From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:45:22 MST


From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:46:37
To: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism

In article <1992Aug12.162520.256@doc.bmd.trw.com> you write:
: In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: > In article <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
: >>Suppose there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.  If it is
: >>possible for an all-powerful God to exist, then He (assumed for convenience)
: >>must exist in at least one of them.  And if He exists in one, then He can
: >>assure that life capable of knowing Him appears only in that one (since He
: >>is *all-powerful*).  Since we are capable of knowing Him, He exists in our
: >>universe. 
: > 
: > A -> B does not imply B -> A.
: 
: Did I imply that?  Please explain.
: 
: > 
: >>If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
: >>existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
: >>necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
: >>God must now exist.
: > 
: > Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
: > possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
: > your math is wrong.
: > 
: > Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
: >      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
: 
: 
: Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.

In Message-ID: <graham.713763667@galois>,
graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

Sorry Jim but your math is indeed wrong. See later.


  Below I learned that my math is OK if it is assumed that each possibility
  (trial of the event) is independent and that the probability remains
  constant over time (non-decreasing).	The fact that I assumed these two
  premises is indicated by the following example I gave:

: 
: Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
: an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
: It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
: Jackpot Winner.

  This assumes that each pull of the slot machine is independent of any
  other (true), and that the chance of winning remains constant (seemingly
  reasonable for "honest" casinos at least).

: 
: Of course, I'll also be bankrupt and I'll have to pay taxes on winnings
: that won't even get me out of debt -- but I'll be a Winner! 
: 
: Regards,
: 
: Jim

In Message-ID: <graham.713763667@galois>,
graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

Nope - what happens Jim is that the longer you play the smaller your chance
(at any given point in time) of not having won gets. To turn this around the
longer you play the greater you chance (at any given point in time) of having
won gets - BUT that chance NEVER equals 1 - it tends towards 1 but that is
all.

    For any finite number of trials this is true.  But the probability is
    *defined* as being the limit when the number of trials equals infinity.

Bad luck Jim - go learn some simple statistics.

    I did learn *simple* statistics.  That may be part of my problem.  :)

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au

    Thanks Graham, for your helpful and condescending remarks.	-Jim

==============================
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
In Message-ID: <swordfish.713735472@minster.york.ac.uk>,
cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk (Chris Ho-Stuart) writes:

Dear Jim,

This is getting to be a hobby horse of mine... trivial interjections
about probability which serve to detract from some main point which
needs to be detracted from :-) 

It is quite possible to add up finite probabilities over an infinite
period of time and get less than one, provided that the probabilies
decrease with time.

    Ahh!  I hadn't considered that!

Your math is indeed wrong, because you require
additional assumptions beyond what was given to get your conclusion.
An easy mistake, frequently made in probability arguements.

    True.  It is now apparent that I had assumed additional premises
    left unstated.  I hereby modify my previous remarks to include
    the premises of independence and constant probability.


I usually post this to refute a contention by an atheist that if people
in heaven have the possiblity of sinning, and this possiblity exists
for all eternity, then at some time they must sin in heaven. It is with
real pleasure that I put now put the boot on the other foot.  :-)

The counter example is as follows:

    [Example deleted.]
    Thanks for the example.  -Jim

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart


From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 14:34:35
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?

In article <1992Aug12.192058.258@doc.bmd.trw.com> you write:
: In article <10150@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
: > In article <1992Aug12.162520.256@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
: >>In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: >>> 
: >>> Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
: >>> possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
: >>> your math is wrong.
: >>
: >>Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.
: >>
: >>Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
: >>an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
: >>It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
: >>Jackpot Winner.
: >>
: >   Sorry Jim, you should have stuck with purely theological
: >   arguments.  That way we might have not so easily seen how foolish
: >   you argument was.  Your math is indeed wrong.  Aren't  you aware
: >   of convergent infinite series?  Probability thereoms?  Beware,
: >   what often seems reasonable to the layman has no bearing on the
: >   truth of the matter, especially in the realm of mathematics.

    Actually Bob, it's not my math that is suffering so much as it is
    my lack of completeness in stating my premises as Chris so kindly
    pointed out to me.

    Also Bob, I was not aware that one was considered "foolish" for
    overlooking certain basic premises that should have been stated
    in the argument.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I am sure
    that I will have opportunity for using this definition of "foolish"
    in the future when certain atheists fail to express all their
    assumed premises as well!
				  -Jim

: > 
: > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
: > 
: > Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
: > 
: 
: OK, if I am wrong, please show me my error.  Seriously, I do not see
: what my mistake is.  If I am wrong, I'll be more than happy to retract
: my remarks.
: 
: In statistics I was taught that for an event with a finite (non-zero)
: probability of occurrence, say to roll a six on a six-sided die, that
: the probability of having one or more occurrences approaches one as the 
: number of trials approaches infinity.
: 
:                           
: i.e.  lim  P(X:e>0) = 1   where P(X) is the probability of event x occurring,
:      n->oo                e is the number of events which have occurred,
:                           n is the number of trials, and "oo" is infinity.
: 
: 
: If this is incorrect, please let me know.  I do not wish to continue in
: mathematical ignorance.

This one is correct, but it is a special case. The events are
independent, and the probabilities for each event is the same as for
all the others.

    Granted.  I see that now.  It seemed reasonable, to me at least,
    that this was the case.  But such premises should never be assumed
    as being necessarily the case or self-evident.  I stand corrected.


People are jumping on your math because you took a very common and
useful special case and simply assumed it applied in general.

    True.  I hereby place my remarks back into the special case
    where they belong.	:)

Unwarranted independence assumptions are the source of a many mistakes
and paradoxes in probability.

Cheers -- Chris.

    Thanks Chris.   -Jim


Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 10:10:48 EDT
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
To: Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism

In article <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Here is another version of the argument:
>
    [....]
>
>And another:
>
>If there is a finite [constant and independent] possibility that an
>all-powerful God could come into existence over time, then from the
>standpoint of eternity such a God must necessarily have come into
>existence before the universe began.
>Therefore, God must now exist.
    [modified to include assumed premises.]

In this particular form of argument, I always wonder why we don't just
eliminate the middleman and phrase it as:

    Suppose God exists.
    QED.

It's short, to the point, every bit as logical, and considerably less
confusing.

    True enough.  Except to deny the argument above, one has to assert
    that there is *no chance or possibility* that God could exist; and
    that there is a constant, independent probability that the universe
    could create itself.

    If the universe could have such a probability of coming into existence
    over time, then certainly God could.  In fact, I think it's more
    reasonable to believe that there is a probability that God came into
    existence and that there is no chance for the universe to come into
    existence by itself than the other way around.

-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.

    Regards,

    Jim B.

    PS - Thanks to all who offered comments to me concerning this subject.