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.