The definition of GOD

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

You sure contend a lot. It's nice that you are willing to describe your beliefs, but simply asserting what you believe isn't science.

---

That's funny because you asserted that "Logic is simply a set of rules that humans have developed to help us keep our thought processes orderly", I responded to a belief with a belief. But I notice you didn't disagree with the fact, "our thought processes are orderly from the start, our thoughts determine how we order things".

quote:

---

The perturbations of Uranus' orbit in the 19th century, the Michaelson-Morley [sic](Michelson-Morley ) experiment, the photoelectric effect, the fact that the ultraviolet catastrophe doesn't happen, and the discovery of high temperature superconducting ceramics are few things in the universe that confounded peoples' logical deductions.

---

Well you didn't quite answer the question I was asking but no matter, as your answer demontrates the point I wanted to get to anyway.The examples you give are based on human fallibility, the perturbations of Uranus was due to experimental error for example. But the point is, if your starting assumptions are wrong then whatever the final outcome is will tend to be wrong as well. For example, most scientists assume that gravity is the force that keeps everything together, it doesn't even cross their minds that maybe it's another force like the electromagnetic force. Whatever the true nature of the universe is, it is always logical. Infact this forum argues two different world views, evolution or creation, and all scientists assume one or the other, but both have differing views on the nature of the universe, and so maybe all seemigly illogical behaviors of the universe are based on an erroneous world view.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

I’m interested in your use of the term “natural probabilities”. Do you want to expand upon what you mean by that?

---

Not really. But the natural probability would be 1 in 3, but the host messes it up and forces the odds because he will know which door not to open, which changes the odds, "This change in the host's behavior causes the car to be twice as likely to be behind the "third door", and is what causes switching to be twice as likely to win in the "host knows" variation of the problem."

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

As has been discussed many times on this thread by several individuals, there is a difference between things that can be imagined to be possible and things that might actually be possible - a point you have made yourself on a number of occasions.

---

Not me, I have only ever claimed that possibility means what the definition in my thesis says. Besides both are still examples of possibilities.

quote:

---

Incidentally, do you agree that I am justified in refusing to accept the possibility that you can run at 100mph as a fact? It’s not a difficult question to answer. I’m sure you can find some time in your schedule to address it.

---

Well if I was on a train going at 100mph, then I got up and ran on the spot, would you argee I was technically running at 100mph?

quote:

---

Then let me take you by the hand and show you where you say just that. If you go to the end of the “ONE-SIDED ARGUMENT” section you will find the following sentence, “This of course is an impossible number, making the probability an impossibility.” There is nothing ambiguous about this statement, you declare the ”all heads’ scenario an impossibility, that is a possibility that has 0% chance. You have therefore assigned a specific value of 0%.

---

It's funny but I still do not see 0% in the sentence you quoted. Maybe it is you who is assigning specific values to things. You cannot assign any percentage to infinity, because it is impossible to divide infinity into anything.

quote:

---

Here’s the thing though. You may not be able to forget the sequence, but the independent event that is the flipping of a coin has no such memory. If you flip a coin it has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads regardless of where about in any sequence it is flipped. Flip it as the first flip - 50/50 chance, flip it as the millionth flip - 50/50 chance, flip it as the nth flip - 50/50 chance. If you were to randomly sample any coin flip from any sequence, no matter how short or long, the chance of a head is always 50/50.

---

Even though memory has nothing to do with anything, it's actually mathematics that determine the rules. But lets go with what you say for the moment. Please tell me what would normally and naturally happen without any special circumstances, if we were to flip 100 coins with individual probabilities of 50/50, how many heads would there be and how many tails would there be?

quote:

---

As you have included my quote, I expect you have read it, if not understood it. I used the term “almost inevitable” because I understand that there is a difference between 0% chance and very small chance. Remember I don’t accept your premise that no sequence has 0% of occurring, but given that you do, you should be made aware that all possible sequences of coin tosses have exactly the same probability as any other. Therefore if you declare one such sequence impossible, you declare any sequence impossible as all sequences are equally probable.

---

you're absolutely wrong, in a 50/50 scenario it is more likely that an even distribution will occur more than any other sequence given an ever increasing amount.

quote:

---

I wish you had told us you were not talking about “ordinary coins” when you used that analogy in your thesis. If you had told us they were special coins, we could have made some allowances for the ”logic’ that follows. So what makes these coins special? I could venture a guess or two but would rather you explained in your own words what makes the coins you have chosen for the analogy “not ordinary coins”.

---

The whole of part two of my thesis explains this.

quote:

---

You may well choose to nominate the YES-SUNLIGHT possibility as the “dominant space”, but I would disagree. I’m no cosmologist, so I will bow to any superior authority on the subject if I am mistaken, but when I gaze at the night sky on a clear night, the predominant colour I see is black, interspersed with the light from many stars or galaxies. This tells me the “dominant space” in the observable universe is NO-SUNLIGHT.

---

Now your changing the definitions, you originally said of you possibility spaces, "Put plainly, these two conditions refer to whether any part of the natural world as we know it comes into contact with sunlight. An underground cave into which no sunlight can penetrate would be a NO-SUNLIGHT condition. YES-SUNLIGHT conditions would apply to any part of the globe onto which the sun shines during the day. During the hours of darkness, these same YES-SUNLIGHT conditions will become NO-SUNLIGHT conditions".However you define your YES or NO SUNLIGHT space, it is defined based on the SUN, which is only present in the YES-SUNLIGHT space, that's what is meant by the dominant space.Also if we take your definition, "any part of the natural world(universe) as we know it comes into contact with sunlight" and your latest argument, "interspersed with the light from many stars or galaxies", then the universe itself is clearly a YES-SUNLIGHT space.

quote:

---

Lest we forget, you introduced the idea of possibility spaces. It’s not an idea I or various others on this thread have much time for, but we’re stuck with it. So I’ve no real idea what is going on inside your head when you say things like “spaces affected any other spaces”. What does this mean?

---

If you don't understand something, why try to argue against it, you first need to understand what it is you are arguing. If you don't understand something please ask.Affected means to act on or produce an effect or change in, or to influence, or to modify, or to alter.

quote:

---

However you also assert that one a) cannot affect b).

---

Erm, no I don't.

quote:

---

Well at last we have something we can agree on - the god doesn’t exist in this universe

---

I hope this was a misreading on your part, because my thesis proves that GOD does exist in this universe.

quote:

---

Oh come on, make your mind up. When I suggested I might be the god in an earlier post, you seemed less than impressed. Are you coming round to the idea now? I think I should warn you that I’m big on the not exercising all my powers part of your definition, so you probably wouldn’t recognize me for what I am if you ever ran in to me. Our superheroes can sometimes be such a disappointment to us, don’t you find?

---

Actually I was showing that you can be God in YOUR OWN possibility spaces, however you still can't control ALL possibility spaces, ALMIGHTY GOD would be the only one that is capable of that. Humans can indeed be Gods, just not the ultimate GOD.

quote:

---

I put it to you the only bit of your thesis that is important to you is your conclusion.

---

Well this can be shown not to be true, as half of this topic was based Solely on the definition of GOD.

quote:

---

I also put it to you that if you really think the objections to your definitions are due to misunderstandings of words or people being deliberately argumentative, you really need to stop being so defensive and start listening to what people are trying to say to you.

---

Well I haven't really been defensive, I have merely pointed out inconsistences, illogical arguments, and mistakes made by critics.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Actually, no. The perturbations were due to the existence of the previously unknown planet Neptune and its gravitational effects. Based on what was known before the discovery of Neptune, the seven known (at that time) planets, Newton's Laws of Motion, and the Law of Gravity, scientists logically concluded that Uranus had to follow a particular orbit. It didn't. That is because their premises were wrong: there weren't only seven planets, there was an eighth as well.

​

And this is my main point. Logic cannot lead us to specific knowledge about the world, because logic depends on the premises and we can never be certain that our premises are correct. The conclusions must always be checked against reality; the scientists of the 19th century knew this. That's why they did experiments and made observations. If they simply trusted their logical conclusions, then they would have just said, "This is what the orbit of Uranus looks like," and they wouldn't have bothered to check it. But they did check it because they realized that their logical results might be limited by their incomplete understanding of their premises, and it's a good thing that they did.

​

This is why I don't trust logical "proofs" of the existence of God. I don't trust the premises. I don't trust any set of premises or theoretical framework until its conclusions can be checked by observations in the real world.

---

But despite us Humans, the Universe is still always logical.

Dear Modulous,

quote:

---

And you seem to rely on this conclusion as a premise to your 'proof' of the irreducible dependency of god and existence. If it isn't. Please illuminate me by showing me the premises of your argument.

---

You constantly change what it is you are arguing against, your original argument was, "....I argue that you haven't shown anything of the sort. There is no reason you have provided which suggests that existence and God are mutually dependant. You started with the premise that God is the only possible possibility, which is obviously untrue". You here claim that I haven't shown anything which suggests that existence and God are irreducibly dependent, and claim I started with the premise that God is the only possible possibilty. I then went on to show you that the first premise was actually that there are an infinite number of possibiltities, and from that premise the whole of part two shows how God is maximally probable, making it the only possibility certain to exist. You have subtly changed your argument from arguing that I haven't given any reason to say that God and existence are mutually dependant, to arguing which premise came first.

quote:

---

So we agree then that "God is the only possible possibility" is false? As stated above, if you could reword your argument so it doesn't contain this statement perhaps I will understand you better.

---

Well on it's own "God is the only possible possibility" is a somewhat ambiguous, but then again you have taken it out of context, when it it put back into context the meaning becomes clear, "The evidence points to the fact that God is maximally probable. This means that at the most fundamental level God is really the ONLY POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY, and that any possibility that becomes actuality must therefore be a YES-GOD space by necessity".

quote:

---

So you have observed the ultimate possible being?

---

Indirectly yes. Because GOD, existence and possibility are irreducibly dependent, I can directly observe existence and possibilities, and therefore indirectly observe GOD. Just like you can Indirectly observe me by the words I type, because the words I write are irreducibly dependent with me.

quote:

---

You haven't shown that God is actually possible in this reality.

---

Yes I have, part two of my thesis shows how, "any possibility that becomes actuality must therefore be a YES-GOD space by necessity".

quote:

---

How is it meaningless?

---

Well I asked what do you mean by reality, and you answered reality is the reality that exists. It doesn't answer the question does it.

quote:

---

God cannot create reality, because God wouldn't exist in reality if reality doesn't exist. Therefore since God does not exist in reality, God does not exist.

---

GOD exists in the metaphysical realm (possibilities) that creates existence.

quote:

---

If there is a metaphysical existence, it is part of reality as I defined it (everything that exists) if other entities exist (those things you call realities), then they are part of what I call reality. Otherwise it isn't real. If you are arguing that God isn't real - I agree.

---

So do you accept that there is a metaphysical existence?

quote:

---

If you want to concede that an infinite amount of possibilities might not actually exist, that's fine by me.

---

No, an infinite number of possibilities do exist.

quote:

---

Correct. So you need to show that there are no limits on those certain things.

---

Let me ask you a question; Before reality existed, was there the possibility of it existing?

quote:

---

What has physical space got to do with possibility space?

---

Because a possibility space is anything that can include possibilities.

quote:

---

And in ALL possibility spaces there is only ever ONE of TWO answers to the ONE QUESTION. The question is "when I flip a coin does it land heads up or collapse into a black hole, emit 10100100 carbon atoms at 400 times the speed of light, with a rest mass of -4tonnes whilst composing 100 years worth of European classical music?"

​

One of them isn't actually possible though is it?

---

Well this is just rubbish, as one is not the opposite of the other. And who are you to say that one cannot happen in the metaphysical realm?

quote:

---

However, just because it is possible that a being that can influence possibility could exist, that being cannot influence possibility if it doesn't actually exist. It will only be able to do so, if it is not just a possibility but an actuality.

---

So if a metaphysical realm exists, then possibilities can affect other possibilities.

Dear Stile,In number 2 you say "the ultimate being can simply remove confusion of it's existence from those who want such confusion to be removed." So this must mean that confusion will still exist, and that God only needs to remove it if someone wants it removed.1, 2, 3 and 4 only apply to people who are confused and are searching for the ultimate possible being and want the confusion removed?In light of your first 4 answers the rest of your answers don't follow, for example it is still not required that God would need to prove himself.Now onto the other section of answers;

quote:

---

No. Power can be measured in many different ways. The most power at anything isn't always the best. The most powerful tractor is useless in making the best tasting ice-cream cone. Being the most powerful of everything is useless if the goal is to do nothing.

---

Power means energy, not tractors.

quote:

---

Yes. Being the most powerful evil force in the world certainly conflicts with absolute love and supreme justice. Being the most powerful force of removing freedom of choice certainly affects freedom of choice.

---

Power is neither evil or good, but it can be used for both.

quote:

---

No. There's no requirement for us to know that God is all powerful or not because there's not even a requirement for God to be all powerful. As shown by many Gods people believe in who are not all powerful.

---

Why are you talking about other gods, none of them can equate to GOD.

quote:

---

There's no reason why a God of ultimate power would be better than a God without it. We need to identify a goal first. If the goal is to be the strongest and fastest, or containing the most energy, then a God of ultimate power would be better. But if the goal is to be the smallest and slowest, or contain the least energy, then a God of ultimate power is the worst thing desired.

---

The "Goal" is that this being needs to control all possibilities.

quote:

---

No. Infinite power does not exist in this reality, as shown by the impossibility of perpetual motion machines.

---

Nice word switch, the word is ultimate, not infinite. Who says perpetual motion doesn't exist in the realm of metaphysical reality?

quote:

---

Don't you see that these arguements are all subjective? The very fact that we're arguing over them proves that they are subjective. There is no reason to suggest one over the other. It's the same about arguing over our favourite colours. Without observations of the real world, we cannot show or prove attributes of the real world, including existence.

---

It's only your answers that are subjective, some of them are contradictory. Some don't even answer the actual question, and many other problems.

quote:

---

I didn't answer because the answer is obvious. Of course the possibility existed. We are here now, obviously. But it's also obvious that this possibility wasn't a part of reality (because reality didn't exist yet) and there's no requirement for it to be a possibility in any being's imagination.

---

So do you agree then that there is a metaphysical realm of existence?

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

The basis for this assertion being . ?

---

Mathematics.

quote:

---

This sounds a lot like you are saying we are not the arbiters of what is or is not logical, that there is a logic that exists independent of what we are able to deduce.

---

Everything is based on some form of mathematics, mathematics is the most logical of all the sciences.

quote:

---

Clearly this is a whole different area; maybe you could start another thread. I think it would generate plenty of interest, especially the notion that freedom of choice is possible without free will.

---

But it's so simple to demonstrate. We all NEED to breathe air, we have no free will in this case, but we can choose to try stop breathing, but if we actually did stop breathing we would die. We can choose to do certain things but we are limited in the things we CAN do. So we don't have free will to anything and everything we want to do, but we have freedom of choice within the limits we have.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

You define possibility as something “that has a capability of being true, happening or existing.” So you suggest there are some things that have the capability of existing but at the same time cannot actually exist as a reality.

---

I was demonstrating an impossibility. An impossibility is a possibility that may or may not exist in the metaphysical realm, but cannot exist in our physical existence.

quote:

---

No, but I give you full points for being imaginative. Unfortunately your train is itself on a planet travelling at 66,000mph through space and rotating at 330mph around the equator. As Einstein told us, speed is relative. Relative to the spot upon which you are applying your force, you are not moving, hence the term “running on the spot”.

---

But that's the thing, you set the rules I just found a way to break them. If speed is relative, them I am really running at 100mph relative to me, just not to you. I could be running up and down the train carridge as well.

quote:

---

But you have chosen to call it “impossible”, which by definition gives it a 0% chance of happening.

---

NO, look if we were talking about a limited number then yes, but you cannot give a percentage to infinities.

quote:

---

As an aside, the question has to be does your ”all powerful’ god have the ability to cause an infinite number of coins flip to be ”all heads’? If the answer is yes, then your claim that it is impossible does not stand up. If the answer is no, then your god is not ”all powerful’. Either way, this leads to an internal inconsistency within your thesis.

---

Well my definition and my thesis never call GOD "all powerful" anyway. So there's no inconsistency.

quote:

---

Okay let’s go over this all again. Each and every flip is an independent event, which has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. Each and every sequence of 100 flips has a (1/2)^100 chance of occurring, so all outcomes are equally probable - there are no sequences that are more likely to “naturally happen without any special circumstances” than any other. There is no way of knowing in advance what the sequence will be, only that it will have a (1/2)^100 chance of occurring. Similarly, there is no way of knowing how many heads it will contain. Sure, we can calculate how many heads there might be - there is a 7.96% chance that the sequence will contain 50 heads and 50 tails for instance - which tells us precisely what exactly?

---

Oh Boy, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you. Let me try to explain a bit about probability.Lets just flip 1 coin 4 times, now there are 16 possible sequences, these are;HHHH HHHT TTTH HHTT
THHH TTHH TTHT HTHT
HTHH THTH THTT HTTH
HHTH THHT HTTT TTTTThe chance for all the coins to be the same is 2 times out of 16 or, 1 in 8 or 12.5%
The chance for 3 coins to be the same is 8 times out of 16 or, 1 in 2 or 50%
The chance for 2 coins to be the same is 6 times out of 16 or, 3 in 8 or 37.5%So here we can see that a sequence of 3 coins flipping the same is more likely than any other sequence. And conversely the sequence of all the coins flipping the same is actually less likely than any other sequence.Clearly then, all outcomes are not equally probable.

quote:

---

Sorry, but I’m absolutely right. We saw in the above that the probability of an “even distribution” of 50/50 heads/tails in 100 flips was 7.56%. If we increase the number of flips to 1,000, the probability of “even 500/500 distribution” reduces to 2.52%. I could go on, but the bigger the sample size, the less likely does an “even distribution” become.

---

Hold on a sec. Could you please go through exactly how you calculated the even distibutions, as in the previous paragraph it was 7.96%, and now it's 7.56%.I was searching the interweb and came across another forum that was discussing probabilities one of the comments was, "Sometimes people refer to "the law of large numbers" when dealing with probabilities. Only if you flip the coin a large number of times can you be certain of getting 50% heads and 50% tails. If you flip it just once, obviously you don't -- you get either 100% heads or 100% tails. Only if you flip the coin an infinite number of times, in fact, are you guaranteed of getting 50% heads and 50% tails".I also found a website on probability and margins of error that said, "Suppose you flip a coin ten thousand times. How many heads will you get? On each flip, the coin has equal probability of coming up heads or tails. So, on AVERAGE, you will get five thousand heads and five thousand tails. On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that you will get EXACTLY five thousand heads -- rather, you will get "about" five thousand heads".How did you calculate the probability?

quote:

---

but it does nothing to explain what makes your coins special.

---

"Any NO-GOD possibility space has little bearing or influence on any other possibility space, certainly not in the way God would have. But JUST ONE YES-GOD possibility space, will by default totally NULL AND VOID ALL NO-GOD possibility spaces".

quote:

---

So it means exactly what I would expect it to mean. The confusion arises when you say things like, “a NO-GOD possibility could be placed ANYWHERE as it is only one possibility in an infinity of other possibilities, and this particular space wouldn't have much, if any, affect on any other space” in your thesis.

​

Revisiting the example I used in Message 260, it’s very easy to show that the effect of one possibility, that a randomly selected adult might be pregnant, is directly affected by another possibility, the gender of that person. If you want to give these gender possibilities labels, let’s call them YES-FEMALE and NO-FEMALE.

​

At the start, the probability that a randomly selected adult might be pregnant may be 5%. The moment we determine the gender of the adult, the starting probability becomes 10% if the YES-FEMALE possibility prevails, or 0% if the NO-FEMALE possibility prevails. The NO-FEMALE directly has directly affected adult may be pregnant possibility. Exactly the same principle applies in your scenario, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.

---

What is your point? I have not claimed that possibilities can not affect other possibilities. From what I can see the no-female possibilty has a negative affect, going from 5% to 0%. I am talking about possibility spaces not individual possibilities.

quote:

---

So how exactly are we to interpret the phrase, “a NO-GOD possibility could be placed ANYWHERE as it is only one possibility in an infinity of other possibilities, and this particular space wouldn't have much, if any, affect on any other space”?

---

It needs no interpretation.

quote:

---

Well here’s exactly what you said in Message 253, “I mean just beacause God doesn't exist in this universe”. Perhaps the subliminal part of your mind that knows there is no god took control of your typing finger for a few moments.

---

I was merely pointing out that if this universe was a NO-GOD space how would that effect any other universes. I find it interesting that you entirely miss the point and avoid the actual issue.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

You have presented what you claim to be a proof of God's existence. (At least that's what I think you're claiming.) But in science, or even in the real world, logical proofs mean nothing until they are verified by experiments or observations of phenomena in the real world.

​

So your efforts are kind of quaint (especially since I don't really think you proved anything at all, as the other correspondents are trying to tell you), but I still see no real reason to take the idea of a god seriously. If you want to demonstrate God's existence, then you're going to have to present physical, solid, verifiable evidence.

---

The problem is that as you have admitted you "see no real reason to take the idea of a god seriously", any evidence I have you will not accept, because you don't take God seriously. I have already told you that the whole of existence can be used for experimentation.Anyway, here is an experiment that can test the relationships between possibility spaces and also the relationships between God, possibility and existence.Take any number of boxes of various types, some can be translucent, some can be open boxes, some can be closed. Place an animal like a mouse into each box, and then observe what happens.This simple experiment can show how possibility spaces affect other possibility spaces, and notice the experimenter plays the role of God, so we can test that relationship towards the experimenter and the experiment.

Dear Modulous,Why didn't you answer the question,Before reality existed, was there the possibility of it existing?Answer this question please before answering anything else.

quote:

---

I'll let the lurkers decide over who is arguing over which premise came first.

---

What a clever way to shift the focus, I hope these "lurkers" can see how "clever" you are.

quote:

---

All I care about is for you to illuminate me on the details of your argument, that doesn't (at any point, first or last) include the premise that god is the only possible possibility.

---

Well how about God is maximally probable.

quote:

---

Let me see if I get this straight. God exists, therefore god and existence are irreducibly dependent therefore the problems with the premises are solved by this conclusion?

​

You earlier argued that the fact that god is irreducibly dependent was some kind of solution to the problem with your premises regarding the ultimate possible being. Message 227, I'm having difficulty reconciling your position.

---

There is no problem with the premise, it is a problem with how YOU define reality.

quote:

---

But you haven't made any observations that confirm this dependency?

---

Yes I have, every single possibility space that has so far been used thoughout this topic has been dependent on a creator.

quote:

---

And I also said: "I use reality to encompass all that exists". If God exists he does so in reality.

---

The confusion that you are having is that you define reality as existence, and existence as reality. But if that is true then how do you answer the question I asked at the beginning.

quote:

---

Does god exist or not? He cannot exist in a realm that creates existence because to do so, he'd have to exist - which would make him part of existence.

---

I hate to have to repeat myself but that is why GOD, possibility and existence are IRREDUCIBLY DEPENDENT. Just like time, space and matter.

quote:

---

What would give you that idea? My statement was preceded by the word 'if'.

---

Can you answer the question please, do you accept there is metaphysical existence? YES or NO.

quote:

---

So then you have to both show that this is so, rather than just asserting that it is with reference to non-real entities that you cannot know can all actually exist or not AND that one of those possibilities is God, which is also not necessarily the case.

---

Well first please answer the first question, "Before reality existed, was there the possibility of it existing"?

quote:

---

Since when did questions have to have opposite answers? The point is that if one of the proposed answers is not actually possible, then it will never be more than a hypothetical possibility.

---

When flippimg a coin, there are only two sides, one side and the OPPOSITE side, therefore any questions that uses a coin as the example need to be exact opposites. It's simple common sense.

quote:

---

Only if they are the rules of this metaphysical realm. Why would we assume that to be the case? Inventing a hypothetical realm where possibilities can hypothetically affect one another is not really going to prove anything.

---

Well I think there are two or three options on the rules of metaphysical existence. The firt is that there are NO rules, which would make anything and everything possible. Or perhaps the rules are dictated by the possibilities themselves ie, GOD gets to decide the rules, and either an additional one to the second or a completely different one is that logic dictates the rules ie, things that are logically impossible don't even exist in the metaphysical realm.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

This is a completely circular argument. You previously claimed that “the universe is always logical it has nothing to do with us”. But now you tell us you know this because human mathematics tells us so. So the logic you claim underpins the universe is best defined by human mathematics, which makes it entirely to do with us and entirely at the mercy of human subjectivity.

---

Excuse me? since when has mathematics been human? All humans have ever done is discovered maths, and then invented numbers and symbols to expess mathematics in human terms.For example the equation E=MC2 was discovered not invented, and look at that C squared, why should it BE squared? Pi was not invented it was discovered, and the Golden ratio, and so on.Think about it, there has always been numbers, even before we assigned specific symbols for them. One object put together with another object makes two objects, this was always the case before we came up with numbers and symbols to express the equation, 1+1=2.

quote:

---

Thank you for pointing out to me that the limitations of free will are exactly as I understood them to be when I used the term.

---

My pleasure.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

Do I detect a note of scorn or even contempt in your tone here? I think we’d all be interested to find out what the author of a ”scientific’ proof really thinks about science.

---

No, I love science, it's very important to us all, however It's not the be all and end all,Scientists admit all the time that science might not be able to answer EVERY question that there is, but almost everyone else (who aren't scientists) assume that science can or will answer every question.But anyway the whole thing we were talking about is that someone can be as scientific as possible, but if the original premise or world view is wrong, then the results are probably going to be wrong.

Dear Everyone,Unfortunately as I was typing up replies to you guys, my cat came along and knocked my class of water over my computer, and now my comp doesn't want to turn on anymore. I am hoping that it will be OK tomorrow when the comps dried out. So please bare with me, I'm using my brothers computer to type this. But I might not be able to reply for a day or so.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Actually, the problem is that you haven't provided any real reason to take the idea of a god seriously.

---

Thanks for proving my point.

quote:

---

The other problem is that you want to discuss what you think are my psychological issues rather than admit that your reasoning is flawed.

---

Well this is untrue, I don't care about your psychological issues, they are irrelevent. Although I have come to the conclusion that you simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

quote:

---

Okay, I've owned pets, and I have done this very thing. What was I supposed to have observed, and how do these observations support your thesis?

---

Exactly what I already said, "This simple experiment can show how possibility spaces affect other possibility spaces". You can observe how the animals interact with eachother, whether any animals can enter another box (possibility space). Can an animal in a completely closed box interact with any other animals, and so on. Do the positions of the boxes effect the relationships?Dear Modulous,

quote:

---

The word 'before' implies time. Time is part of reality. There can be no 'before' reality exists. If reality does not exist, there is no possibility of it existing.

---

Are you saying reality and/or time is infinite?

quote:

---

Yes, defining reality as being that which includes all things that exist does cause problems. How do you define reality?

---

The reason it's a problem for you as you now admit is because you have defined reality is existence, and existence is reality, which is of course a meaningless circular argument. Unless we expand on what these words actually mean.The Dictionary defines reality as;1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. something that is real.
5. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
6. The quality or state of being actual or true.
7. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual.
8. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
9. That which exists objectively and in fact.Notice these definitions talk about something that physically exists, so reality can now be properly defined as physical existence only.However possibilities do not exist as physicalities, they are metaphysical. Which means there are at least 2 forms of existence.

quote:

---

Show your data.

---

well all the data is on this thread, Dogrelata's YES and NO-SUNLIGHT possibilty spaces are a good example, he created them.

quote:

---

Indeed - thus God cannot create reality. (Though as previously mentioned, time and space can exist without matter and it might even possible for space to exist without time)

---

God can indeed create physical existence, which is what reality actually is.Where has it been previously mentioned time and space can exist without matter?

quote:

---

I don't know what this 'metaphysical existence' is.

---

Things that are non physical or without material form or substance, but still having some form of "existence", like possibilities, concepts, prospects, potentials, thoughts, imagination, dreams, abstracts, and numbers even (numbers seem to be both physical and metaphysical), Things like that.

quote:

---

Yes, when flipping a coin there are only two actual possibilities (as well as countless hypothetical possibilities). Now - how many actual possibilities are there to the question 'Is there a God?'? There are either one or two possibilities. You don't know if it is one or two.

---

There are only ever two actual possible answers to the question "Is there a God"? YES and NO!

quote:

---

Put it like this: I flip a coin which has two heads on it but you don't know that. You think there are two possibilities: heads or tails, when there is actually only one possibility. This is the problem you face - you have to show that God is one of the possibilities not just say he either exists or he doesn't. Either the coin collapses into a composing black hole structure or it doesn't. There are only two answers to the question "Will it collapse into a black hole and compose music?" YES-black_hole and NO-black-hole. But they are not both possibilities since one of them isn't actually possibility.

---

Well it doesn't matter if both sides have heads, as the coins still have only two opposite sides.Possibilities are always possibilities, every example you can come up with is a possibility, it's only when you actually flip the coin will a possibility become part of existence. You can come up with as many possibilities as you like, but there is only one possibility I am interested in, that of the possibility of GOD's existence, and that particular question of whether GOD exists, only has 2 possible answers.Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

But you did not say these possibilities “cannot exist in our physical existence”; you said, “cannot actually exist as a reality.”

​

Either way though, there is an internal inconsistency contained within your thesis. In the first instance you define your god as:-

---

There is no inconsistency when you realise reality simply means physical existence, as was shown in my response to Modulous.

quote:

---

To be able to communicate with another, we need to be able to assume a few things, otherwise we’d spend our time predefining and qualifying everything we say to the nth degree. I assume that any functioning adult is able to understand that running is a bio-mechanical activity which utilises the force of friction that exists between two surfaces - in this case the sole of the foot or shoe and the floor of a train. The speed at which an individual is able to run is measured in relation to the surface on which they are running. I know that and so do you. To pretend otherwise makes it look like you wish to evade the question.

​

Of course your whole thesis involves you ”finding a way to break the rules’ of the scientific process in an attempt to promote your own agenda, so the above is simply another example of the same.

---

My thesis breaks no rules at all. But to get back to the original subject, running at 100mph is a possibility, if it is not actually possible to do, it is an impossibility. However it would be difficult to prove that it was impossible, so from our standpoint today it remains for us a possibility.

quote:

---

You’ve pointed out a misconception I had about infinities, for which I thank you. However, from what I have read, if my current understanding is correct, division by infinity is not quantifiable, which is not the same as saying it is impossible. If that is the case, it is incorrect to say the ”all heads’ scenario is impossible - rather it is not quantifiable.

---

The chance and odds against such a thing occuring are what makes it impossible, not whether infinity can be quantifiable.

quote:

---

I could go on wading through post after post, but there is no need, you have called your god “all powerful” on numerous occasions. By your own definition, if it does not have the power to cause an infinite number of coins to be ”all heads’, it is not “in control of all power” and therefore “couldn’t be god”. So there is clearly an internal inconsistency to be addressed. Would you like to do so?

---

This is a great example of you taking things out of context and you lack of respect for facts.I clearly said "Well my DEFINITION and my THESIS never call GOD "all powerful" anyway", and then you take a quote that is part of neither. Not only that but this was at the time when omniscient and omnipotent where being discussed, and my definition of all powerful was different to everybody else, and so the confusion had to be cleared up. Infact I said that when I talked about power I meant power as in energy or force.GOD has the power (energy or force) to do anything that's possible. Having ultimate power, does NOT mean GOD can DO anything and everything.

quote:

---

Except of course you then go on to talk about probability in relation to sequences. The thing about a sequence of coin flips is that any specified outcome depends on the order in which each head/tail occurs. So even in the ”all heads’ scenario, where it appears that the order is unimportant, a head must always follow a head, ad infinitum - if it didn’t, it would be an alternative unique sequence.

​

No doubt for your own reasons you chose the ”all heads’ sequence to represent your case. Somebody else may have arbitrarily chosen another sequence entirely, e.g. HTHT . ad infinitum. In this sequence, a head must always be followed by a tail and vice versa. The odds of the ”wrong’ side coming up at any point are exactly the same as in the ”all heads’ scenario - at which point the sequence will have ”failed’ to be possible by your reckoning.

​

If we were to take an infinite number of people, give them an infinite number of coins and give each a specified, unique infinite sequence against which to compare their actual coin tosses, each and every one of these people would have a 1/2 chance of ”failure’ on the first flip, the cumulative chance of ”failure’ increasing two fold with each subsequent flip. This means that each sequence has exactly the same chance of failure. Hence, all sequences are equally probable.

---

You wrong again because, chance doesn't follow arbitary sequences. And you fail to mention that in reality about half of the people would flip "success" flips.

quote:

---

You have introduced the idea of a possibility space. You also define your god as knowing every possibility and having the power to bring any of these possibilities into actuality. So this offers us the opportunity to use randomness in another way. This time we could say, “if we randomly select any possibility space, this represents the god bringing it into actuality”. However the problem with this would be, according to your rationale, that if we continued to do this over and over, we risk the possibility of selecting the NO-GOD possibility space, which immediately wipes out the god. By your reckoning, at some point it becomes inevitable that the NO-GOD possibility will be selected. Goodbye the god.

---

Well actually you have clearly misunderstood what a NO-GOD space is, "God does not exist in this possibility space. From now on these will be called NO-GOD possibility spaces". God not existing in an individual space has no bearing on whether God exists outside of the possibility space.Dear reiverix,

quote:

---

Hold on. The number of sequences does not dictate the probability of flipping any particular sequence. Why do you think it does?

---

I never said it did.

quote:

---

Think about it. If I flip the coin 4 times and get all heads, do you think that all heads is suddenly eliminated as a possibility for the next 4 flips?

---

Nope.The argument was simply that all sequences are not equally probable,Dear dogrelata,I apologise but I am going to break here as it has just gone 4 in the morning and I am using my brothers wireless keyboard amd mouse which I am not used to and my wrists are hurting because of it. But it seems this may be the last post so I will take this oportunity to thankyou and everybody else for contributing. I have a lot of things to think about, which was the whole point of the exercise.

I came back here and expected this thread to be closed.But at least it enables me to make some final comments.It is clear that no one has been able to disprove any of the arguments contained in my thesis, even though it needs expanding and futher explanations and proofs given as many people have simply misunderstood many of the concepts.Unfortunatly some critics have disagreed simply for the sake of disagreeing, some have delibrately used staw man arguments, and many times taken quotes totally out of context. Not only that but some critics have sometimes totally changed the wording of the thesis to suit their own purpose. Also other critics have used ill defined words and sometimes twisted the meaning of a word to suit their own purpose, and then they blantently deny that fact even when I show the real definitions from the dictionary. The final problem with the critics is that most were using illogical arguments, and sometimes arguments that were totally irrelevent.The final conclusion despite all the criticism is that no one has been able to disprove the theory that GOD, possibility and existence are irreducibly dependent.This thread has however helped me understand in what areas I need to improve the thesis, and no doubt that this will end up as a book.Thankyou all for taking part in my little experiment.