Re: GOD=G_uv vs UNWIN'S P(god)=67%

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:17:42 GMT

"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcraeser731@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9eccd47.0407110323.2ff474fc@posting.google.com...
> Since no-one else has answers I provide one myself: Unwin decides on
> the conditional probabilities P(D|G) of some events -decides, by
> himself, only by him, based on nothing but his views. Then he
> calculates the conditional P(G|D) using the Bayes' formula. In other
> words this is not an application of statistics but a use of the
> calculus of probability. Unwins work thus is not a scientific
> treatise, but a philosophical one using scientific terms. The value
> 67% precent is his view, and has no scientific bearing, certainly not
> any statistical weight since no statistics was used.
>
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KvWGc.7406$WX.2825@attbi_s51>...
> > Unwin uses the following 6 sources of evidence
> > and assigns the following values of D for each:
> >
> > Recognition of goodness................. D=10
> > The existence of moral evil............. D=.5
> > The existence of natural evil........... D=.1
> > Intra-natural miracles (prayer)......... D=2
> > Extra-natural miracles (Resurrection)... D=1
> > Religious experiences................... D=2
>
> Here 'evidence' is not the proper word. This is not evidence but 6
> cases for which Unwin assigns probabilities. Any of those can or
> cannot occur by themselves independently of the existence of God.
> People can quite well have religous experiences regardless of wheter
> there is a Father in heaven. Like anyone can have an experience of
> Toothfairy, did one exist or not.

[Hammond]
all your saying is "its his word against mine".... guess
what, he's a PhD in theoretical physics, a British diplomat,
and a highly successful risk analyst for the U.S. government...
and now a best selling book author.. and who the fcuk
are you?... a nobody... guess what...his estimate
outweighs yours.... and that apparently that is what most
people believe.
   Fact is.... HAMMOND has actually PROVEN
that he is correct:

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FAQ * r.g.l.faq * 01/17/2006
    ... > chance none of the numbers from the previous draw will repeat ... Of the 55% chance it's about 30% one number ... challenges show the probabilities rule. ... Although making use of these sorts of statistics hasn't ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • Re: "Statins caused my kidney failure"
    ... What is needed is an estimate of the probabilities of the ... so the estimated effects of exercise may totally wrong. ... that people are healthy because they exercise, ... Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Multiple comparison correction using p values alone
    ... asserts Pis not P*P, ... probabilities, not p values, there would be less kerfuffle. ... correlation and sufficient statistics, if we have a molecularly based ... posterior probabilities of 0.95 for each of two lineages of the split, ...
    (sci.stat.consult)
  • Re: The Philosophy of War
    ... basic understanding of how probabilities work. ... of knowledge and understanding of statistics. ... the coin analogy, and figure out why the coin is not fair, and how we ... Bet on a coin flip. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: The Philosophy of War
    ... If you cant do a simple rote calculation how can you be expected to ... I can see how you might conjecture that I used the red herring, ... With the proper understanding of statistics, ... You don't understand statistics and probabilities. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)