[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]
How can you know the ground upon which the buildings exist? I recall an older post of yours that said you were certain that Christianity was the right religion and the others were wrong. You based it off past evidence (which of course is based on scientific observation) and some other things I don’t entirely recall. You admitted that it was a convictionist attitude.
But you are not certain. To you, it is a maximally high probability but you cannot be certain. Therefore, neither you nor groo understand the ground upon which the buildings exist. And neither do I.
[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]
A percent in the sense that say if I hold two 2’s versus AK on a flop in hold em I have a bout a 53 percent chance of being correct.
I don’t think say whether god exists lends itself to something like well I am 49 percent sure according to the evidence I believe and if I had two more percent I’d be there. Certainly evidence for claims like this is attempted to be expressed mathematically but meh.
Belief probability is based on whether or not someone finds the underlying premises to be true.
See you bitch that I qualify everything and throw out something like I just want to know what you think…then you try to argue against the position. This is why I attempt to qualify it a bit.
If I were just going to throw it out between friends say I think probability is the likely outcome of events given the knowledge I have. And I wouldn’t want it to be bogged down by crap like well what do you truly know etc.
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]
Bayesian inference is not the basis most science, it is just one statistical tool that may be used in certain circumstances, and there are other methods that can, and are used in place of Bayesian inference. Google Bas van Frassen. And I don’t know which proof you using to show that 1 = .999… Probably the algebraic method, but if you have taken basic calculus you may be using an infinite series, but keep in mind that those proofs only hold up in real number systems without non-zero infinitesimals. Once you get into higher level mathematics, those are insufficient and it is not a valid equality. It is fine for things like statistics, or freshman math and math related fields like introductory physics or basic calculus, but beyond that it is no longer valid or useful.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
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]
Bayesian inference is not the basis most science, it is just one statistical tool that may be used in certain circumstances, and there are other methods that can, and are used in place of Bayesian inference. Google Bas van Frassen. And I don’t know which proof you using to show that 1 = .999… Probably the algebraic method, but if you have taken basic calculus you may be using an infinite series, but keep in mind that those proofs only hold up in real number systems without non-zero infinitesimals. Once you get into higher level mathematics, those are insufficient and it is not a valid equality. It is fine for things like statistics, or freshman math and math related fields like introductory physics or basic calculus, but beyond that it is no longer valid or useful.
[/quote]
Context is everything. Certainly its useful to show that mathematics doesn’t always gel up nicely with real world examples. I never made a claim it was useful beyond that.
Bayesian inference is the basis of most if not all basic science. If you want to split hairs I am game for a go.
Nice bit of snide down talk though I give two thumbs up :). I certainly am a big proponent that properly using ethos and pathos makes logos irrelevant.
I could say something like the dismissing of the various cosmological and ontological arguments are a bit juvenile and these arguments have moved to an area beyond first year philosophy which you could certainly find with the use of a bit of google. Is that how to do it?
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
If I came to the same conclusion making a WAG would you think it as valuable?
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]
Bayesian inference is not the basis most science, it is just one statistical tool that may be used in certain circumstances, and there are other methods that can, and are used in place of Bayesian inference. Google Bas van Frassen. And I don’t know which proof you using to show that 1 = .999… Probably the algebraic method, but if you have taken basic calculus you may be using an infinite series, but keep in mind that those proofs only hold up in real number systems without non-zero infinitesimals. Once you get into higher level mathematics, those are insufficient and it is not a valid equality. It is fine for things like statistics, or freshman math and math related fields like introductory physics or basic calculus, but beyond that it is no longer valid or useful.
[/quote]
Context is everything. Certainly its useful to show that mathematics doesn’t always gel up nicely with real world examples. I never made a claim it was useful beyond that.
Bayesian inference is the basis of most if not all basic science. If you want to split hairs I am game for a go.
[/quote]
Where did you get the idea that Bayesian inference is the basis of most if not all of science? It is just a statistical tool that can be used in the problem solving process. That is all. Hell, until Monte Carlo methods (thanks to my field of study) came about in the 1940’s there was very little use for Bayesian inference. It is becoming more widely used, yes, but it is not fundamental to science at all. It is a tool used by some scientists in their research and problem solving strategies. It is not required in most cases, it is just becoming easier to use.
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]
Bayesian inference is not the basis most science, it is just one statistical tool that may be used in certain circumstances, and there are other methods that can, and are used in place of Bayesian inference. Google Bas van Frassen. And I don’t know which proof you using to show that 1 = .999… Probably the algebraic method, but if you have taken basic calculus you may be using an infinite series, but keep in mind that those proofs only hold up in real number systems without non-zero infinitesimals. Once you get into higher level mathematics, those are insufficient and it is not a valid equality. It is fine for things like statistics, or freshman math and math related fields like introductory physics or basic calculus, but beyond that it is no longer valid or useful.
[/quote]
Context is everything. Certainly its useful to show that mathematics doesn’t always gel up nicely with real world examples. I never made a claim it was useful beyond that.
Bayesian inference is the basis of most if not all basic science. If you want to split hairs I am game for a go.
[/quote]
Where did you get the idea that Bayesian inference is the basis of most if not all of science? It is just a statistical tool that can be used in the problem solving process. That is all. Hell, until Monte Carlo methods (thanks to my field of study) came about in the 1940’s there was very little use for Bayesian inference. It is becoming more widely used, yes, but it is not fundamental to science at all. It is a tool used by some scientists in their research and problem solving strategies. It is not required in most cases, it is just becoming easier to use.
[/quote]
So at its base what do you think science is? Where would you get the idea that its not? Are you talking the specific proof? Or as a tool in frequency probability? So from looking at it you are using the terms very narrowly and me perhaps a bit too broadly. My second paragraph is what I was loosely using as bayesian inference. I already had said that I wasn’t a big follower of frequency probability…but isn’t that what the Monte Carlo method is? Basis for modeling complex systems by picking random data points because a deterministic model would be beyond current analysis? Its used as the basis for modern weather forecasting and such along with physics correct?
What I mean is this for inductive syllogisms we use probability to determine which we believe to be true. Much of science is this. Perhaps there is some cutting edge science that is not inductive that would not be this way. But at its base science is certainly a collection of syllogisms we assign truth to by probability perhaps if only by an intuitive means.
To be more relevant to this thread; Do you believe a god exists? And if so why?
[quote]groo wrote:
So at its base what do you think science is? Where would you get the idea that its not? Are you talking the specific proof? Or as a tool in frequency probability?
What I mean is this for inductive syllogisms we use probability to determine which we believe to be true. Much of science is this. Perhaps there is some cutting edge science that is not inductive that would not be this way. But at its base science is certainly a collection of syllogisms we assign truth to by probability perhaps if only by an intuitive means.
To be more relevant to this thread; Do you believe a god exists? And if so why?[/quote]
Generally in my basic physics classes, I teach that science is the the study of natural phenomena through the use of testable explanations and predictions. That is good enough for this discussion. When Bayes was developing his statistical theorem, he took that into account in order to make sure that his theorem would be useful. But guess what? Almost every other mathematical and statistical theorem also does that. One theorem in one mathematical field, like Bayes Theorem, is not fundamental to, or the basis of, science. It is just a useful tool that we scientists use to describe our findings and to help us set up experiments. Scientists were doing research and work before Bayes Theorem and do so to this day without using Bayesian statistics. Mathematics, which also includes statistics depending on who you ask, is not even a necessary part of science, but is necessary to describe what we figure out through experimentation and it is very useful in setting up experiments.
As to your question, no I do not believe in god. I do not discount the existence of a deity either. I just plain do not know and have no way of knowing.
As to your question, no I do not believe in god. I do not discount the existence of a deity either. I just plain do not know and have no way of knowing.
[/quote]
[quote]groo wrote:
So at its base what do you think science is? Where would you get the idea that its not? Are you talking the specific proof? Or as a tool in frequency probability?
What I mean is this for inductive syllogisms we use probability to determine which we believe to be true. Much of science is this. Perhaps there is some cutting edge science that is not inductive that would not be this way. But at its base science is certainly a collection of syllogisms we assign truth to by probability perhaps if only by an intuitive means.
To be more relevant to this thread; Do you believe a god exists? And if so why?[/quote]
Generally in my basic physics classes, I teach that science is the the study of natural phenomena through the use of testable explanations and predictions. That is good enough for this discussion. When Bayes was developing his statistical theorem, he took that into account in order to make sure that his theorem would be useful. But guess what? Almost every other mathematical and statistical theorem also does that. One theorem in one mathematical field, like Bayes Theorem, is not fundamental to, or the basis of, science. It is just a useful tool that we scientists use to describe our findings and to help us set up experiments. Scientists were doing research and work before Bayes Theorem and do so to this day without using Bayesian statistics. Mathematics, which also includes statistics depending on who you ask, is not even a necessary part of science, but is necessary to describe what we figure out through experimentation and it is very useful in setting up experiments.
As to your question, no I do not believe in god. I do not discount the existence of a deity either. I just plain do not know and have no way of knowing.
[/quote]
We end up in the same place. I edited my post after your quote. I was using bayesian analysis as a shorthand for what I said in the second paragraph incorrectly.
Basically I am saying belief probability is bayesian inference even without it being expressed mathematically or at least it tends to be. Not that we are using his theorem to analyze all science. I was not attempting to say it was the only way to statistically analyze data.
I would say though that not believing in god is the same as discounting one. Unless we are making this proposition different than other ones we don’t believe to be probable.
[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.[/quote]“objective” MEANS “independent of the subjective self”. In the case of logic, which you’ve claimed as true for everyone, that would be “independent of ALL subjective selves”. In other words the exact opposite of “man made”. Our definitions of objective at least, are different. [quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< You based it off past evidence (which of course is based on scientific observation) and some other things I don’t entirely recall. >>>[/quote]I assure you that weren’t’ me or you misunderstood. I am just as certain of every word I type about God as I am about 2+2 equaling 4. The latter depends on the former. It does for you too.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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]
Did all the Christians miss this one or are you guys purposefully ignoring this point?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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]
Did all the Christians miss this one or are you guys purposefully ignoring this point?[/quote]
That would only work if all Christians believed the same thing about the requirements for heaven.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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]
Did all the Christians miss this one or are you guys purposefully ignoring this point?[/quote]
That would only work if all Christians believed the same thing about the requirements for heaven.[/quote]
He’s on ignore, but I’ll add to what you just said. Some of us have described a great big MIGHT. M-I-G-H-T. Which in no way suggests that the ‘odds’ for a particular non-christian getting a ‘free pass’ is even remotely ‘as good’ as one who has put his faith in Christ. And, that’s about all I care to say.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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]
Did all the Christians miss this one or are you guys purposefully ignoring this point?[/quote]
That would only work if all Christians believed the same thing about the requirements for heaven.[/quote]
I’d like to hear how a Christian would justify sending someone to Hell for not knowing about Jesus, especially considering he can materialize bibles for them any time he chooses.
Actually, that’s another point. What need is there for Christians to go to these South American and African tribes? If God wants them, why doesn’t he simply materialize bibles for them in their native languages?
It seems either God won’t send these people to Hell (so their not high on his priority list), or he is intentionally making it much more difficult for them to get into Heaven than the rest of us. Is God racist now?
As to your question, no I do not believe in god. I do not discount the existence of a deity either. I just plain do not know and have no way of knowing.
[/quote]
I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this.[/quote]
That’s what atheists believe. Almost no atheist claims to KNOW with an absolute certainty there is no god.
There’s not a 3rd option, it cannot be conceived because it cannot exist. The second you even try to rationalize it, you have introduced a something. That’s why it’s impossible. What does not exist, cannot do anything. To believe in atheism you have to believe this.
Except, it’s totally and absolutely logically impossible. It’s not that it hasn’t been thought of, it’s that it cannot happen.
Go ahead and try to posit a scenario where something can come from nothing?
[/quote]
And what you presented is a classic argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” (where “ignorance” stands for: “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
No. Deductive truths, by definition are necessarily true. If not, then you either don’t have a deductive argument, or the argument is flawed.
Like I said, math is a form of deductive reasoning. Can you propose a scenario where 1+2 does not equal 3?
Try alternate universes, alternate realities, try what ever you like. If have 1 and you add 2 to it, you will always have 3. There is nothing you can do about it.[/quote]
Let me ask you something. Are you infallible? Is there a human being on this planet that’s infallible?
What I’m saying is logic and reason are processes used by our fallible minds. Since we are fallible, how can we ever be 100% certain that we have correctly interpreted an absolute truth?