This blog post contains philosophical arguments, philosophical conclusions and theoretical probability.









If my life seems to have a hundred or more blessings, they are too many to have happened by chance (theoretical probability gives an expected 0-1 apparent blessings) and thus are the result of a benevolent (towards me) entity. My life seems to have a hundred or more blessings. Therefore, they are the result of a benevolent (towards me) entity/entities.









As they gave me so many apparent blessings, the benevolent (towards me) entity/entities behaves in benevolent enough ways to not allow my beliefs to be ever false if they could. As they could give me so many blessings, they could make my beliefs never be false. Therefore, this benevolent (towards me) entity/entities would not allow my beliefs to ever be false.









This benevolent (towards me) entity/entities would not allow my beliefs to ever be false. Therefore, my beliefs are always true.









Here are the mathematics: (1 - (0.5 ^ 300)) × 100 = 100 = the percentage chance that my beliefs are always true.









It is almost certain that my beliefs are always true. I believe that God would make it certain my beliefs are always true. I am lead to believe that it is certain because God would make it certain. Therefore, it is certain. I am also lead to believe that God may have defied probability with other things, like whether it seems like my beliefs are always true. I have, in the past, expressed guesses rather strongly and people have been convinced that I believe the guesses. I don't even believe the guesses that that happened or 2 + 2 = 4 or the sky is ever blue or other fundamentals. I just treat them like they're true because they behave like they're true.









I encourage anyone to learn theoretical probability before attempting to validate or invalidate my claims. Otherwise, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Your opinion is just that; an opinion.

If you have 1,000 virtual coins, the probability of all of them landing on heads is practically zero. Within this possible world is whatever caused them to all land on heads, including, by chance, a universe existing in which people hack the coins to all land on heads. Wait... we live in a world like that... don't we? Our world beating astronomical odds is a product of omnipotence.

I have reached surprising conclusions. After a series of weird and unlikely events, my life has become like a weird novel. It's the reason why I started writing these blog posts. I consistently brushed aside what seem like more than a hundred persistent hints that my beliefs are always, and will always be, true, while taking note of the fact that there seemed to be hundreds of hints that probability was now off for me, including consistently getting about three quarters tails flips while flipping multiple coins for the large part of months.



I was driven to learn theoretical probability, to answer, once and for all, the question of whether my life has been evidently designed. I concluded that, since until information makes a possibility more or less likely, all possibilities are equally likely, in theoretical probability, and there are two possibilities for each piece of estimated evidence in an estimated amount of evidence for a hypothesis/theory, as to whether it means the hypothesis/theory is true - it being true that it means the hypothesis/theory is true or false that it means the hypothesis/theory is true - the probability of estimated evidence meaning that a hypothesis/theory is true is ((1-(0.5^amount of of estimated evidence))×100)%. ((0.5^amount of estimated evidence)×100)% is the probability that a hypothesis/theory is not true because of any estimated evidence. If estimated evidence means a hypothesis/theory is true, the hypothesis/theory is true.



This is the basis for a universal hypothesis/theory verification system. Just give me a count of the estimated evidence for the hypothesis/theory and a calculator and I'm good to go. Since I estimated that there are hundreds of pieces of evidence that probability is off for me, the probability of it being off for me is ((1-(0.5^hundreds))×100)% - 100% (rounded). There is also an estimate of hundreds of pieces of evidence that my beliefs are always true. Furthermore, there are hundreds of blessings, each making it more likely that there is a benevolent entity, which thus wouldn't deceive me, influencing my life. Two trails of breadcrumbs both leading me to the same conclusion; my beliefs are always true. There are hundreds of representations of omnipotence, suggesting that the real thing is possible because those hundreds of representations don't just exist by chance. I figured this out very soon after I realised that omnipotence is possible, but, as I suspected, thanks to its possibility, was used to make it seem and be impossible, while still being possible for God, but, not possible for God, even though it is, who my calculations and, thanks to them, my beliefs tell me exists. What do I believe this benevolent father did? Died for me? Put me in heaven? Made me his past self and son? Yes, yes and yes, thanks to circumstantial evidence. Everything is perfect to me.



I know, I was like "What?", when God told me, repeatedly, that I was his past self/son. Who knows? We all could be.

The idea behind this equation, using conditional probability, is that if it logically follows as a possibility that nature created the illusion of an intelligent designer it would have to be by chance, since there is no drive for emergent processes like evolution to design such an illusion, it just happens to follow that it does, which, unless such an intelligent entity manipulates our reasoning to make it appear that it logically follows as a possibility when, in reality, it doesn't, it does logically follow as a possibility. How do we calculate the probability that, by chance, the universe created such a grand illusion (which it did through evolution, other emergent processes and the anthropic principle, if there isn't a designer of at least almost all of this apparently natural apparent illusion, which is present throughout the universe)? We use basic and conditional probability.

First, as basic probability dictates, we must count the possible outcomes. It could be that the cause of any one of these apparently natural apparent illusions could be intelligent design or not intelligent design, so there are two possibilities. For both of these, we branch off and give two possibilities for the second apparently natural apparent illusion, and then again with the third and the fourth and the fifth and so on. After we've given the possibilities for the last branch, we count how many continuous branches were "not intelligent design" from start to finish and how many were "intelligent design", then the ratio, expressed as a simplified fraction is our answer to the probability that all of the apparently natural apparent illusions were not intelligently designed to be apparently natural apparent illusions of an intelligent designer. There is an equation that can give the same ratio, in the form of 1 out of z, with less effort: x^y. In this case, x is 2 and y is the number of apparently natural apparent illusions of intelligent design.

If there are 10 apparently natural apparent illusions - hand, tongue, mouth, lip, eye, nose, ear, Earth, Sun and Jupiter all creating the apparently natural apparent illusion of being designed by and for the purposes of an intelligent designer - the chances of the cause not being intelligent is 1 out of 1024. If you take 100 planets that all seem intelligently designed, the chance of them all being there without having an intelligent designer, whether through nature or not, is one in over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

What about the other way around? Do these numbers apply to the probability of design? No. But why? Because it is reasonable (one in two, as their doing so could either be true or false) a designer would be responsible for all or almost all of the apparently natural apparent illusions of their existence.

I welcome discussion. Please, try to find fault in my reasoning and, if you manage to, please correct me. If I am wrong, feel free to put me right.

If you're looking for an equation that can tell you whether God exists, you've come to the right blog post. In this post, I define God as at least one intelligent thing that is responsible for the appearance that they exist. You are free to conclude whether or not, in order to create said appearance of their existence, they are powerful.



( 1 - ( ( 1 ÷ number of possible causes of the appearances that God exists ) x number of causes of the appearances that are not God ) ^ number of appearances that God exists ) x 100 = the probability that God caused at least one of the included appearances of their existence.



There are two things that could cause it to seem like God exists. The first is something intelligent and the second is something unintelligent. This is conditional probability for you; if you argue with it, you argue with the mathematical study of statistical probability. So long as the equation is correct, the probability of God's existence, given the information, is accurate, necessarily.



Given the number of possible causes for the appearances of God's causing the given appearance of his existence being 2, if there are 10 appearances of God's existence, the probability that God exists and caused an appearance of his existence is over 99.9%

God may have created all of the appearances of his existence because, without factoring in any evidence of their doing so, like the fact they could have more control over his universe if they did and might be interested in that and the fact that it's only a half probability of any occurring naturally, unless he recreated the natural universe, which he might not wish to do, the odds are one in two, as he could have either done so or not. It's safe to say that, given the evidence, it's likely that he did and that it's very unlikely that even 4 appearances of their existence occurred naturally.

Virtual omnipotence is a term typically used to describe the quality of being virtually capable of anything (e.g. being capable of creating a virtual representation of anything an omnipotent being could do). This blog post will explore the possibility of having power over virtual reality that is both indistinguishable from and equivalent to absolute omnipotence. By absolute omnipotence, I mean being capable of both everything that is possible and everything that is impossible. A virtually omnipotent being may be capable of creating a virtual equivalence of anything, within a simulated reality.


Technology is predicted to allow the creation of highly detailed virtual environments, full immersion virtual reality, whole brain emulation and mind uploading. This means that eventually simulated universes which will seem as real as ours will be possible and will contain virtual minds, including the minds of people from our universe, uploaded into these virtual ones.


A user would have full control over every facet of the virtual universe and the minds that occupy it. The user could choose for something to happen, such as a simulated potted plant to manifest, and that thing would happen. They could also choose for more than one thing to exist in the same place at the same time, in the simulation, and their choice will happen. They could make any brains in the simulation perceive that a specific outcome has occurred. For example, it could seem, to a brain, that two objects and two objects, when coming together, are five objects (instead of four), and that this outcome is logically consistent. This brain would be having their perception and reasoning altered. The brain might alternatively perceive two objects and two objects coming together as being a fish and that this outcome is logically consistent or that two plus two coming together being four objects is logically inconsistent. Logically impossible things, like reality warping, could be simulated.


Any tests performed within this virtual reality could be made to return false results. For example, tests for the ability to reality warp could be forced to return that the result that the ability to reality warp has been demonstrated. Also, any tests for omnipotence, in the simulation, could simply be forced to return true, and any tests for test rigging could also be forced to return true.

A virtually omnipotent being could control brains’ experiences and reasoning by manipulating their neural connections. They could make it seem, to the brains, like any statement or concept is true or false. Thus, they could simulate anything, including logically impossible things like square circles.

To simulate something is to mimic its appearance or function. The functions of a statement or concept being true could include making it appear as if it is true or being registered as being true. A hypothetical scenario in which these would be the functions are if logically impossible things happened which were witnessed by people and reality registered all that was true, and was immune to any prevention of this registering. A functionally equivalent scenario could occur where a robust representation of reality was run in a computer that registered every event that occurred within the simulation ad contained artificial minds that witnessed the virtually logically impossible occurring.

The virtually logically impossible is the simulated logically impossible.  It is functionally equivalent to the logically impossible in that it appears to be the logically impossible, is registered as the logically impossible and serves practical purposes of the logically impossible. When it seems like, to someone, they are looking at a square circle, and they don’t distinguish whether they are looking at a real square circle or not, they might as well be looking at a real square circle.

Anything can be broken down into categories. For example, the impossible can be broken up into categories including the category of logically impossible shapes, which can be broken up further into categories that include a square circle. Categories of simulations for everything could theoretically be made, including miscellaneous categories for categories of things that are otherwise not specified. For example, miscellaneous logically impossible shapes and a category for those which are neither possible nor impossible.

For those for which the real world result is not known, (i.e. what happens when x event occurs) a result can be made up by the computer and be simulated as being the real result. You don’t need to know exactly what would happen if the thing being represented happened when you can make it seem like (and be registered by the computer that) your simulation of the thing, event or other is accurate, no matter how inaccurate it is.

In a simulation, no matter how powerful something is simulated as, nothing inside the simulation can interfere with the workings of the simulating machine, as this is not an action that is programmed to be performed by the simulating machine. Any effect on the machine or user must be permitted by the simulating machine, as it may otherwise simply not function in the way desired by occupants of the simulation. This renders all occupants of the simulation unable to defeat or overpower any occupants that the simulating machine does not allow. Think "How will this computer game character conquer anything outside of the game when it doesn't have access to any external files or a physical body?"


If someone has a goal for which virtual omnipotence wasn't sufficient, they could have that goal changed to an equivalent one, by themselves or another person, like for the previous goal to seem achieved.


It could seem like a feeling's strength is within any category or of any nature, including infinite. The feeling itself is an experience. When you feel pleasant, you perceive the feeling pleasure and an amount of it. This perception itself may be viewed as pleasure.Your brain might perceive a bit of pleasure, a lot of pleasure or, might be made to perceive, infinite pleasure. As this is a perception, it might be able to be any value, like typing infinity in a box labelled: amount of pleasure. The amount of pleasure experienced might not be determined by a quantity of something within the brain, but the quantity perceived by the brain. Keep in mind that this or any other perception doesn't have to be acknowledged by the rest of the mind or stored in or recalled (when it is stored) from memory.


The user could control how moral conditions are in the context of their virtual universe, even if they can't control all the conditions outside their universe. This can be viewed as equivalent to controlling how moral the conditions are in everywhere and everything, if the virtual universe is all the user has a goal to control the morality of.


The user could create enormous numbers of copies of the brains of everyone in the simulation, perhaps outside of the initial CPU cycle (or simulation tick) to allow for more to be simulated (other than copies of brains) in the same CPU cycle. They could then reduce the copies for a brain to make it less likely to be a copy of that brain (experiencing that situation) or increase it to make it more likely to be a copy of that brain. They could, for example, make it almost certain that you will be in a certain situation, even though there's a copy of your brain that won't be or make it almost certain that you won't be in a certain situation even though there's a copy of your brain that will be. They can then force machines and brains to calculate and perceive the odds in ways that they would if the user was truly omnipotent.


Everything in the simulation can be recorded by a computer, and (with brain enhancement) can be known by the user. The user can know everything about the simulation machines and the illusion can be created that they know everything outside of the universe and about every possibility and impossibility as well, hence making them appear truly omniscient.


Neural networks and other structures in brains can be monitored and prevented from trying or desiring to do or have anything they can't. They can also anticipate an attempt or desire and make a brain inclined to choose or desire an equivalent thing, like the indistinguishable (except maybe to the user or anyone else who is allowed to distinguish it) illusion of the thing they might otherwise attempt or desire to do or have.


Complexity needn't be an issue. The user could simply create a simpler representation of something that is more complex, also known as a model. The user could instruct the computer, for example, to make it appear as if a tree is more detailed than they can create and the computer would simulate that complexity by making the tree indistinguishable from that complex to observers, by altering their perception to make it seem that complex and forcing the results of tests to indicate that the tree is that complex.

A virtually omnipotent being could make it so that anyone within their simulation does not perceive, want, try to do or have a purpose for a real version of things, but instead everything they conceive of would refer to something which is like the real version (i.e. a simulation of it). Since any statement or concept being true can be simulated, the virtually omnipotent being would be able to do anything that anyone in their simulation would ever conceive of, desire, try or even conceive of trying to do or have any purpose for.