/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4376288]

Hey sci. Im trying to argue with my roommate that god doesnt exist because im an atheist. The problem is that he made an argument that I cant think of a way to shoot down. He says that the set of all possibilities is {0,1} for god existing. Either he exists or not. Therefore, since we don't know whether or not he exists the probability for each case is 1/2. I still dont believe in god but im wondering if anyone has ever heard this argument before. I dont see how to refute it unless the set changes.

probably some simple math im overlooking. thx for the help sci.

[Anonymous No.4376294]

No, he's right.

Enjoy your spiritual emptiness.

Oh wait. This is /sci/. Fuck off with your religion thread.

[Anonymous No.4376296]

It will either rain or not rain.
Therefore, the possibility is 1/2

[Anonymous No.4376299]

A dice will either fall on 2 or not fall on 2.
Therefore, the possibility is 1/2

[Anonymous No.4376301]

>>4376296
Yeah i thought about stuff like this already but there are more options than just rain and not rain... like sleet, hail, sun, clouds, etc. And there are lots of different places in the world with lots of weather so if you average it out it should work out correctly.

[Anonymous No.4376303]

>Pascal's Wager

>/thread

[Anonymous No.4376305]

>>4376299
once again this argument doesnt make sense because dice have 6 sides not just 2 like the god question. and it works with dice the set is {1,2,3,4,5,6} and each side has a 1/6 chance.

[Anonymous No.4376310]

Either I win the lottery or I don't. Two options, so it's 1/2.

Therefore I win the lottery half the time I play.

[Anonymous No.4376319]

>>4376288
I guess that means there's a 50% chance that your roommate is retarded, then, isn't there?

[Anonymous No.4376312]

the problem is one of semantics rather than mathematics.

god is impossible as generally defined, thus the odds of it existing are 0, no matter how many times you give it the chance to exist.

[Anonymous No.4376314]

Seems like a false dichotomy to me. God could exist. God could not exist.... Or God could not exist but Ganesh exists. Or God does not exist, but gods exist. Etc, etc, etc... He has arbitrarily chosen one conclusion from nearly infinite number of "possible" conclusions.

[Anonymous No.4376327]

a very abstract argument would be to ask him what he means by "to exist"

in fact to say God either exists or doesn't exist is totally invalid.

Think of anything that you know exists (a car, a tree, a sound); it exists as a finite, temporal and caused thing. We have no comprehension of something that exists that isn't either finite, caused, or temporal.

To reduce God to a thing that exists is to reduce God to the temporal, finite, or caused realm, which by definition God can't be because God is usually defined as atemporal, infinite, uncaused.

It is more correct to say God neither exists nor does not exist ( the category of existence doesn't apply to God) because they have opposing properties (finite vs infinite).

God by definition transcends existence. But to transcend existence is to become incoherent to the human mind, so at best we can say the concept of God is totally incoherent if we give him his usual properties...

[Anonymous No.4376338]

Define anti-God to be a force that negates God from existence.

probability of God existing is {0,1} so 50%

probability of anti-God existing is {0,1} so 50%

God's new chance of existing 25%

[Anonymous No.4376341]

>>4376310
ugh its like you guys dont understand the issue... the lottery has billions or at least millions of outcomes. God either exists or doesn't. There is no 1-1000000 scale of how much he/she exists.

>>4376312
>god is impossible as generally defined, thus the odds of it existing are 0
This dosent make any sense. How can you just assert that?

>>4376314
that logic would work if he was asserting a speicfic god exists. he just thinks a god exists period.

>>4376319
no, once againt ry to understand the question. retardation is defined as a <60 IQ and IQ is a continuous scale so it isn't a bernoulli r.v.

... I though someone here would be able to explain a counterargument but so far this is all wrong.

[Anonymous No.4376347]

When rolling a die, the probability of rolling a "2" is either 50% or it's not 50%. Two options, so that means each has a 50% chance. Therefore there's a 50% of 2 having a 50% of being rolled. So it's a 25% chance that you'll roll a 2. But then, this argument is either right or wrong, and there's a 50% chance of each...

[Anonymous No.4376348]

>>4376338
no because the anti god wouldnt be an independent variable from the actual god necessarily so the probabilities could still be 50/50 each if they had a 1:1 correlation... this argument is interesting for other things tho

>>4376327
errr... this seems more like a humanities/philosophy answer... i'm looking for somehting more concrete and logical and correct.

[Anonymous No.4376354]

>>4376341
You have completely, absolutely missed the point. Just because there are two options, does not imply that both are equally likely!

[Anonymous No.4376355]

>>4376348

>trying to rationalise a deity that by definition is beyond our understanding

Mate, I don't think that you're room-mate is the retarded one, frankly.

[Anonymous No.4376353]

>>4376341
You really, really cannot into binomial statistics.

Examples of Bernoulli trials include
* Rolling a die, where a six is "success" and everything else a "failure".

[OP No.4376356]

>>4376347
ummmm... what? I didn't follow after the dice part but i already debunked the dice paradox earlier in the thraed

[Anonymous No.4376357]

>>4376355

>you're room-mate

WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE

[OP No.4376367]

>>4376353
thanks for the ad hominem attack but im actually a math/physics major so i probably know more than you about this.

>>4376355
>you're
thanks for more ad hominem but maybe "you're" [sic] roommate is the retarded one

>>4376354
yes but if it selection from a set like it is then without known weighted odds it is 50/50

[Anonymous No.4376378]

4/10

[Anonymous No.4376380]

>>4376367
That's not what an ad-hominem attack is.

Ad-hominem:
You're fucking retarded so your argument is wrong

Not ad-hominem:
Your argument is wrong so you're fucking retarded

And you still cannot into binomial statistics. You're assuming that _every_ distribution is uniform, which is simply not (even remotely close to being) true.

[Anonymous No.4376384]

>is a math major
>cannot into simple probability theory

Yeah, nah. God isn't something that you can concretely say exists or doesn't. Trying to put probabilities to it won't work.

Don't you think that if it could work, people would've done it by now?

[Anonymous No.4376389]

You can't set a probability without any information as to the evidence supporting God's existence.

It is literally impossible to have evidence for God's existence, so it's literally impossible to assign a probability value to God's existence.

[OP No.4376390]

>>4376380
>You're assuming that _every_ distribution is uniform

dont put words into my mouth and yes callign someone a reatard is ad hominem.... anyways im not assuming the distribution is uniform but it is a selection from a set of 2 possibilities yes or no. so the odds should be 1/2 1/2. If i knew the weights of probabilities it oculd be different but i dont.

anyways i think I already thought of a counterargument so i dont really need your guys help

[Anonymous No.4376394]

>>4376390
>anyways im not assuming the distribution is uniform but it is a selection from a set of 2 possibilities yes or no. so the odds should be 1/2 1/2

Please look up the definition of 'uniform distribution' before cramming your foot any further into your mouth.

[Anonymous No.4376395]

>>4376390

>I already have a counter-argument

Oh, this should be hilarious. Do tell.

[Anonymous No.4376396]

>>4376367
>I'm actually a math/physics major so i probably know more than you about this.
Sounds like an Appeal to Authority, a classic Logical Fallacy. Also, I have a bachelor's degree in math, so back atcha.

Anyway, as was previously stated, if there are two possible outcomes, THAT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT BOTH OUTCOMES ARE EQUALLY LIKELY!

saged for troll

[Anonymous No.4376397]

You can't prove a negative.
You will never win.
The only correct move is to not play.

[OP No.4376401]

>>4376384
hmmm your explanation would need a little more facts to back it up

>>4376389
lol this is just a rideiculous argument... you cant know anything about a dice before you roll it but you can still assign probabilities... thats just silly hahahh... anyways as ive said i already worked out the paradox so i don't need any more fallacies from thsi thread

[Anonymous No.4376403]

>>4376390

>says that he didn't assume uniform distribution
>then admits that he was assuming uniform distribution

oh gawd mah balls

[Anonymous No.4376409]

>>4376401

>facts
>God

HOLY SHIT, WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU GET

GOD AS A CONCEPT CANNOT BE MEASURED AND THERE ARE NO FACTS

[Anonymous No.4376417]

>He says that the set of all possibilities is {0,1} for god existing

But that is too vague. The set would include the possibility of ALL Gods existing, first of all. Then fewer, and fewer, and fewer Gods. Then the set of all Omnipotent but Evil Gods, then the set of all Omnipotent but good Gods, then the set of all Greek and Hindu Gods, etc etc...Then the set of all Gods who are omniscient but not omnipotent, etc etc...

It's an infinite set, and like someone already said, it doesn't make sense to say God exists.

[OP No.4376418]

>>4376394
hurr its 1/(b-a) for a uniform distribution i know all about it and it has nothing to do with this uniform distribution is a continuous random variable this one only has 2 options... wow you really dont know much math

>>4376396
wasnt appealing to authroity i was juust saying that i am majoring in math/phys so i know more about math.

>>4376397
sorry i dont even know what this means

>>4376395
k its a math argument tho so i need to look over that latex tutorial so i can type it up in this trhead

[Anonymous No.4376424]

>>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/ >>>/b/

[Anonymous No.4376425]

>>4376418
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_(discrete)

[Anonymous No.4376427]

>>4376418
>wasnt appealing to authroity i was juust saying that i am majoring in math/phys so i know more about math.
>wasnt appealing to authority i was juust appealing to authority

[Anonymous No.4376428]

>>4376288
Your friend is a fucking moron. His argument is fucking laughable and incoherent. Laugh at his face and rape his mother.

After the rape make sure they both commit suicide. People that dumb shouldnt be allowed in society.

[OP No.4376434]

>>4376403
fuck you already said its not a uniform distribution... uniform distribution is continuous 1/(b-a) on interval a,b this is not a continuous random variable so shut up with that or take probability, ok?

>>4376409
i know he cant be measured... thats why the only method for him is probability... if you can measure things then you dont need to guess with probabilities... like if you can just measure the length of a building you dont need probability to guess the length of the building.

>>4376417
no we arent arguing about all that... just weather or not god exists. just 0,1

[OP No.4376443]

>>4376425
idk about this distribution... maybe when i learn about it i will use it but im not going to read an entire wiki article just for this thread lol...

>>4376427
errr do you not know what aurhtority is? i didnt say that einstein said im right i said im majoring in math/phys which is a fact. its credentials not an authority... woow

>>4376428
umm ok but unless you can disprove it you might end up eating your words so maybe just keep then in your mouth ok?

[Anonymous No.4376444]

>>4376401
>you cant know anything about a dice before you roll it but you can still assign probabilities

except you know a ton about a dice before you roll it, you already have past experience of dice rolling. you know how many sides they have and you have evidence as to what happens when you roll a dice--a side appears on top--

there could be a universe in which, whenever you roll a dice it lands on its corner and no side ever appears, making the idea of a probability for a "side" irrelevant--

but we know in our universe that doesn't happen.

When you talk about God's probability for existing, you are talking about the probability of rolling a dice of unknown sides, rolled in an unknown universe...it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.4376446]

Either Santa Claus exists or not.
So there is a 50% of probability that he exists.

[Anonymous No.4376448]

>>4376288
There is an inadequate definition of god for this to be a meaningful debate. If you define god as "God" the judeo-christian deity as described in the bible then one can wholly and completely logically refute his existence. The probability of his existence if 0.

Truth of the matter is that theists, atheists and "agnostics" are all retarded.

Fortunately for me, I'm part of the theological noncognitivist master race.

[Anonymous No.4376456]

>>4376434
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOUR FRIENDS WITH A COMPLETE IDIOT?

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?

[Anonymous No.4376459]

>>4376434
>no we arent arguing about all that... just weather or not god exists. just 0,1

Except it is inclusive in the argument because many Gods are mutually exclusive and the existence of one depends on the non-existence of another.

I.e if Jesus-God exists, then Zeus doesn't.
If Vishnu exists, then Jesus doesn't.

Etc.

[Anonymous No.4376462]

>>4376434

You can't assign probabilities without some past experience telling you what kind of outcomes to expect.

This is clearly a high-school student trying to come up with a shitty argument for his religion class. At least I hope so, because no math major should be this retarded when it comes to probabilities.

[OP No.4376463]

>>4376444
yeah but if you dont know anything about the dice then isn't the most likely (law of large numbers) just to say that it is all equally likely?

>>4376446
eyah i get that the logic doesnt work on santa claus and stuff but why doesnt the math work out correctly...

>>4376448
yeah but this thread is about probability not your personal beliefs on god

[Anonymous No.4376471]

>>4376463
>yeah but this thread is about probability not your personal beliefs on god
You're either too retarded to understand what I wrote, or too retarded to see how definition affects probability.

[Anonymous No.4376475]

>>4376288
Either I fucked your mom and came in her dirty vagina, or I fucked your mom and came in her mouth.

So there is a 100% chance I fucked your mom.

[Anonymous No.4376479]

Hey OP, how do probabilities work outside time and space and causality?

How did your friend figure this out? When did he transcend reality?

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.4376482]

>>4376463
>math work out correctly

CAUSE YOU ARENT DOING FUCKING MATH, YOU ARE JUST MAKING UP BULLSHIT.

KILL YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIEND.

\thread

[OP No.4376483]

>>4376456
serously guys if were going to have this debate its about probability please quit with the admhominem attacks against me and my roomatte

>>4376459
no because we are just atlking about wehter or not a god exists not whetehr certain god exists otherwise you might be right.

>>4376462
except you can... you dont know every dice that hgas ever been rolled but you still assign probabilities because for an ideal dice there are 6 sides.

[Anonymous No.4376487]

>>4376463
>yeah but if you dont know anything about the dice then isn't the most likely (law of large numbers) just to say that it is all equally likely?

>law of large numbers

no it wouldn't apply in this case, at all, in any sense at all--

[Anonymous No.4376488]

>alleged math major
>unfamiliar with discrete uniform distribution, the simplest distribution in all of statistics (1/n)...yet espouses this distribution as applicable to every aspect of life

Yeah, sure. Terrible troll is terrible.

[Anonymous No.4376490]

>>4376483
>admhominem

Welp, I'm out.

lrn2adhominem, faggot. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[Anonymous No.4376492]

Santa Clause exists or doesn't exist. Therefore 1/2.

[Anonymous No.4376495]

>>4376490
Yeah, I already explained the difference clearly. He called my explanation an ad-hominem as well.

[Anonymous No.4376497]

>3/10
Because you actually got people to respond.

[Anonymous No.4376499]

>>4376288

Tell him that is like saying you roll and six sided die and you want to roll a 5. It isn't "Yes it is a five" or "No it is not a five." Those are two outcomes but there are five outcomes saying it is not a five to the 1 saying it is.

In other words the odds are more like 5 000 000 000 "There is no gods" to 1 "There is a god"

Sorry for the stupid analogies, trying to use something that he could easily relate to since he seems to have absolutely no concept of probability.

[Anonymous No.4376502]

>im an atheist
>im actually a math/physics major

No, you are a christard from a board like /r9k/ or /b/ that barely finished high school and came here to troll. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4376505]

Probability of spaghetti monster controlling all human life: 1/2.

God? SEEMS LEGIT.

[Anonymous No.4376514]

two options doesn't mean that they have an equal chance of occurring.

[Anonymous No.4376526]

>>4376514
\thread

[Anonymous No.4376534]

[Anonymous No.4376537]

>>4376483

Yeah, I'm gonna agree with everyone else and just say troll.

[OP No.4377236]

Sorry for the lack of responses in the last like 4 hours. I've been playing Super Smash Bros. Anyways, I'm done with this thread. Jesus, I think the internet has gotten less troll resistant lately; too many newfags.

pic related: trollin' ain't easy