[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< absolute truth is man made. [/quote][quote]njrusmc wrote: mathematics <<<>>> is objective.[/quote]Could you pick one please? Which you pick will tell me whether to accept your declaration that you “don’t have a firm belief in anything.” Absolute sounds pretty firm.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Please prove to me one instance where math does not meth up with reality. As Pat would say, prove me to a single instance where 1+2 does not equal 3. I agree math is just a language, consisting of expressions and characters like any other. I can describe those things in many languages … but mathematics is different as it is both quantifiable and objective.
If we are debating the difference between mathetmatical law and scientific conclusions, then we are in agreement.
A man who jumps off a 100 story building will likely die. Highly probable, not certain.
2+2=4. Absolute truth.[/quote]
.999… = 1
These two numbers are the same quantity.
Imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers.
Math isn’t empirical its a logical construct. Its true by definition. You can pick physical objects to show some mathematical concepts. Especially those of arithmetic.
Basically all you are asserting is the only things that we know for certain are apriori truths. So you are in agreement with every thing I posted. That we can not know anything with 100 percent certainty about the universe through science.
You are taking a very narrow position of things that we can know. E.G. only logical constructs are true. Math. Statements like all unmarried men are bachelors. Stuff like that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Its certainly not absolute. >>>[/quote]Please think with me for a minute about this statement Groo. =] And could you please define probability for me?
[/quote]
There are several views on how probability folds into inductive logic and really I wasn’t trying to give some rigorous proof. I was trying to keep it pretty simple.
If you like I can provide you with what I think about probability. Though our minds certainly play tons of tricks in Inductive cases by simply the way the proposition is framed.
No, groo. You are stretching this too far. 0.999 and 1 are not equal. How are they same quantity? In that both numbers represent one autonomous number? Their values differ, therefore your use of the equal-sign is erroneous.
You’ve got it backwards. Math is the basis of science. Math is law. Science is conclusions based on observations derived from math.
I agree with your statement about not knowing things about universe with 100% certainty. Then HOW can you possibly assert the existance of a God? You cannot. You just told me you cannot.
Only logical constructs can be PROVEN true. I did not say thatthings beyond the scope of logical constructs could not be true, only that they could not be proven true. God may be true, but because his existance is not defined by a logical construct you cannot prove his existance is true.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< If you like I can provide you with what I think about probability. >>>[/quote]That would be a good start, yes please. I keep forgetting that asking you a question is like asking for a historico-cyclopedic essay on every view from Plato to the present. For the record. Whenever I as YOU for a definition? I am genuinely interested in YOUR definition. I will straight up. You have read far and away more philosophy than I have. You don’t have to prove it to me. I’m fine with that. My relative paucity of formal philosophical study works very much in favor of my system of knowledge.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
No, groo. You are stretching this too far. 0.999 and 1 are not equal. How are they same quantity? In that both numbers represent one autonomous number? Their values differ, therefore your use of the equal-sign is erroneous.
You’ve got it backwards. Math is the basis of science. Math is law. Science is conclusions based on observations derived from math.
I agree with your statement about not knowing things about universe with 100% certainty. Then HOW can you possibly assert the existance of a God? You cannot. You just told me you cannot.
Only logical constructs can be PROVEN true. I did not say thatthings beyond the scope of logical constructs could not be true, only that they could not be proven true. God may be true, but because his existance is not defined by a logical construct you cannot prove his existance is true.[/quote]
You misinterpret my stance I am an atheist in the sense of not believing in a theistic God I am certainly not arguing for a theistic God.
Would a link to several proofs of my first statement.
Bayesian inference is the basis for most science.
You just restated the position I said you had. Only apriori things can be shown to be true. I totally get thats what you think.
Where you are wrong is thinking math is the basis for science. Math can be used to describe science. And in some cases to make predictions but its not the same.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< If you like I can provide you with what I think about probability. >>>[/quote]That would be a good start, yes please. I keep forgetting that asking you a question is like asking for a historico-cyclopedic essay on every view from Plato to the present. For the record. Whenever I as YOU for a definition? I am genuinely interested in YOUR definition. I will straight up. You have read far and away more philosophy than I have. You don’t have to prove it to me. I’m fine with that. My relative paucity of formal philosophical study works very much in favor of my system of knowledge.
[/quote]
Ok what I think is this there are two types of probability in relation to inductive logic and the schools are really far apart. I don’t think either of them is completely correct but I haven’t really studied them a ton.
There is subjective probability or belief type this in my opinion only is pretty much science. Basically they describe ones personal confidence in an idea.
This is pretty much how I’d use it almost all of the time. Saying things like, I think it was likely a meteor strike killed the dinosaurs would fit into this.
Also the probability of gambling.
I think the idea of the proposition being settled soon is very important…its why Pascal’s wager isn’t seen as compelling by a young man. Also the idea of indifference and when people are incorrectly indifferent is important to gambling. I think this type of probability is more exact than purely personal belief where one is believing a proposition on what evidence one finds compelling. Though both can be described mathematically.
A minister went to Africa to spread the word of God. After stripping them of their native rituals for being pagan, teaching them shame for their nakedness and teaching them guilt over original sin, a local approached him and asked;
“Minister, would God send a man who has never heard of Christianity to Hell?”
The minister replied;
“Well, no, he wouldn’t.”
“Then,”
said the local,
“WHY DID YOU TELL ME?”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.[/quote]
Thank you. But I must admit, it’s not so much my intellectual ability, but the lack thereof on the part of patty cakes.
Saying “god did it”, doesn’t fly.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< If you like I can provide you with what I think about probability. >>>[/quote]That would be a good start, yes please. I keep forgetting that asking you a question is like asking for a historico-cyclopedic essay on every view from Plato to the present. For the record. Whenever I as YOU for a definition? I am genuinely interested in YOUR definition. I will straight up. You have read far and away more philosophy than I have. You don’t have to prove it to me. I’m fine with that. My relative paucity of formal philosophical study works very much in favor of my system of knowledge.
[/quote]
Ok what I think is this there are two types of probability in relation to inductive logic and the schools are really far apart. I don’t think either of them is completely correct but I haven’t really studied them a ton.
There is subjective probability or belief type this in my opinion only is pretty much science. Basically they describe ones personal confidence in an idea.
This is pretty much how I’d use it almost all of the time. Saying things like, I think it was likely a meteor strike killed the dinosaurs would fit into this.
Also the probability of gambling.
I think the idea of the proposition being settled soon is very important…its why Pascal’s wager isn’t seen as compelling by a young man. Also the idea of indifference and when people are incorrectly indifferent is important to gambling. I think this type of probability is more exact than purely personal belief where one is believing a proposition on what evidence one finds compelling. Though both can be described mathematically.[/quote]This is interesting groo, seriously, but not what I was asking. These appear to be differing applications or apprehensions of probability, but not probability itself. Let me ask it this way. What makes something more or less probable? If you tell me about evidence you’ll have missed my point again. Evidence would be the tool by which a proposition, of whatever kind, is demonstrated to be more or less probable, but still not probability itself.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Tiribulus went to Africa to spread the word of God. After a number were raised from death in sin to life in Christ, the Holy Spirit convicted them and they forsook their pagan ways. A local approached him and asked;
“Minister, would God send a man who has never heard of Christianity to Hell?”
Tiribulus replied;
“Yes, He would and does”
“Then,”
said the local,
“PRAISE GOD HE SENT YOU TO TELL ME!!!”
[/quote]Had ta tune that up fer ya.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
…[/quote]
Atheism: A realization that people come to not just because they ARE smart, but because they refuse to blindly believe in the mythology of the day, have a healthy skepticism, and are willing to throw the bullshit flag.
[/quote]
Yeah, because it relies on the belief that nothing can do something. Fucking brilliant…
Until you can prove that nothing can do something, your logic is a failure.[/quote]
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Don’t project your ignorance of the argument on me. The solution is simple and what must be the case. You can’t prove it wrong. You can try to dodge this reality, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can’t refute it. Throwing out logical mistakes in a mocking tone is still fallacious. You obviously don’t understand the argument at all.
Causation is a necessary part of existing, regressing it leads to a singular point, and an infinite regress is a logical fallacy because it begs the question.
What it does not claim:
-That God was caused
-That God came from nothing
-That God made something from nothing.
-It doesn’t even say it’s God. Just an 'Uncaused-cause", “Necessary Being”, “Prime Mover”, etc.
Causation is a necessary reality, not a magic trick. That’s the point. You must be easily entertained.[/quote]
You’re a funny little guy, patty cakes. You keep clinging to this cosmological argument, to support…what? Your god? Because the cosmological argument does a piss poor job of that, for sure. As Orion said, at best it makes the case for the prime mover, but that’s it. It makes no case for any sort of “god”, and certainly not the god of your shitty bible.
Here’s the difference between you and I; while neither of us know with a certainty how the universe was created, I’m not willing to fill in the gaps with “god did it”. I’m comfortable with the fact that there’s ZERO evidence for any sort of a deity. Not one shred. I’m also comfortable with the fact that there’s brilliant scientists out there who aren’t willing to just fill in the gaps with “god did it”, and are trying to figure the whole thing out.
Science improves our lives and helps to explain our universe. Science doesn’t settle for “god did it”.
Do us all a favor, and just show us your evidence for the christian god, or any deity for that matter. After that, I’ll apologize and get to praying. Until then, have fun with your god magic stories.
.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
.[/quote]Sparky is in desperate need of joining us in the epistemology thread. You can’t tell me why 2+2=4 without a FAITH in the conventions of logic that is utterly presupposed and blind. Without which, the “scientific method” is reduced to a steaming pile of bovine fecal matter.
[/quote]
Not faith, but belief, based on evidence and repeatability. Faith is is what teaches people to believe in things that aren’t real.
And I’d get more involved in other threads if I could, but like everyone else, time is limited and I gots to prioritize.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< Not faith, but belief, based on evidence and repeatability. Faith is is what teaches people to believe in things that aren’t real.
And I’d get more involved in other threads if I could, but like everyone else, time is limited and I gots to prioritize. [/quote]Faith is what everybody uses to believe in anything. I’m pretty sure I could convince you. I do understand about limited time though. I spend waaaay more time here than I actually have and I need waaaay more than even that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Tiribulus went to Africa to spread the word of God. After a number were raised from death in sin to life in Christ, the Holy Spirit convicted them and they forsook their pagan ways. A local approached him and asked;
“Minister, would God send a man who has never heard of Christianity to Hell?”
Tiribulus replied;
“Yes, He would and does”
“Then,”
said the local,
“PRAISE GOD HE SENT YOU TO TELL ME!!!”
[/quote]Had ta tune that up fer ya.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m sure these tribes are much happier now that, by mere virtue of knowing of Christianity, they face eternal Hell fire unless they adhere to the Christian code of conduct, regardless of how at-odds it is with their original way of life.
Really, the most humanitarian thing Christians can do for their fellow man is to never talk about their religion in the hopes that the next generation will all get a free pass.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.[/quote]
Thank you. But I must admit, it’s not so much my intellectual ability, but the lack thereof on the part of patty cakes.
Saying “god did it”, doesn’t fly.
[/quote]
Uh huh, God did it isn’t really specific. So, I can’t make conjecture.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< If you like I can provide you with what I think about probability. >>>[/quote]That would be a good start, yes please. I keep forgetting that asking you a question is like asking for a historico-cyclopedic essay on every view from Plato to the present. For the record. Whenever I as YOU for a definition? I am genuinely interested in YOUR definition. I will straight up. You have read far and away more philosophy than I have. You don’t have to prove it to me. I’m fine with that. My relative paucity of formal philosophical study works very much in favor of my system of knowledge.
[/quote]
Ok what I think is this there are two types of probability in relation to inductive logic and the schools are really far apart. I don’t think either of them is completely correct but I haven’t really studied them a ton.
There is subjective probability or belief type this in my opinion only is pretty much science. Basically they describe ones personal confidence in an idea.
This is pretty much how I’d use it almost all of the time. Saying things like, I think it was likely a meteor strike killed the dinosaurs would fit into this.
Also the probability of gambling.
I think the idea of the proposition being settled soon is very important…its why Pascal’s wager isn’t seen as compelling by a young man. Also the idea of indifference and when people are incorrectly indifferent is important to gambling. I think this type of probability is more exact than purely personal belief where one is believing a proposition on what evidence one finds compelling. Though both can be described mathematically.[/quote]This is interesting groo, seriously, but not what I was asking. These appear to be differing applications or apprehensions of probability, but not probability itself. Let me ask it this way. What makes something more or less probable? If you tell me about evidence you’ll have missed my point again. Evidence would be the tool by which a proposition, of whatever kind, is demonstrated to be more or less probable, but still not probability itself.
[/quote]
I think belief probability is probability as we talk about it for the most part. Bayesian probability as it were I guess. Basically having enough evidence to hold a belief. It by necessity involves evidence since thats what you would use to decide whether a statement of probability were worth believing to be true.
A truly neutral belief type probability case is where you would be indifferent to outcome. Like a situation where I have a fair coin and you agree its fair. And I say lets make a bet 1 dollar for you if its heads one dollar for me if its tails. Whichever you pick doesn’t matter you are indifferent to outcome since they are each equally likely. Giving points or odds generally is an attempt to make a bet appear indifferent.
I think in real world applications though probability certainly has some problems. I am not really sure how to define what I think it is more than that.
I am mostly interested in it as it relates to gambling propositions and they are largely entirely different from big blanket statements of belief. I don’t think I could accurately depict some type of expression that showed how much evidence would swing me into being a theist though I am certain some people would give it a go. I don’t think cases like this lend themselves to a percent.
Just take the statement “I think it likely the dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor strike”
Its different than saying “I am absolutely certain the dinosaurs went out of existence from a meteor strike”
or “I think its at least possible the dinosaurs went extinct from a meteor strike”
or “Its totally not the case there were no dinosaurs at all the earth began 4k years ago”
These would all be statements of personal probability and while I think some of them are incorrect it sorta depends on what premises you think to be true.
Frequency probability I am not as interested in. Big number probability. Each dogmatic school of thought has some adherents that would call the other side not probability at all.
[quote]groo wrote: <<< I don’t think cases like this lend themselves to a percent. >>>[/quote]A percent of what is what I’m asking you. Is probability an entity unto itself or does it receive it’s content as it relates to something else? You’re very sharp kid Groo and you know every building in the city, but not the ground they’re built upon. We went through this last time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< absolute truth is man made. [/quote][quote]njrusmc wrote: mathematics <<<>>> is objective.[/quote]Could you pick one please? Which you pick will tell me whether to accept your declaration that you “don’t have a firm belief in anything.” Absolute sounds pretty firm.
[/quote]
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? I can believe absolute truth is man made (in the form of mathematics, specifically logic) and I can also believe that mathematics is objective, not subjective. I can state 2+2=4 and regardless of my voice inflexions or volume, the statement carries the same meaning. In no case is it false or questionable. If I tell someone to vacuum my carpet, my tone of voice will be subjectively judged to determine whether I am being hostile or not. Mathematics is objective and defines absolute truth … and is man made.