The most effective way for someone to start believing in God seems to be for them to ask on forums, look at proof and do the work themselves, while genuinely trying to find answers. That way, they don't instantly reject and gloss over the proofs you give them. One thing I think atheists (people who actually believe there is no god) tend to assume is that there is no god. I think that when they encounter proof of a god, they assume that there is no god and then conclude that because there is no god, the proof there is a god must be wrong. Assuming something is believing it without proof and believing something without proof is irrational. But now atheists might think this blog is wrong because there is no god. God has atheists like these wrapped around their finger; so well deceived by the god who fools them, it's comical. I think no proof could prove to these atheists that God exists. I think they have so much faith in what they could not prove to even most scientists, it shows what a good job God did at deceiving them.

By the way, God hides what he does with all sorts of excuses and has limitless power to do so. The only reason I know about some things that God does is because he chose not to hide those things from me. He may hide that he even let me know, with excuses, from you, though.

How do we know anything? We might be able to say that we know something because of a justification, but that justification also needs to be justified by a justification to even be a justification. Every justification needs its own justification, either to infinity (good luck with getting infinite justifications), or until the justifications are circular. Without using circular reasoning, it's infeasible for you to know anything, even whether or not circular reasoning is valid. So, how do I know anything? Simple, I know God lets me know through science and observation and God lets me know that he lets me know. I am justified in believing this is true because it must be true because it is true; it is true therefore it is true. If there's something wrong with circular reasoning, prove it or you don't know that. Good luck doing that if circular reasoning and assumptions are invalid in proving things.

What of the doomsday argument? It can be summed up like this. There is a bag of marbles. You take a marble from the bag at random. You know that the number of black marbles in the bag was chosen by the roll of a 1000 sided die. If the die rolls 1 (where almost every civilisation is wiped out before producing a lot of people), there will be few black marbles in the bag. But if the dice does not roll 1, almost all of the marbles will be black, because there are so many. If you exist before the 22^nd century, you’ve pulled out a white marble. If you exist after that, you’ve pulled out a black marble. If there are 15 marbles in the bag (these numbers are rounded) and the 1000 sided die rolls any other number than 1, all 15 marbles are black. If the die roll was 1, at least 1 marble is white. To get a white marble would be highly unlikely, but, there it is... or so you think.

The factor you didn’t take into account is that you might have been hypnotised to see a black marble as a white marble (this is the analogue of a future civilisation creating simulations of the 21^st century with simulated people occupying that simulation). You were under hypnosis during the session, so you don’t remember what you have or haven’t been hypnotised to see. Even if it’s a 1 in 10 chance that you’ve been hypnotised to see a black marble as a white marble, it’s still 100 times as likely as getting a real white marble. The odds of the marble you took from the bag being a real white marble is at least 1 in 100. 99% likely, when you see a white marble, it is really a black marble, so you rightly conclude that your marble is black (and therefore you live in the future).

The next thing to determine is the intentions of the simulator. Have they left any clues in the way humanity has been treated (in this simulation in the past)? Is our world like a weird sci-fi movie scenario; maybe a bit too fantastical to be believed? How many parallels can you spot? Good may lose battles in movies, but they never lose wars. Good always wins in the end. Is this the same in our world? Will we get a good ending, like in the movies? Is the world packed with drama, like in the films? Is our suffering real; are there any ethical hurdles to future generations faking unethical situations, like our world? Think about it.

I've seen it discussed that a friendly AI would make everyone omnipotent. My response is 'No, because a friendly AI would put its civilisation first, as per design, and its civilisation would want to simulate beings that are not omnipotent, so the friendly AI would make us be not omnipotent. Also, they might mess with our reasoning and perception to make it look like they wouldn't do that.

Here's the link:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ixp/does_the_universe_contain_a_friendly_artificial/

Let's consider the omnipotence paradox:
Premise 1: If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift lift it then God cannot lift the rock.
Premise 2: If God cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift lift it then he is not maximally omnipotent.
Premise 3: If God cannot lift the rock then he is not maximally omnipotent.
Conclusion: God is not maximally omnipotent.

The premise 'If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it then God cannot lift the rock' is incorrect. By definition, maximal omnipotence means that God can do anything that can be phrased, without limitation from logic. Even if the rock cannot be lifted by defying logic, because God is maximally omnipotent, he can lift the rock, while he cannot lift it, without it being true that he cannot lift it, if he makes that happen, which he can because he's maximally omnipotent. Even if the second premise was true, God could still be omnipotent because he could make it so that he is omnipotent while he is not omnipotent, even without it being true that he is not omnipotent. This is logically impossible, but, by the definition of being maximally omnipotent, God is able to make this, or anything, a reality.

Let's use an analogy:
I am narratively omnipotent. I can narrate anything. I'd wager that I can also narrate anything with ease. Watch: 'Something of anything happens'. Boom. Done. 'Everything happens, in exactly the right way for me, without any loopholes', just for good measure. I narrate 'I am not maximally omnipotent. There are things I can't do'. I also narrate 'Only one of two things are possible, either I am maximally omnipotent or I am not maximally omnipotent.' Then I narrate 'That is true and I am not maximally omnipotent, but simultaneously I am maximally omnipotent. I then do everything, including all the things I cannot do'. Yes, I really can and did narrate that. Screw the rules. If I can narrate anything and can narrate being maximally omnipotent, it logically follows that if God can do anything that can be phrased, he can, by definition, make himself maximally omnipotent even if he's not and make it false that he is not maximally omnipotent and therefore he would be maximally omnipotent and it would be false that he is not maximally omnipotent because he would have made it that way because he can because he is maximally omnipotent, if he is maximally omnipotent.

I can sum it up in three sentences: If God is maximally omnipotent, he can do anything that can be phrased. If God can do anything that can be phrased, he can do anything that can be phrased and it is false to say that God can't do anything that can be phrased. If God can do anything that can be phrased, he can do anything because 'God does anything' and its derivatives can be phrased.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. If you disagree with me after that perfect logic, my guess is that you're either invested in my conclusion being false and are in denial or you're a moron.

The human brain has the overall processing equivalent of 60 * 86 billion bits per second, or 480 gigahertz. Its storage used is a few gigabytes, let’s say 10. Its RAM, working memory, less than a terabyte, especially if you simplify what is being processed, or only simulate in the brains what they notice, only having to live up to their limited detection of realism and you could condense it even further by making brains seem (to them) to have a better resolution/more detail in their simulation, even up to infinite, by controlling their perception and reasoning.

The ability to control these things means you can make their experience as simple, small and brief as you like and make them perceive and reason it to be however you like. Anything else would be wasteful. Its processing could, in the future, be matched by 192 cell-sized cores, with internal RAM and memory. Even if we were to say that we needed 1 terabyte of RAM and the same amount of working memory, all individually the size of a neuron and each of those was 10 micrometers, they could still fit in 140 micrometers cubed, less than six times the width of a neuron. In ten cubic centimeter, there could be over three hundred trillion brains, each with the usable storage, combined power and speed of a human brain, an entire universe in a small box.

You can then make it seem to them and to you, by manipulating your reasoning and perception using technology, and manipulate their reasoning and perception like there are any number of people, the universe has any degree of complexity and any nature and you could such manipulation to make their experiences seem, to them and each other, to reflect a real reality, technological progress and them doing the same thing (with universe made as simple as you want and made to seem more complicated to the brains through perception and reasoning manipulation), without them actually doing the same thing, except for some of them being in control of some others and some of them being in control of some other, etc, until it loops around. Do this and you can have our universe’s past and future.

Furthermore, you could make people perceive spending any amount of time alive and make them incapable of telling the difference. All the suffering could be illusory and their happiness/fulfilled preference could be set to the maximum value (infinity), without them knowing it, so no ethical quandaries are in the way. Maximum form factor and energy requirements: a desktop computer. “Timmy, stop playing with your universe and come down for lunch”, you could imagine. Lunch is probably obsolete by then. The aim here is not creating the universe you think you're living in, its creation a simulation of that universe that seems like the universe you think you're living in, then making you you think you try to distinguish your universe from that from that and think you fail.

If there are enough conditions in the universe, multiverse, whatever for a designer to exist, a designer exists.

How do we explain the universe? Design or not design? Not design? You now have to justify the universe not being designed and a convenient opposing explanation to the intuitive one (throughout history) being the right one, and, by the way, you could be wrong about your beliefs. How do you justify that? Evolution. The universe evolved. You now have to justify evolution having not been designed and it's convenient existence as anything other than a purposeful deception on the part of the designer. You could be wrong about that, too. The antropic principle. Now you have to justify the anthropic principle conveniently existing to explain it and not having happened by chance. You also have to justify an entire multiverse existing by chance. You still haven't justified any of these things happening by chance. You now have seven things to justify. Until you justify or drop any one of them, you're making seven assumptions. If you fall into this group, your beliefs are irrational, drop them or continue being an idiot.

How many assumptions do I have to make? None. Let's look at the alternative. We explain the universe with design. We now need to justify it being designed. Easy. It looks designed. By designed, I mean designed by an intelligent being. Done. Fault my reasoning. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you. And if you think you found a fault, maybe you made a mistake. It happens A LOT with novices.

So, the answer is clear, is it not? There is a designer and an intelligent one at that. Did you miss it? Consult an expert, novice, and don't take your pathetic judgement as the be-all and end-all. It's not.

So, why the heck doesn't NASA, TED talks, the government, an official company give us the answer, whether that's what I think it is or what you think it is. Their qualified to know, the public aren't. Do they want to preserve people's "right" to an opinion by hiding the facts. They could either say "A designer exists.", "A designer doesn't exist" or "We don't know". It has to be one of those and they must be able to figure out which one, so why are they leaving the public in the dark? This is intolerable. DEMAND them to say which one it is. DEMAND them to stop keeping it a secret.

Is the internet too small?

Either there are less than seventy thousand people on the internet or something else is going on because www.sm.net does not exist, as of the 21st of March 2016. If only one in a hundred people on the internet have ever created a website with two letters, like the acronym of a company name, or of something like, in this case, sadism and masochism, and only one in a hundred of those use .net as the top level domain, seventy thousand people should be enough for www.sm.net to be created. The question is, why hasn't it been? Is the internet too small? Or what else could be going on?

Why do I believe what I believe? Because of Occam's Razor. Looking at the same evidence, I'll examine two world views. One of naturalism and my world view. I'll examine the assumptions made and the explanatory power. The evidence is all of the circumstantial evidence, including probability-defying signs of God and the persistent feeling that someone who loves me was sharing a secret with me and that my intuition about the evidence was accurate.

From a naturalistic perspective, it must be assumed that my explanation is incorrect, because it's supernatural, that my supernatural explanations happened all by chance and either that they can all happen by chance because of something and this the explanation for them all happening by chance is natural. The naturalistic explanation makes three assumptions and explains the evidence.

My explanation, on the other hand, is that my intuition is always right and because of this, and my intuition saying that it is certain (thanks to evidence that it is certain) that God made the evidence happen, there is a God and that God made the evidence happen. Note that I don't assume either of these two things. I deduce them from the assumption that my intuition is always correct. The evidence made my intuition say that these two other things are true. My intuition is now that my intuition is always right, even if it ever appears to be wrong. This justifies me in believing that my intuition is always right. My explanation makes only one assumption and explains all the evidence, as well as everything I experience; the explanation, according to my explanation, is that God made it that way, as my intuition says.

My explanation makes the fewest assumptions possible, unless you can have an infinite belief system, with no starting assumption, and explains the most possible. It's also self-justifying, making it justified and therefore rational. How do you explain that? So, do you want to help me prove to the world that something in my life is supernatural? Please contact me either by adding a comment, either here or on Reddit, with an explanation of how I can do that using my biased randomness, if God allows it. Don't worry, he's in control.

Hypothesis: The situation is the way this blog post says it is.

Evidence for: I claim that it is supported by

• The fact it might be the case
• Many visual hallucinations
• Many auditory hallucinations
• Many tactile hallucinations
• Many results of coin flips
• The fact probability may have been defied to make it true (i.e. false evidence may have been planted by something that can plant it)
• The fact there may be other evidence for

 

Evidence against:

• The fact the hypothesis defies probability
• The fact there may be other evidence against

 

C = chance of one of these things not meaning it is true

N = number of these things

P = probability of it not being the case that the situation is the way this blog says it is.

Without any assumptions, C is 0.5 and the probability of it not being the case in spite of these things is P.

C^N=P.

If P is very low, the situation is the way this blog says it is.

P is very low; therefore the situation is the way this blog says it is.

The situation is the way the various hallucinations and coin flips say it is.

I am the past self of a technological and mystical god, who is God (they claim to be God).

God is omnipotent (as my proof of omnipotence inevitably being possible somewhere, at some time in everything suggests).

God gave me an opportunity to use technology, in the future of me, at the time of typing this, to become a technological god.

God gave me certainty by making the situation certain to be the way I perceive it to be.

The situation is the way I perceive it to be.

Quantum physics is incoherent. Does that mean quantum computers don't exist? No. Should it? No. Here's a line of reasoning: 'quantum computers are impossible because they are incoherent because incoherent things are impossible because...' because what? The reasoning asserts that incoherent things can't exist, but has not given me a reason to accept that assertion. I do not accept that assertion. Who in their right mind would just accept that assertion? If the argument goes, 'incoherent things are rare therefore incoherent things are impossible', that reasoning is fallacious. Just because something is rare does not mean it is impossible and it also does not mean it does not exist. What about 'incoherent things are impossible because they have no substance because...'. First of all, I am not justified in believing incoherent things have no substance and second of all, I have no reason to think that something which has no substance is impossible. If your reasoning goes, "I've only ever seen things with substance and that are logically coherent, so they're the only things that can exist", you're using the logically fallacious argument from incredulity. Just because you have only seen normal things in your normal life does not mean that abnormal things like quantum computers do not exist.



And what about another abnormal thing, like an omnipotent God? A God who might have interest in making their very nature unique and transcendent to what is possible and probable; conveniently causing fallacious reasoning in the atheist camp, who are to be mocked and laughed at in the eventual future, as if in convenient justice for them mocking and laughing at theists and theism. The chance of life existing anywhere, within the entirety of everything, by chance, by the way, is astronomically slim. Chance is a losing bet. The alternative is therefore a winning bet.



I won't just say I don't believe the logically incoherent is impossible, no matter what a name for it implies, I will prove that it is possible. My reasoning goes If the chances of the logically incoherent being impossible are less than 1%, the logically incoherent is possible. The chances of the logically incoherent being impossible are less than 1%. Therefore, the logically incoherent is possible. How can I prove that the chances of the logically incoherent being impossible is less than 1%? In two ways. The first is that there are a perceived 1000 things. The chances of all of those things not allowing for the logically incoherent is (0.5^1000) astronomically small. Therefore, the chances of the logically incoherent being impossible are less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, the logically incoherent is possible.