You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases.
As far as we can tell non of the ideas you do compare have ever been supported by Objective evidence..
How can you ever talk about probabilities when you don't have a single verified case proving its possible nature? — Nickolasgaspar

Theism is a belief system it has nothing to do with scientific rigor. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right? — SpaceDweller

Yes it did make people flawed. god is described as omniscient so original sin was part of its design.
Free will cannot exist if the omnis are true. You cannot 'surprise' an all-knowing god. God must have made the snake and allowed it to tempt Eve. Was god shocked by Eve's action? If it was then its not much of a god. you can only do exactly what it knew you were going to do. God stacked the deck before the game even started. This is why god is merely a scapegoat. Humans will pass responsibility on to it with dumb comments such as 'god works in mysterious ways.' We need to take full responsibility for all we do and for what our fate is. Stop blaming fictitious gods.

Right, and even though those religious books show all the evil that come out of trusting the snake you choose to follow the same mistakes of Adam and Eve.

My point is that I don't see why would God have to be blamed.
But consider if God gave us no free will, wouldn't that makes us hopeless slaves of God, wouldn't such God be unjust God? — SpaceDweller

Snakes and demons all work for god, as do characters like satan. God is supposed to be omnipotent so all evil is allowed by god. According to the christians and many other theists, If you reject god, you answer to satan not god. Satan is gods enforcer. Fear of Satan is a great motivator to make you a theist.
Nothing to do with free will, you are threatened with eternal damnation if you reject god.
Why does this pathetic god need to threaten its own creation in such a heinous way?
Humans are a lot less vengeful than this idiotic god. We don't even execute murderers anymore.
'Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.' Yeah, let's just keep passing our responsibilities on to a fairy tale! :roll:

Scientific rigor has nothing to do with basic logic or theism.
You made a claim and you provided a statistical probability for a metaphysical hypothesis without being able to demonstrate Possibility first!
Again if you feel the urge to calculate plausibility you will first need to demonstrate Possibility.
Let me help you with a simple example.
Life in solar system is Possible. We know that because we have a verified case of that phenomenon(Earth).
Now if you want to calculate probabilities of life in the solar system you will need to compare the known case you have ont planets having life and those who have not and apply it to the total number of planets and moons of the system (number of planets and their conditions).
This is nothing scientific or special. We are talking about basic Logic.
So theism and multiverse are NOT hypotheses that we could calculate probabilities.
What we can say for sure is that the Multiverse is a ar more reasonable hypothesis because we know that a Universe can exist, we have examples in the nature that more than one processes can occur and we have our Math from different fields of study pointing to the idea.

Scientific rigor has nothing to do with basic logic — Nickolasgaspar

A completely illogical comment!

You made a claim and you provided a statistical probability for a metaphysical hypothesis without being able to demonstrate Possibility first! — Nickolasgaspar

I assign 0.1% credence to the god posit as MY OWN PERSONAL way to explain to others my level of belief in the truth of the god posit. This is a perfectly valid position. The fact that YOU find it not mathematically sound means nothing to me and I doubt it means much to anyone else except YOU.

Let me help you with a simple example. — Nickolasgaspar

I suggest you first try to help yourself!

Now if you want to calculate probabilities of life in the solar system you wi ll need to compare the known case you have ont planets having life and those who have not and apply it to the total number of planets and moons of the system (number of planets and their conditions).
This is nothing scientific or special. We are talking about basic Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

:lol: Your thinking is so skewed! So according to your thinking, there is nothing scientific about calculating the probability of life in the solar system other than life on earth? really? That's your idea of a logical sentence? As I suggested, your the one who needs help.

What we can say for sure is that the Multiverse is a ar more reasonable hypothesis because we know that a Universe can exist, we have examples in the nature that more than one processes can occur and we have our Math from different fields of study pointing to the idea — Nickolasgaspar

No shit Sherlock! :roll:

God must have made the snake and allowed it to tempt Eve. — universeness

The snake is the devil embodied, and we know (according to scriptures) that God did not create the devil, instead God created an angel who later desired to be God and so he was cast out of heavens.

Yes it did make people flawed. god is described as omniscient so original sin was part of its design.
Free will cannot exist if the omnis are true. — universeness

God surely knew what would happen with Adam and Eve, no doubt about that, but A&E freedom is not contradictory to God's omnis.

God could have prevented A&E trouble with the snake, but then there would be no true freedom for A&E.
Freedom of free will clear - it's my own, and my own only choice - not up to anyone else but me.

What you're saying is that God's omnis should have prevented him giving freedom to people which is contradictory to his omnipotent dimension.
Giving such an absolute freedom to people is not contradictory to omnibenevolence either because God didn't condemn A&E for good. people still have the freedom of choice to fix the problem if they so desire.

A completely illogical comment! — universeness

Again your opinion doesn't change the fact that Logic exposes your irrational attempt to define probabilities without establishing possibility first and without any samples to evaluate. sorry.

I assign 0.1% credence to the god posit as MY OWN PERSONAL way to explain to others my level of belief in the truth of the god posit. This is a perfectly valid position. The fact that YOU find it not mathematically sound means nothing to me and I doubt it means much to anyone else except YOU. — universeness

-You are explaining why you used that way and I have no reason to doubt it. I don't have issues with your intention, I only point out that the way you decided to presenting (using statistical probabilities) is nonsensical and wrong...that's all. Again you can not assign probabilities when you have zero samples to study and compare.
Its not an issue for you being mathematically unsound...but mathematically invalid (I hope you know the difference between soundness and validity). You can not conclude to a mathematical figure without first numbers of different cases out of a total. You have no numbers to arrive to statistical figure !lol

I suggest you first try to help yourself! — universeness

If you need to understand your error, you will have to focus on the example non my segway lol.!

-"Your thinking is so skewed! So according to your thinking, there is nothing scientific about calculating the probability of life in the solar system other than life on earth? really? That's your idea of a logical sentence? As I suggested, your the one who needs help."
-lol....again "scientific" has nothing to do with how we calculate probabilities. Why are you keep bring science in something that has to do with basic logic?????
Again in order to calculate the probabilities of life in our solar system you will need to count the planets you know that have life, the planets you "know" they don't have life and that will give you the percentage you are looking for!
You can not do that with a hypothesis that you has zero numbers to work with!
Why is this so difficult for you???

The snake is the devil embodied, and we know (according to scriptures) that God did not create the devil, instead God created an angel who later desired to be God and so he was cast out of heavens — SpaceDweller

Yeah I know the lucifer fable they are all just stories based on earlier stories.
This dimwitted god failed in his first attempt to make a woman for Adam.
His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too.
This god is very incompetent, he even creates rebel angels.
god is too much of a failure to be awarded omni status.

When children starve to death and the climate of the Earth destabilises, that's our fault, not gods.
If god exists then all human suffereing is its fault and its responsibility.
god better not exist because if it does, it is a vile, evil monster that watches innocent people die in some horrific circumstances.

God could have prevented A&E trouble with the snake, but then there would be no true freedom for A&E.
Freedom of free will clear - it's my own, and my own only choice - not up to anyone else but me — SpaceDweller

So why are you threatened with punishment and judgment if you don't make the choices your god requires? How can this god give you freedom of choice and then punish you for eternity if you choose to use that choice to reject god?

Again your opinion doesn't change the fact that Logic exposes your irrational attempt to define probabilities without establishing possibility first and without any samples to evaluate. sorry. — Nickolasgaspar

Don't apologise. I accept your limited understanding of logic.

-You are explaining why you used that way and I have no reason to doubt it. I don't have issues with your intention, I only point out that the way you decided to presenting (using statistical probabilities) is nonsensical and wrong...that's all. Again you can not assign probabilities when you have zero samples to study and compare.
Its not an issue for you being mathematically unsound...but mathematically invalid (I hope you know the difference between soundness and validity). You can not conclude to a mathematical figure without first numbers of different cases out of a total. You have no numbers to arrive to statistical figure — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: You make pointless statements. In the REAL world REAL PEOPLE use percentages to quantify a belief level towards a particular posit all of the time. Mathematical validity has nothing to do with it.
You know this fine well but you choose to roleplay the indignant analyst and search for some points of minutia you can give the kiss of life to. You simply come across as a pompous ass.

Why is this so difficult for you — Nickolasgaspar

Why is the fact that basic logic is very much employed in science so difficult for you! Mr Minutia!

Sounds like a terrible dystopia

No car, no traffic, no pollution, universal public transport, cycle everywhere. No rent, free food, free, clean energy. No commute, meaningful, creative work. Green spaces, well designed products, full recycling. Free time, good sleep, good health, …

One the face of it sounds utopian, to me. Perhaps unrealistic, but interested why you consider it dystopian?

Most aversion of gods is based on the modern notion of one inhuman omni SUPERGOD, the afterlife, and threatenings with eternal suffering in hell or awarding with an eternal blissful heavenly existence, the both of which are equally boring.

The truth is though that only an eternal heaven exists with a multitude of eternal gods living in it. Bored as they were suddenly with life, they made a collective effort and succeeded in the development of a magical kind of material, which they brought into existence by creation. And on this magical material, live evolves periodically in a series of big bangs. So their existential void is filled watching creation. There is no hope we will ever go to heaven.

Don't apologise. — universeness

I am sorry.

-"I accept your limited understanding of logic."
-That is part of the problem you have with your reasoning... You think that others don't get it..lol

In the REAL world REAL PEOPLE use percentages to quantify a belief level towards a particular posit all of the time. — universeness

-And we call them irrational individuals. This is why most of us are really bad calculating probabilities and lose their money in gamble.......or believe in weird claims.

-" Mathematical validity has nothing to do with it."
-Of course it has dear. If you are suggesting statistical probabilities of an idea over an other...you will need to have numbers to compare. If you don't then your conclusion is not valid.

You know this fine well but you choose to roleplay the indignant analyst and search for some points of minutia you can give the kiss of life to. You simply come across as a pompous ass. — universeness

-Finding excuses won't make your irrational attempt define probabilities in numbers!!!! on ideas that have no numbers to offer look better. I might have sinister motives...but your screwup stands on its own.

Why is the fact that basic logic is very much employed in science so difficult for you! Mr Minutia! — universeness

Logic is employed in science, but in your case we don't need science to spot the error in your reasoning. So why using Science as an excuse for your mistake.
You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers.

People value their possessions. In many cases they the only thing that allows them to think they are important or successful. Possession is a building block for the hierarchy in our societies...our failed societies.

I might have sinister motives...but your screwup stands on its own. — Nickolasgaspar

You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers — Nickolasgaspar

I don't need advice from Mr Minutia who has already admitted to having sinister motives.
Just in case you didn't understand my 0.1% belief level in the god posit, let me try to put it another way for you. I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. Using a little basic logic to help you further. That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass.

You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers. — Nickolasgaspar

The point, my dear Nickolast, is that logic and chance don't work against magical thinkers. They just stand up, laugh at you, and play along happily! :lol:

I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. — universeness

But how can you be so sure if you don't know if they exist in the first place?

I mean, they either exist or they don't. What's so bad about it if they existed? We should be lucky they created a universe!

But how can you be so sure if you don't know if they exist in the first place? — Hillary

All they have to do is show up and submit themselves to authentication tests. If they do that then we can both say hello to them. I think I will probably try to attack them for all the vile things they let happen in the past. We can release our responsibility for the actions of nefarious humans past and present, to them.
I would be happy to do that. Maybe that's why they don't show up. They are big fearties!

I don't need advice from Mr Minutia who has already admitted to having sinister motives.
Just in case you didn't understand my 0.1% belief level in the god posit, let me try to put it another way for you. I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. Using a little basic logic to help you further. That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass — universeness

You are not just moving the goalposts...you are taking them for a walk with your dog! lol
So now you are attempting to evaluate your certainty when in your initial claim you were give your personal value on the credence you of the claim itself.
Here is your statement

Many worlds is a posit I personally consider to have a higher credence to the 0.1% credence I assign to the god posit. — universeness

As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim.
A percentage about your certainty, sure you can do that, provide a point and appear to Mr Hillary that you are "open minded".

yes logic has no role in your reasoning......we all know it.

That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass. — universeness

But then why not say you are 100% sure?

All they have to do is show up and submit themselves to authentication tests. If they do that then we can both say hello to them. I think I will probably try to attack them for all the vile things they let happen in the past. We can release our responsibility for the actions of nefarious humans past and present, to them.
I would be happy to do that. Maybe that's why they don't show up. They are big fearties! — universeness

What if the can't show up? It would go against the rules of the material they created. One possibility is by means of the rules of quantum mechanics, but these effects are small and probably only present in dreams (in which I saw their jungle tinkerings!). Most parts of the universe haven't been investigated and maybe they showed themselves to a more advanced species already.

I mean, they either exist or they don't. What's so bad about it if they existed? We should be lucky they created a universe! — Hillary

-The time to accept their existence is only after you have managed to objectively verify their existence...not a second sooner.
Well you can ...but you will be you, an irrational magical thinker.

btw what gods and universeness's inability to understand how we define probabilities have to do with a discussion on how Pseudo Philosophical solutions (Economics/Politics) have meshed up our lives?

The time to accept their existence is only after you have managed to objectively verify their existence... — Nickolasgaspar

Wrong, dear Nickolast... Their existence comes first. Whether we are able to "objectively verify" their existence remains to be seen. Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought.

when in your initial claim you were give your personal value on the credence you of the claim itself — Nickolasgaspar

If you are too lazy to proofread what you type then few people will have any idea what you are trying to say.

As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim — Nickolasgaspar

Yes you can Mr Minutia!

A percentage about your certainty, sure you can do that — Nickolasgaspar

I know! and your quotes contradict each other. How sure are you about your atheism? Could you suggest a percentage quantifier so that others could gain a sense of how strong your atheism is?

Wrong, dear Nickolast... Their existence comes first. Whether we are able to "objectively verify" their existence remains to be seen. Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought. — Hillary

-wrong? lol I thought you were not interested in convincing me? hahaha

-"Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought."??? "for you is objectively verified" !!! hahahahahahahahaha
Do you even know what "objectively" means???

I had a dream and thought telling me that your dreams and thoughts are wrong.
So I am objectively justified to dismiss your claims as wrong....lol

I can not believe that a grown up would ever make such claims in public! You are really special Mr Hillary!

what gods and universeness's inability to understand how we define probabilities have to do with a discussion on how Pseudo Philosophical solutions (Economics/Politics) have meshed up our lives? — Nickolasgaspar

Because such a solution, such a dystopia, is the result of a way of life that has moved away from a heavenly kind of life. The human gods were responsible for this. We, as their material copies, could show them how to improve.

As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim
— Nickolasgaspar

Yes you can Mr Minutia! — universeness

For a probability you need a number of created universes and non-created ones. Their ratio gives your probability...

But then not say you are 100% sure? — Hillary

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat!
I cannot prove gods don't exist.

What if the can't show up? — Hillary

Then they are not very impressive. They created a 3D space they cant appear in.
If I create a virtual world, I can appear inside it as an avatar.

thought you were not interested in convincing me? hahaha — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not. If you don't wanna believe, Its up to you. Merely defending myself. Jesus Nickolast, aren't your jaws aching from your laughter? Or is it crying? Because of me?

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? How we define and identify them?
A logical fallacy is a argument that uses known excuses and logical errors(ad populum,red herring,from ignorance etc) instead of objectively verified set of premises.
So the existence of Logical Fallacies alone SHOULD remind you that you can not accept a claim before it is objectively verified....and claim that you are a reasonable individual.

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat! — universeness

And what's wrong with being dogmatic?

Then they are not very impressive. They created a 3D space they cant appear in.
If I create a virtual world, I can appear inside it as an avatar. — universeness

Who says they wanna be impressive? The world would break apart if they appeared in the macro domain.