Two proofs of God and the revision of Freedom of Thoughts

[questfortruth]

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

 

[Altfish]

I must have missed that lesson.

 

[YmirGF]

I must have missed that lesson.

I was nodding all the way up to "Jesse Hoey". Say what?

 

[Cacotopia]

homicide is the lesser of two evils the latter being genocide on a global scale, which god is the master of. If you go through the bible, Satan kills 3 people, god on the other hand, kills hundreds of millions of people and possibly 100's of billions of creatures. 'But it's god,' you will say, and he couldn't be a tyrant no matter what god does. Even if it is causing the deaths of an innumerable amount of people and non-sentient organisms.

I feel like some of you are in an eternal relationship with an extremely violent spouse that says he/she loves you every time they beat you into a bloody pulp, but no matter how badly you are beaten you never leave their side.

There is no amount of violence they can commit that would convince you that this is not a good relationship to be in.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

We’re you trying to reference this [1206.6752v1] God exists with probability 1/(H+1) ? It seems fundamentally flawed to me since it is clearly based on a whole load of unstated assumptions about the nature of God, essentially the writers interpretation of Christianity.

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.

That starts with a huge “If”. Also, the “God in your room” isn’t the same concept as “An omnipresent God” so the combination of possibilities is invalid. If an omniscient God existed it would indeed know about its own existence but that’s another big and open “If”.

I’d argue that omniscient is logically impossible since every bit of knowledge would require an additional bit of knowledge about itself and on to infinity. It’d be like counting the number of lines on a piece of paper using tally marks on the same piece of paper.

God is fighting the injustice and tyranny.

Is he? You’ve just be talking about proving raw existence of some kind of omnipresent, omniscient god so far. Where does the idea of these very specific characteristics come from?

 

[questfortruth]

satan kills 3 people,

How do you justify that? I have changed the text, from "Satan" to "satan", because he is Absolute Nothing in Philosophy.

 

[questfortruth]

That starts with a huge “If”. Also, the “God in your room” isn’t the same concept as “An omnipresent God” so the combination of possibilities is invalid.

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

every bit of knowledge would require an additional bit of knowledge about itself and on to infinity.

How come, that scientific papers have finite size?

 

[Cacotopia]

How do you justify that? I have changed the text, from "Satan" to "satan", because he is Absolute Nothing in Philosophy.

that's your opinion which is just as worthless as mine is.

 

[questfortruth]

as worthless as mine is.

That is music in God's mind: athesim is nonsense.

 

[David T]

We’re you trying to reference this [1206.6752v1] God exists with probability 1/(H+1) ? It seems fundamentally flawed to me since it is clearly based on a whole load of unstated assumptions about the nature of God, essentially the writers interpretation of Christianity.

That starts with a huge “If”. Also, the “God in your room” isn’t the same concept as “An omnipresent God” so the combination of possibilities is invalid. If an omniscient God existed it would indeed know about its own existence but that’s another big and open “If”.

I’d argue that omniscient is logically impossible since every bit of knowledge would require an additional bit of knowledge about itself and on to infinity. It’d be like counting the number of lines on a piece of paper using tally marks on the same piece of paper.

Is he? You’ve just be talking about proving raw existence of some kind of omnipresent, omniscient god so far. Where does the idea of these very specific characteristics come from?

Psychologically speaking we typically blend our experience of the world and our abstractions of the world into a mixed narrative. You can see that fallacy a lot in science as much as religion. So the original post really is just that.

"The universe cannot be read until we have learnt the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word."
Opere Il Saggiatore

The above quote is a statement of a deeply confused individual to say the least, Not unlike the original post. We call that confusion " normal" the quote is by someone rather famous. He is treating math identical to how we tend to treat language.

 

[questfortruth]

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

And the methodological naturalism in "apostasy science" has led the Christian Civilization to the Absolute Solipsism: ``Michio Kaku: ''We Should Not Be Able To Exist!''

 

[questfortruth]

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.

 

[Cacotopia]

That is music in God's mind: athesim is nonsense.

And talking snakes, zombie hippies walking on water, global floods and a 600 year old drunkard with a lisp building a boat to house the entire planet's animal population, and dude's living inside of fish's stomachs isn't.

Cool story bro.

 

[questfortruth]

And talking snakes, zombie hippies walking on water, global floods and a 600 year old drunkard with a lisp building a boat to house the entire planet's animal population, and dude's living inside of fish's stomachs isn't.

Cool story bro.

Look the web-site creation.com, it studies Biblical wonders with Technical Science. Also the
robert j. spitzer - YouTube

 

[Skwim]

Look the web-site creation.com, it studies Biblical wonders with Technical Science. Also the
robert j. spitzer - YouTube

Hate to tell you this (actually I don't), but you're one lost soul, questfortruth. Believing that Creation.com has anything worthy of anyone's time can only come down to a need to shore up your ill-conceived biases. It's creationist claims are silly, self-serving claptrap born of both lies and ignorance. Do yourself a favor and look into the reasons informed, rational people reject the whole creationist carnival. I suggest you start with TalkOrigins or Smithsonian's Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer

.

 

[questfortruth]

Do yourself a favor and look into the reasons informed, rational people reject the whole creationist carnival. I suggest you start with TalkOrigins or Smithsonian's Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer

.

All variety of Gods are reducible to just two: God of Truth and idol of atheism, therefore there are two alternative Sciences (Young Earth Creation Science and Darwinism), two alternative morals [historically the left and right politician wings before the right wing got mixed with left ideology, fanatism, heretic-ism, indifference towards religions, and confusion], and two alternative definitions of faith, look in 2018 Wikipedia:

{In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief,[1] within which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant,[2][3] in contrast to a definition of faith as being belief without evidence.[4]}

One can shorten this definition: Faith is Faithful-ness to Knowledge.

 

[Cacotopia]

I prefer to stay on the knowledge end of the spectrum rather than the blind shackled mind side.

 

[Skwim]

All variety of Gods are reducible to just two: God of Truth and idol of atheism, therefore there are two alternative Sciences (Young Earth Creation Science and Darwinism), two alternative morals [historically the left and right politician wings before the right wing got mixed with left ideology, fanatism, heretic-ism, indifference towards religions, and confusion], and two alternative definitions of faith, look in 2018 Wikipedia:

Not a bad run-on sentence---and it really doesn't end at this point either, (ugh!)---but horrible premises. First of all, how do you come up with the novel idea that atheism has an idol, and that this idol is a god? And whatever this reason is, why does it necessarily lead you to conclude that "there are two alternative Sciences (Young Earth Creation Science and Darwinism)" Hell, what leads to conclude that your so-called "Young Earth Creation Science" is any kind of science in the first place, because you put "science" in its name?

I'll stop here because I think answering these questions is challenge enough without going on to the irrelevancy in the rest of your comment. Although, what you've said about faith is interesting, in an odd sort of way.

.

 

[questfortruth]

Not a bad run-on sentence---and it really doesn't end at this point either, (ugh!)---but horrible premises. First of all, how do you come up with the novel idea that atheism has an idol, and that this idol is a god?
.

Atheism: 1. talks about gods, 2. is unscientific. So, it is pseudo-religion.

 

[Skwim]

Atheism: 1. talks about gods, 2. is unscientific. So, it is pseudo-religion.

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.

Interesting because I've never heard of Christianity of any stripe, or any religion for that matter, that follows the scientific method. All of which has piqued my interest. What experiments or empirical observations based on its predictions does Christianity carry out?
.
Added to note that given there was enough time to reply to the notification of my response here (at least five minutes), questfortuth suddenly left the building. And I suspect she's not going to be back.

.


.