₦airaland Forum

Anas09:
Oh Vaxx. To talk about a prophet without his prophesies is like talking about a fruit without its kernel.

A Prophet is a middleman who mediate between the divine and men by hearing and delivering what he hears to men.

And, Prophets cannot be separated from Prophesies sir. How we know that a man is called into the office of a prophet is that what he says comes to pass.

Pls keep Kemet or whatever you call it out for now. Lets confine ourselves to the Op.

If Mohammad's Prophethood is just a name and not a calling, how then can you reconcile your claims that he is the last prophet amongst the Jewish prophets, seeing that the Jewish prophets prophesied events which happened long after they long dead, and some are yet to even happen?

One of such prophesies just got fulfilled in Jerusalem as Israel became a Nation again and Jerusalem the Capital of Israel.

My Point is, why is Muhammad different from these other prophets?

And, it's not even about Muhammad, it's about Adam. Pls do tell how Adam was a prophet since you admit to an extend a prophet hears and teaches what God says. What did Adam teach Humans?

And which Offsprings are you talking about?

i think my last paragraph is enough to tell you about my position on this subject.....


But anyway, There is no use of comparing religious texts and getting in a pissing contest. The Hindu Vedas are 10000 years old, and with out a known source! Why not throw them into the ring? All sacred texts and especially their interpretations have fallacies! Because of this human external element why no seek within? No book needed, no mufti or priest! Mohamed went to a cave and looked within. Moses went to the mountain and “talked to a burning bush” (but that is likely metaphorical), Jesus went to the desert and looked within. You do see my point? Seeking God should be experience based not congregational.


I have given quranic meaning of what oe who us a prophet. And your biblical definition cannot oviride it.

I think the kemet is even more important, it is the beginning of where you get the peooer understanding

Non believer are found of this a lot and hence dpring fourth infinite regression theory.

The Rule Paradox :

If all rules have exceptions then even the rule that states that all rules have exceptions must have an exception, or the rule is proven false. But if it does have an exception the rule is also proven false, because then there is arule without an exception.

What if God is this arule?

Lets first examine what philosophers and logicians call a “use/mention distinction”.

if i quote “I AM the Lord, your God,” i am’ quoting a true statement, because it was true as spoken by the One i am quoting . Hence religious folks were stating quoting truth base on what their religious book state.

This is not a question about religion - any atheists who feel the need to tell me how it isn’t a true statement, or never was spoken shouild challenge it.

But if i say, “I AM the Lord, your God,” then it is both false and blasphemous, because i am not God.

“I AM the Lord, your God,” spoken by God is not the same statement as, “I AM the Lord, your God,” spoken by you, because the pronoun “I” has a different referent in each sentence.

In the first sentence, it means, “God is the Lord, your God” (true), while in the second, it means, “Nairaland questioner is the Lord, your God” (false).


I brought forward this understanding because i will be using a lot of it in my analogy.

vaxx:
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?

When they are independent the occurrence of one event has no effect on the probability of occurrence of the second event.

Base on the percentage we bave before. The Independent EventsL(i) base on your experience in this world what is probability that God exist int he percentage of 12.(ii) Base on your experience in this world, what is the probability that God did not exist in the percentage of 12

Dont forget the formula base on the example given

P(AB) = P(A)*P(B)

P(AB)= Joint probability of events A and B occurring to gather or one after other

P(A) = Probability of event A = 1/12

P(B)= Probability of event B = 1/12



P(AB)= Joint probability of events A and B occurring to gather or one after other.

= (1/12)* (1/12)

Conclusion

When events are statistically dependent, the occurrence of one event affects the probability of occurrence of other events....

The objective of this probability is that both non existence and existence of God have the same outcome.

But can both be right or wrong at the same time (absolutely illogical).

Lets then move away from probability to other philosophical terms like indexical, lie paradox and pascal window....


The truth will soon established itself...

Amala things on my mind......

Readwarn:
Of course you have the right to end your life. The audacity of any government to tell you otherwise still beats me

who can put the dead on trials? But that should not give us the liberty.

My answer is still no anyway....

Even when life is at its worst, it is still better than putting end to it. Because there is always something to look forward to, even if those things can seem small and ordinary sometimes. Most of those who wants to end their life lacks perspective, and most are intensely melodramatic about the scope of their problems. Almost every problem has a solution, and if you haven’t found one, you aren’t looking hard enough.

Are you born out of your own will? NO why should you have the right to end it? You are human being remmeber?

budaatum:
Don't worry. You'd be back to talking to yourself.

it doesn't matter so long you will come here to check what is the latest being posted..

I am broadcasting to all members of nairaland and guest.. so you as a single user is of no importance.

Go and continue your pseudologic in another thread .

budaatum:
You are funny. That was all that was required at the time, but odd enough, just as on here, the point goes right over your head in your desire to massage your ego. And as usual, you attacked the source and paid absolutely no attention to the content therein. But I should understand you by now. I am a source too, but as I said, if I were to say "the sun was in the sky", you vaxx would likely argue that "the sky is in the sun". I guess the sight of buda presents a challenge to you. Believe me, even if I got my source off a piece of toilet paper, I'd still be making a lot more sense than you.

A clear example is you throwing Zeno's Paradox out there with no explanation of how it explains your point. You perhaps think you would muddle things up by throwing the kitchen sink at us, yet just about everyone who's posted on this thread has been unable to make heads or tails of the muddle you've written, while you seem to think it's because we are all brainless! The pity is that all you've posted in this thread is indicative of how your mind works, and shows you really need to go see a doctor.

first of all . sorry for exposing your dishonesty. You cant hide it . You know?

A good knolwedge makes you realise how much there is to learn. A bad education makes you think you know it all. After so many interaction with you. I discover your love for wordism and unneccasry out of the point discussion which is psychologically a reflection of what is going on in your head . And this is due to lack of meaninful feedback or a way of winning yourself back from your repeated flawed logic and beaten to stupor sense .clearly, it is a clear indication that you are ignorant about the subject of the discussion. But yet still want to make a point.

I will even say being ignorant is not the problem here, but failing to recognise your own ignorance which is limiting you from liberating to knowledge

Maybe you are just mundane single minded simple dence or Maybe you re on awhole differnt level.

Vaxx dont argue with you but play with your inteligence. You only argue when you see the person is speaking sense.. the fact that you are asking me to explain the provided link i submitted speak volume of your present condition.

Consult a psychotherapist on how you can improve it or correct this deficiency

Buda( your response to vaxx post always made vaxx feel grateful that vaxx is not like YOU .

budaatum:
Your dishonesty is just mindboggling, vaxx!

Go on, remind me where this happened!

Remember internet don't lie. Let see who is dishonest here?

The two links are from non comprehensive sites. Got question and all about philosophy .

Even the two links are christain faith links according to their introduction.

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66927559

My response

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66928273

And you became shitty just like you are now reading this expose.
.

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

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

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?

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:
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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Godsfavour78:
what created the big bang?

big bang was a point in time.

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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

Anas09:
Okay. So what prophecies did Adam prophesy?

In Islam, a prophet is not someone who makes a prophecy. But a person who has direct contact with God and teaches people about God, hereafter, His Deen and God's commands.

It is for performing these functions for his offsprings that he is considered a prophet of Islam.


And this agree with the general definition.


Anayway both quran and bible are not sincere with this ......... The idea was even stolen from kemet

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

Anas09:
A prophet is a mouth piece through which God foretells what will happen in future. So, pls post the prophecies of Prophet Adam and when they were fulfilled in history.

By general definition, prophet has nothing to do with prophecy in the traditional sense.

In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.

The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy. In this sense adam will be a prophet.

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 ......

DoctorAlien:
Meaningless thread.

I believe the thread enjoined the believers to share experiences that had served to convince they themselves that GOD is real. Is this thread then trying to counter the fact that those experiences served to make those persons believe in God? That's nonsense. Except you're in the heads of those believers. The experiences make/made them believe that GOD is real because they said so!

Note that the thread did not ask them to bring "experiences that will make atheists believe God is real." The topic of the thread didn't even contain the word "proof" or "prove", which you have inserted in the OP. Perhaps the OP of that thread knew that some people are atheists not for lack of evidence that points to GOD but for reasons best known to them. After all Martin Rowson once told Giles Fraser of The Guardian that he(Martin) would remain an atheist even if GOD walked into the restraunt.

So, once again, pointless thread.

if this is true, then all hope is lost.

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:
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?