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.