If m is the number of theories that contain the rose unicorn, and n is the number of theories without it. Then the probability of being in an universe with the unicorn is P=lim(m+n->infinity) (m/m+n). The rose unicorn is undetectable that means causaly ineffective. This means that, if theory A without the unicorn is logically consistent (*), so is theory A* which is exactly the same except with the unicorn. Likewise for every working theory B with the unicorn there exists one B* without it. Therefore m=n. Which makes P=lim(2*m->infinity) (m/2*m) i.e. P= 50%.
This isn't entirely true yet though. All that is required is that the unicorn can not causally interact with anything that can causaly interact with anything (that can ... etc) that we can see. This, however, like an unicorn interacting with nothing, is a closed system. Therefore what is said applies as well. However, it means that there may be in fact more theories containing the unicorn than theories that do not (since there can be multiple closed system of things the unicorn interacts with that can be inserted). So m>=n and P>=50%.
Now, rose unicorns are so awesome that they have to exist because they wouldn't be all that awesome if they didn't. So, really, it's impossible for rose unicorns not to exist. P=100% which is consistent with what we proved before.
There are people running around and killing unicorns with razors but they are evil.
(*) There has been the objection that causality and logic are not exactly the same. This misses the point however and is invalid. It cannot however be discussed in the scope of this silly post. Interested readers may find a thorrough explanations in the post "The Unicorn in a nutshell". A short overview of the argument can be found in "My little pony".
Interesting point about non-exclusive belief systems. But it still ends up being and indetermination of type infinite over infinite, which isn't equal to 1/2. It doesn't hold with exclusive belief systems, which afaik include all big monotheist religions. The event of either being true is stochastically impossible (*).
Stochastically impossible means "possible but with probability tending to zero". An example of a stochastically impossible event is throwing a rock and calculating the distance it traveled with infinite precision. If you say beforehand that the rock will exactly travel 3 meters, it's stochastically impossible because the rock could travel any distance like 3 meters + an arbitrarily small value, and in all those cases it wouldn't be exactly 3 meters. In other words, probabilities in the domain of continuous random variables are not expressed ponctually but by density because otherwise it's always 0.
ITT: Insecure atheists mock religion to feel intellectually superior.
How did you know ?
No. It's an interesting subject that sometimes leads to interesting discussions, even over the internet. Mocking religion is like mocking anything, sometimes it makes me laugh. I don't see anybody making a tantrum when asian drivers are mocked in the US. Hell, I'm quite sure if we started dissing Islam on this forum instead, we would have one angry turk replying and not a cohort of white knights.
I'd like to point out I'm an atheist aswell, I just think your attitudes about the whole thing are shitty.
That was quite easy to tell. Rest assured I'm not being a jerk to religious people IRL. Web forums are a chance to discuss things freely without the fear of alienating people that you really care about. Here we can shake the tree and see what falls off.
Why do some atheists try so hard to disprove a god they claim doesn't even exist in the frist place?
Why do believers try so hard to tell everyone their myths are true ? Seems to me you just want people that have other world views to shut up.
Why should you care what others believe in?
Like, why do we even have keyboards on a computer ? What's the use of discussing things with other people ?
I'm against homosexuality, yet when someone tells me they are gay, I don't go crazy to the point of insults and try to turn them straight.
I'm fine with anything people do with their genitalia as long as it respects other people. That doesn't forbid me to laugh at jokes on gay people.
I just ignore it, why can't people do the same for religion?
Again, we should ignore everything, stop writing on internet forums, stop talking to other people about anything but the weather. I don't go bothering the three elderly couples attending church offices around here if that's what you want to know. To me you sound like you don't want people to tell things you don't want to hear.
No ones trying to shove it down your throat, so why should you care?
Tell that to an atheist living in the USA. Or almost anybody outside of western europe for that matter.
It's funny how people talk about "live and let live" and shit, yet those same people, mock others religious beliefs and try to keep them from living how they want to live
By exerting my right of free speech I'm offending religious people and preventing them to live how they want to live (one would think they should buy earplugs since they already have the equivalent for the whole brain). But by stopping me from doing so and basically censoring, religious people are not keeping me from living how I want to live. Sounds legit. Not to forget completely not hypocritical when you still have to swear on the bible and suffer "In god we trust" signs every other mile in some backwards countries.
Anyway this damn thread should just be locked and left to die, but knowing this community, I doubt that's gonna happen
Yes, let's prevent people from discussing things by closing down threads. That seems like a very healthy thing to do indeed.
