If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Precisely.

For example, if I heard someone claim that an invisible magic creature started "life" on our planet I'd have a ton of questions for that person. The first question would be to ask why it would do such a thing. Obviously angels and souls are alive but not physical, so what's the need for physicality? Understand? What's its purpose in making this physical stuff when it already has all this invisible magic stuff? And then why have this afterlife baloney tied to the life and death of physicality? I mean, this is really dopey stuff that falls to pieces in an open discussion between intelligent, rational adults.

See, none of that confuses me.

Humans have already recursively demonstrated most answers to your questions through our own behavior.

I would suggest looking to why humans create universes for that answer. Obviously humans are alive but not 'virtual', so what's the need for virtuality? What's the purpose in making virtual stuff when we have all this nonvirtual physical stuff? And why have this post-process serialization and logging tied to the lifecycle of objects?

None of those questions are "dopey". We accept that there are real answers to all these questions.

What we accept though is that the answers to those questions do not inform the best ethics of the entities in a virtuality, physicality, or any other proposed subordinate simulation: only the rules of the setting itself determine what is "right action" within it.

That makes two of us, then, as I was posing the questions rhetorically, I am certainly not confused. The reality is that humans like to pretend, "Virtual" is just language.

But listening to adult persons who think this stuff is real certainly can be entertaining, and perhaps even revealing. Perhaps I should have said, "...intelligent, rational, scientifically literate adults."

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, my question continues to be ignored.
But i did have a point.

If your only experience with dice is 6-siders, rolling a thirteen on two of them is just a teensy bit outside the truth table for possibility.
On the other hand, i have a box on my desk with 6-siders. And four-siders. And 8-, 10-, 12-, 20-siders. I had a 30-sider, once, but the only time i rolled it cracked the table.
In another box, i have a pair of six-sided dice that always roll a 7. It may look like either one has six possible outcomes, but it's not a variable. Any assessment of the odds will fail until the observer realizes that 'luck' has fuck-all to do with the foll.

So, depending on which two dice i select, the odds vary greatly for and against a result of 13. If you don't know which dice are in play, and whether or not their result is fixed, you really cannot tell me how the odds fall, can you? Any number you offer is from your head, not reality.

And finally, i rolled the dice a few days ago. It's a past event. The odds on the number 13 are 1:1. You cannot use odds to disprove historical events. If it happened, it happened, no matter what the odds were before it happened.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, my question continues to be ignored.
But i did have a point.

If your only experience with dice is 6-siders, rolling a thirteen on two of them is just a teensy bit outside the truth table for possibility.
On the other hand, i have a box on my desk with 6-siders. And four-siders. And 8-, 10-, 12-, 20-siders. I had a 30-sider, once, but the only time i rolled it cracked the table.
In another box, i have a pair of six-sided dice that always roll a 7. It may look like either one has six possible outcomes, but it's not a variable. Any assessment of the odds will fail until the observer realizes that 'luck' has fuck-all to do with the foll.

So, depending on which two dice i select, the odds vary greatly for and against a result of 13. If you don't know which dice are in play, and whether or not their result is fixed, you really cannot tell me how the odds fall, can you? Any number you offer is from your head, not reality.

And finally, i rolled the dice a few days ago. It's a past event. The odds on the number 13 are 1:1. You cannot use odds to disprove historical events. If it happened, it happened, no matter what the odds were before it happened.

Ah yes. The truth of the gambler's fallacy and the story of the puddle.

I love these proofs (disproofs?), and I'm glad you reposted them

 

[fromderinside]

Is "love" more truthful than "said"? Does it matter if truth is said? Are words without value objective facts?