Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Mutley

Calculating God's existence

When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge. So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population. So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?
norwegian

I used to wonder about similar things until I was told 80% of kids under the age of 10 believe there is a monster under the bed.

Mark Twain was right when he said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
.
All_Brains

Re: Calculating God's existence

Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge. So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population. So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?


Sure and everyone should be free to choose the probability they see fit, however when believing in that invisible being drives and motivated mankind to commit atrocities, then fallacious beliefs should be exposed and eradicated.
Mutley

Re: Calculating God's existence

All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge. So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population. So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?


Sure and everyone should be free to choose the probability they see fit,


How does one choose the probability they see fit? We have a sample, a population, and a ratio between them.

All_Brains wrote:

however when believing in that invisible being drives and motivated mankind to commit atrocities, then fallacious beliefs should be exposed and eradicated.


This didn't talk to the question.
Mutley

norwegian wrote:
I used to wonder about similar things until I was told 80% of kids under the age of 10 believe there is a monster under the bed.

Mark Twain was right when he said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
.


Whooosh. Right over the head.
Tvebak

Re: Calculating God's existence

Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge.


Ok

Mutley wrote:
So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population.


Smile

Mutley wrote:
So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?


And this is usefull for what? Basically you are stating the obvious that we don't know for sure how much we know about everything. There's plenty of the universe which we haven't even seen yet.
But I disagrees with your concept of knowledge. We have ourselves constructed the "word" and the "concept" "knowledge". You might think that there was other kinds of "knowledge" which could explain the world better. For instans is mathematics the "absolute" way to understand the universe or is it just the way we have come to understand the universe, doing it the best as we feel we can?
I have a feeling that you are looking for "something" with an "ultimate knowledge". And if you cannot find it among humans (fx accumulated science) you will have to "need" something else giving it to you. This is in my opinion a flawed logic, if it is what you are looking for, but I might be wrong on this account.

cheers
Baal

Re: Calculating God's existence

Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge. So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population. So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?

By population, you must mean the population of people who died, went across, saw something and came back to tell us what they saw.

The answer is: You got me there, I never talked to someone who went across, saw something and then came back to tell me about it. Never happened. So I guess I can look harder for the population that came back and ask them about things, but that seal on my heart is so fvcking heavy and I can't breath very well.
Mutley

Re: Calculating God's existence

Baal wrote:
Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge. So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population. So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?

By population, you must mean the population of people who died, went across, saw something and came back to tell us what they saw.


No. The sample is all accumulated knowledge and the population is all that can be known. So it's, all that we know and all that can be known. Obviously the sample size can possibly be calculated, but I can't see how the population can be calculated.
Intellectual_fighter

Hellow Guys,


Could you plz count how many cells are there in all animals and plants in this earth. After getting result , plz do let me know.



Peace
HomoErectus

Intellectual_fighter wrote:
Hellow Guys,


Could you plz count how many cells are there in all animals and plants in this earth. After getting result , plz do let me know.

Peace



So, how you gonna count ALL the cells in ALL animals and plants ?
Including Bacteria and Virae too ?
And how do humansbeings fit into the plan, we are animals too....

So, how many animals are there on this planet ?

Is this going to become another sad and sorry attempt of proving an alleged "God" by mathematics ?
[If so, I wish you a lot of fun in the course of this... Cool ]

Your socalled "God" is a hoax - prove me wrong !
Intellectual_fighter

HomoErectus wrote:
Intellectual_fighter wrote:
Hellow Guys,


Could you plz count how many cells are there in all animals and plants in this earth. After getting result , plz do let me know.

Peace



So, how you gonna count ALL the cells in ALL animals and plants ?
Including Bacteria and Virae too ?
And how do humansbeings fit into the plan, we are animals too....

So, how many animals are there on this planet ?

Is this going to become another sad and sorry attempt of proving an alleged "God" by mathematics ?
[If so, I wish you a lot of fun in the course of this... Cool ]

Your socalled "God" is a hoax - prove me wrong !


greetings,


Look, you and I dont have the ability to count all the cells of all the animals in this Tiny Earth.

Atfirst, I need a confirmaton from you to know that you are really unable to count  that


Then, lets think about God after sometimes, lets think about you and me and the creatures.
HomoErectus

Intellectual_fighter wrote:
HomoErectus wrote:
Intellectual_fighter wrote:
Hellow Guys,


Could you plz count how many cells are there in all animals and plants in this earth. After getting result , plz do let me know.

Peace



So, how you gonna count ALL the cells in ALL animals and plants ?
Including Bacteria and Virae too ?
And how do humansbeings fit into the plan, we are animals too....

So, how many animals are there on this planet ?

Is this going to become another sad and sorry attempt of proving an alleged "God" by mathematics ?
[If so, I wish you a lot of fun in the course of this... Cool ]

Your socalled "God" is a hoax - prove me wrong !


greetings,


Look, you and I dont have the ability to count all the cells of all the animals in this Tiny Earth.

Atfirst, I need a confirmaton from you to know that you are really unable to that.@



Guess why I wrote what I wrote....

you asked a completely obsolete question - what for ?

Quote:

Then, lets think about God after sometimes, lets think about you and me and the creatures.



Aaaah, "you and me and the creatures"  -  WHAT creatures do you mean ?
Can you elaborate abit more ?
You realy are not just a bit vague, you are in a haze !
[This is gong to be funnnnn... Twisted Evil ]
Intellectual_fighter

HomoErectus wrote:

you asked a completely obsolete question - what for ?


Feeling good as you havent mentioned that as archaic.





HomoErectus wrote:
Aaaah, "you and me and the creatures"  -  WHAT creatures do you mean ?
Can you elaborate abit more ?


You and me, humans, The jews called sub-human, !! the flora and the fauna! All.

HomoErectus wrote:
You realy are not just a bit vague, you are in a haze !
[This is gong to be funnnnn... Twisted Evil ]


Everything is funny but nothing is funny!

I would love to be vague but what happens to me is that naturally I am a man of lucidity!

Cool
HomoErectus

Intellectual_fighter wrote:
HomoErectus wrote:

you asked a completely obsolete question - what for ?


Feeling good as you havent mentioned that as archaic.


"Nonsense" must be good enough for this kind of "question" !


HomoErectus wrote:
Aaaah, "you and me and the creatures"  -  WHAT creatures do you mean ?
Can you elaborate a bit more ?

Quote:

You and me, humans, The jews called sub-human, !! the flora and the fauna! All.



Why are jews "subhuman" ?
Ahhh, yeah, they are apes and swine, isn't that quranically correct ?

What on earth makes you ask such an absurd question ?
Oh, I forgot, you are a Muslim..... Twisted Evil


HomoErectus wrote:
You realy are not just a bit vague, you are in a haze !
[This is gong to be funnnnn... Twisted Evil ]

Quote:

Everything is funny but nothing is funny!



You maybe mistake being stupid with being funny ?
How old are you ?
Still in diapers ?
Mentally - for sure !


Quote:

I would love to be vague but what happens to me is that naturally I am a man of lucidity!
Cool



What "lucidity" is there in your posts ?

Would you think there is an answer to your question about "cells" in "all animals" etc. ?

Would you like to try and bring up another quranic "miracle" ?
Intellectual_fighter

Quote:

Why are jews "subhuman" ?
Ahhh, yeah, they are apes and swine, isn't that quranically correct ?

What on earth makes you ask such an absurd question ?
Oh, I forgot, you are a Muslim..... Twisted Evil


Cmnn man. I was saying that jews view non jews as subhuman!!

I wonder, why you people twist things so much!! An example!


I was talking about the flora and fauna and their cells , you are given a job to do bro,count all their cells.




HomoErectus wrote:
You realy are not just a bit vague, you are in a haze !
[This is gong to be funnnnn... Twisted Evil ]

Quote:

Everything is funny but nothing is funny!



Quote:
You maybe mistake being stupid with being funny ?
How old are you ?
Still in diapers ?
Mentally - for sure !


I dont want to get elaborate description of mine.

Surely,  I am observing you reasoning power.!! Brother, do some analtical ability class!







Quote:
What "lucidity" is there in your posts ?

Would you think there is an answer to your question about "cells" in "all animals" etc. ?

Would you like to try and bring up another quranic "miracle" ?


Brother, this thread is ofr calculating God,

Therefore, I am moving along to the target.

Try be here, with answer or explanation of my question. This will do better for both you and me!




Thank you
Mutley

Re: Calculating God's existence

Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge.


Ok

Mutley wrote:
So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population.


Smile

Mutley wrote:
So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?


And this is usefull for what?


It invalidates the common practice of using probabilities when deciding whether God exists or not.

Tvebak wrote:

Basically you are stating the obvious that we don't know for sure how much we know about everything. There's plenty of the universe which we haven't even seen yet.


Whew!!! Well, at least you understand it. Yes, it's a quite simple idea. You'd be surprised at how some errantly complicate it.

Tvebak wrote:

But I disagrees with your concept of knowledge.


Well now we're talking because you at least do understand the OP. I love disagreement, but disagreement from an angle of misunderstanding is frustrating.

Tvebak wrote:

We have ourselves constructed the "word" and the "concept" "knowledge". You might think that there was other kinds of "knowledge" which could explain the world better.


Actually, events that would display the world more thoroughly, and yes, knowledge as well.

Tvebak wrote:

For instans is mathematics the "absolute" way to understand the universe or is it just the way we have come to understand the universe, doing it the best as we feel we can?


IMHO, the latter. It's a very good tool, but not necessarily all there is to everything.

Tvebak wrote:

I have a feeling that you are looking for "something" with an "ultimate knowledge".


Not really, I'm more talking about everything that can possibly be known. Do we know everything that can possibly be known? Obviously not. So what percentage of this do we know? How could we tell? So how can we truly, accurately calculate the probability of God's existence, and yet we do that all of the time?

Tvebak wrote:

And if you cannot find it among humans (fx accumulated science) you will have to "need" something else giving it to you. This is in my opinion a flawed logic, if it is what you are looking for, but I might be wrong on this account.

cheers


It's more to say that we don't know everything that there is that can be known, and therefore, we don't even know what percentage of everything that can be known that we know, so therefore we can not know whether our sample size, which is our current knowledge, would constitute a sufficient sample size in relation to the actual population to calculate a probability. It's really a far simpler idea than most people understand it to be. I'm not a very complex person, I deal in simple common sense
HomoErectus

Intellectual_fighter wrote:
Quote:


HE:
Why are jews "subhuman" ?
Ahhh, yeah, they are apes and swine, isn't that quranically correct ?

What on earth makes you ask such an absurd question ?
Oh, I forgot, you are a Muslim..... Twisted Evil


Cmnn man. I was saying that jews view non jews as subhuman!!



I do know quite a few jews, matter of fact, I have also been married to a jewish girl, long time ago.....

I havent heard ANY jew "viewing" non-jews as subhumans!

This must be another "great " islamic invention.
Oh well, since muslims can't come up with any onter inventions, they simply go and re-invent already existing stuff....

And this may be enough for simple-minded deluded muslims, do you think they could possibly convince the rest of the world of their twisted "logic" ?


Quote:

I wonder, why you people twist things so much!! An example!

I was talking about the flora and fauna and their cells , you are given a job to do bro,count all their cells.



I already told you its a completely obsolete and rather stupid question.

So, after YOU asked this nonsensical question, you come back wishing to give ME the "job" of finding out ?

You are twitching and twining, desperately trying to twist it all again, just to get out of the dead-lock YOU have placed yourself into, a selfimposed TRAP, and you really think you are so "clever" in your argumentation ?

Sorry, I don't wish to insult you personally, but this is just too STUPID !
I am no muslim, and will never ever become one....

So you better put on your hush-puppies and maybe go ask a slave of allahaha...
Maybe you can impress this poor chap.


HomoErectus wrote:
You maybe mistake being stupid with being funny ?
How old are you ?
Still in diapers ?
Mentally - for sure !

Quote:

I dont want to get elaborate description of mine.



You are already in the middle of elaborating about your state of mind... brrrrr......


Quote:

Surely,  I am observing you reasoning power.!! Brother, do some analtical ability class!



Great!
Here's a guy without any logic, bringing up fairy tales to support other fairy tales, and now speaking about "analytical ability" and "reasoning power"... pfffff.......

Are you making "points" too ?
I mean, inside of yourself - are you applauding yourself because of your "skills" ?

I laugh you out of the room !


HomoErectus wrote:
What "lucidity" is there in your posts ?

Would you think there is an answer to your question about "cells" in "all animals" etc. ?

Would you like to try and bring up another quranic "miracle" ?

Quote:

Brother, this thread is ofr calculating God,

Therefore, I am moving along to the target.



Thats what I thought !
You are nonsensically trying to "calculate" your alleged imaginary "god" !

You must be higher than even your own god !
You can "calculate" him/her/it/them - GRRRREAT !

Go to him, and tell him that I [HE] think he's a non-existent hoax, and I'm awaiting his punishment....
And tell him that I will punish HIM too !
I swear, upon meeting him I will definitely try to kick his behind as hard as I can !
Dunno if I succeed though ?
How can you kick the behind of an imagination ?


Quote:

Try be here, with answer or explanation of my question. This will do better for both you and me!



Come up with a real question, any time, and you will get helped along your way !

So far you have come up with hot-air only......


Quote:

Thank you



Well, thank you, for opening your mental clauset, showing all the world that there's NOTHING available, so far.....
Only a brainwashed slave of alahaha, and - believe me - I do pity you for that !
Intellectual_fighter

HomoErectus wrote:



I do know quite a few jews, matter of fact, I have also been married to a jewish girl, long time ago.....

I havent heard ANY jew "viewing" non-jews as subhumans!

This must be another "great " islamic invention.
Oh well, since muslims can't come up with any onter inventions, they simply go and re-invent already existing stuff....

And this may be enough for simple-minded deluded muslims, do you think they could possibly convince the rest of the world of their twisted "logic" ?


Hoh!
Yes, I have understood that you have got loads of knowledge about jews. Reason, you know a lot of jews! What a logic.  Laughing

Well, I wont turn to jews now though a few quote. dnt mind. I naturally dont go to bash other religions. I love jews , Christians and hindu's.


"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772


Anywayz, jews chapter closed.



HomoErectus wrote:
I already told you its a completely obsolete and rather stupid question.

So, after YOU asked this nonsensical question, you come back wishing to give ME the "job" of finding out ?


You  dont wanna answer or count what i said. Fine. Lets stop it.

New question:--Do uo believe in God?..If you do? how many. 1/2/3/4/.







HomoErectus wrote:

Sorry, I don't wish to insult you personally, but this is just too STUPID !
I am no muslim, and will never ever become one....


Thanks for showing courtesy!

Well, you arent a Muslim, thats your belief and you have been in environment that taught you everything that called defaming Islam  without any pure logic whatsoever. You have got free-will to choose, so it depends on you.

www.islamalways.com
http://www.justaskislam.com/

Well, Topic is calculating god.

What kinda God you would like to believe?



HomoErectus wrote:
So you better put on your hush-puppies and maybe go ask a slave of allahaha...
Maybe you can impress this poor chap.


Thanks for kind advice. That will do good.  Cool





Quote:
I mean, inside of yourself - are you applauding yourself because of your "skills" ?


HomoErectus wrote:
I laugh you out of the room !.


I support laughing as it is good for heart. I am helping you. Smile .
But dear bro, too much laughing is a sign of............? Uknow! I havent mentioned .




HomoErectus wrote:
What "lucidity" is there in your posts ?

Would you think there is an answer to your question about "cells" in "all animals" etc. ?

Would you like to try and bring up another quranic "miracle" ?

Quote:

Brother, this thread is for calculating the existence of  God,

Therefore, I am moving along to the target.



T
HomoErectus wrote:
hats what I thought !
You are nonsensically trying to "calculate" your alleged imaginary "god" !


Go to him, and tell him that I [HE] think he's a non-existent hoax,
!



1. Do you have the ability to count only the cells of living lives?
2. Do you believe in God?
3. What do you think about yourself.
4. Are you the creator of yourself.
5. Could you mentioned ,how loch away the furthest galaxy is?
6. Could you imagine how tiny this earth is comparing the Milky way let alone the whole universe.
7. What was before big-bang?
8. What was before time?
9. Every thing is in perfect order here in this universe, how come it happen?
10. You and I the humans are capable of doing what most?
11. could you resist you death.
12. Do you know why five fingers of your hand are of different length?
13. Why your ribcage dont continue growing?.....................

14.......who controls all those.. You? me? nature!!

15. who controls nature?........................................



Calculating the existence of God......................
HomoErectus

Sorry, I definitely do not believe in ANY supernatural stuff !
No "god" for me, no jinns, no heaven and hell, no "hellfire", no flat earth, no "crack in the moon", no universe rotating around earth, no "burak", no "zam zam", no drinking of camel urine, nothing of this kind!
According to this - I aslo do not really care for what the talmud or the bible says - another row of fables and tales from the past.

And I also laugh your "god" out of the room !

Is that sufficient enough for you ?

All other questions can get answered, science is very good for that.
Google it up, I wont waste my time on that !
Mutley

Intellectual_fighter wrote:

14.......who controls all those.. You? me? nature!!

15. who controls nature?........................................



While it logically can be argued that everything has to have a cause, or an existence of something that precedes it, a controller is not logically required. So all you are doing is presenting your opinion.
Tvebak

Re: Calculating God's existence

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
When someone says that they believe or don't believe that God exists, what they are really doing is saying that they think their position is the most probable or likely one. So we are dealing with probabilities based on one's accumulated life experience and knowledge.


Ok

Mutley wrote:
So your accumulated experience and knowledge is the sample size, and life itself, or all knowledge, hidden or non hidden, would be the population.


Smile

Mutley wrote:
So what percentage of the population is the sample size? Is it large enough to constitute a valid sampling? Let's even take all accumulated knowledge of everyone as the sample size. Is it a large enough proportion of the population to be a valid sample size? Who knows. How could we?


And this is usefull for what?


It invalidates the common practice of using probabilities when deciding whether God exists or not.


hmm. Maybe. I will give this some thought.

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

Basically you are stating the obvious that we don't know for sure how much we know about everything. There's plenty of the universe which we haven't even seen yet.


Whew!!! Well, at least you understand it. Yes, it's a quite simple idea. You'd be surprised at how some errantly complicate it.


I'm doing my best. Glad that you think it made the cut  Wink

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

But I disagrees with your concept of knowledge.


Well now we're talking because you at least do understand the OP. I love disagreement, but disagreement from an angle of misunderstanding is frustrating.


Allright.

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

We have ourselves constructed the "word" and the "concept" "knowledge". You might think that there was other kinds of "knowledge" which could explain the world better.


Actually, events that would display the world more thoroughly, and yes, knowledge as well.


What do you mean? I basicly don't understand what you are refering to with "Actually, events that would display the world more thoroughly".

mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

For instans is mathematics the "absolute" way to understand the universe or is it just the way we have come to understand the universe, doing it the best as we feel we can?


IMHO, the latter. It's a very good tool, but not necessarily all there is to everything.


I'm sorry I lack the "knowledge" of internet-phrases. What does IMHO means?

But I agree it's a very good tool. My consideration about this is based on a lecture by a danish physician who argued that the different "search for ET-life"-programs is flawed cause there's no reason that potentially other intelligent lifes should use "mathematics" as we know it.

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

I have a feeling that you are looking for "something" with an "ultimate knowledge".


Not really, I'm more talking about everything that can possibly be known. Do we know everything that can possibly be known? Obviously not. So what percentage of this do we know? How could we tell? So how can we truly, accurately calculate the probability of God's existence, and yet we do that all of the time?


Well ok. And this I would give some thoughts.


mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

And if you cannot find it among humans (fx accumulated science) you will have to "need" something else giving it to you. This is in my opinion a flawed logic, if it is what you are looking for, but I might be wrong on this account.

cheers


It's more to say that we don't know everything that there is that can be known, and therefore, we don't even know what percentage of everything that can be known that we know, so therefore we can not know whether our sample size, which is our current knowledge, would constitute a sufficient sample size in relation to the actual population to calculate a probability. It's really a far simpler idea than most people understand it to be. I'm not a very complex person, I deal in simple common sense


Smile  alright.

But anyways you can say that we understand the world better today than we did fx 500 years ago. And we will probably know the world better in the future, and more importantly more sophisticated computers, and maybe also get to use the positive things from a human brain in cooperation with the power of a computers. And maybe a Marvin aswell.

Cheers.
Mutley

Yes, the sample size does increase as our knowledge increases. We know more of all there is to know. No doubt about that, but we still don't know whether it is yet a sufficient size in relation to the population (everything there is to know) to make the sample size a large enough percentage of the population to make it a sufficient sampling with an acceptable, valid standard deviation. You clearly understand the quite simple point I'm making. I don't care whether you agree, but it's nice that you at least understand what you will agree with and disagree with. That's all that matters, the rest is opinion and/or theory. You wouldn't believe how hard it is for many, otherwise intelligent people, to understand this simple idea or question. It could be that they do understand it, but they don't like the direction it takes us so they either unconsciously block it, or purposefully block it or try to deviate from it or confuse it. I'm not sure which it is. But yes, think about it. You might have a good refutation to this mere "idea", and that wouldn't bother me at all if it indeed adds up and I don't see a problem with it. Just as long as one understands what they are disagreeing with. That's all I ever ask. The rest is just healthy debate and consideration.
Baal

Intellectual_fighter wrote:
Hellow Guys,


Could you plz count how many cells are there in all animals and plants in this earth. After getting result , plz do let me know.



Peace

Let's the number of of cells is X and then the number X+1 will be larger then all the cells on Earth. I am not sure what do you want to prove with the question and why limiting yourself to Earth only.
Tvebak

Mutley wrote:
Yes, the sample size does increase as our knowledge increases. We know more of all there is to know. No doubt about that, but we still don't know whether it is yet a sufficient size in relation to the population (everything there is to know) to make the sample size a large enough percentage of the population to make it a sufficient sampling with an acceptable, valid standard deviation. You clearly understand the quite simple point I'm making. I don't care whether you agree, but it's nice that you at least understand what you will agree with and disagree with. That's all that matters, the rest is opinion and/or theory. You wouldn't believe how hard it is for many, otherwise intelligent people, to understand this simple idea or question. It could be that they do understand it, but they don't like the direction it takes us so they either unconsciously block it, or purposefully block it or try to deviate from it or confuse it. I'm not sure which it is. But yes, think about it. You might have a good refutation to this mere "idea", and that wouldn't bother me at all if it indeed adds up and I don't see a problem with it. Just as long as one understands what they are disagreeing with. That's all I ever ask. The rest is just healthy debate and consideration.


Hi Mutley

One thing which comes to mind when thinking about this issue is what should this "god" be? Before we can try yo calculate the possibilaty of something we must at least have a notion of what this should be.

But besides this I would say it is still valid to make some calculations on the matter. If we scientifically don't need "another something" to explain the world one could argue that the question of this "another something" is irrelevant, or one could say that it's highly unlikely that this "another something" should exist.

But if we just considers a pure philosphical stance, is it invalid to discus the matter, cause "what do we really know". I would say that it's still valid to do so, but one could argue that the philosphical argument is lacking because of the uncertainty of knowledge.

Cheers

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home