Philosophy Now Forum

There is a simple fact, indifference, that there are tremendous, infinite for example, ways that God could look like. This means that the chance that one of these God could exist is rare, zero in case of infinite ways. Therefore there is no God.

There is a simple fact, indifference, that there are tremendous, infinite for example, ways that bahman could look like (in some possible world). This means that the chance that one of these bahman could exist is rare, zero in case of infinite ways. Therefore there is no bahman.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:50 pm There is a simple fact, indifference, that there are tremendous, infinite for example, ways that bahman could look like (in some possible world). This means that the chance that one of these bahman could exist is rare, zero in case of infinite ways. Therefore there is no bahman.

Wrong.

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:51 pm Wrong.

I agree...he is.

But it's his wording and logic, not mine. So your issue is with him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:50 pm There is a simple fact, indifference, that there are tremendous, infinite for example, ways that bahman could look like (in some possible world). This means that the chance that one of these bahman could exist is rare, zero in case of infinite ways. Therefore there is no bahman.

The difference is that God is unique but there could even be many similar bahman (in some possible worlds).

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:36 am The difference is that God is unique but there could even be many similar bahman (in some possible worlds).

Explain how "uniqueness" can a) be predicated of a being you claim doesn't exist at all, and b) provides some qualification for your earlier claims. It's not readily apparent to anyone how you can answer either a) or b).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:01 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:36 am The difference is that God is unique but there could even be many similar bahman (in some possible worlds).

Explain how "uniqueness" can a) be predicated of a being you claim doesn't exist at all, and b) provides some qualification for your earlier claims. It's not readily apparent to anyone how you can answer either a) or b).

Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both. This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%. There could be however one bahman in each possible world so the chance of having bahman could be 100%.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:06 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:51 pm Wrong.

I agree...he is.

But it's his wording and logic, not mine. So your issue is with him.

No, it isn't.

bahman presumably exists. He wrote a post. This means that in principle it would be possible to meet him and evaluate his personal properties and disconfirm counterfactual properties.

This is not possible with God, whom no one has ever met. This straightforwardly means he could be an infinite number of different ways, with zero probability that he is some particular way.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:01 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:36 am The difference is that God is unique but there could even be many similar bahman (in some possible worlds).

Explain how "uniqueness" can a) be predicated of a being you claim doesn't exist at all, and b) provides some qualification for your earlier claims. It's not readily apparent to anyone how you can answer either a) or b).

Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both. This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%. There could be however one bahman in each possible world so the chance of having bahman could be 100%.

Although I agree with your OP I disagree with your modal analysis here.

However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:01 am
Explain how "uniqueness" can a) be predicated of a being you claim doesn't exist at all, and b) provides some qualification for your earlier claims. It's not readily apparent to anyone how you can answer either a) or b).

Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both. This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%. There could be however one bahman in each possible world so the chance of having bahman could be 100%.

Although I agree with your OP I disagree with your modal analysis here.

Why? That is how I understand that the chance of existence of God is zero considering the fact that the number of possible worlds is infinite. Could you please elaborate?

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:28 am However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

Why not? Zero probability is the same as impossibility.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:29 am

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:28 am However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

Why not? Zero probability is the same as impossibility.

It is not.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:29 am

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:28 am However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

Why not? Zero probability is the same as impossibility.

Impossible means there is zero chance of happening. But zero chance of happening does not mean impossible.

There are an infinite number of real numbers between zero and one. Pick one at random. The probability of picking such a number is zero. Yet, you will pick a number.

Flip a coin an infinite number of times. What is the probability that the coin will come up heads infinitely many times? The probability is zero. Yet it is physically possible for this to happen.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:13 am Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both.

I think I see where you've gone wrong. But I want to be sure.

So give me any specific values for x and y, in the situation you suggest.

This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%.

If "God" means "Supreme" or "Maximally-Great" Being, then his existence in any possible world entails His necessary reality in this one. That's not 50%, but 100%.

But that's a point we can look at later. For now, it seems you've made the mistake of thinking the Supreme Being has to be *within* a possible world...but we'll see when you give those values.