This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

## 50 Proofs that God is not real?

• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
1. Boards
2. Religion
3. 50 Proofs that God is not real?

#### User Info: chukie_sue

chukie_sue
6 years ago#21
I lost my faith and straight face upon reading proof #5.
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

#### User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
6 years ago#22
What if you miss, and it just travels on into infinity?

Not possible. In the hypothetical, there isn't anywhere in the universe that isn't on the square. Technically there's not even any place to throw the dart from, but we gloss over that for the sake of having a clearly and completely defined example.
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick

#### User Info: hermanooter

hermanooter
6 years ago#23
That part of the concept works with a real dart and a real dartboard.

Real darts have tips that are finitely proportional to the area of the board. An arbitrary mathematical point would have a finite chance of falling within that range. The only thing this shows is that conceptual perfection is indeed a practical impossibility.

A better example, IMO, is the probability of choosing any given real number between two numbers.

Or how about this: the odds of getting one number on a lottery ticket are better than the odds of getting all 6.

By your logic if it has an infinite number of attributes and the probability of each is <100% then the chances of it existing are 0%.

Yes, but not all attributes have <100% probability of existing in general, some definitely do, no doubt about it. I think the point you are missing is that the attribute itself must exist in order for something to have it.

Being a non-bigfoot is one of my traits. Am I a psychic?

OK, I'll take your word on not being a bigfoot. I doubt you are psychic, but to a lesser degree than I doubt that some kind of psychic exists somewhere. However if you are indeed a psychic then some kind of psychic definitely exists.
That says nothing about ghosts though.
I'd say that the odds of you being a psychic ghost are less than you being just a psychic or just a ghost, each of which are less likely than you being either a psychic or a ghost.

I have brown hair, so I am not blonde. Being a nonblonde is, therefore, one of my attributes.

People aren't defined by their hair colour. I was blonde as a kid and now I have brown hair but I was me the whole time. Capital-G God has to be omnipotent, or why call him God? That's the form of the traditional problem of evil, but you don't even need to muddle the equation with the subjectivity of morality.

So if you were a brain in a jar...

Um, good thing I'm not? Sucks to be one of those things I suppose, if they even exist.
"For a hermeneut, you sure take the challah" - Polemos

#### User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
6 years ago#24
Herman Ooter posted...
I'd say that the odds of you being a psychic ghost are less than you being just a psychic or just a ghost,

That assumes that some psychics are not ghosts (and vice versa). If all psychics are ghost psychics, then the odds of being a psychic are equal to the odds of being a ghost. It's like saying the odds of being an unmarried male is equal to the odds of being a bachelor.
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

#### User Info: hermanooter

hermanooter
6 years ago#25
If all psychics are ghost psychics, then the odds of being a psychic are equal to the odds of being a ghost.

Yep, you've got me there, but what are the odds of that?
Certainly not 100%.
"For a hermeneut, you sure take the challah" - Polemos

#### User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
6 years ago#26
Herman Ooter posted...
Yep, you've got me there, but what are the odds of that?
Certainly not 100%.

Irrelevant. You're saying that the odds of something being a psychic ghost is worse than something being a psychic or a ghost individually. That's not necessarily true. So unless you can substantiate that not all psychics are ghosts or not all ghosts are psychics, you don't have grounds to make that claim. At most you can say that the odds of something being a ghost psychic are equal to or lesser than the odds of something being a ghost or a psychic.

As for the odds of whether or not all psychics are ghosts, I have no idea. But I'm guessing neither do you. On what are you basing your claim that there is not a 100% chance of all psychics being ghosts?
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

#### User Info: hermanooter

hermanooter
6 years ago#27
At most you can say that the odds of something being a ghost psychic are equal to or lesser than the odds of something being a ghost or a psychic.

Yes, that is correct. Also if there is a 100% chance of ghosts and 0% chance of psychics then the odds of either ghosts or psychics are equal to ghosts and greater than psychics.
Of course the critical premise is that these are uncertain things to begin with, to which we are unable to assign a 0 or 1 possibility.

As for the odds of whether or not all psychics are ghosts, I have no idea. But I'm guessing neither do you. On what are you basing your claim that there is not a 100% chance of all psychics being ghosts?

I'm basing it on the very fact that I don't know it to be 100% certain, or 0% for that matter. That is the problem at hand is it not?
"For a hermeneut, you sure take the challah" - Polemos

#### User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
6 years ago#28
Herman Ooter posted...
Of course the critical premise is that these are uncertain things to begin with, to which we are unable to assign a 0 or 1 possibility.

I would extend that to saying we're not really able to assign much in the way of probability at all. Not enough info.

I'm basing it on the very fact that I don't know it to be 100% certain, or 0% for that matter. That is the problem at hand is it not?

You also don't know it to not be 100% certain. That creates a problem for determining odds.
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

#### User Info: hermanooter

hermanooter
6 years ago#29
I would extend that to saying we're not really able to assign much in the way of probability at all. Not enough info.

Well if it's not 0 and it's not 1 then the only other option is in between.

You also don't know it to not be 100% certain.

Yes, but the assumption is that some things might not be or you'd just say they all were to begin with. Why ever question or doubt anything at all?
"For a hermeneut, you sure take the challah" - Polemos

#### User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
6 years ago#30
Herman Ooter posted...
Well if it's not 0 and it's not 1 then the only other option is in between.

How do you know it's not 0 or 1?

Yes, but the assumption is that some things might not be or you'd just say they all were to begin with. Why ever question or doubt anything at all?

Why not just refrain from assuming anything about it either way? That's what many atheists do with God, right? They neither assume that God exists nor that God does not exist. Why not extend that line of thinking to other things?
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
1. Boards
2. Religion
3. 50 Proofs that God is not real?