BREAKING NEWS: Scientists Find Evidence That Proves God Exists!?!!?!!!!

[Smegma]

it is not, unless you mean the definition of "infinite". Then yes, that is a completely wrong definition of the word Infinite.
In 1 second all possibilities for that second have happened. Infinity means there's no end, which also means that there are infinite copies of our galaxy (etc).

No, I mean your stance that given any X with a Probability P(x) such that P(x) > 0, given an infinite amount of attempts does necessarily mean that that even WILL occur.

This is a false statement

[ginn]

it is not, unless you mean the definition of "infinite". Then yes, that is a completely wrong definition of the word Infinite.
In 1 second all possibilities for that second have happened. Infinity means there's no end, which also means that there are infinite copies of our galaxy (etc).

No, I mean your stance that given any X with a Probability P(x) such that P(x) > 0, given an infinite amount of attempts does necessarily mean that that even WILL occur.

This is a false statement

if it is possible, it will happen.

[Smegma]

No, not necessarily

[ginn]

No, not necessarily

yes, necessarily.

[Smegma]

Okay then. One counter example:

Imagine you are a dot on a grid in three dimensional space and can move in 6 (up, down, left, right, back, forward) directions. Now to determine your move, you roll a fair die, each side corresponding to 1 direction. Assuming you start at some arbitrary origin, what is the probability that you will reach your starting point after an infinite amount of moves?

[ginn]

Okay then. One counter example:

Imagine you are a dot on a grid in three dimensional space and can move in 6 (up, down, left, right, back, forward) directions. Now to determine your move, you roll a fair die, each side corresponding to 1 direction. Assuming you start at some arbitrary origin, what is the probability that you will reach your starting point after an infinite amount of moves?

Well, you'd also have infinite of reset points, so it is very likely.

With a single reset, the probability is that about 16-17%.

[Smegma]

What do you mean reset? I mean, you start at point A and move from there, whats the probability you reach A after an infinite amount of moves.

I'll tell you, its not 1, which is what you said it should be with your statement.

[ginn]

What do you mean reset? I mean, you start at point A and move from there, whats the probability you reach A after an infinite amount of moves.

I'll tell you, its not 1, which is what you said it should be with your statement.

your comparison is bad. there are infinite starts of the big bang, timespace did not exist before it (assumingly), so afaik there's no origin of the big bang.
Now, I'm not too sure about these things, but what mangled has said so far is just out right dumb. That is the whole reason of my comments.

[Smegma]

My points has nothing to do with the big bang, it has to do with saying that your statement about infinite occurrences isn't necessarily true.

[Mangled*]

Pff, censorship advocates... Gotta hate them.

Tell that to Galileo.

Why should I respect other people's views?

First of all, it is polite to do so. It is also often a requirement for a meaningful, constructive discussion and very useful in our day-to-day commuication.

Respect should be earned. What you're talking about is etiquette, not respect. How about you respect my decision not to automatically respect people?

I don't respect the way that you've broken up each sentence of what I said into individual quotes. Do it properly like I do, on a paragraphical basis.

How can I respect anybody who ignores reality in favour of fantasy?

First I talk about respecting views of other people. Then, you proceed to talking about respecting the other people in general. Fantastic. Well done. Why should one not respect someone who would ignore reality in favor of fantasy if they feel happier that way? Or even why should one not respect such view/belief?

Because those beliefs cause more problems in the world that would otherwise be avoided. They deserve utter contempt. That's my opinion and you should respect it automatically by your standards.

In case you're actually interested in challenging your own ignorant mind, you might want to take even a peek at for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness

I'll leave it for you to learn about the subject. Shouldn't be too hard task, if you're genuinely interested rather than just boasting your own self-centric beliefs. Remember, being self-critical towards one's own beliefs is one of the most important traits people can have in pursue for truth, evidence and reality. Are you capable of questioning you views and beliefs? Are you capable of admitting being wrong if proven so? Are you capable of changing your views based on facts contradcting with your own beliefs?

I'm happy with the truth, why can't they be? And I'm a very self-critical person. That's why I'm so refined in my opinions. That's why I will always side with what's most likely to be true based on evidence rather than what's most likely to make me feel good about myself.

No, it makes them complacent and stupid and ignorant and intolerant and bigoted and irrational and arrogant.

First, this doesn't exclude happiness. Second, these are just your own disrespectful, generalized beliefs about people you don't even know. Third, considering your attitude towards other people based on what they believe in, I'd personally consider you as being quite fitting to the list of adjectives you just mentioned. Or can you honestly not see your high-horse elitist attitude towards certain kind of people who you don't even know? How is this not 1) ignorant 2) arrogant 3) intolerant 4) stupid?

If you consider outright insults and disrespectful behavior "the only decent thing" and "being honest" then I'm afraid it only speaks of your ability to tolerate difference, different views and opinions. How do you make friends with people? Heck, how does one with such attitue even get along with different people?

You seem pretty butthurt about this. Are you religious? I'm curious.

If people find reality insulting, they deserve to be insulted by it. Afterall, it's reality and it's everywhere. People who live in bubbles are morons. There are places in the world where they still burn people alive if found guilty of 'witchcraft'. Should I respect that? Is it disrespectful for me to say that that is retarded and the result of ignorance and believing in superstitious nonsense?

Yea, the problem with induction sure is invalid. While were at it, so is the problem of knowledge

So long as induction and knowledge aren't the same thing I don't think that's a problem.

Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

As we do not know if the universe is inifinite, and there is no way of telling if it is infinite if it actually is infinite.
Does this mean that the size of the universe doesn't exist? We cannot prove that it is infinite, nor can we prove that it isn't infinite (if the case is that it actually is infinite).

How is warewofls doesn't exist fact? It is a fact that they do not exist here, but that doesn't rule out their existence elsewhere.

Without conjunctures there would be no science.

Meaning, you've created evidence to prove that something does not exist. However, now there is evidence, that the said thing doesn't exist. So, it no longer fits into your formula to rule out that something does not exist.
Therefore, it's a paradox.

I think you're out of your depth.

If you understand what factual information is. Information that is demonstrably true through verifiable means such as evidence or replicable testing.

What your conjecture is saying is: x may not be true because there is a posibility that y is true. We know that x is factually true. Until we have any factual information otherwise it is pointless to conject about infinity, regardless of how poorly you understand this concept.

your comparison is bad. there are infinite starts of the big bang, timespace did not exist before it (assumingly), so afaik there's no origin of the big bang.
Now, I'm not too sure about these things, but what mangled has said so far is just out right dumb. That is the whole reason of my comments.

Congratulations you just made an incorrect assertion about the Big Bang and then stated that you're not too sure about these things but that what I have stated is dumb. Good job.

[Smegma]

So long as induction and knowledge aren't the same thing I don't think that's a problem.

My point is that you are simply dismissing a valid concerning with the wave of a hand.

[Mangled*]

My point is that you are simply dismissing a valid concerning with the wave of a hand.

I am the queen and you are my pawns, so to speak. Do you think ginn understands infinity?

[ginn]

My points has nothing to do with the big bang, it has to do with saying that your statement about infinite occurrences isn't necessarily true.

So you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
Obviously all of this is far from certain, as nobody knows very much about the universe.

Surely though, you have a point.

edit: My conjuncture is not that x is true because maybe y isn't. My conjuncture is that x may not be true  because it may not be true.

[Smegma]

At Mangled:
Do you think you've solve all our philosophical problems?

So you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
Obviously all of this is far from certain, as nobody knows very much about the universe.

Oh my goodness man, I'm merely pointing out that just because you have an infinite amount of occurrences doesn't mean all things possible necessarily occur.

[ginn]

At Mangled:
Do you think you've solve all our philosophical problems?

So you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
Obviously all of this is far from certain, as nobody knows very much about the universe.

Oh my goodness man, I'm merely pointing out that just because you have an infinite amount of occurrences doesn't mean all things possible necessarily occur.

That is true, but that isn't covering the whole.
I can come up with lots of different examples to piece by piece disprove something that is proven.

Anyway, your point is fairly strong, but it doesn't affect my own logic of how universe is.

Nothing of this is relevant to the topic though. All we can tell is that Mangled is very dumb, and is probably below those he look down upon (religious people).

[Smegma]

No you see, the thing you are saying ISN'T PROVEN because you have no way of defining P(x) in this case, its just conjecture. And since the probability cannot be define we have no idea of some instances will occur because it doesn't follow necessarily which I've already shown!

[ginn]

Just because it isn't proven doesn't mean I can disassemble something that is proven and disprove it.

[Mangled*]

At Mangled:
Do you think you've solve all our philosophical problems?

I've solved all of mine. That's what matters to me. But I'm always interested in new ones, I don't think there is any limit to how much one can learn.

I'm still learning how stupid ginn is, for example. I'm gonna sit back and watch him either backpedal or go even further into failing to understand the connotations of infinity.

[Smegma]

If it can be disproven, then its proof wasn't really a proof, was it.

And I have no idea what that has to do with what I'm talking about, which is simply the fact that just because something can exist means that it will given and infinite amount of occurrences.

I've solved all of mine. That's what matters to me. But I'm always interested in new ones, I don't think there is any limit to how much one can learn.

Lots of religious people solved all of theirs too, you see, but as we can find out from this thread, agreeing with each other often means accepting some basics and I have a feeling I don't accept yours as they assume too much.

Also note, solving all their own probably is only what matters to religious people  as well.

[Mangled*]

Lots of religious people solved all of theirs too, you see, but as we can find out from this thread, agreeing with each other often means accepting some basics and I have a feeling I don't accept yours as they assume too much.

Are you assuming that mine assume?