vaxx:
Have You ever traveled to the wall part of the universe where certainity is established?

What we have is parsimony of assumptions( at least using the occam razor which makes lot of sense)for example, Quantum mechanical world (waves) showed that equations are insufficient naturally observed phenomena at the level of atoms and bellow. It employed Schrodinger's equation and wave functions. Which will means This world is inaccessible to our common senses..though many cosmologists had attempted to demonstrate it but mostly due end up in borrowing idea from eastern cosmologists which is not entirely science.


Parsimony assumptions does not mean that we know this for sure. In fact, there really is no way of knowing. What is beyond the limits of the observable universe is, what We can logically assumed is there is a reasons why the universe behave as he does since it is not under any obligation to behave in such.

There is reasonable expectation that the further you are away from an event in time the less data you will be able to have about such an event. The confidence level of scientists based on the available evidence is expectedly not a 100% but here come people without a shred of evidence positing a 100% assurance that a god exists. A god who is unobserved and unobservable, untested and untestable. By the parsimonious assumptions you are referring to I see no reason to accept this god as a valid hypothesis, none at all.

Like i said nature is under no obligation, after all, to behave in a manner that we humans call reasonable.

But in our experience, Nature by and large does behave reasonably, and we might expect it to continue behaving reasonably even beyond the boundaries of the observable universe. That expectation, combined with the observation that the universe appears to have some mathematical principle made us logically assumed that indeed an undemonstrable knowledge exist ....



The word irrelevant here is optional.....if theologians found it sensible to acknowledge such a phenomenon, there shouldn't be any objection...

They are free to speculate all they want but in the fields of science were actual data is translated into useful knowledge, this god speculation is irrelevant. Who cares if beyond the boundaries of the universe nature acts irrationally if it doesn't show an effect on the universe itself. There is no difference between doesn't exist and nothing as far as we are concerned.

vaxx:
Arriving at the truth starts when you doubt everything and think critically and rationally stripping off all cognitive biases and prejudices and build up hypotheses only from the essential naked facts..

You may think theologians are biased to themselves by not doing this to their own existing conclusion.. i will honestly say you are wrong if you have such opinion.

self-identified theists (much like self-identified atheists) are free-thinkers, and they question their faith pretty deeply because, although they may participate in an organized religion, they don't identify with it very strongly, ideologically speaking, at least.


For example the Islamic prophet advice his members to seek knowledge even if it will take them to China. ( mecca is in South Asia while China is in east Asia. You can imagine how far it is.) Yet muhammed says they should seek knowledge which is to show how much knowledge is emphasized in Islam.

There was a bible verse which state that we should seek for every evidence and hold on to the truth.

And in case of ifa(pagan), there is so much information regarding the seeking and acqusation of knowledge.


In honesty some theologians do question their faith and are ready to adjust as new evidence suffice.

There is a particular Muslim hadith which says, search for my knowledge before you worshiped me.

This doesn't answer the question, "show how it strengthens your position". How does doubt strengthen your position that there is a god?

LordReed:


This doesn't answer the question, "show how it strengthens your position". How does doubt strengthen your position that there is a god?

None of my post here indicate or suggest that God existence is fact- based. I am only raising the insinuation that God hypothetically exist and the question on what created God is illogical at best.

It will have make more sense if you ask me, how does my doubt bring me into this hypothetical premises.

LordReed:


There is reasonable expectation that the further you are away from an event in time the less data you will be able to have about such an event. The confidence level of scientists based on the available evidence is expectedly not a 100% but here come people without a shred of evidence positing a 100% assurance that a god exists. A god who is unobserved and unobservable, untested and untestable. By the parsimonious assumptions you are referring to I see no reason to accept this god as a valid hypothesis, none at all.

None of my post here suggest or indicate a fact -based evidence. It is simply an hypothesis at best and it is subjected to falsifability if it can be observed objectively. But currently as it stands ...the hypothesis surrounding his existence is much more compelling than his non existence.

Parsimonious assumption is simply an intuitive explanation of an idea that seems to be more rigid or far to directly fetched. For example, A: theory X and theory Y can propose functionally equivalent explanations of a phenomenon, yet if X relies on two unproven assumptions and Y only relies on one, then X has two potential errors in its formulation while Y only has one. Thus, the potential for X being wrong in some respect is double that of Y, therefore we should, in general, prefer Y to X - precluding any additional information.

Even Scientific inquiry operates according to this crucial criterion too. because it reduces the potential for error as much as possible while maintaining the explanatory efficacy of the interpretations it produces.

They are free to speculate all they want but in the fields of science were actual data is translated into useful knowledge, this god speculation is irrelevant. Who cares if beyond the boundaries of the universe nature acts irrationally if it doesn't show an effect on the universe itself. There is no difference between doesn't exist and nothing as far as we are concerned.

speculation itself is the bedrock of science and those who do that are doing and working toward the scientific method as lay down by Aristotle the father of modern science.

As a physicist. it is part of your discipline to research on what practically go on in your universe.The understanding of those phenomena can open up a new discovery or breakthrough for we the humans and our relative's. So we care to know. it is even an interesting question to even ask why does universe act reasonable.A satisfactory answer to this may open new door.

In this case of God acceptance.. .It is your personal choice to reject the idea or accept it but you do not have any scientific or logical claim that he did not exist .

vaxx:
None of my post here indicate or suggest that God existence is fact- based. I am only raising the insinuation that God hypothetically exist and the question on what created God is illogical at best.

It will have make more sense if you ask me, how does my doubt bring me into this hypothetical premises.

Well show how doubt strengthens your hypothetical position.

vaxx:
None of my post here suggest or indicate a fact -based evidence. It is simply an hypothesis at best and it is subjected to falsifability if it can be observed objectively. But currently as it stands ...the hypothesis surrounding his existence is much more compelling than his non existence.

Parsimonious assumption is simply an intuitive explanation of an idea that seems to be more rigid or far to directly fetched. For example, A: theory X and theory Y can propose functionally equivalent explanations of a phenomenon, yet if X relies on two unproven assumptions and Y only relies on one, then X has two potential errors in its formulation while Y only has one. Thus, the potential for X being wrong in some respect is double that of Y, therefore we should, in general, prefer Y to X - precluding any additional information.

Even Scientific inquiry operates according to this crucial criterion too. because it reduces the potential for error as much as possible while maintaining the explanatory efficacy of the interpretations it produces.

Its not even a hypothesis because as you point out there's not even a shred of evidence to support its formulation.

speculation itself is the bedrock of science and those who do that are doing and working toward the method of scientific method as lay down by Aristotle the father of modern science.

As a physicist. it is part of your discipline to research on what practically go on in your universe.The understanding of those phenomena can open up a new discovery or breakthrough for we the humans and our relative's. So we care to know. it is even an interesting question to even ask why does universe act reasonable.A satisfactory answer to this may open new door.

In this case of God acceptance.. .It is your personal choice to reject the idea or accept it but you do not have any scientific or logical claim that he did not exist .

Speculation with no observation is useless because then you are making a baseless speculation with no way to proceed from there. The same problem this god speculation falls into which need to be constantly defended by subtle "Bleep off" statements like "In this case of God acceptance.. .It is your personal choice to reject the idea or accept it but you do not have any scientific or logical claim that he did not exist ." LMFAO!

LordReed:


Its not even a hypothesis because as you point out there's not even a shred of evidence to support its formulation

The rationality of the universe to behave reasonable well is evidence, the starting point of the universe is evidence, the mechanism that operate within the frames of the universe is an evidence. So many.....

Speculation with no observation is useless because then you are making a baseless speculation with no way to proceed from there. The same problem this god speculation falls into which need to be constantly defended by subtle "Bleep off" statements like "In this case of God acceptance.. .It is your personal choice to reject the idea or accept it but you do not have any scientific or logical claim that he did not exist ." LMFAO!

Not true . I have refutes this claim earlier not all knowledge are demonstrable or simply can be observed. You are still repeating it

Speculation is about how you can use your knowledge to make predictions about things: for example , you can predict the location of the moon with your eye closed. You can speculate that the moon will be there when you re-open your eyes, you know where it will be. This can be speculated without observation. And That's what makes knowledge about it valuable. Maybe it "disappeared", in some sense, but it's not a particularly useful sense. You put together a model of the universe in which things persist when you're not observing them, and the utility of that model is the only thing that matters.

LordReed:


Well show how doubt strengthens your hypothetical position.

Well , if it is a known fact that matter constantly vibrates with energy, and likewise dark matter contain energy, then It is scientifically accurate to say let's investigate their origins..People delude themselves of the facts when it stares them in the faces, i mean the perfect relativity throughout all forms of life is a pointer to this knowledge. if only we would take the veil of our faces and see things as they are...There will be nothing called nothing cause nothing is the aftermath or rather a reflection of something as this universe itself.


Even the law of probability agree with this condition...

vaxx:
The rationality of the universe to behave reasonable well is evidence, the starting point of the universe is evidence, the mechanism that operate within the frames of the universe is an evidence. So many.....

SMH

Not true . I have refutes this claim earlier not all knowledge are demonstrable or simply can be observed. You are still repeating it

I will repeat it because your statement is how dogma is born. Don't question me because I said so. No, we shall always question it.

Speculation is about how you can use your knowledge to make predictions about things: for example , you can predict the location of the moon with your eye closed. You can speculate that the moon will be there when you re-open your eyes, you know where it will be. This can be speculated without observation. And That's what makes knowledge about it valuable. Maybe it "disappeared", in some sense, but it's not a particularly useful sense. You put together a model of the universe in which things persist when you're not observing them, and the utility of that model is the only thing that matters.

LoL you just omitted the fact that in your example the observed data for moon position is already known. Same for the observed universe, you can speculate with some degree of certainty because data already exists. Why do you not speculate that there are herds of elephants walking around on the bottom of the oceans?

vaxx:
Well , if it is a known fact that matter constantly vibrates with energy, and likewise dark matter contain energy, then It is scientifically accurate to say let's investigate their origins..People delude themselves of the facts when it stares them in the faces, i mean the perfect relativity throughout all forms of life is a pointer to this knowledge. if only we would take the veil of our faces and see things as they are...There will be nothing called nothing cause nothing is the aftermath or rather a reflection of something as this universe itself.


Even the law of probability agree with this condition...

Doesn't answer the question.

LordReed:


SMH

should I take this as an open conclusion that you can't comprehend those facts.







I

will repeat it because your statement is how dogma is born. Don't question me because I said so. No, we shall always question it.

Dogma is an information, the only diffrence is they are not observable...empirical evidence is not the only method of truth searching.... . Even science is subjected to prejudice..

Budaatum refer you to mindfulness yesterday on a particular thread. It is one of the ways we seek truth for ourselves and likewise what we are doing here( called the socrate method )This are few...Sometime experiential evidence is all what We have when some answer to some questions seems paradoxical... and never forget intuition too. You don't need observational evidence for these .....

If the theistic dogma is the result of using logic and reason to arrive at their beliefs, just as philosophers or anybody else concoct a theory and then argue that their philosophy or theory is the result of logic and reason. Then it is perfectly valid dogma.

LoL you just omitted the fact that in your example the observed data for moon position is already known. Same for the observed universe, you can speculate with some degree of certainty because data already exists. Why do you not speculate that there are herds of elephants walking around on the rounbottom of the oceans?

Good , just like there are undeniable fact that the universe we are is alife and it is currently working with mathematical law. This are reasonable evidence to speculate the origin of the said existing mechanical behaviour of our umiverse

It will make no sense to speculate such paradoxical (-elepant walking around the bottom of the occean )since there is no prior information to that. Speculation works with existing knowledge not just emptiness....

LordReed:


Doesn't answer the question.

it will perfectly make more sense....if you say this answer does not satisfy your curiosity.

You don't probe the answer nor query it, how will I know it does not answer your question.

vaxx:
should I take this as an open conclusion that you can't comprehend those facts.

This is what you do vaxx. We tell you that what you are saying is complete illogical crap, but you cover your eyes and say we do not understand!

If you were honest with yourself, considering all the references you drag up, you'd see that you bastardise your own points repeatedly. You mention "Socratic method", but refuse to follow it to its logical conclusion! You claim "sufficient explanation", but you want to be the sole measure of sufficiency. You claim to be scientific by being pseudoscientific. You insist that a point is invalid, and use the same 'invalid point' to argue your position! You ask us to believe in something without evidence and accept the existence of that thing as a given. And if we don't, you claim we lack the ability to comprehend, when in fact what you are asking us to do is abandon mere common sense in favor of collective irrationality! We have all the same entertained the prospect hoping you have a point to make, but as is usual with you, you fail rather utterly to prove a single point, not to talk of address the question you yourself posed.

Take the question you say you wish to answer for instance. "Who created god?". If you understood atheism at all, you would realise that an atheist only poses it as a rhetorical question. And in order to adequately respond to it, you would have to show that that which you claim is 'created' exists in the first place, a point you have completely failed to address. This failure leaves your question in the same state as "what created the mountain vaxxhasnobrain", or "what created the hoard of elephants that exist on planet Nu". It makes me wonder how a person who knows of so much can avoid the implications of what he says to the point that I can't help ask if you really understand what you yourself are saying!

I know it's difficult for you to take anyone else's word for it, but I strongly advise that you read through this thread of your's and pay special attention to your own words if not anyone else's. Your errors in reasoning are so glaringly obvious that only by covering one's eyes could one not see them. I can assure you that most of those who read through will open their eyes and see how little sense you make even if you refuse to.

Now that we have established that infinite regression is paradoxical and sufficient explanation shouild be favour instead. Can we now move forward. But let's not forget the principle of sufficient reasons as lay down by Leibniz. ....i have directed us to the links above...

Breaking it down further, There are two senses in which we speak of the Principle of Sufficient Reason .(henceforth abbreviated as ‘the PSR’):

On epistemological sense: all true propositions have a justification, that is, a reason by which they are true. No statement is a “brute fact” or “simply true”


On ontological sense: all things or events in the world have are caused by something else, and there are no self-caused events (except, perhaps, the first mover).

Philosophers argue over both what Leibniz meant and which view is correct.

This is one potential reading of the so-called “epistemological” PSR. Some philosophers argues that we can hold the PSR as a brute fact, or that we can have a series of axioms that are assumed true or are self-evidently true, and that all theorems can be explained in such a way..

Now let's look at probability of God existence ....

vaxx:
Now that we have established that ....

No vaxx!

"Now that you have singlehandedly determined that everyone must accept your opinion", is rather more accurate.

We, don't!

Red hearing candidate spotted.

I may be reluctant to answer any response I perceived detrimental or may block this thread for further update.

If you find this thread allergy to your reasoning, kindly use the left door. I am broadcasting to cyber space not you.

The so called intelligence you hold had been put into test and could not even comprehend what is been posted here after breaking it down. The older thread prove it. You can't even break the simple so called Socratic method. But i will not simplify it Ilike I did in the former thread.

Before this probability. Let's examine this rethorical question. How can physical atoms and molecules for example, create something that exists in a separate domain that has no physical existence?


I think this below link got some interesting information..... An exentisive research was written on it.


.:http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cg4m4s

As we know doubting means uncertainty .if you face this issue Mathematically. you will apply law of probability. the option of chance that one is likely to be correct. We shall be using this probability to demosrate the existence of God.

let's do the same mathematics here......law of probability.......

Supposing you have two options, out of which one is right and one is wrong the chances that you will chose the right one is half. which mean one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) 1/2.If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% that is half.

The chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 which is 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. So If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2)that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

Therefore the chances of God existence and non existences mathematically is 12 percent.


I think is getting interesting here ( The chances for both side's are equal) good they are not mutually exclusive, which means they can both be true.....



So what should be next forward thinking ( mathematics student what do you think)?

Though There is fantastic solution to this , I shall update it later......

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

Still waiting for you guys........ ........

vaxx:
.

The chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 which is 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. So If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2)that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

Therefore the chances of God existence and non existences mathematically is 12 percent.
....

Hello,

Before we even attempt to answer your question, there is something I would like to understand.

How do you move from the probability of being correct three times is 12%, to the probability of an (undefined) god existing is 12%?

There is a huge gap somewhere.

LoJ:

Hello,

Before we even attempt to answer your question, there is something I would like to understand.
How do you move from the probability of being correct three times is 12%, to the probability of an (undefined) god existing is 12%?

There is a huge gap somewhere.

i am only exhausting all posssible option, and at the same time trying to be pratical. I can therefore decide to continue throwing the dice till infinity but it will lead to infinite progression which is as paradoxical as infinite regression...

The logic behind this is simple. We know dice has got six sides. And If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %. Imagine if i continue throwing the dice?

vaxx:
i am only exhausting all posssible option, and at the same time trying to be pratical. I can therefore decide to continue throwing the dice till infinity but it will lead to infinite progression which is as paradoxical as infinite regression...

The logic behind this is simple. We know dice has got six sides. And If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %. Imagine if i continue throwing the dice?

This I understand. What I do not quite understand is how this translate to the probability of God's existence being equal to 12% or any other number.

LoJ:


This I understand. What I do not quite understand is how this translate to the probability of God's existence being equal to 12% or any other number.

i am only playing with figure(Don't translate it literarilly) some can even work the percentage to be more or lower. I just want to demonsrate it pratically in my own possible way. What i did is- i mutiply 1/2 ×1/2 which is equal to 1/4 (i.e.) 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If the coin is toss again the third time, chances that we will be correct all three times will be translated to (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12%...


That is the basic calculation i used. And i must also apply it to other side since my first result is not binding the second option.(According to first law of probability) which state that the results of one chance event have no effect on the results of subsequent chance events. Thus, the probability of obtaining heads the second time you flip it remains at ½.

LoJ:


This I understand. What I do not quite understand is how this translate to the probability of God's existence being equal to 12% or any other number.

It seems to depend on flipping a coin three times. If he flipped ten times, his probability would be much smaller, and the further on he goes he'd tend to zero.

So, why flip it only three times, vaxx?

budaatum:
So, why flip it only three times, vaxx?

That was my very question. Perhaps we should let him make his point before it can be understood. Till now, it is difficult at least for me to get that.

LoJ:

That was my very question. Perhaps we should let him make his point before it can be understood. Till now, it is difficult at least for me to get that.

Sounded like it. Just that I feel one has to be absolutely clear with him. I'll sit back and watch. I know you are capable.

LoJ:

That was my very question. Perhaps we should let him make his point before it can be understood. Till now, it is difficult at least for me to get that.

it is simply a conditional probability, that is given because another event (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) has occurred. And since we are dealing with two possible event.what ever is given to A must apply to B according to law of probability.

I limit the throw of the dice to 3 to risk the challenge of negative integrals and therefore work with the even number.

Obviously, they are are three even numbers on each die (2, 4, & 6). You have a 50-50 chance of rolling one of these numbers on a single die. Which can also be written as 1/2. The chance of getting on even number on two dice is therefore 1/2 x 1/2… which is 1/4, or 25% which simply what i demonstrate..



Budaatum ......

budaatum:

It seems to depend on flipping a coin three times. If he flipped ten times, his probability would be much smaller, and the further on he goes he'd tend to zero.

So, why flip it only three times, vaxx?

An answer had been provided as to why it is three times. And i saw you vewing this thread, Which means you have seen the provided answer. And yet no response from you. I suggest you are waiting for Loj to querry the answer before you will know what to say. As it is now, i guess you dont even understand, ""follow folllow things"" lol

I just don't understand why you limit the throwing of the dice to an arbitrary three times vaxx. There's after all nothing stopping you!

Go on, throw the dice one more time. Then try five times, then six, then seven.

budaatum:
I just don't understand why you limit the throwing of the dice to an arbitrary three times vaxx. There's after all nothing stopping you!

Go on, throw the dice one more time. Then try five times, then six, then seven.

No matter the amount of times you throw the dice, you will still get equal result for both side's. Probably end up with negative intregals...

Even if at alll, the dice should be throw averagely at 1/6 , you will still end up with the same answer. dice is originally six-sided dice with sides numbered 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5 , which have the same arithmetic mean as a standard dice

In calculation. If .E( original event =1/P.( which is 1/ probability . It will still be equal to =1+6/5+6/4+6/3+6/2+6/1=14.7 and this must be appply to the other event.

That does not stop the question from moving forward. Or better still come up with your own figure, if that will satisfy you. And show us how you arrive at it.

vaxx:
Or better still come up with your own figure, if that will satisfy you. And show us how you arrive at it.

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.

vaxx:
i am only playing with figure(Don't translate it literarilly) some can even work the percentage to be more or lower.

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.

vaxx:
If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %. Imagine if i continue throwing the dice?

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