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.

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.