What are the odds of a religion being the "right one"?

[lightgigantic]

So what do you suggest? There is more than one universal explanation for everything?

only if you are suggesting that 3+4, -2x-3+1, square root 49, etc constitute more than one explanation for 7

No. If 7 is the truth, then all the rest of numbers up to infinity is possible but wrong explanations for the truth.

how is 3+4 essentially different from 7?

Other than the fact that many if not all religions claim to be the truth about everything.

Other than there is a multitude of expressions (both correct and incorrect) for 7 ..... much like there is a multitude of expressions for any given "truth" in any field of knowledge you care to mention, yet for some whacky reason you think you can bring it to a discussion on theology/philosophy to justify your atheist values in the name of logic.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

1. There is exactly one objective universal truth, the explanation for everything.

It follows from the term "objective universal truth" that there can be only one such thing.

However, as we are currently not in knowledge of said truth (if we would be, we wouldn't be having this conversation), we do not know what it is.
Therefore, we cannot make claims about it.

It may very well be that the one objective universal truth can be expressed differently in different circumstances, while actually remaining the same.

2. There are infinite number of imagined explanations for everything. Some of these we call religions. Only one of these infinite explanations is the correct one.

We could say this only if we knew already what the objective universal truth is.

3. When trying to determine what the chances are for any given explanation to be the exact whole truth you get 1/x where x approaches infinity.

See above.

 

[wynn]

There are a lot of religions in the world. New ones are created all the time. How do you determine what the chances are for each of the religions to be real and the other just superstitions?

People who are serious about spirituality and religion do not indulge in impossible calculations.

 

[wynn]

I don't think you understand my point. Let's say for the sake of the argument that we're not talking religion but "truths about everything". There is one explanation that is true. There are infinite possible beliefs about what this "ultimate truth" is. 1/x where x approaches infinite is approaching zero. Is this number so small that we can ignore it?

Fortunately or unfortunately, this same goes for your own stance as well:

Is the possibility of your being right so small that you can ignore it?

Your stance is, after all, only one among x, and x approaches infinity.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Fortunately or unfortunately, this same goes for your own stance as well:

Is the possibility of your being right so small that you can ignore it?

Your stance is, after all, only one among x, and x approaches infinity.

I don't claim to know or attempt to explain the universal truth, so my "stance" is not even among the x'es.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

People who are serious about spirituality and religion do not indulge in impossible calculations.

People who are serious about calculations don't indulge in highly improbable fantasies.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

It follows from the term "objective universal truth" that there can be only one such thing.

However, as we are currently not in knowledge of said truth (if we would be, we wouldn't be having this conversation), we do not know what it is.
Therefore, we cannot make claims about it.

Exactly hence the unknown (x)

 

[YoYoPapaya]

only if you are suggesting that 3+4, -2x-3+1, square root 49, etc constitute more than one explanation for 7

7 is the explanation. Not the question.

 

[lightgigantic]

7 is the explanation. Not the question.

The question is why do you insist on there being one singular explanation when you can't indicate a field of knowledge that is obedient to such nonsensical criteria

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Because even if there are alternate realities as your post seems to suggest, those would be included in this one ultimate truth about everything.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because even if there are alternate realities as your post seems to suggest, those would be included in this one ultimate truth about everything.

I am not sure you understand.

Just try and apply your equation for calculating the odds to "7" to see what a nonsense it is

 

[YoYoPapaya]

You brought up the "7" for some reason in the first place.

Maybe so you could abuse it to make your usual nonsense posts later.

I am talking about one ultimate truth about everything. Not the number 7. Do you claim that there is more than exactly one truth about everything? Because i thought you as a religious person had already decided what you think that truth is.

 

[lightgigantic]

You brought up the "7" for some reason in the first place.

sure
to show what a crock your calculations are

Maybe so you could abuse it to make your usual nonsense posts later.

you are the one trying to make calculations about infinity

I am talking about one ultimate truth about everything.
Not the number 7.

Then I guess you have to explain why the means you are using to calculate the odds for the ultimate truth require special handling since they certainly don't function in the pursuit of any other truth you care to mention.

Do you claim that there is more than exactly one truth about everything?

depends whether you are claiming that 3+4 etc constitute more than one truth about 7

Because i thought you as a religious person had already decided what you think that truth is.

sure
But what I think you are failing to understand is that value can be represented (both correctly ... and incorrectly too I might add) in a multitude of ways.

If you just sat down for a minute and tried to think of any truth that can exclusively be explained/applied in a singular fashion, you would understand this simple point in a second.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

sure
to show what a crock your calculations are

It only shows that you can't wrap your head around logic.

you are the one trying to make calculations about infinity

Like that is something entirely new.

Then I guess you have to explain why the means you are using to calculate the odds for the ultimate truth require special handling since they certainly don't function in the pursuit of any other truth you care to mention.

I'm not sure you even make sense here. Anyway see the original equation for further info.

depends whether you are claiming that 3+4 etc constitute more than one truth about 7

Please stop with the 7. It makes no sense.

If you just sat down for a minute and tried to think of any truth that can exclusively be explained/applied in a singular fashion, you would understand this simple point in a second.

I don't claim I can do this and I don't need to for my equation to work.
You generally fail to make sense or bring up real faults in my logic. Instead you make something up that isn't there.

I have been warned about this behavior of yours and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat myself, so unless you start finding the real fault in my logic that you seem to think is there, I will stop answering your posts.

 

[lightgigantic]

It only shows that you can't wrap your head around logic.




Like that is something entirely new.



I'm not sure you even make sense here. Anyway see the original equation for further info.



Please stop with the 7. It makes no sense.



I don't claim I can do this and I don't need to for my equation to work.
You generally fail to make sense or bring up real faults in my logic. Instead you make something up that isn't there.

I have been warned about this behavior of yours and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat myself, so unless you start finding the real fault in my logic that you seem to think is there, I will stop answering your posts.

You are making calculations based on the assumption that any religious claim stands exclusively reserved from any other.

This is as absurd as the claim of "7" standing distinct from "3+4"

It becomes more of a joke when you try to factor infinity in such nonsense.
:shrug:

Rather than address these critical problems in your thinking (by attempting to explain how any truth is necessarily singular in its representation or application) you prefer to take the avenue of personal insult and accusation.

 

[wynn]

I don't claim to know or attempt to explain the universal truth, so my "stance" is not even among the x'es.

Yes, it is, inherently so.
The moment you choose an approach to dealing with an issue, you take a stance on what the truth is.
You might not specify so directly, but the very act of taking an approach implies this.

 

[wynn]

People who are serious about calculations don't indulge in highly improbable fantasies.

x does not approach infinity. I would say it is 2, perhaps 3 but not more.

The individual religious traditions and other philosophies are not as different as you suggest.

The names may be different, the times and places of appearance may be different.

But they have a lot more in common than you see so far.

 

[wynn]

Because even if there are alternate realities as your post seems to suggest, those would be included in this one ultimate truth about everything.

If there is one ultimate truth about everything, then you are included in it somehow, whether you like it or not, and your calculations about it do not matter, nor your choices as to which religion/philosophy/wordlview to opt for.

If you indeed believe that there in one ultimate truth about everything, then whatever you do will be in line with this one ultimate truth about everything
- and there is no need for any calculations, concerns or criticisms.

 

[wynn]

I have been warned about this behavior of yours and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat myself, so unless you start finding the real fault in my logic that you seem to think is there, I will stop answering your posts.

You are, in effect, a solipsist. You can't really be reasoned with.

Hopefully in time the cockiness of your youth will diminish!

 

[Enmos]

You are, in effect, a solipsist.

How is that?