God is in one of three boxes, if I show you one option is false, do you switch?

[Gottservant]

No, they aren't. I am male and not female for instance.

Some actualities preclude others.

Yes, but it is impossible even for every possible actuality there is, to preclude the possibility of probability.

This fact, combined with luck being infinitely more probable as probability decreases, means that there is an irreconcilable relationship between probability and actuality.

This wouldn't have something to do with you thinking you know everything you need to know, in the absence of Jesus? Would it?

 

[Gottservant]

I have not claimed any knowledge of God. You are simply incorrect.

Knowing that you know not, is still knowledge.

 

[variant]

Knowing that you know not, is still knowledge.

It's knowledge but not knowledge of God.

Yes, but it is impossible even for every possible actuality there is, to preclude the possibility of probability.

Every actuality precludes contradictory actualities. God is not "probable" or "improbable" at all, it either exists or it does not.

God can appear to be probable or improbable to us but we are either correct or incorrect.

This fact, combined with luck being infinitely more probable as probability decreases, means that there is an irreconcilable relationship between probability and actuality.

As worded, I don't think this sentence means anything, try to reword it or expand it and get back to me.

This wouldn't have something to do with you thinking you know everything you need to know, in the absence of Jesus? Would it?

I don't necessarily know what I need to know, that would be a known unknown.

 

[Davian]

That's just it.

By playing the game for God, your luck increases for everything to which God might be considered associated.

If you don't play the game, your luck arbitrarily may or may not decrease for everything to which God might be considered associated.

The bias is definitely in favour of playing the game in favour of God.

Does this also work for pixies at the bottom of the garden?

 

[Davian]

I'm sorry but if you want me to pity you, you are going about it the wrong way.

Saying your were born atheist, is foolish,

I have never believed in gods. Why would that be foolish to say?

 

[Gottservant]

I have never believed in gods. Why would that be foolish to say?

what's the point of quoting something with a comma, right where the explanation you are asking for was?

 

[Gottservant]

Does this also work for pixies at the bottom of the garden?

at least at first

but ultimately less so as the efficacy of pixies is outstripped by the reasonableness of God

 

[Gottservant]

It's knowledge but not knowledge of God.

Every actuality precludes contradictory actualities. God is not "probable" or "improbable" at all, it either exists or it does not.

God can appear to be probable or improbable to us but we are either correct or incorrect.

As worded, I don't think this sentence means anything, try to reword it or expand it and get back to me.

I don't necessarily know what I need to know, that would be a known unknown.

If you know that you don't know God, that is knowledge of God (that you don't know Him). Saying otherwise is completely disingenuous.

I think you are distancing yourself from luck in order to make a point about probability that given the harmlessness of God, does not need to be made.

The fact is probability ultimately defines actuality, because luck always outweighs that which is not inevitable.

If you grasped this, you might try to argue that the lucky streak however lucky would still fade as soon as you stopped playing, but that would be a reflection of your ability to hold on to luck, not a reflection on God's ability to give it to you.

 

[Davian]

what's the point of quoting something with a comma, right where the explanation you are asking for was?

From what I could decipher of that sentence, it appeared to be directed at those that have believed, hence my question. A chance for some fresh word salad, as it were.

 

[Davian]

at least at first

but ultimately less so as the efficacy of pixies is outstripped by the reasonableness of God

How so? If not for those fairies, how would the garden grow?

 

[niye]

I didn't just "admit" to the game, I created it....

If indeed you can maintain a lucky streak while believing in God, why would you not associate that lucky streak with God.

...

Because I don't know if there is a god, much less if that god has anything to do with determining probabilities.

 

[variant]

If you know that you don't know God, that is knowledge of God (that you don't know Him). Saying otherwise is completely disingenuous.

You are obviously confused, the object of my ignorance (God) is not known to exist, so I am free to not know about (not God) instead. Lack of knowledge of something specific is not knowledge (of that thing) it is knowledge of ones ignorance (on that subject).

It isn't knowledge about God, it's knowledge about the limitations of my knowledge, I don't know that I don't know God specifically, as I don't know that God exists.

I think you are distancing yourself from luck in order to make a point about probability that given the harmlessness of God, does not need to be made.

I don't know that God is harmless, or that the situation is about luck at all.

You would like to think of it this way, but these are your assumptions.

The fact is probability ultimately defines actuality, because luck always outweighs that which is not inevitable.

Probability defines actuality that happen in the future.

When assessing things that have already happened or already exist it defines how we assess actuality.

Luck or probability doesn't change actuality in any way shape or form.

If you grasped this, you might try to argue that the lucky streak however lucky would still fade as soon as you stopped playing, but that would be a reflection of your ability to hold on to luck, not a reflection on God's ability to give it to you.

If God exists, and cares about what I think, I am unlucky only in that this fact is particularly unapparent to me and I don't gamble with my beliefs.

So, why would God decide to leave that question to my luck?

 

[Gottservant]

I have never believed in gods. Why would that be foolish to say?

you are changing the context if what I said isn't an answer

someone (psychosarah?) was trying to say that they were "born" atheist

are you saying you were "born" not believing in gods?

 

[Gottservant]

Because I don't know if there is a god, much less if that god has anything to do with determining probabilities.

Yes, but you won't even find out, unless you play a game that makes (determining) that possible.

That's what I've done, I've given you a game that followed to it's natural conclusion, helps you determine whether God has anything to do with probabilities.

Saying you don't know, is no reason not to investigate.

 

[Gottservant]

You are obviously confused, the object of my ignorance (God) is not known to exist, so I am free to not know about (not God) instead. Lack of knowledge of something specific is not knowledge (of that thing) it is knowledge of ones ignorance (on that subject).

No you are making hash of a perfectly sensible objection to suit yourself. If you know that you don't know God, that is knowledge about God. If you think its "knowledge about knowledge" that means you weren't attempting to know God in the first place, you were attempting to know something about knowledge - which is completely disingenuous, since the subject is God.

I really don't think you change tack for the rest of your post.

I don't know that God is harmless, or that the situation is about luck at all.

You would like to think of it this way, but these are your assumptions.

Sound assumptions are not discredited, whether by calling them assumptions or any other such thing but self-contradictory.

Probability defines actuality that happen in the future.

When assessing things that have already happened or already exist it defines how we assess actuality.

Luck or probability doesn't change actuality in any way shape or form.

Actually, luck continually changes actuality because of quantum uncertainty.

I'm afraid your days of ruling things out have met their match if you think luck is not going to be a consideration.

If God exists, and cares about what I think, I am unlucky only in that this fact is particularly unapparent to me and I don't gamble with my beliefs.

So, why would God decide to leave that question to my luck?

Because there is something about luck that you need to learn, it is not merely a gift that you can take for granted.

Learning that you can't take probability for granted is the same as learning that you can't take God for granted, that is one of the reasons why I created this game.

 

[Davian]

you are changing the context if what I said isn't an answer

someone (psychosarah?) was trying to say that they were "born" atheist

are you saying you were "born" not believing in gods?

To the best of my knowledge. Same for my kids; they think of gods as characters in books.

Would you play this game, but substitute Santa for God?

 

[Gottservant]

To the best of my knowledge. Same for my kids; they think of gods as characters in books.

Would you play this game, but substitute Santa for God?

I'm sorry but that's impossible, you can't be born with an instinct for belief, whether you believe you don't believe in gods or otherwise

I would play the game for Santa, as long as there was clearly no way to play it for God - sensible, don't you think?

 

[Davian]

I'm sorry but that's impossible, you can't be born with an instinct for belief, whether you believe you don't believe in gods or otherwise

I am not saying anyone is born with an instinct to believe. However, it would appear that we are born with a natural ability to accept things less critically when we are younger (and to some extent when older). This would have evolutionary survival benefit, as in the kids that tended to disobey the instructions to stay away from the river and got eaten by crocodiles lost out on the opportunity to become our ancestors.

No one tried to impress upon me any god beliefs, ever, until I joined this site.

I would play the game for Santa, as long as there was clearly no way to play it for God - sensible, don't you think?

No, if my belief in Santa can make him as real to me as you claim for God, then that puts them on even footing.

If you cannot step up to play the game for Santa, why should I try your version?

 

[Gottservant]

I am not saying anyone is born with an instinct to believe. However, it would appear that we are born with a natural ability to accept things less critically when we are younger (and to some extent when older). This would have evolutionary survival benefit, as in the kids that tended to disobey the instructions to stay away from the river and got eaten by crocodiles lost out on the opportunity to become our ancestors.

No one tried to impress upon me any god beliefs, ever, until I joined this site.

You are still sitting on the fence. If you can prove that you didn't believe in god, because you didn't believe in anything go ahead, but to my understanding it is a logical impossibility.

No, if my belief in Santa can make him as real to me as you claim for God, then that puts them on even footing.

If you cannot step up to play the game for Santa, why should I try your version?

I didn't say I wouldn't play for Santa, I just said at some point I would want to play for God. Santa gives gifts, yes, but God created the Universe. What is more, I don't have to prove God created the Universe any more than you have to prove that Santa gives gifts. If you could prove that Santa gave gifts, I would argue that defeats the point, since giving generously means with no strings attached.

 

[Davian]

You are still sitting on the fence. If you can prove that you didn't believe in god, because you didn't believe in anything go ahead, but to my understanding it is a logical impossibility.

I would ask if you and logic have ever been in the same room together.

I didn't say I wouldn't play for Santa, I just said at some point I would want to play for God. Santa gives gifts, yes, but God created the Universe.

Allegedly. And, what has he done lately?

What is more, I don't have to prove God created the Universe any more than you have to prove that Santa gives gifts. If you could prove that Santa gave gifts,

To those that believe, how else would the gifts get under tree, or into the stockings? Proof is abundant.

I would argue that defeats the point, since giving generously means with no strings attached.

No strings attached?

Santa does have his naughty and nice list. Your god demands that one believes (or else!!!), which is not even a conscious choice. Santa definitely takes the moral high ground there.