FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Calculating God's existence
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:55 am    Post subject: Re: Calculating God's existence  Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum