Statistical proof of God

[Obliquinaut]

Can someone explain to me the link to the Aerosmith video that keeps showing up? (It's been a long time since I was a Christian so I might have forgotten some important aspects of the faith).

 

[Tayla]

Let us find probability of Omniscient being, called “God”. God must know own existence. Thus, among the available knowledge exists the knowledge of God's existence. Thus, the God exists with exact 100% probability.

This proof assumes it's conclusion. Bad argument.

Materialists will never be persuaded by any argument because their assumption of materialism disallows it. It's a waste of time discussing the topic, in my opinion.

David Chalmers is fascinating to listen to on YouTube.

 

[joinfree]

.....

So, let us find the probability of a self-aware dragon in my garage. ....

So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "garage dragon", "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

 

[joinfree]

This proof assumes it's conclusion. Bad argument. ...

How come? Look at the beginning: let us calculate the probability of All-knowing Being. Where is here the assumption of its 100% value?

 

[Skreeper]

So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "garage dragon", "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

No it is not. The "name-calling fallacy" or ad hominem would be : "Person x is an idiot therefore he is wrong."

 

[pitabread]

Was this an over-elaborate POE, or is joinfree in need of cognitive assistance?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "garage dragon", "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

No; that's not how the name-calling fallacy works (the name-calling fallacy is when you associate someone or something with a negative symbol, i.e. it's an ad-hominem).

It doesn't matter what word replaces 'God', as long as there's no more evidence for its existence than there is for God (and, ironically, resorting to such an absurdly fallacious argument to establish God's existence, suggests that you have no better evidence).

I'm just using the logic of your argument to show that it's fallacious.