Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 151 of 479 (568038)
07-04-2010 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
07-03-2010 12:15 PM


Re: who is begging which question here?
Bluegenes writes:
No. "No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis because it leaves the universe unexplained.
Random explanatory hypothesis: The universe was created by the fart of a celestial cow.
Like the god hypothesis, this is random because there's no positive evidence to support it.
What you're trying to do is give one random hypothesis that explains the universe special privilege. Does it make sense to you that the celestial cow hypothesis becomes likely merely because it can't be conclusively disproved?
RAZD writes:
Actually what I have said time and again is that as god/s have not been invalidated that they remain a possibility. No one single random hypothesis is chosen in the process.
Nobody here disgrees that gods are a possibility. Do you still not understand that?
Do you accept that the farting celestial cow hypothesis is an equally valid possibility?
That is the question.
And if not - Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 12:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2010 11:20 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2010 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 152 of 479 (568118)
07-04-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Straggler
07-04-2010 3:09 AM


Straggler's never ending parade of lesser spirits from his BIG BOX OF GODS ...
Hi Straggler, still looking for answers to questions that cannot be simply resolved?
Nobody here disgrees that gods are a possibility. Do you still not understand that?
I do, that is not the issue. Do you understand that any claim of knowing the probability or likelihood that god/s do exist or not is making up the probability or likelihood and claiming to know something they do not know?
Do you accept that the farting celestial cow hypothesis is an equally valid possibility?
Equally valid compared to what? On what basis do you compare different concepts when there is no evidence one way or the other?
Message 150: By the terms of your argument one must remain wholly agnostic (i.e. very uncertain) if one is to remain rational with regard to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
OR recognize that your opinion on the matter is really opinion, that it is not fact, and that it is not a conclusion based on evidence.
This is the difference between a 2 and a 3 theist or a 5 and a 6 atheist:
quote:
Message 91: As a result of the logical analysis we have:
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

As was demonstrated here:
Compare:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) can be true
to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is absolutely true
OR:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, now let Y = notX:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) can be true
== notX(a) can be true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
== notX(a) is absolutely true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
== notX(a) is more likely true than false ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
You are left with opinion (pro or con), neither contradicted by evidence nor logically invalid, or agnosticism.
Because it makes your argument look rather silly.
Ah, the old fallacy of consequences:
quote:
The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.
Example:
  1. You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
  2. You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)
Proof:
Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
Curiously your opinion is not fact.
I am unsurprised that you are unwilling to come straight out and say that your argument necessarily results in the rational conclusion regarding the Easter Bunny to be agnosticism. The same degree of agnsoticism that applies to god no less.
And this is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope
quote:
In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.
Examples:
  1. If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.
  2. You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
  3. If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.
Proof:
Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.
Whether or not the easter bunny etc etc (any one from the long parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS) has no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
All you are doing is avoiding the real issue and pretending to be rational about your denial of the fact that all you have is opinion.
Each and every instance you bring up fails for the same reason, you are only looking at individual cases and not the whole picture.
quote:
Assume we have a lottery, and there an unknown number of tickets sold:
Does the hypothesis that no one will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that one specifically identified ticket will win the lottery?
Does the hypothesis that someone will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that no one will win?
Do the unknown rules of the lottery affect these probabilities?
If you cannot actually measure the actual probability, then you are left with no viable test.
We can agree that the probability of any specific ticket is likely to be low, and express opinions to that effect, but the issue is not whether a single ticket will win, but whether the lottery as a whole will be won.
We have no way to measure that probability.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : )

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2010 3:09 AM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 479 (568140)
07-04-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Straggler
07-04-2010 2:15 AM


A possible test for false beliefs from Straggler!
Hi Straggler, separate response to this issue, just to be clear:
My own addition would be to seek evidence that indicates the origin of the concepts or concept involved. With falsification being unnecessary to conclude unlikelihood of actual existence if the evidence strongly indicates that the concept has arisen for reasons other than being a part of objective reality. E.g. the origins of the concept that is fat jolly magical but undetectable and unfalsifiable Santa Claus.
Agreed. With Santa Clause it was shown that there was documented evidence of fiction being involved at several stages for the transition from an actual historical figure to the modern folklore version of Santa Clause, including the adaptation & addition of supernatural aspects.
This could be a reasonable test\process to determine whether specific beliefs are false.
For example the IPU.
For example the Celestial Farting Cow.
For example the Garage Dragon.
For example Russel's Orbiting Teacup.
...
Or the folklore version of the easter bunny.
Note that I have said all along that if you have evidence that some specific belief is made up then present it.
... OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
== notX(a) is more likely true than false ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
If this evidence is empirical then you have a possible (A) conclusion:

question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait opinion
(B) (C) (D)
The evidence needs to be level III and not level II:
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
Of course you still need to treat each case on an individual basis, which is another reason that your seemingly endless parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS has absolutely no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
Personally I don't see that showing a high likelihood that Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects proves anything other than Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects, and thus says nothing about the validity of the easter bunny, or that this is in any way indicative to whether or not god/s exist.
So let's test you concept at a larger scale:
Can we use this test to show that there was no world wide flood?
Can we use this test to show that the earth is not young?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2010 2:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 6:05 PM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 479 (568410)
07-05-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
07-04-2010 1:00 PM


The Origin Of God
After 18 months of persistence on my part have you finally come round to the idea that evidence favouring human invention makes falsifying the unfalsifiable wholly unnececessary.
Let us try to build on this.
So let's test you concept at a larger scale:
Yes let's. Now that you have agreed that falsification is unnecessary we can potentially move on to discuss the sort of evidence mentioned here Message 499. But before we do that you have one major stumbling block of a question to answer:
Question: If the god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?
Can we use this test to show that there was no world wide flood?
I want to use your most cited example of that which has been falsified to see if we agree of the limits of evidence based certainty.
It is both conceivable and philosophically possible that the falsification for a 10,000 year old flooded Earth could itself be falsified. Yes?
We could find Noah's Ark. Yahweh could subsequently reveal himself with an explanation as to why he made the Earth empirically appear to be older.
This is an unfalsified possibility - Yes?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2010 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 8:13 PM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 155 of 479 (568419)
07-05-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
07-03-2010 12:15 PM


Consistency, please.
RAZD writes:
Actually what I have said time and again is that as god/s have not been invalidated that they remain a possibility.
We both say that.
No one single random hypothesis is chosen in the process.
We can propose many different types of flatulent celestial cows creating the universe as individuals or in herds of different numbers, but it's simpler to regard all hypotheses involving flatulent cows as one general hypothesis. There's no reason to consider the cows ahead of universe making machines, colliding five dimensional rocks, or any other completely baseless hypotheses, I'm sure you'll agree.
RAZD writes:
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small,.....
Well done. You finally agree that one random hypothesis out of many that can be made is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head.
The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket.
Of course there can be a winner if there's an ultimate explanation of the universe and everything to be had. But whether we humans can "buy" the winning lottery ticket by merely making up random hypotheses is questionable, however many billions we make up.
The answer may well involve unknown things we've never thought of, in the same way that we wouldn't have thought of quarks, the Higgs boson, or the "strings" of string theory 120 years ago when the investigation into the sub-atomic world was just beginning.
On posting on science.
What I mean here is that if you pretend to be completely uncommitted on random supernatural hypotheses that cannot be falsified, it is impossible to make any definite statements about the world.
For example, some creationists put forward an hypothesis to explain why "evolutionists" refuse to accept their view which goes a bit like this:
"Satan is manipulating the minds of scientists and evolutionists and deceiving them into perceiving a false illusion of reality which leads them away from seeing the truth of God's creation".
Now, that can't be falsified by its nature.
All of your arguments have been that it is "logical" or "rational" to be uncommitted on that kind of proposition, because one cannot know whether it is true or false. However, when you make any definite statement concerning the real world, you are automatically dismissing that proposition, and contradicting yourself.
For me, however, not being able to know whether such a proposition is true or false doesn't matter. It can be dismissed as very improbable merely on the basis that it is a random baseless hypothesis, like "trolls built the mountains" or "evil spirits cause diseases" or "quadrillions of little manifested demons make up dark matter", or "god/s created the universe".
There's no need to consider such things when we're seriously exploring reality.
As to your point about different opinions, of course we have different opinions, I'm glad to say. I'm consistent in dismissing all baseless supernatural propositions as "very improbable", whereas you seem thoroughly confused.
Incidentally, you couldn't be more wrong than when you claim that things cannot be described as "very improbable" or "very probable" when the actual probabilities are impossible to calculate. See your comment on the specific lottery ticket, for example, when we only know that there are many tickets, but not how many.
Also, as I've said to you before on the subject, read scientific papers and you'll see plenty of such "very probable/very improbable" type judgements made in relation to observations for very good reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 12:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:28 PM bluegenes has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 479 (568424)
07-05-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Straggler
07-05-2010 6:05 PM


sigh. back to logical fallacies as "evidence" ...
Straggler Straggler Straggler
What am I to do with you.
After 18 months of persistence on my part have you finally come round to the idea that evidence favouring human invention makes falsifying the unfalsifiable wholly unnececessary.
LOL.
No.
Not in any way.
Not in the slightest.
ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.
Santa Clause was a case in point.
Does this then mean that the easter bunny is a case of human invention?
No.
Not in any way.
Not in the slightest.
That would be a ludicrous non-logical leap of blind faith.
You need to actually show the evidence that human invention was involved in the case of the easter bunny.
This is (once again) WHY your whole concept is absolutely useless to apply across the board, and it certainly does not get you anywhere near discussing god/s yet.
As I have said many many many times some people make some things up some of the time, therefore you need to actually show that a specific concept was actually made up before you can claim that it was made up.
It's a conclusion when you have the evidence to support the conclusion, it is NOT a premise for any valid conclusion, no matter how much wishful thinking and confirmation bias you throw that way.
You can only conclude that a specific B is A when you have evidence that the specific B in question is A.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
quote:
Affirming the Consequent
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
Examples:
1. If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
2. If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.
Until you provide actual empirical evidence that the easter bunny was actually made up it is invalid to conclude that it was made up.
Have fun.
Yes let's. Now that you have agreed that falsification is unnecessary ...
Except that I did NOT say that in any way shape or form.
What I said was:
quote:
My own addition would be to seek evidence that indicates the origin of the concepts or concept involved. With falsification being unnecessary to conclude unlikelihood of actual existence if the evidence strongly indicates that the concept has arisen for reasons other than being a part of objective reality. E.g. the origins of the concept that is fat jolly magical but undetectable and unfalsifiable Santa Claus.
Agreed. With Santa Clause it was shown that there was documented evidence of fiction being involved at several stages for the transition from an actual historical figure to the modern folklore version of Santa Clause, including the adaptation & addition of supernatural aspects.
This could be a reasonable test\process to determine whether specific beliefs are false.
...
Note that I have said all along that if you have evidence that some specific belief is made up then present it.
...
Of course you still need to treat each case on an individual basis, which is another reason that your seemingly endless parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS has absolutely no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
Personally I don't see that showing a high likelihood that Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects proves anything other than Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects, and thus says nothing about the validity of the easter bunny, or that this is in any way indicative to whether or not god/s exist.
Color and bold added for emphasis.
This test of yours is ONLY VALID when you have the evidence to substantiate that a specific belief is in fact made up.
I want to use your most cited example of that which has been falsified to see if we agree of the limits of evidence based certainty.
It is both conceivable and philosophically possible that the falsification for a 10,000 year old flooded Earth could itself be falsified. Yes?
It is possible, as all scientific conclusions are tentative, but it is unlikely due to:
  • the preponderance of objective empirical (level III) evidence that not only shows the age of the earth to vastly exceed 10,000 years, but
  • many correlations that logically match due to age rather than misinterpretation, and
  • the fact that currently there is no evidence that contradicts or invalidates these ages.
  • any invalidation of this evidence would also invalidate virtually every branch of science and leave us in a situation where everything is illusion, including whether or not there was a young earth.
The existence of multiply validated objective empirical evidence that speaks specifically to the age of the earth, and the absence of contraditory evidence (up to now) means that it is valid to hold a "2" on the 1-7 scale.
Of course, here we see the young earth concept is identified as a false belief because it is contradicted by objective empirical evidence showing the age of the earth is older, and not by any evidence that this concept was made up, so it is not a validation of your test ... yet.
In order to show that your test can produce similar results at this level (rather than the minor league level of Santa Clause and Easter Bunny), you need to demonstrate how it works
quote:
So let's test you concept at a larger scale:
Can we use this test to show that there was no world wide flood?
Can we use this test to show that the earth is not young?
Once again it is your turn to actually provide evidence and not just assert that you have evidence.
Enjoy.
PS -- where do you end up on the political compass?
see Message 109 of the Are You an Authoritarian?
Just curious.
Edited by RAZD, : completed the thought ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 6:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:22 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 07-05-2010 9:10 PM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 157 of 479 (568427)
07-05-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
07-05-2010 8:13 PM


Stop Evading The Question
RAZD writes:
ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.
Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 159 by jar, posted 07-05-2010 8:52 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:00 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 158 of 479 (568429)
07-05-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
07-05-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?
Good question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:22 PM Straggler has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 159 of 479 (568435)
07-05-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
07-05-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
But of course any God we can discuss actually started right there, they are human constructs. It can't be any other way. We are limited to what a human can see, think, understand, and a GOD by definition would be far beyond anything we can imagine.
Yet we are still human, and so we try to create caricatures, ikons, images, concepts to best outline what we as a people imagine GOD to be. This is why the very early God of Genesis 2 is so very man like while the God of Genesis 1 is entirely different.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:33 PM jar has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 160 of 479 (568437)
07-05-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
07-05-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
That old canaard Straggler?
and if it isn't?
Once again you are betrayed by your 2 dimensional false dichotomy thinking.
Now can you stop evading the issues?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:23 PM RAZD has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 161 of 479 (568440)
07-05-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
07-05-2010 8:13 PM


Strong theory to be falsified.
RAZD writes:
ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.
We witness a tiny fraction of the births of animals into this world, yet we can infer beyond all reasonable doubt that all animals are born from other animals, and we have never found exceptions to falsify the theory.
We need only establish that some supernatural beings are born of the human imagination to establish an equally strong theory that all supernatural beings are born from the human imagination, and we have never found exceptions to falsify this theory.
Why would someone accept one theory but not the other?
Establish that just one animal has popped into existence by magic and was not born from another, and you falsify the first theory.
Establish the real existence of just one supernatural being, and you can falsify the second theory.
This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 10:44 PM bluegenes has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 162 of 479 (568442)
07-05-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-05-2010 7:22 PM


understand the argument first
Still missing the point bluegenes
Incidentally, you couldn't be more wrong than when you claim that things cannot be described as "very improbable" or "very probable" when the actual probabilities are impossible to calculate. See your comment on the specific lottery ticket, for example, when we only know that there are many tickets, but not how many.
Yes DO see my comments.
Perhaps the second time you will understand what the argument is.
RAZD writes:
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small,.....
Well done. You finally agree that one random hypothesis out of many that can be made is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head.
Golly, gee, whillikers. Talk about confirmation bias cherry picking statements to form a straw man.
My argument has never been that one specific hypothesis is correct, but that all that is necessary for god/s to exist is for ANY hypothesis to be correct, because any one being correct invalidates your position. THUS you must confront ALL the hypothesis as a whole in order to make your pseudo-probability "calculation" whether god/s exist or not -- understand?
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small, but that isn't the whole picture, no matter how much you pretend that it is. Ignoring the second hypothesis does not make it go away.
The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket.
Amusingly, this demonstrates that for you to claim with any smidgeon of actual hope of logic or rationality that god/s do not exist is likely or probable, you need to deal with the second hypothesis, not the first.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-05-2010 7:22 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by bluegenes, posted 07-05-2010 10:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 163 of 479 (568449)
07-05-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by RAZD
07-05-2010 9:28 PM


Re: understand the argument first
RAZD writes:
My argument has never been that one specific hypothesis is correct, but that all that is necessary for god/s to exist is for ANY hypothesis to be correct, because any one being correct invalidates your position. THUS you must confront ALL the hypothesis as a whole in order to make your pseudo-probability "calculation" whether god/s exist or not -- understand?
Read my post again. I understand that you can split your random cow/s hypothesis into millions of different cow hypotheses. The same can be done for all other general random hypotheses. That still doesn't make a winner coming from the set of cow hypotheses any more likely. There is still no reason to consider cows of any description in any quantities as likely explanations of the universe.
The set of random hypotheses that doesn't involve cows is always far greater than the set that does.
Why cows? That's the point. Why not rocks or branes or any other word you care to think of?
RAZD writes:
Golly, gee, whillikers
That sounds like the base for as good a random hypothesis as any other. "The universe is explained by golly, gee, and whillikers combining in the 9th dimension."
It has as much support as any other belief.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 479 (568454)
07-05-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by bluegenes
07-05-2010 9:10 PM


bad logic again
Still missing it bluegenes.
I have over 500 science fiction books in my library, therefore it is reasonable to believe that all books in my library are science fiction.
This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.
In your opinion.
However, sadly, your opinion is not capable of forcing your concept to be logically valid. No matter how you cut it you are making the logically false assumption that B is evidence for A
Curiously, your problem is not how similar A and B are, but whether there is any B that is not A
If I have over 500 science fiction books in my library, then what is the probability that one book is not science fiction?
If I have over 500 billion science fiction books in my library, then does the probability that one book is not science fiction change?
If one book in my library is not science fiction then the probability in both cases is 1.
Message 163: Read my post again. I understand that you can split your random cow/s hypothesis into millions of different cow hypotheses. The same can be done for all other general random hypotheses. That still doesn't make a winner coming from the set of cow hypotheses any more likely. There is still no reason to consider cows of any description in any quantities as likely explanations of the universe.
The set of random hypotheses that doesn't involve cows is always far greater than the set that does.
Why cows? That's the point. Why not rocks or branes or any other word you care to think of?
You pretend that having an ever increasing number of science fiction books can change the probability that not one book is science fiction.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : simplified the argument
Edited by RAZD, : incorporated last response

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 07-05-2010 9:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by bluegenes, posted 07-06-2010 1:47 PM RAZD has replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 165 of 479 (568482)
07-06-2010 8:45 AM


I guess I am posting this in the wrong place but what the hell!
Can anyone explain why the forum list claims that 'you are a gay fag' or rather urgayfag?
Much appreciated!

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Huntard, posted 07-06-2010 8:49 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-07-2010 5:07 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024