If I understand you correctly, the number (12% or any other) does not matter, but what matters is that there is equal probability that God exists or not. Is it what you mean?

Ok.move on then let see where you are heading at. But know already that your reasoning is flawed on many accounts. For the sake of fluidity, make your point first before I can make my observations. After all, something good can emerge even if your methodic is questionable.

LoJ:
If I understand you correctly, the number (12% or any other) does not matter, but what matters is that there is equal probability that God exists or not. Is it what you mean?

Ok.move on then let see where you are heading at. But know already that your reasoning is flawed on many accounts. For the sake of fluidity, make your point first before I can make my observations. After all, something good can emerge even if your methodic is questionable.

i am very pleased you understand , and at least you are not dragging me back. We are not working with percantage but with equality...

And in the case of my reasons be flawed, that should be expected, i am not here to make a flawless assertion (i dont even have it ) but come up with reasons and causes that will force both the left and right side of our brain into work. So that we can question our initial point of veiw.

vaxx:
i am very pleased you understand , and at least you are not dragging me back. We are not working with percantage but with equality...

And in the case of my reasons be flawed, that should be expected, i am not here to make a flawless assertion (i dont even have it ) but come up with reasons and causes that will force both the left and right side of our brain into work. So that we can question our initial point of veiw.

I did not say your reasons are flawed, but your reasoning meaning your methodology.

As long as you want to use statistics to prove anything let alone the existence of any god, you have to use sound methodology. Science is a rigorous discipline and the way to a solution is more important than the solution itself. I will Make my observations about the problems with your use of probability later as I indicated that I await your conclusion first.

That said I did not question your beliefs or reasons, nor their validity. At least not Yet.

budaatum:

I don't think I need to come up with my own figures since I do not agree that the existence of gods have anything whatsoever to do with dice throwing or the flip of a coin. I'm just amused at how you came to the conclusion that the probability that it exists is 12% (or 12.5%, to be precise), which you got by deciding to throw your dice (or is it coin flipping?) only so many times.

You yourself said you are playing with figures.


The rules of your game however are in no way clear, as I've already mentioned. Seems like you make it up as you go along! More like a one person game.

But since you ask, let's use figures you already provided.

So, go on, imagine!
Is the probability that god exists now 0.5%?

i realise you update this quote after loj checked in. So my guess was right. Lol

But anyway learn from loj. He seems to have the understanding

vaxx:
i realise you update this quote after loj checked in. So my guess was right. Lol

But anyway learn from loj. He seems to have the understanding

I would greatly appreciate if you avoid to include me I your personal issues with Buda. I have observed that both of you seems to have a personal beef which surfaces on various threads here.

I however do not believe it is necessary nor useful to be petty in order to pass one's points across. I respect people's right to disagree with me on that, but I beseech you to kindly avoid mentioning me in you people's side attacks.

LoJ:

I did not say your reasons are flawed, but your reasoning meaning your methodology.

As long as you want to use statistics to prove anything let alone the existence of any god, you have to use sound methodology. Science is a rigorous discipline and the way to a solution is more important than the solution itself. I will Make my observations about the problems with your use of probability later as I indicated that I await your conclusion first.

That said I did not question your beliefs or reasons, nor their validity. At least not Yet.

ok, i will be waiting.

All methodology i have used so far were explained and the ones i will be picking up again will be exolained. So it will not look like i am making things up myself. And the topic is not to ascertain God existence but to prove his probability..

I understand the importance of statistics in mathematics modelling and i know the limit to this current work.


I shall continue soon....

LoJ:

I would greatly appreciate if you avoid to include me I your personal issues with Buda. I have observed that both of you seems to have a personal beef which surfaces on various threads here.

I however do not believe it is necessary nor useful to be petty in order to pass one's points across. I respect people's right to disagree with me on that, but I beseech you to kindly avoid mentioning me in you people's side attacks.

ok, objection sustained. Maybe when you technically look at it from open side, you will realised why your name is mention. And stop the assumption, i personally had no beef with anyone.

LordReed:


My understanding is the big bang is the event that set our universe into motion. What came before the event is unknown as at this time.

what created the big bang?

Godsfavour78:
what created the big bang?

Conditions before the Big Bang made it possible for it to occur. What those conditions were, we don't know.

LordReed:


Conditions before the Big Bang made it possible for it to occur. What those conditions were, we don't know.

fasle, The Big Bang doesn’t exist and it never existed, nor do cosmologists believe it to have existed.The Big Bang is a point in time defined by mathematical extrapolation.

The Big Bang being 14 billion years ago tells us that something has to have changed by that point in time. And it is this something that become a mystery to science and might not be detected by science.

The only understanding we have scientifically is they are all process that spring forth another process.

So there is no “point” where the Big Bang was, it was always an extended volume of space.

Godsfavour78:
what created the big bang?

big bang was a point in time.

vaxx:
fasle, The Big Bang doesn’t exist and it never existed, nor do cosmologists believe it to have existed.The Big Bang is a point in time defined by mathematical extrapolation.

The Big Bang being 14 billion years ago tells us that something has to have changed by that point in time. And it is this something that become a mystery to science and might not be detected by science.

The only understanding we have scientifically is they are all process that spring forth another process.

So there is no “point” where the Big Bang was, it was always an extended volume of space. The Big Bang being 14 billion years ago tells us that something has to have changed by that point in time.
.

There is no animal called hare, there is an just an animal with scientific name Lepus timidus.

Godsfavour78:
what created the big bang?

Conditions that favoured a big bang created the big bang

RuthlessLeader:

Conditions that favoured a big bang created the big bang

what where the conditions

LordReed:


There is no animal called hare, there is an just an animal with scientific name Lepus timidus.

i actually understand your logic, though it is even false.

The name "Big Bang" was inadvertently coined by Fred Hoyle in 1949 on a radio show - who was mocking the idea.

“Before the Big Bang” would be, by definition, outside of our universe. Where there is no universe, no time, no causes or effects, not even sounds made by sheets .The very concept does not exist, so do not try to imagine its properties.. it is not even scienctifc. Nothingness cannot birth somethingness


This is where i will advice you to discard your intuition in favour of mathematics rigour.

vaxx:

The name "Big Bang" was inadvertently coined by Fred Hoyle in 1949 on a radio show - who was mocking the ideea.

One should be very mindful of Fred Hoyle.

"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".
A MILE OR TWO OFF YARMOUTH

vaxx:
i actually understand your logic, though it is even false.

The name "Big Bang" was inadvertently coined by Fred Hoyle in 1949 on a radio show - who was mocking the idea.

“Before the Big Bang” would be, by definition, outside of our universe. Where there is no universe, no time, no causes or effects, not even sounds made by sheets .The very concept does not exist, so do not try to imagine its properties.. it is not even scienctifc. Nothingness cannot birth somethingness


This is where i will advice you to discard your intuition in favour of mathematics rigour.

LoL! You are merely repeating what you said previously without realising you are arguing with yourself. That I used the popular name for the event is for illustrative purpose. Neither did you negate what I said, we don't know what came before the event. Calling it nothing means you know what it is.

Your pedantry is unnecessary.

LordReed:


LoL! You are merely repeating what you said previously without realising you are arguing with yourself. That I used the popular name for the event is for illustrative purpose. Neither did you negate what I said, we don't know what came before the event. Calling it nothing means you know what it is.

Your pedantry is unnecessary.

i think it is neccasry because of your preconsive notion that there is some existing condition before the the big bang. Which make it sound as if the big bang was created.

Regarding the hotchpotch attempt of the op to prove a thinly veiled Kalām cosmological argument of an Aristotelianistic unmoved mover, Al-Kindi wrote that:

"According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."

And Muhammad Iqbal stated:

"A finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."

These are two criticisms which have been raised in this thread but which the op wishes to, without valid reason, set aside. Still, one commends the op for the data provided.

vaxx:
i think it is neccasry because of your preconsive notion that there is some existing condition before the the big bang. Which make it sound as if the big bang was created.

Why is simple English not enough for you? We don't know.

LordReed:


Why is simple English not enough for you? We don't know.

i think you shoot yourself and you don't want to admit it after calling you to attention. Anyway save it.

vaxx:
i think you shoot yourself and you don't want to admit it after calling you to attention. Anyway save it.

Shoot myself how? I have always said we don't know so what are you on about?

budaatum:
Regarding the hotchpotch attempt of the op to prove a thinly veiled Kalām cosmological argument of an Aristotelianistic unmoved mover, Al-Kindi wrote that:

"According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."

And Muhammad Iqbal stated:

"A finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."

These are two criticisms which have been raised in this thread but which the op wishes to, without valid reason, set aside. Still, one commends the op for the data provided.

can you provide links to where this study was taken from. We need to criticised it and value it.

vaxx:
can you provide links to where this study was taken from. We need to criticised it and value it.

Links are in the post! And, as you would say, "Google is your friend".

vaxx:
Our nairaland mathematicians whatsup?

Since both equation prove non exclusive....

Let's apply "" epistemic probability"" to further balance this equation. ( henceforth EP)

But before then, i think we should know how EP work?
EP takes two compatible forms. In its first form, it deals with how we can determine the degree of confidence in a proposition, increasing from zero to one as their attitude goes from almost total disbelief to near certanity.

This kind of Ep is called credence, degree of belief, or subjective probability. The propositional attitude you get when you attach a subjective probability to a proposition .

Its second form, is associated most often with the term logical probability, here Ep determines the impact of a piece or pieces of evidence on a proposition. As such, it may not have the structure of a probability distribution, but it is related to a probability distribution in some straightforward way.

There is a foundational dispute between the proponents of the two forms of epistemic probability. It is not for existence but for primacy: the question is which of the two kinds of epistemic probability is the more epistemologically basic.


Now that we have gotten the basic fundamental of the this EP and how it works? I will like to know which of this will be more sufficient to use to validate our equations? ( i mean that will conform to knowledge)And at the same time give us the consequence of not using the other one . ""We have to be fair I think"".

I await your impressive answer before I continue.....


To those of us who may wish to learn more........


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations

And it continue;

since there is no objective evidence at all, we must set our subjective probabilities for both a and B. its negation equal to their respective degrees of entailment by the tautologies. But it is will make ni mathematical sensr to set both subjective probabilities to zero—it is not because i am certain that neither a nor B negation is true, since one of the two must be true. So the complete lack of evidence would be better represented by setting both subjective probabilities to intermediate values, say one half which had been presented mathematically.

Hence i choose The logical probability in endorsing this assumptions . Logical probability ĺimplicitly asserts that the empty set of evidence, or the set of tautologies, entails both a and its negation to degree one half. Although its subject matter is the bearing of evidence on hypotheses, then, logical probability theory itself having to take a position on what we should believe when there is no evidence (under the guise of the question of the tautologies' partial entailments). To answer this question, we need to turned to the principle of indifference, which recommends that when there is no evidence favoring one of several mutually exclusive possibilities over others, the available probability be equally distributed among them. And in our case , our possibilities are equal which means they are not mutually exclusive.

budaatum:

Links are in the post! And, as you would say, "Google is your friend".

The links posted are not directed to the wrriting in red.
If you know you can't provide the links,then we should take it as one of the ways you want to distract us from knowledge.


Beware of false knowledge as it is more dangerous than ignorance........

vaxx:
And it continue; since there is no objective evidence at all, we must set our subjective probabilities for both a and B. its negation equal to their respective degrees of entailment by the tautologies. But it is will make ni mathematical sensr to set both subjective probabilities to zero—it is not because i am certain that neither a nor B negation is true, since one of the two must be true. So the complete lack of evidence would be better represented by setting both subjective probabilities to intermediate values, say one half which had been presented mathematically.

Hence i choose The logical probability in endorsing this assumptions . Logical probability ĺimplicitly asserts that the empty set of evidence, or the set of tautologies, entails both a and its negation to degree one half. Although its subject matter is the bearing of evidence on hypotheses, then, logical probability theory itself having to take a position on what we should believe when there is no evidence (under the guise of the question of the tautologies' partial entailments). To answer this question, we need to turned to the principle of indifference, which recommends that when there is no evidence favoring one of several mutually exclusive possibilities over others, the available probability be equally distributed among them. And in our case , our possibilities are equal which means they are not mutually exclusive.

we are going to use joint probability of distribution.

In events which aren't mutually exclusive, means there is some overlap. When P(A) and P(B) are added, the probability of the intersection (and) is added twice. To compensate for that double addition, the intersection then needs to be subtracted.

So the General Addition Rule

Always valid.
P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B intersection needs not to be subtracted.


Since i have been acqused of providing figure on my own. can anybody suggest one so we can use it to demonstrate our table?

Godsfavour78:
what where the conditions

Don't know.

vaxx:
The links posted are not directed to the wrriting in red.
If you know you can't provide the links,then we should take it as one of the ways you want to distract us from knowledge.


Beware of false knowledge as it is more dangerous than ignorance........

I'm beginning to think you are unwell! Or why would I be lying about a thing as obvious as that?! Do you think we are all like you or something?

I've put the links to the location of the quotes in bold. But knowing what you're like, here's a snapshot too. I'm very certain that even after you find it there, you'd be coming up with some other lame excuse!

budaatum:
Regarding the hotchpotch attempt of the op to prove a thinly veiled Kalām cosmological argument of an Aristotelianistic unmoved mover, Al-Kindi wrote that:

"According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."

And Muhammad Iqbal stated:

"A finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."

These are two criticisms which have been raised in this thread but which the op wishes to, without valid reason, set aside. Still, one commends the op for the data provided.

budaatum:

I'm beginning to think you are unwell! Or why would I be lying about a thing as obvious as that?! Do you think we are all like you or something?

I've put the links to the location of the quotes in bold. But knowing what you're like, here's a snapshot too. I'm very certain that even after you find it there, you'd be coming up with some other lame excuse!

Stop generalizing, only you is in this mess. You pull out too much fallacy and i need to be very careful of where you get those information being the type of dude you are. Remmeber you once pull out one non comprehensive regulated sites with me( allaboutphilosophy) you become petty when i challenge
It

Notwithstanding you still disappoint me, it seems you only read what suit you from the thread and avoid the challenge or shouild i say it is lack of understanding.


That links really open the bubbles if only you read cleverly

As i said false knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance


I am tempted to say you do not go thru this link below, if not, you will not come with this excuse or perhaps you do, but you read out of context as usual .

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

budaatum:
With one correction.

The first quote was Al-Ghazali responding to Al-Kindi's first-cause arguments.

Al ghazali is committing zeno paradox


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ParMot