
3. Allah is He on Whom all depend.
4. He begets not, nor is He begotten.
5. And none is like Him.

 

[blü 2]

Let us find probability of Omniscient being, called “God”. God must know own existence. Thus, among the available knowledge exists the knowledge of God's existence. Thus, the God exists with exact 100% probability.

First, 'God' is an arbitrary name for a hypothetical being that knows everything. It could as easily be called Buttface. So were your reasoning valid, you'd have shown only that a being called Buttface, exists, a being neither having nor needing theological overtones, just a very good source of information and a very good memory ─ think Wikipedia and Google and then some.

Your second proposition now reads, among the available knowledge exists the knowledge of Buttface's existence. But as Sunstone said as early as #2, that knowledge only exists if an omniscient being called Buttface exists; so unless Buttface exists, you have nothing.

And even if you produce Buttface for our inspection, you'll have to demonstrate that [he's] omniscient. What procedure do you have in mind for that demonstration?

I'd say the chance of success for your argument was extremely small, with the accent on 'extremely'.

And if you succeeded, all you'd have is an omniscient being called Buttface (or Buzz, or Lola, or whatever.)

No cigar.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some problems with the alleged probability analysis.....
- Doesn't take into account the mechanisms which generate various components of life.
- Doesn't take into account the number of trials over time.
- Misapplies the 2nd Law Of Thermodyamics. (Not the limitation the author believes it is.)

Beware writers using numbers & sciencey sounding words to give the appearance of science.

 

[Brickjectivity]

These searches to prove God's existence remind me of some things Jesus said which seem to suggest we oughtn't be searching for such proofs.

In Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that a wicked, adulterous generation looks for a sign. This could imply that trying to prove God's existence is itself a sign about our generation. Personally, I think we are a generation that looks for a sign and one that is way, way off the mark. I think we are all pretty much screwed in all of our denominations, just what I see. The main point is that I don't think there is such a sign of God's existence beyond the obedience of those who are faithful to the cause, and in our generation I do not see a lot of obedience. It makes sense to me that for this reason we (myself included) look for assurances of things we cannot see. It also reminds me of Hebrews 11:1 which says faith (I would use 'Faithfulness' here) is the assurance of things we cannot see. I think that must be what our generation is missing which drives us to this thirst to see evidence of God.

 

[questfortruth]

God would not know of God's existence if God did not exist. Since that possibility exists (e.g. the possibility that God does not exist), the proof is unsatisfactory.

A possibility exists, if it is non-zero. The zero of probability means, that there is no possibility.

 

[questfortruth]

So somebody's imagination equates proof?
?

Show me a scientist without imagination. The Science can not move forward without imagination.

 

[questfortruth]

1) First, 'God' is an arbitrary name for a hypothetical being that knows everything. It could as easily be called B. ....

2) Your second proposition now reads, among the available knowledge exists the knowledge of B's existence. But as Sunstone said as early as #2, that knowledge only exists if an omniscient being .... exists; so unless B exists, you have nothing.
...

1) So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "BF" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

2) Do not modify mine proof. Am using the statistical proof, not the "proof of contradition": I am not using word "if".

Is mine statistical proof a new proof of divine in the Theology?

 

[questfortruth]

..... It also reminds me of Hebrews 11:1 which says faith (I would use 'Faithfulness' here) is the assurance of things we cannot see. ....

This verse looks like talking about omnipresence of human mind through the faith in Omnipresent God, isn't it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Show me a scientist without imagination. The Science can not move forward without imagination.

Imagination does not affect hard data. I would say scientists are more curious than imaginative when it comes to unlocking mysteries and finding out truths in the quest of finding out how things really work.

 

[blü 2]

1) So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "BF" or "Pink Unicorn" instead.

Your words were -

Let us find probability of Omniscient being, called “God”.

That is, you imagine an "Omniscient being" and you arbitrarily assign the name "God" to it.

And I can with equal justification assign the name "Buttface" to it.

And whether I do or not, the being which you conjure up is (a) imaginary and (b) has no other qualities than omniscience.

You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

No, you did that. You could with equal relevance have called your imaginary creation "Buttface", or "Cowbell" or "Miriam" or "Alabama Tinkle" or whatever. The name would change nothing. The only thing you attribute to your imaginary being is "omniscience".

2) Do not modify mine proof. Am using the statistical proof, not the "proof of contradition": I am not using word "if".

Your argument can be put like this:

P1: A being exists in objective reality which has the quality of omniscience.
P2: This being is named "X".
C: X being omniscient knows that X exists.​

Since P1 is false, and P2 is irrelevant, your conclusion is false.

So on your argument the probability of X's existence is as close to zero as you like to take it.

All arguments for the existence of God are versions of the one argument, and yours is no exception:

Assume that "God" is a meaningful term and God has objective existence.

Therefore "God" is a meaningful term and God has objective existence.​

 

[osgart]

ive seen nothing that disproves an intelligent source for life myself. but I don't see many pursuing the intelligence we are made of.

by faith they have come to the conclusion that natural laws and chance account for the existence of life, and then they proceed from there. and they will get far, but than they will also come to circular reasoning.

so intelligent creation never gets the attention it deserves. when in simplicity it is a natural thing to infer.
turning a blind eye to it, makes this the endless sea of limitations, and this debate will go on forever. and nothing much will be won from it.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

These searches to prove God's existence remind me of some things Jesus said which seem to suggest we oughtn't be searching for such proofs.

In Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that a wicked, adulterous generation looks for a sign. This could imply that trying to prove God's existence is itself a sign about our generation. Personally, I think we are a generation that looks for a sign and one that is way, way off the mark. I think we are all pretty much screwed in all of our denominations, just what I see. The main point is that I don't think there is such a sign of God's existence beyond the obedience of those who are faithful to the cause, and in our generation I do not see a lot of obedience. It makes sense to me that for this reason we (myself included) look for assurances of things we cannot see. It also reminds me of Hebrews 11:1 which says faith (I would use 'Faithfulness' here) is the assurance of things we cannot see. I think that must be what our generation is missing which drives us to this thirst to see evidence of God.

Forget Godel, remember faith! (even tho' Kurt was a theist). With faith all things are possible, even a tiny bit of faith is a powerful thing, more powerful than a warp coil, or an obsolete fusion reaction. Just the amount of faith we could fit inside a mustard seeds singularity, which lies beyond the seeds event husk, even that infinite atemporal 'bit' can move a mountain!

; {>

 

[Brickjectivity]

Forget Godel, remember faith! (even tho' Kurt was a theist). With faith all things are possible, even a tiny bit of faith is a powerful thing, more powerful than a warp coil, or an obsolete fusion reaction. Just the amount of faith we could fit inside a mustard seeds singularity, which lies beyond the seeds event husk, even that infinite atemporal 'bit' can move a mountain!

; {>

Faithfulness. The meaning of the word 'Faith' has drifted since the days of KJV. The intent is faithfulness. Even a little faithfulness can move a mountain, but believing that things happen without faithfulness is a waste of time.