|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DHA's Wager | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to Trae:
quote:quote: But that goes back to my claim that before we can determine whether or not "god" exists, we need to have a definition of what "god" is. Using the Bible is just as good as any other definition and while it is true that showing that the "god" as described by that book doesn't tell us anything about other definitions of "god," until you can provide a definition of "god" that is acceptable across all religions, we will never have a way to deal with the question. You need to define "god" first. Without a definition of what "god" is, why should anybody believe in its existence?
quote: But you keep refusing to provide a definition of "god." Since you have failed to hold up your end of the bargain, why are you complaining when somebody steps up to the plate to provide something that can move things forward? If you think he constructed a strawman, why don't you provide a real one? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? What do you think a "definition" is if not a description of the logical structure? Until you define "god," how on earth do you expect anybody to be able to come up with any sort of justification for its existence? And if it cannot be described in any way, what on earth makes you think there is a justification to believe in its existence? You have to believe IN something.
quote:quote: And thus, you completely missed the point entirely. Until we can even determine that there is a lack of evidence, you need to tell us what evidence would look like. You need to define it. No analysis can ever be made until we have something we can apply the analysis TO. We need an object. All you've given us is a name for an object without any indication as to what the object is.
quote:quote: And this makes it more legitimate how, precisely? Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, in general, yes? That is, they record actual usage by people, not coming up with definitions that they think the words ought to mean (though they often have a "usage" section where they try to tell people how they ought to use the words). Now, when you come across the average person using the word "atheist," how likely is it that said person is actually an atheist? Don't you think that that might have a teensy weensy effect on the meaning of the word when they use it? Do you seriously think that the average theist understands what it means to be an atheist? Do you really think that what they mean when they say "atheist" is the same thing atheists mean when they say it? We already have this problem regarding evolution: The creationists claim "evolution is only a theory!" as if that were somehow a bad thing. That's because creationists don't mean the same thing by the word "theory" that scientists mean. Now, who do you think is a better source to determine what "atheism" means? Theists or atheists?
quote: Ah, so we should agree with creationists when they claim that evolution is just an educated guess because it's "only a theory" and "theory" means "an educated guess," according to the dictionary. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. Just because a bunch of people think they understand something doesn't mean they actually do.
quote: That's my point. Why do you defer to the theist's concept of atheism and not the atheist's?
quote: What's the difference between your "god" you fail to define and the IPU?
quote:quote: Precisely. Mathematics is reality. Physics is a model. The study of mathematics is the study of relationships between objects. Objects exist and by their existence, the relationships between them exist. Thus, mathematics exists.
quote: Yes, it does. The orbit of the sun is a relationship between the sun and the earth. Relationships are inherently mathematical in nature. Therefore, mathematics is real.
quote: Don't confuse a person's individual capability to carry out the calculation with a universal lack. That's the entire point behind chaos theory: Small details make a big difference. The fact that you are incapable of measuring the conditions to the appropriate precision does not mean that the appropriate precision does not exist. It simply means you don't know what it is. The object in question, however, has the appropriate precision by nature of its very existence.
quote: What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, physics is applied mathematics. The fact that the entire realm of mathematics is much larger than the physical space in which we happen to find ourselves does not mean that the physical space in which we happen to find ourselves isn't mathematical. The fact that not all rectangles are squares does not change the fact that all squares are rectangles. All physics is math, but not all math is physics. Thus, the other old joke: Biologists think they're biochemists.Biochemsists think they're chemists. Chemists think they're physical chemists. Physical chemists think they're physicists. Physicists think they're god. And god thinks he's a mathematician. quote: That's only because your model isn't sufficient. That isn't a failure of the mathematics. It is a failure of the model. Do you watch NUMB3RS? It's a new series on CBS, Fridays. I know some of the mathematicians that they use as consultants for the show (we've had a very intersting conversation regarding balls and urns...if and when the episode airs, I'll let you know.) In the pilot, there was a serial killer that the FBI was trying to find. They had found the bodies in various places around town. The mathematician brother pointed out that, like a sprinkler, you couldn't predict the landing of any individual droplet from the source because there are too many variables involved, however you could work backwards. That is, given the droplet pattern afterward, you could determine where the sprinkler head is. Now, a human being is pretty much incapable of generating a truly random pattern (they tend to even space everything out while true randomness has clumps) so that makes the problem even easier. Crunch, crunch, crunch, and he developed a probability zone for where the killer must live. Problem: They tested all the men who lived in the area and none of them matched the killer's DNA. The math failed. Well no, it didn't. The assumption is that there was a single point of origin. As the FBI brother pointed out, "If you were to follow me around, you wouldn't find out where I lived because I'm hardly ever there...I'm either at the office or here at Dad's." By changing the the assumption that the killer was working out of two places, the same mathematical process yielded two hot spots. Now yes, I know that this is a TV show, but the mathematics behind it is solid. When I heard that they were scoping out the details about someone falling off a bridge and the use of a windbreaker the person was wearing as a sail, I immediately rolled my eyes. "Oh, no...they're going to make it be that this guy went flying, right? You can't get that from a windbreaker. Yeah, they have those flying suits that have webbing, but those things are massive and include material not only between your arms and torso but also between your legs." When the episode finally aired, the FBI guy asks his mathematician brother, "So where would this body have actually fallen were it not for the windbreaker he was wearing." "Oh, about 12 inches from where he was...maybe 18." Thank god, they got it right. It's a tiny, tiny difference. But again, the point is that the mathematics is not the problem. It's the model. Notice how when we replace models in physics, we replace them with another mathematical model? Newtonian physics is mathematical...so is Einsteinian.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) The same lecture upon which the physicist pointed out that physics is applied mathematics, he started deriving an equation that included a differential. You know, dx/dt. He then said, "I'm about to do something that is going to make all the mathematicians in the room wince" and with that, he canceled the d's. You can't do that! Those d's aren't variables or constants! They're operators! That'd be like having (4*3)/(5*6) and canceling the multiplication symbols to come up with 43/56 as opposed to 12/30. But he was right. He could have gone through the whole rigamorale of the mathematics behind it but the result would have been the same: You started with dx/dt and you would up with x/t.
quote:quote: Oh? And you've made a survey of the literature to know this, have you? That must be why they don't actually have candidates for what dark matter is. That whole "MACHO" (MAssive Compact Halo Object) vs. "WIMP" (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) debate never happened, eh? Here's some information regarding the investigation into dark matter and the methods being utilized to detect WIMPs.
Introduction: Three Arguments for Non-baryonic Dark Matter quote: Incorrect. They are factors in the new model. They don't "fudge" anything.
quote: (*sigh*) When was the last time you read any journal article on this subject? Are you seriously claiming that because I have only presented a couple of experiments, that means that's all the work that has been done on the subject? I am not going to do your homework for you.
quote: Incorrect. We are not measuring them simply to detect the existence of the waves. We are measuring them in order to test the predictions of the new theory. It is not enough that we find gravity waves. They must be specific types of gravity waves. For a while, neutrinos were thought to be part of dark matter, but experiments showed that while they were massive, they weren't massive enough.
quote: Science is an observational process. Why are you suddenly upset that science is actually using observation in order to develop a model that matches observation? Isn't that the point? You create your model to match what you see and then see what it predicts regarding behaviour you don't see and then develop experiments to see if the prediction matches the new observation.
quote: Actually, there was. That's why we noticed it. They suddenly slowed down. There is pressure from the galactic cosmic rays that is pushed against by the solar wind. This creates a termination shock inside the heliopause. Before you get there, you are under the influence of the solar effects but when you cross it, you get the shock of the galactic effects. The probes are now experiencing a pressure that is slowing them down on the order of 6 mph/century that they weren't before.
quote: (*sigh*) Those two are the same thing. If there is something acting upon the probes, then the model is wrong because the model is not taking that into account. If the model is wrong, that means there is something else acting upon the probes.
quote: Nor do I. But the point behind the supercollider is that we have an idea of what it is we're going to find. We have new theory to test. This is not some random act.
quote:quote: Such as? Could you be more specific? I've been the one doing all the work here. It would be nice if you could come up with some sort of reference that supported your claims.
quote: No, not at all. Einstein came to the conclusion of a cosmological constant because of his work in physics and calculated it to be small. But, he didn't like it so he abandoned it. Now, it turns out that he was right and it is, indeed, small.
quote:quote: So enlighten me. Be specific. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to trae:
quote: That depends upon the definition of "god." Does this definition include "And destroyed life in a global flood except for a single family and some animals"? If so, then falsifying that one part does, indeed, invalidate everything else. Now, would you please give us a definition of "god"?
quote: Because they believe in a different god than the ones who believe in a god that flooded the world.
quote: Until you define what they are, why should we consider them? How can we when we don't know what they are?
quote: What is {A}? If you cannot define {A}, why should anybody believe it exists? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Rrhain in one of four replies ... writes: (*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? I most certainly did. Let me emphasis it: The validity of the logical construct does not depend on what {A} is, it rests on the logical structure alone. This is no different than the validity of a mathematical analysis of a pattern, which does not depend on what the numbers represent, but on the pattern and the mathematical construction. I see you again complain about needing {A} defined ... look further than that.
Rrhain in another of four similar replies ... writes: Huh? What do you mean "missing"? The fossil record is replete with transitionals. The point is that if you claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that you do not get to choose which absence you use as evidence of absence, but must apply the same principle to all arguments. As you point out, this is patently ridiculous in many cases: therefore, logically, it is patently ridiculous in all cases. The argument is about logic. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Kant said,
quote: This can be taken as is or interpreted in terms of Mayr's interviewer's question.
quote: Mayr seemed to think :To make a long story short, Darwin showed very clearly that you don't need Aristotle's teleology because natural selection applied to bio-populations of unique phenomena can explain all the puzzling phenomena for which previously the mysterious process of teleology had been invoked. and he claimedAnother idea that Darwin refuted was that of teleology, which goes back to Aristotle. During Darwin's lifetime, the concept of teleology, or the use of ultimate purpose as a means of explaining natural phenomena, was prevalent. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant based his philosophy on Newton's laws. When he tried the same approach in a philosophy of living nature, he was totally unsuccessful. Newtonian laws didn't help him explain biological phenomena. So he invoked Aristotle's final cause in his Critique of Judgement. However, explaining evolution and biological phenomena with the idea of teleology was a total failure. but even just trying to read the Kant quote i first Supplied above, shows that in terms of your own "wager" in contradistiction to Pascals', showing that Mayr, showed, he (EM) can not be correct that it is a "total" faliure. Thanks for adding it up DHA! Go figure, err, I mean debate past go, collect 200$. The nonKantian quotes were fromAetherOnline.com is for sale | HugeDomains otherwise from THE CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGICAL JUDGMENT. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-11-2005 21:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
I most certainly did. Let me emphasis it: The validity of the logical construct does not depend on what {A} is, it rests on the logical structure alone. This is no different than the validity of a mathematical analysis of a pattern, which does not depend on what the numbers represent, but on the pattern and the mathematical construction. I see you again complain about needing {A} defined ... look further than that. RAZD says: What is the most logical position:(1) Yes {A} exists (2) No {A} does not exist (3) We don't know if {A} exists or not DHA says:Let’s plug some real terms into this and see what we get. We’ll start with {A} = god 1. Yes, god exists2. No, god does not exist 3. We don’t know if god exists or not. Now let’s try {A} = orgone energy 1. Yes, orgone energy god exists2. No, orgone energy does not exist 3. We don’t know if orgone energy god exists or not. Are you and agnostic about orgone energy? And one last Let {A} = the Earth 1. Yes, the Earth god exists2. No, the Earth does not exist 3. We don’t know if the Earth exists or not. Your logical exercise ends with you doubting the ground under your feet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
but even just trying to read the Kant quote i first Supplied above, shows that in terms of your own "wager" in contradistiction to Pascals', showing that Mayr, showed, he (EM) can not be correct that it is a "total" faliure. Thanks for adding it up DHA! No one can read and understand Kant and remain sane.He is completely complex. Joy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you are missing the two precepts, the full statement of the postition is:
Absent proof that {A} exists, and Absent proof that {A} does not exist What is the most logical position:(1) Yes {A} exists (2) No {A} does not exist (3) We don't know if {A} exists or not One could argue that the evidence for the existence of the earth and other material things you list is strong.... touchy-feely, everyone agreeing strong. The point is that absent proof one way or the other, that either arguing for or arguing against is based on {belief\faith} in your position and not on evidence.
Your logical exercise ends with you doubting the ground under your feet. Only if you ignore the two precepts at the beginning. This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-12-2005 08:14 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
The point is that absent proof one way or the other, that either arguing for or arguing against is based on {belief\faith} in your position and not on evidence. So if there's no evidence for something, we shouldn't look at that as proof that it dosen't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
then you get into that slippery slope with the missing links and all the other parts of science where theory doesn't have evidence of fact for it yet.
you don't have proog that it exists, andyou don't have proof that it doesn't exist. so what you say is that you don't know. you may have an idea, and that idea may be very compelling for you personaly, but the reality is that you don't know. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
then you get into that slippery slope with the missing links and all the other parts of science where theory doesn't have evidence of fact for it yet. This is way off topic even for the CH, but if you want to start a thread about the missing links and theory not meeting facts, I and many will be happy to go sledding on the slippery slopes. (spelling, clarity) This message has been edited by DHA, 03-12-2005 20:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't need to start a topic on because I am aware of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is only those who claim that absence of evidence for {Q} is evidence for absence of {Q} who then need to apply that same logic to all other places where there is an absence of evidence for logical consistency. I am really amazed at the number of people looking at the trees here and missing the forest. The argument is about the form of logic and what is valid on the basis of that form. Every example given is a tree, the form of logic is the forest. Claiming that you need to know what {A} is in order to judge the validity of the argument is no different than saying that you need to know what {A} is to judge the validity of the following statement:
one {A} plus one {A} equals two {A} enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
I don't need to start a topic on because I am aware of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is only those who claim that absence of evidence for {Q} is evidence for absence of {Q} who then need to apply that same logic to all other places where there is an absence of evidence for logical consistency. Actually, the lack of evidence generally leads to a verdict of not guilty in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
I don't need to start a topic on because I am aware of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not a fact it's just a play on words. joy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Actually, the lack of evidence generally leads to a verdict of not guilty in the real world. only where the person is considered innocent unless proven guilty and the burden of proof has not been sufficient to leave no doubts. in other countries with different standards people are convicted of crimes where they cannot prove their innocence -- not even considering those "justice" systems that don't rely on facts at all.
This is not a fact it's just a play on words. the fact is that the Coelacanth's absence from the fossil record for millions of years is not evidence that it was missing from the earth for those years. it is not just a play on words. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024