PDA

View Full Version : Scientists prove God exists [bumped]



Cat
30-03-2004, 11:40 PM
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

It's official, there's a 67% chance that God exists! Using Bayes Theorum, Dr Unwin from Manchester University has proven there is a 67% chance that God exist! All you atheists and Pagans are 67% certain to be going to hell :clap:
In true scientific fashion Dr Unwin declares himself (personally) 95% certain God exists.

So there's absolutely nothing that cannot be solved by simple mathematical reasoning and scientific logic.

Doesn't the Glicko use Bayes Theorum too?

skip to my lou
30-03-2004, 11:44 PM
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

It's official, there's a 67% chance that God exists! Using Bayes Theorum, Dr Unwin from Manchester University has proven there is a 67% chance that God exist! All you atheists and Pagans are 67% certain to be going to hell :clap:
In true scientific fashion Dr Unwin declares himself (personally) 95% certain God exists.

So there's absolutely nothing that cannot be solved by simple mathematical reasoning and scientific logic.

Doesn't the Glicko use Bayes Theorum too?

Can I see this proof anywhere?

Cat
30-03-2004, 11:50 PM
Can I see this proof anywhere?

Have you tried the link, there's enough information to persuade you of the dynamic rigour used in the determination?

skip to my lou
30-03-2004, 11:51 PM
Also, it is clear that it was not solved. So far it is just a "probability" which is not 100% certain, which means it has not been "solved". Anyway, you could argue that it is solved if it is atleast close to 100%, but it is more like the weather man's 60%.

skip to my lou
30-03-2004, 11:52 PM
Have you tried the link, there's enough information to persuade you of the dynamic rigour used in the determination?

Yes but I want to see the "simple" mathematical proof/reasoning.

Rincewind
30-03-2004, 11:59 PM
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

It's official, there's a 67% chance that God exists! Using Bayes Theorum, Dr Unwin from Manchester University has proven there is a 67% chance that God exist! All you atheists and Pagans are 67% certain to be going to hell :clap:
In true scientific fashion Dr Unwin declares himself (personally) 95% certain God exists.

So there's absolutely nothing that cannot be solved by simple mathematical reasoning and scientific logic.

Doesn't the Glicko use Bayes Theorum too?

Not sure about the 67% chance that god exists but it's a very good way to sell some books.

"Has his work been published in any peer reviewed statistics journals?", he asks knowingly. :)

To start with, the base assumption looks dodgy to me. Why start from 50/50 and then move either way? And why should the existence of earthquakes make the existence of god any less likely? I mean is god's existence any more likely now as the earth's volcanic and earthquake activity is lower than it has been at certain times in the past?

Lots of questions, not too many answers. The whole things seems too reminiscent of Gott's Principle of Indifference for my money.

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 12:00 AM
Can I see this proof anywhere?

The whole point is you buy the book to see the "proof". :D

Cat
31-03-2004, 12:04 AM
Yes but I want to see the "simple" mathematical proof/reasoning.

Stephen Unwin is a post-doctoral researcher to our own Paul Davies no less, so he's well-credentialed. If you're not convinced already, then I guess you'll just have to buy the book.

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2004, 12:05 AM
Stephen Unwin is a post-doctoral researcher to our own Paul Davies no less, so he's well-credentialed. If you're not convinced already, then I guess you'll just have to buy the book.
Of course he can just wait till he dies to find out. ;)

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 12:05 AM
The whole point is you buy the book to see the "proof". :D
does it come with a money back guarantee if the stats dont stand up to other scientific scrutiny :lol: ;)

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 12:06 AM
:hmm: waits to see what kevin has to say on this matter ;)

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 12:07 AM
Stephen Unwin is a post-doctoral researcher to our own Paul Davies no less, so he's well-credentialed. If you're not convinced already, then I guess you'll just have to buy the book.

This must be a new meaning of the phase "well-credentialed" of which I was not previously aware. ;)

Cat
31-03-2004, 12:09 AM
Why start from 50/50 and then move either way?

Typical sour grapes from an atheist bound for hell. Face it Bazza, you'd better starting saving to pay the ferryman. Either God exists 67%, or Bayes Theorum is wrong. Surely as a lover of maths Barry, you have to accept?

Cat
31-03-2004, 12:14 AM
does it come with a money back guarantee if the stats dont stand up to other scientific scrutiny :lol: ;)


Of course he can just wait till he dies to find out.
31-03-2004 02:04 AM

Shares in Dave's 'Live Again Potion' have just taken a bit of a dive.

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 12:15 AM
Typical sour grapes from an atheist bound for hell. Face it Bazza, you'd better starting saving to pay the ferryman. Either God exists 67%, or Bayes Theorum is wrong. Surely as a lover of maths Barry, you have to accept?

Even if gods existance is 67%, does not mean only christians or whatever are right. Did he prove that if you dont believe in god then you will go to hell? :hand:

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 12:16 AM
Anyway, im not about to buy such a big book which I dont have time to read. Its also not simple mathematical reasoning if he had to write an entire book on it.

Cat
31-03-2004, 12:26 AM
Even if gods existance is 67%, does not mean only christians or whatever are right. Did he prove that if you dont believe in god then you will go to hell? :hand:

Bayes' was a Christian. Presumably it was God's will that revealed the theorum to him? Stephen Unwin is a Christian also. If God wasn't a Christian God, then why was he choosing to reveal himself to Christian scientists? If he didn't care, he wouldn't have kept choosing Christians, would he? Didn't think of that one, did you?

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2004, 12:31 AM
31-03-2004 02:04 AM
Your time stamp is wrong.

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2004, 12:37 AM
Well doesnt it all make perfect sense. Why would you want to live forever.
Given that heaven is such a great place, it is no wonder people are just dying to get in. :whistle:

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 12:54 AM
Typical sour grapes from an atheist bound for hell. Face it Bazza, you'd better starting saving to pay the ferryman. Either God exists 67%, or Bayes Theorum is wrong. Surely as a lover of maths Barry, you have to accept?

Sounds like trolling burley from a very wishful believer. :lol:

Anyone with even the slightest clue know that maths can only be used to prove more maths. The application of maths to real world problems is science and not maths. So there may be nothing wrong with Bayes' theorem mathematically, just it's application in this instance. Although some would argue that Bayes' theorem is fundamentally unapplicable for these sort of problems where historical probabilities are not well established.

Now on to Stephen Unwin's work. Very little can be gleaned from sources on the internet but it appears from the Guardian article you posed that the prior probability applied was 50/50. So he is automatically giving god a 50% leg up based on zero empirical evidence. With that sort of 'scientific rigour' I could prove the Tooth Fairy was a "mathematical" certainty. After all desiduous dentia fall out, don't they? This must be due to the fiat of the almighty Fairy.

Anyway, if you start from the more reasonable scientific standpoint that the existience of god must be based on the evidence you only get a probablity of somewhere in the region of 17%, even when you filter the evidence through Stephen Unwin's rose coloured glasses. Now, this 17% has to be divided up between all possibly deities (and the hindus have quite a few) so the chance of the Christian god actually knocking around upstairs is dangerously low, some would say vanishingly small.

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 12:56 AM
Bayes' was a Christian. Presumably it was God's will that revealed the theorum to him? Stephen Unwin is a Christian also. If God wasn't a Christian God, then why was he choosing to reveal himself to Christian scientists? If he didn't care, he wouldn't have kept choosing Christians, would he? Didn't think of that one, did you?

That really is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Just one question, are trying to satirise clueless christians, or are you one yourself?

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 01:51 AM
:lol: I think thats funny too!!!!

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 01:56 AM
you have only proved (lets assume your claim is right) that there is 67% chance that a god exists. Then you assume outright that god exists and therefore god has revealed it to a christian scientist. Its sort of like this:

find a + b where:
a = 1
0.67 probability that b = 1

therefore, a + b = 2

but what if b is not 1!!???

but god created you so he decided that it will be 1, now shut up.

:hmm: :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2004, 02:18 AM
:hmm: waits to see what kevin has to say on this matter ;)

I have come across this one before after that prize goose Brian Patterson quoted it in one of his Herald Scum / Sunday Tasmanian syndicated dribblings.

The whole thing is a case of "garbage in garbage out". There's nothing wrong with the formulae but if the assumptions are dodgy, he's sunk. So he looks at all these things which he thinks are arguments for or against God's existence and tries to weigh the evidence based on how he thinks the arguments are going. Note that he is a physicist and not a philosopher, so how much of a clue he actually has about any of these things is never made clear. But in any case, because he starts as a Christian, what he sees as a close argument between atheists and Christians on different points might be what I would see as a whitewash with the Christian having no leg to stand on. So he goes through putting all his unscientific evaluations in and the formula spits out 67%. A Christian philosopher might put in their evaluations and it might spit out 90%. I might put in my evaluations and it might spit out 0.1%.

So basically this guy is passing off as statistical truth what is nothing more than a statistical rendering of his opinions on how the philosophical debate is going. Proves diddly-squat. All it tells you is that his faith in God is irrational because he believes in God to a greater extent than his own views of the argument would permit.

This guy should be laughed out of academia entirely for this abysmal piece of attention-seeking pseudoscience. And don't hold this one against Bayes - it's not the formula's fault that some idiot didn't read the instructions.

Barry: I will give David the benefit of the doubt on this one. My Bayesian calculations indicate an 85% chance he is trolling. :p

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 11:48 AM
"garbage in garbage out"

:lol: :lol: Im pretty sure I heard that in one of my info sys lectures: GIGO!!!!!!!

PHAT
31-03-2004, 04:01 PM
:lol: :lol: Im pretty sure I heard that in one of my info sys lectures: GIGO!!!!!!! I heard it when pocket calculators hit the market in the early 70's, three decades ago. :p

firegoat7
31-03-2004, 07:01 PM
OMFG imagine basing your evidence on this
the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing Yeah like I have a 50-50 chance of winning tattslotto tommorow, give me a break.

Regards FG7

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 07:09 PM
I heard it when pocket calculators hit the market in the early 70's, three decades ago. :p

It's been around for a while and certainly not new when I heard it either.

I believe it is an extrapolation of some abbreviations for data structures.

The queue: First In, First Out (or FIFO)
The stack: First In, Last Out (or FILO)

And of course the GIGO. ;)

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 07:12 PM
This guy should be laughed out of academia entirely for this abysmal piece of attention-seeking pseudoscience. And don't hold this one against Bayes - it's not the formula's fault that some idiot didn't read the instructions.

Not sure that that hasn't happened already. Firstly he's writing general books and not publishing in academic journals or writing textbooks or the like. And his biography says he is a risk-assessor from Ohio. So it would appear he is no longer actively teaching or researching.

Of course there is a 67% that I have this wrong. ;)

Machiavelli
31-03-2004, 07:35 PM
Yeah like I have a 50-50 chance of winning tattslotto tommorow, give me a break.

Regards FG7

You misunderstand, firegoat. If you start from a position void of any data, the probability is a binary proposition i.e. Either I win Tattslotto, or I don't. However, as soon as any data is added i.e. I've bought 1 ticket out of a possible "x" million, then your odds begin to decrease considerably. If you didn't buy a ticket at all, your odds drop to practically 0 - of course, let's not discount the serendipity of you finding a winning ticket that someone else has misplaced. ;)

I don't have a particular problem with starting at 50-50. This isn't saying that there is a 50% chance that God exists. Theoretically, this figure will be established later down the track, where the greater the number of variable considered, the more accurate the final evaluation, assuming the correct weighting was given to each event. Think of it as one's chess score against a specific opponent. Originally it starts at +/- 0 and will change when results come in.

I do however agree with Kevin's question regarding the weighting of certain phenomena. I'm not sure how they work these weightings out, but the subjectivity of the individual's opinion must invalidate any weighting that can be given.

firegoat7
31-03-2004, 09:12 PM
God only knows the mathematics

Thanks for the post M when u wrote:
I don't have a particular problem with starting at 50-50. This isn't saying that there is a 50% chance that God exists. Theoretically, this figure will be established later down the track, where the greater the number of variable considered, the more accurate the final evaluation, assuming the correct weighting was given to each event. Think of it as one's chess score against a specific opponent. Originally it starts at +/- 0 and will change when results come in.



Since I know next to nothing about mathematics I will appoint Barry Cox as my proxy and ask him to defend the position based on his analysis:
Very little can be gleaned from sources on the internet but it appears from the Guardian article you posed that the prior probability applied was 50/50. So he is automatically giving god a 50% leg up based on zero empirical evidence.
Cheers FG7

Cat
31-03-2004, 10:12 PM
I don't know what's wrong with you lot, first you say you want proof that God exists, then when it's mathematically proven you reject it without even buying the book! There's none so blind that cannot see.


This must be a new meaning of the phase "well-credentialed" of which I was not previously aware.

Paul Davies is a reknown physicist and not one to allow scientific convenience to compromise Christian integrity.


Your time stamp is wrong.

An act of God.

Look, does he exist or not? yes or no? on or off? 1 or 0, 50-50? Hack-it :wall:

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 10:33 PM
I don't know what's wrong with you lot, first you say you want proof that God exists, then when it's mathematically proven you reject it without even buying the book! There's none so blind that cannot see.



Paul Davies is a reknown physicist and not one to allow scientific convenience to compromise Christian integrity.



An act of God.

Look, does he exist or not? yes or no? on or off? 1 or 0, 50-50? Hack-it :wall:

wtf :eh:

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 11:07 PM
Paul Davies is a reknown physicist and not one to allow scientific convenience to compromise Christian integrity.

:lol: Yes, yes he is. I wonder hows his project to slow down time and develop a matter transmitter going?

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2004, 11:23 PM
wtf :eh:
Dont you mean wag (what a goose) ;)

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2004, 11:50 PM
I don't know what's wrong with you lot, first you say you want proof that God exists, then when it's mathematically proven you reject it without even buying the book!

So who made you its marketing agent? (I've read enough interviews, reviews and articles to get a fair idea of the guy's method and its defects.)


Paul Davies is a reknown physicist and not one to allow scientific convenience to compromise Christian integrity.

Huh? And Paul Davies is not the author of this drivel, though he too would be best to stick to physics given the poor quality of his forays into philosophy thus far.

skip to my lou
31-03-2004, 11:53 PM
Dont you mean wag (what a goose) ;)

I suspected he (David_Richards) is a goose when looking at his avatar (Avatar of John Howard). Now it is confirmed. :)

Come to think of it, chesslover and david_richards are similar in many aspects! Maybe hes one of 'em chesslovers :p

OK I gotta get my 3 assignments done before next week *sob*. :mad:

Cat
01-04-2004, 12:14 AM
:lol: Yes, yes he is. I wonder hows his project to slow down time and develop a matter transmitter going?

Yes to which part?

Cat
01-04-2004, 12:20 AM
I suspected he (David_Richards) is a goose when looking at his avatar (Avatar of John Howard). Now it is confirmed. :)


The Holy Goose maybe?


Dont you mean wag (what a goose)

Oops, keep forgetting the smilies for you Bill. Tricky language, stick to the pics! :p :lol: :clap:

Cat
01-04-2004, 12:23 AM
So who made you its marketing agent? (I've read enough interviews, reviews and articles to get a fair idea of the guy's method and its defects.)



Huh? And Paul Davies is not the author of this drivel, though he too would be best to stick to physics given the poor quality of his forays into philosophy thus far.


Maybe if I'd posted on 1st April you'd have let me have my fun?

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2004, 12:29 AM
Maybe if I'd posted on 1st April you'd have let me have my fun?

Thanks for the warning.

Rincewind
01-04-2004, 10:11 AM
Yes to which part?

Yes he is a work reknown physicist. Although I'd say he doesn't let the facts get in the way of a chance to appear on national television.

Cat
01-04-2004, 09:29 PM
That really is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Just one question, are trying to satirise clueless christians, or are you one yourself?

It was an adaptation of some lines by Robert Graves. It is probably fairly representitive of Roman philosophy in the days of the Empire, either Christian or Pagan, where signs and portents were revered.

antichrist
13-04-2004, 05:38 PM
So who made you its marketing agent? (I've read enough interviews, reviews and articles to get a fair idea of the guy's method and its defects.)



Huh? And Paul Davies is not the author of this drivel, though he too would be best to stick to physics given the poor quality of his forays into philosophy thus far.

My philosophy mate (assoc. prof.) said the same thing and was trying to engage him in a debate but Davies avoided it by want a fee of thousands when all other debates were free.

What is the maths of God?? We know what the Beast's is!

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2004, 08:54 PM
What is the maths of God??

0=1
1=3
3=1

Any questions?

antichrist
15-04-2004, 05:01 PM
0=1
1=3
3=1

Any questions?

No explanation needed.

Cat
18-04-2004, 09:44 PM
Yes it makes perfect sense, one might say the mathematics is divine!

Bruce Oates
27-01-2009, 02:05 PM
0=1
1=3
3=1

Any questions?

Yes...Who was your maths teacher ? :eek:

Rincewind
27-01-2009, 09:31 PM
Yes...Who was your maths teacher ? :eek:

Sounds like Jono's that taught him 3/0 = 3.

Oepty
27-01-2009, 09:49 PM
Yes...Who was your maths teacher ? :eek:

Idiot. IF you are going to dig up a post this old at least make a reasonable point

Capablanca-Fan
27-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Sounds like Jono's that taught him 3/0 = 3.
He didn't teach me. He spruiked forth this nonsense and I got into trouble for saying that it was.

TheJoker
28-01-2009, 09:29 AM
Sounds a bit like the Bayesian Probability Theory application to the Two Envelopes Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem) (i.e. the result is utter nonsense).

Bruce Oates
28-01-2009, 10:24 AM
Idiot. IF you are going to dig up a post this old at least make a reasonable point

OK Scott do you know the maths of GOD ?

Desmond
28-01-2009, 12:56 PM
there is no 'maths of GOD', there is just maths.

Bruce Oates
28-01-2009, 01:27 PM
there is no 'maths of GOD', there is just maths.

That is a reasonable point.. Are you saying God can't do maths or just me :confused:

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2009, 07:52 PM
To unpack #45 a little for the benefit of those who came in late, "0=1" refers to the suggestion that God exists while "1=3" and "3=1" both refer to the concept of the Trinity.

Kaitlin
28-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Isnt this a bit chicken and eggish

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2009, 08:25 PM
Moved a bunch of off-topic stuff here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9522)

Aaron Guthrie
31-01-2009, 09:06 PM
1=3
3=1
1 long-neck is 750 milliliters.

I think the problem is better put as an identity one, three things are identical with each other, but also non-identcal with each other. Or, three distinct things are identical with each other!

Looking at the stanford entry, they note the "constitution model", which says something like that things can be the same in that they are something (e.g. a God), but different in that they are something else (e.g. a person). This is similar (but not identical) to the way Aristotle treats identity, at least on some accounts, for example Cresswell's. That is, that one can have (Socrates = Man), and (Plato = Man), and not (Plato = Socrates). (But it may be just as much a problem to make sense of this account as it is the trinity.)

Rincewind
31-01-2009, 09:10 PM
1 long-neck is 750 milliliters.

I think the problem is better put as an identity one, three things are identical with each other, but also non-identcal with each other. Or, three distinct things are identical with each other!

Looking at the stanford entry, they note the "constitution model", which says something like that things can be the same in that they are something (e.g. a God), but different in that they are something else (e.g. a person). This is similar (but not identical) to the way Aristotle treats identity, at least on some accounts, for example Cresswell's. That is, that one can have (Socrates = Man), and (Plato = Man), and not (Plato = Socrates). (But it may be just as much a problem to make sense of this account as it is the trinity.)

Reminiscent of Russell proving he was the Pope from the axiom: 1+1=1

The Pope is one. I am one. Therefore the Pope and I are one.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Reminiscent of Russell proving he was the Pope from the axiom: 1+1=1

The Pope is one. I am one. Therefore the Pope and I are one.

Mr Russell would have made an excellent pope

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2009, 09:16 PM
Reminiscent of Russell proving he was the Pope from the axiom: 1+1=1

The Pope is one. I am one. Therefore the Pope and I are one.

A version I encountered of this (can't remember if it was in one of Smullyan's books or one of Martin Gardiner's) involves a philosopher (possibly Russell) stating that the sentence "If 2+2=5 then I am the Pope" is true, as an example of a false proposition implying any proposition.

The philosopher is asked to prove the statement and carries out various mathematical operations to turn "2+2=5" into "2=1". At this point he says that the Pope and he are two different people, but 2=1, so the Pope and he are one, therefore he is the Pope.


1 long-neck is 750 milliliters.

It would be more accurate to say that 1 long-neck contains 750 millilitres ... at least until I have disposed of it. :)

antichrist
31-01-2009, 09:18 PM
A version I encountered of this (can't remember if it was in one of Smullyan's books or one of Martin Gardiner's) involves a philosopher (possibly Russell) stating that the sentence "If 2+2=5 then I am the Pope" is true, as an example of a false proposition implying any proposition.

The philosopher is asked to prove the statement and carries out various mathematical operations to turn "2+2=5" into "2=1". At this point he says that the Pope and he are two different people, but 2=1, so the Pope and he are one, therefore he is the Pope.

I have often been told that I am a monkeys uncle, so maybe he was the pope

Bruce Oates
04-02-2009, 10:34 AM
I have often been told that I am a monkeys uncle, so maybe he was the pope

No he is your cousin, it would be hard to calculate what number ;)