It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Probability Of God's Existence

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by JPhish

That's an accumulated percentage of 150% that one of these god's exists.

Yes they do.

Originally posted by JPhish

Why is it accumulated? Because in each belief, the other diety does not exist.
the deities can subsist concomitantly.

We're talking about the belief in God.
This belief is explicit in the idea of there being no other god.
So yes it is accumulated.

And even if you AREN'T talking about the God of the Bible, not enough information is available to say that deities can co-exist or not.
Either way it's an assumption. Math is not based on assumptions.

Let me just ask you this:
If you were taking a math test and it said: What is the probability that Suzy will arrive to the party late?

Would you say 50% because we DON'T have enough data?
OR, would you say 'not enough information' or 'undefined'?

Just ask any math teacher and they will tell you the answer, and I believe you already know the answer but are thinking about it a different way.

And to top it off, even if you do claim 50% probability, it doesn't mean ANYTHING and the real idea you are getting across is that it's undefined.
So why not just say 'undefined'?
You said yourself that the number '50%' doesn't mean anything, so you're essentially agreeing with me but for some reason trying to convince me that the correct way to say it would be to call it '50%' when it's not.

Originally posted by JPhish
You’re looking at it the wrong way. You’re acknowledging a “side” when there isn’t even necessarily a side.

In my example, a side is just a possibility.
We do not know the extent of possibilities in our universe so the best we can do is say there are infinite possibilities.
You can't give a probability to that... You just can't.
And even if you do say 50%, that number means precisely squate.

Originally posted by JPhish

The probability of God's existence is undefined just as any other god.

i agree, but if one had to give a percentage. It would be less than 50%, 0% or 100%

But no one DOES have to give a percentage.
That's like saying you have to give an answer to a math question to which you don't know the answer, so you just pull something out of your arse.
The number doesn't mean anything because it holds no weight.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
I think you and I are not so different after all.

First of all I don't like to place a label on "God" at all, I believe in a higher power that is inherently good, however we must still follow in his path or face the consequences whatever they may be.

But you said 'his'.
Why does he have a gender?
'He' would not be considered a 'he' unless there are 'shes' so are you saying that 'he' is like a human in that 'he' gets with 'shes' and makes baby gods?
I believe that us calling 'him' a 'he' is just another example of us giving God a human trait.
Just like in the Old Testament when he used to forget things.
That's as much a label as anything else in my opinion.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
I believe that many people misinterpret the Bible and its contents and that it is being mangled all the time and the results of this is that fewer and fewer people appreciate what religion stands for.

But the Bible was 'mangled' long before you and I were born. I'm sure you know some of the history of the Bible, but most don't know the full extent.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
You are getting delightfully close to what I call "Mathematical Truth", my own term mind you. What if God is in fact the truth that makes 1 plus 1 equal 2?

Then why must there be a God as in a conscious being who has human traits? Doesn't it seem more plausible that things simply exist?
For some reason, from the time we are born, we believe that our Universe should NOT exist or that it's more probabable for there to be nothing.
I believe it would be impossible for there to be nothing, and that the something we see is simply a result of this. Kind of like two magnets repelling. When you look at nature closer, you find that it's two forces that repel and keep nature in balance and sustain it.
It seems odd to me that we would put a consciousness to that.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:17 PM

Let me just ask you this:
If you were taking a math test and it said: What is the probability that Suzy will arrive to the party late?

this does not a apply. this is acknowledging the existence of Suzy. A parallel question would be, what is the probability that Suzy has an invisible and magical pet cat. The answer is 50%. It either exists, or it doesn't; and no amount of quantifiable evidence can be weighed for or against it's existence without an absolute conclusion being met.

Would you say 50% because we DON'T have enough data?
OR, would you say 'not enough information' or 'undefined'?

i'd say not enough data in the case of Suzy showing up to the party. But like i said. It's not even close to being an equal scenario.

Just ask any math teacher and they will tell you the answer, and I believe you already know the answer but are thinking about it a different way.

And to top it off, even if you do claim 50% probability, it doesn't mean ANYTHING and the real idea you are getting across is that it's undefined.
So why not just say 'undefined'?

i'd be more comfortable with saying it's undefined. But that's not what the OP is asking for. Read my first post and read in between the lines.

You said yourself that the number '50%' doesn't mean anything, so you're essentially agreeing with me but for some reason trying to convince me that the correct way to say it would be to call it '50%' when it's not.
i never said that it's 50% jeez . . .

i already said that you can't define it. But i said that if one were to give a probability, the only probabilities that would be fair to give are 0% 50% and 100%. The only one of the 3 anyone could give at the moment is 50%. like i said in my first post.

But no one DOES have to give a percentage.
That's like saying you have to give an answer to a math question to which you don't know the answer, so you just pull something out of your arse.
The number doesn't mean anything because it holds no weight.
there's nothing to be right about, you're arguing a moot point as usual. I didn't pull it out of my arse. It is the only number that could be given.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by JPhish

Let me just ask you this:
If you were taking a math test and it said: What is the probability that Suzy will arrive to the party late?

this does not a apply. this is acknowledging the existence of Suzy. A parallel question would be, what is the probability that Suzy has an invisible and magical pet cat. The answer is 50%. It either exists, or it doesn't; and no amount of quantifiable evidence can be weighed for or against it's existence without an absolute conclusion being met.

No, it's the same because in the question there are only two choices.
1) Suzy will not be late for the party.
2) Suzy will be late for the party.

We do not have enough data to support it, so the answer is undefined.
You say that this acknowledges the existence of Suzy. How does that change the math?

You're argument was that there are two choices for God:
1) He exists
2) He does not exist

I'm arguing that they are the same in that there is not enough data to support any probability.

It is perfectly relevant.
And the correct answer is 'undefined'.

Originally posted by JPhish
i'd say not enough data in the case of Suzy showing up to the party. But like i said. It's not even close to being an equal scenario.

It's a perfectly equal scenario in the realms of math.
We have two choices and not enough facts to give a probability.

Originally posted by JPhish
i'd be more comfortable with saying it's undefined. But that's not what the OP is asking for. Read my first post and read in between the lines.

You said the probability is 50% and no one can argue differently.
I argued differently so I guess you were wrong.
And now you're saying its a moot point...

You said :
based on the current scope of basic human knowledge, the probability that a "G*d" exists is 50%.

And then you imply:
based on the current scope of knowledge of Suzy, the probability that she was late for the party is undefined.

It doesn't take a genius to know your own logic doesn't match up.

Originally posted by JPhish
there's nothing to be right about, you're arguing a moot point as usual. I didn't pull it out of my arse. It is the only number that could be given.

It's the only number that could be given even ignoring the fact that any mathematician would tell you that no number could be given?
Any number would be wrong.
You're tying to say that it's the least wrong number.
There isn't a right number.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:25 PM
"the "emptiness" wondered at how empty and lonely it was and henceforth called it was born and became the Universe. Then and for ever After time was born and forced to bend back on itself." -ME

This is the one that keeps me up at night

But you said 'his'.
Why does he have a gender?
'He' would not be considered a 'he' unless there are 'shes' so are you saying that 'he' is like a human in that 'he' gets with 'shes' and makes baby gods?
I believe that us calling 'him' a 'he' is just another example of us giving God a human trait.
Just like in the Old Testament when he used to forget things.
That's as much a label as anything else in my opinion.

I don't think any Christians view God as a human, they might possibly see him as a human, but there really isn't much about God that we understand as being human, the Bible says that we can come to know God, but as of yet I don't believe anyone really does. So we only label certain aspects of God in a human way because that makes him easier to understand.

But the Bible was 'mangled' long before you and I were born. I'm sure you know some of the history of the Bible, but most don't know the full extent.

Very true, some say that we should only believe that the Bible is a mangled form of a former truth that over the years has become corrupt by human intervention, (I feel sorry for those who have intervened, they've got a long road ahead). So as of yet I only believe in a higher power.

Then why must there be a God as in a conscious being who has human traits? Doesn't it seem more plausible that things simply exist?
For some reason, from the time we are born, we believe that our Universe should NOT exist or that it's more probabable for there to be nothing.
I believe it would be impossible for there to be nothing, and that the something we see is simply a result of this. Kind of like two magnets repelling. When you look at nature closer, you find that it's two forces that repel and keep nature in balance and sustain it.
It seems odd to me that we would put a consciousness to that.

You could say that, we exist because we can. I have always asked myself, if God created us, then who created God? And so on and so forth, so that at some point someone had to have just popped into existence like the Big Bang describes.

As I describe below, perhaps we just don't have the understanding to know and understand how such a thing could happen.

But perhaps time is a dimension that we cannot understand and it enthralls our brain so that we cannot break outside the sphere of understanding and dimension that we are kept in. Kind of like us making a stick figure, he/she (
), doesn't understand what it means to live in a 3d world because he/she lives in a 2d world. So in that sense I like your interpretation.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by PinealGlandThoth]

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM

Perhaps we could look at this a different way. Lets calculate the probability of the Universe just "happening".

The probability has been calculated to be the odds of an F-5 tornado crashing through a junkyard and leaving 747 (with kiddy cocktails on the dash for the pilots :lol
, all fueled and ready for takeoff in its wake.

www.ankerberg.com...

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:43 AM

You said :
based on the current scope of basic human knowledge, the probability that a "G*d" exists is 50%.

And then you imply:
based on the current scope of knowledge of Suzy, the probability that she was late for the party is undefined.

It doesn't take a genius to know your own logic doesn't match up.

one can gather data on a boy named Sue. One (arguably) can not gather data on a supernatural deity.

the reason why the answer is undefined for Suzy, is because not enough data is given. Not quite the same with a supernatural deity, because no amount of data can be given.

Like i've been saying, no percentage is valid. Yet you're still saying claiming that i've been saying otherwise.

BUT, if one were to give a percentage. It would have to be one of the aforementioned numbers i've presented. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole point of the exercise.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:03 AM
It occurs to me, reviewing the OP, that the title of this thread, based upon the information offered, is incorrect. The thread might better be titled "The Probability That All Religions Eventually Come to An End." History is indeed littered with the crumbling temples dedicated to gods which are no longer in use but that does not prove that the "gods" themselves cease to exist. In keeping with my initial input to this thread it might be said that though the temples crumbled and the gods' names are no longer worshipped the one God, the creator who included in the human being a searching desire for "Him", persists. As I said many of those religions had within them beliefs which were later to be confirmed by the revelation of God in Jesus the Christ.

Two diverse examples would be Osiris in ancient Egypt and Quetzalcoatl in the Aztec religion. Both were harvest God's who are associated with death, resurrection and the morning star. What was the probability that both these diverse cultures would invent such similar stories for one of their God's? Now, of course, these kinds of comparative studies give succour to apologists and anthropologists alike. My perspective is a faith based one and "giving" faith to anyone is above all our pay grades. I'm not trying to convince but inform how I see things and based on what evidence.

The statistical probability discussion on this thread is I think a red herring. How many faces will this die have? One for every god ever worshipped plus one for "no god"? Then the probability for each god is the same as that for "no god" but the probability of "a god" vastly outnumbers that for "no god" and Pascal would have had a safe bet.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:33 AM

It occurs to me, reviewing the OP, that the title of this thread, based upon the information offered, is incorrect.

No, the title of this thread is pretty accurate... Nobody has faith in those God's anymore, and since religion, and belief in God's is purely based on faith, I can safely assume that those God's do not exist. In fact, I can safely assume that anything based purely on faith without any real evidence doesn't exist. IE, the lochness monster, bigfoot, boogyman and the Christian God

As I said many of those religions had within them beliefs which were later to be confirmed by the revelation of God in Jesus the Christ.

Confirmed???

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:58 AM

But you missed my point which is that the key in both examples is that not enough information is KNOWN. It doesn't matter if you can or can not in the future gather information, what matters is that right now at this moment, not enough information is known to give any number.
The point that no data can be given in regards to a diety is irrelevant, because no data is given for Suzy either. She could be a ghost for all you know or could exist in another deminsion. That's not the point.
The point (and ask anyone who didn't fail math) that DOES make it undefined is that not enough information is KNOWN.

Originally posted by JPhish
Like i've been saying, no percentage is valid. Yet you're still saying claiming that i've been saying otherwise.

I understand what you're saying, but it goes against what you said in your initial post:

Originally posted by JPhish
based on the current scope of basic human knowledge, the probability that a "G*d" exists is 50%.

End of story, there is no way to argue otherwise.

You acted as though it's 50% and you can't argue otherwise.
You never said that it's 50% but that number isn't valid.

Originally posted by JPhish
BUT, if one were to give a percentage. It would have to be one of the aforementioned numbers i've presented. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole point of the exercise.

It's not the point of the thread.
He was saying that most other faiths have been proven (though not literally, but in a sense due to a lack of belief (note that this is also an opinion and is not a mathematical 'fact')) to be false, so based on that the probability of God's existence is low.
With probability, it matters entirely what your bases is on.
However this is still Alex' opinion.
He didn't say the probability is 0.00001% or give any number, just that he believes the probability that God exists is low.
I agree.
But in the context of math and stating an absolute value, no number can be given.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
So we only label certain aspects of God in a human way because that makes him easier to understand.

But that's my point.
If we invent (in a sense) aspects of God, then how are we to know that the whole thing is not invented? The Bible seems to me to be written by man, for man, without any 'divine' oversight. Just like other cultures will give a human personage to a natural event such as lightning.
My point is that we seem to be attributing a human-like figure to something we don't yet understand.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
So as of yet I only believe in a higher power.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
As I describe below, perhaps we just don't have the understanding to know and understand how such a thing could happen.

You're stealing my thoughts now
.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
But perhaps time is a dimension that we cannot understand and it enthralls our brain so that we cannot break outside the sphere of understanding and dimension that we are kept in. Kind of like us making a stick figure, he/she (
), doesn't understand what it means to live in a 3d world because he/she lives in a 2d world. So in that sense I like your interpretation.

This is very similar to what I've been thinking.
I wrote a theory that I called 'the infinite universe theory' (turns out there's already a theory by that name though I haven't read it), where I describe our universe as being a 'bubble' with limited dimensions. I believe that something has to be infinite but it's entirely out of our reach. I actually used that stick figure example you're using as well. For all we know, there could be infinite dimensions of space and time outside of our universe. This would explain to me why our universe is an impossibility at worst and a paradox at best.

I believe that we will never know the answer to the question of how our universe came to be because I don't think it's possible for us to 'pop the bubble' we are in.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
Perhaps we could look at this a different way. Lets calculate the probability of the Universe just "happening".

The probability has been calculated to be the odds of an F-5 tornado crashing through a junkyard and leaving 747 (with kiddy cocktails on the dash for the pilots :lol
, all fueled and ready for takeoff in its wake.

If I had a hat with 100 trillion numbers (from 1 - 100 trillion), what is the probability that you would pick the number '1'?
1/100trillion OR 0.00000000000001%
That would be labeled (by some people) 'impossible' because it's effectively 0.
This is exactly what you're saying when you give a probability to our world being the way it is, because there are so many trillions of factors involved throughout the billions of years our Earth formed.

See, if you look at my example closer, the probability that you would pull ANY number would be 0.00000000000001%, and you can always question the number after it's picked, but that's just the 'luck of the draw'.
If we were on a mars-like planet, and had evolved to fit it, people would be saying that it's so perfect that there must have been a creator.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:07 PM

Some people say that no matter what the probability is, you have an infinite number of tries to fiddle with in all the nothingness that was before the Universe began that you couldn't help hit the right number eventually.

Once again however you have to ask yourself how your limited understanding of what time is comes into play here.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:55 PM
First . . . Take Einstein off the list of "religious" scientists. This is such a misnomer for physicist that was speaking in a metaphorical sense about the universe. By Einstein saying "I have never believed in a personal god . . . I believe in Spinoza's god . . . ", he was saying he believed in Spinoza's DEFINITION of god. So, you have to reference that to truly understand what Einstein is saying . . . Spinoza was a pantheist. While he and Einstein used the term "god", they meant nature/universe/physical realm. That is what a pantheist is . . . "Nature is god". Hence no supernatural forces . . . only natural forces, yet unexplained. It's always funny to see theists claim Einstein, as proof that people of science embrace the supernatural and mythology by using his quotes. God, be it confussing to most theists, was just a term to Einstein . . . he did not believe and consistantly denied a belief in the supernatural. Einstein's "God" letter which he denounces the existence of god, just autioned off for over 40000 . . . just a few months ago. Moreover, Religious contemporary's of Einstein sent him letter after letter admonishing his actions and telling him he was a embarassment to "his" people (meaning Jews).

As far as probablity . . . I know enough to know that the 50% argument has been debunked several times by mathematians . . . but, I don't understand it enough to script it out for you . . . and I can't find any of the papers I've previously read on google . . . so I'll leave you with this paper. It's disproving the assertion on Bayesian probabilty for god, which was a best seller to the faithful . . .

Of course, many of you are likely to say this is a silly exercise, that the numbers used are a matter of taste and obvious prejudice. However, I think it is useful to go through it anyway. The mathematically challenged are often awed by any sort of quantitative calculation, which they are unable to evaluate, and are likely to view Unwin's work as providing scientific support for their beliefs. It does no such thing. Unwin loses. If anything, his method demonstrates the high unlikelihood of God's existence.

source

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:24 AM
reply to post by solomons path

just so we're clear; that site only addresses a Judeo-Christian God (rather poorly i might add). It also doesn't come close to predicting the probability of a supernatural deities existence.

You acted as though it's 50% and you can't argue otherwise.
You never said that it's 50% but that number isn't valid.

if i had, what fun would that be?

Although any percentage in this case is inherently false, 50% is currently the only percentage one can claim. Or 100% or 0% in the near future depending on the terms that must be met . . .

[edit on 10/21/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by solomons path

If you were to sit with me, for a talk, you might see a the probability of God being absolute.

A path obscured, yet right in front of you.

Like the simple example of a distance between two points that is cut in half to infinity, yet never touching. Do they ever really touch? A child viewing those two points at a trillionth of an inch will tell you they were touching yet the math would find him in error. Who is right?

If I told you, that I was spoken to by God, would you believe me?
Its my word versus your belief.

Welcome to free thought; the possibility of endless possibility. The impossible possible. Imagination with no bound.

Who is the Universal Governance but that which no man can grasp in terms of his domain. When he comes to you, there will be a moment of pause. When he speaks to you a communication undeniable. When he confirms to you, through experiences at random, you will understand their is divine purpose in the infinite.

In that moment, I said...." Its not cool to talk about God now days "....
and he said to me, " Don't call me God, call me Good ".

The probability of Gods existence, is, the probability of Gods existence. The question is, will you believe the answer, once you obtain it.

Peace

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
Some people say that no matter what the probability is, you have an infinite number of tries to fiddle with in all the nothingness that was before the Universe began that you couldn't help hit the right number eventually.

But I don't think there was ever a time (even though time would be irrelevant) when there was just nothingness. I don't believe 'nothingness' can exist without 'something' also existing. Everything has a source, and everything has a cause/reaction.
I believe something infinite must have always existed, though always does not necessarily infer time, as it is ABOVE time. Infinity would engulf our bubble of the Universe, and time would be irrelevant, thus explaining the 'impossibility' in our minds of something existing forever before us. Infinity is IMPOSSIBLE in our universe, just like an imaginary number. But I believe it must exist as everything has a source and it has to come down to infinity. Infinity could be looked at as a container which holds all that is and possibly all that can be. This leads me to believe that we are in a 'bubble' of infinity. And in that regards, anything is possible.

Originally posted by PinealGlandThoth
Once again however you have to ask yourself how your limited understanding of what time is comes into play here.

I believe that time is very minute in the grand scheme of things, and only has meaning in OUR universe. Someone looking on the outside of our universe inward would most likely see it as one event of knowledge rather than a timeline. Just as you and I look at a 2D picture and would process it differently than a 2 dimensional being might (hypothetical).

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:08 PM

But you present no evidence of any kind.
Someone who believed in Zeus could have said the EXACT same thing you just said except replace "God" with "Zeus". I could tell you that I hear voices in my head that the flying spaghetti monster exists, now tell me how that means anything to you.
It doesn't.
First of all, I know that even if I were to trust my OWN mind, nothing in the mind is absolute, and anything could be due to a million different factors in my brain which I know nothing of.
So how much less would I trust someone elses 'personal experiences'?
I could google and find personal experiences from every religion you could imagine - and more.
Moreover, personal experiences with God don't match up.
There's no constant!
I've seen that a persons personal experience with God is BASED on their view of who God is.
There's no constant which tells me the only constant is the mind with psychology that the 'viewer' can not understand.

I'm not trying to knock your belief, just know that your personal experience means next to nothing in a sea of personal experiences which all, by and large, contradict each other.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:25 PM

I can't speak for the "site" . . . I was just posting on the paper. However, what does it matter . . . which god? You claim, in the most simplest of terms and logic, that god is a 50/50 probablity. If you are discounting a) Bayesian probablity (which was designed under the auspice of proving a high probablity for god) and b) the refutation of Bayesian probablity based on WHICH god . . . then you can no longer claim 50/50. You stated "god", as in supernatural being . . . if you are going to make allowances for all of the different gods, then you're probablity automatically reduces based on the probablity of specific gods. If you remain to the claim of simply "god" . . . you can not discount (without abandoning your logic) a theorem that extrapolates this possiblity. Why does it matter what name or what shape "god" takes? Either there is a god, or there isn't . . . right?

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:01 PM

I'm sorry . . . I'm not really sure what you are trying to convey. Seems like circular pseudo-philosopy to me.

The child or the mathematician: who's right? Both are right based on perspective, but there remains only one "truth". Mathematics proves that the lines don't touch. Perception not withstanding, illusion or delusion doesn't make something fact. Believing something doesn't make it fact. By the same token, not believing in something . . . doesn't make it unfactual.

The problem is consistancy . . . even within the Christian faith . . . members or sects can't agree on the nature of god. The cop out is "god" is not to be understood". However, if he keeps "revealing" himself to the faithful . . . shouldn't they all have the same revelation. Just looking at it from a forensic perspective would tell us that this revelation is a product of the mind. You can say . . . "but everyone believes in the basic truths", such as the Bible or dogma. However, staying on forensics, for a bit . . . this would tell us that the faithful coordinated these truths (not unlike suspects/witnesses colluding before interregation). If this were not the case, god, minus some inconsequential culture details (dress, language) would be seen the world over to promote the same laws and tenets. The fact that every religion is completely different, even within Judeo-Christian-islamic beliefs, points to it being a product of imagination.

I was raised in an international multi-faith family . . . I have maternal uncle's who are Rabbi's in the U.S. and Isreal . . . I had paternal uncle's and a grandfather who "worked" in the German-Lutheran denomination. I was hit on both sides and attended services of each religion. I also spent just under 5yrs, as a youth, living in Japan, surrounded by shintos and buddhists. Seems like in every religion I've experienced this revelation is nothing more than a subconsious realization that we (humans) aren't in control of the universe. I don't need to imagine a god to clue me into that fact. Nor do I need one to put me at peace with that fact. I'm not afraid of not having "control".

[edit on 10/21/08 by solomons path]

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by solomons path

you're right solomon, and i understand your tract. But i think your looking at it from a different perspective. The form and attributes of God or a god, increases or decreases it's probability of existence. For example, a primordial God like Khaos, has a higher probability of existence than a sub god like Zeus. This is so, because Zeus can not exist without Khaos, but Khaos can exist without Zeus. However if Zeus's attributes are changed so that he can exist without the requisite of a primordial God; his probability of existence increases.

top topics

0