|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted March 05, 2010 09:03 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:11, 05 Mar 2010.
|
@mvass
Quote:
Yes, there is a difference between knowledge and belief, but a Christian still can't say, "I don't know if God exists", as that would be a violation of faith.
Why not?
Philosphical Musings Aside:
I believe that there is no supernatural creator. That makes me an atheist.
I do not know whether there is a supernatural creator. That makes me agnostic.
Know, in this case, refers to empirical data.
By the same token:
I could believe that God exists, which might make me a Christian.
And yet I could acknowledge that I do not know that God exists if I acknowledge that I have no empirical data that shows as much. That makes me, at least in part, an agnostic.
Philosophical Musics Not Aside:
Your set of conditions regarding the attributes of a Christian essentially requires that no Christians understand the difference between knowledge and belief. Where does that leave people who believe in God*/Jesus but also understand that there is a limitation to knowledge? If they are not Christians, what are they? Certainly, they are not atheists. Are all people who believe in God required to also know for certain that he** exists? I point out that this would imply that no Christians have doubts, which would directly contradict the whole point behind faith. By which I mean: is it even possible to know something to be so and at the same time believe it to be so? Isn't the very concept of belief dependent to some extent on a lack of knowledge? If knowledge is possessed, there's no need for faith. Faith is the decision that something is so despite a lack of knowledge that it is so.
I might have, for example, a reason to believe it will rain tomorrow (predictive models, divine revelation, whatever), but do I know for certain that it will? If by some magic I am able to see the future and I know that it will rain, what sense is there to state that I believe it will? Only when there is the possibility that my knowledge may be flawed or incomplete does belief have any relevance. If I have a magic crystal ball, I could quite confidently say that it will rain tomorrow, because it would in that case be a fact, and saying that I know it will rain tomorrow would be no different than if I said I knew it rained yesterday.
But if I have reason to suspect that my source of knowledge might be incorrect (say, because my crystal ball is flawed in some way - which would make it less than magical of course), then it ceases to be certain and all I can issue is a statement of belief - even though I might mistakenly call it knowledge. Your weather forecaster, for instance, does not say that he knows it will rain tomorrow. He says that such and such computer model predicts that it will rain tomorrow, and since he understands how the computer model works, and has seen it work before on a majority of occasions, he believes that the computer model works and that it will indeed rain tomorrow. Belief in this case is really no more than extrapolation to an uncertain future. Without magic, we cannot have knowledge of the future, and so predictions of the future are by necessity belief. I may say to you: "I believe it will rain tomorrow, and the reason I believe this is because (fill in the blank - note: there doesn't have to be a reason, which is both the beauty and the beast of belief)." What I really mean is that, "I have some empirical data*** which has allowed me to predict that it will rain tomorrow. However, this is only extrapolation and I understand that I cannot know for sure. Nevertheless, I will base my plans around the assumption that the predict model is absolutely true, though I might plan for contingencies." In other words, belief that it will rain implies that I have some knowledge that leads me to a (predictive) conclusion, but I implicitly imply that my knowledge has limitation, and that my prediction may ultimately be wrong.
What about the past? A magic crystal ball that shows me absolutely that it will rain tomorrow is identical to knowledge that it rained yesterday. Statements about the past, such as "it rained yesterday" are (ignoring the fatuous possibility of Descartes' deceiver, whereby all empirical knowledge may be trickery) statements of knowledge. One might, of course, say that "I believe it rained yesterday," which would imply that maybe my memory isn't so great, so one must of course be careful when ascribing truth to past recollections. But the point is that when something has happened, we can, in principle, make a statement of knowledge, with the understanding that, because human minds are imperfect computers, sometimes these statements of knowledge are actually statements of belief in disguise.
A statement about God is similar to a statement about the future.**** Both are by definition clouded in required uncertainty. There is no empirical evidence leading towards or away from any supernatural being. That is a fact, despite what some people may believe. If a Christian tells you, therefore, that they know God exists, then they don't really understand what knowledge is. I submit, therefore, that, to the contrary of your claim, EVERY Christian by logical necessity has the dual condition of believing in God's existence but not possessing any knowledge of it.
Philosopical Musics Aside, Reprise
Of course, the original argument is rather silly; it's based on our sometimes irrational compulsion to categorize things. Our psyche demands that, when see something, we must put it in some container with a label. Not always so easy to do, unfortunately. Which is why I resist answering questions which basically amount to "Are you an Atheist?"
I am not a thing to be easily labeled, and, as a person, I do not easily fit into a simplified container. Nobody is, so why do we do it? We're all like the kids who desperately try to force the square toy through the triangular hole. It bothers me that, when I identify myself as something, people make all sorts of assumptions about what I am required to believe in order to fit into the container they've already defined for people who call themselves the same thing. "Oh, you are a Republican? Why do you hate homosexuals?" Talk about presumption!
The point is that a Christian may say whatever he wishes. And while it might not make a lot of sense, that doesn't make him not a Christian, because to think otherwise presumes that words of absolute definitions. I could very well enjoy eating meat for every meal and insist on calling myself a vegetarian. You'd be well within your rights to raise a finger and start an argument with me about it, and most people would agree with you, but I might reply that my definition of vegetarianism is someone who doesn't eat ANY vegetables. Well, how do you get by that impasse? Who is right? A rather absurd example, I admit, but the point is that language is subjective and you shouldn't rush to impugn people for labelling themselves as something when they don't conform to your definition of what the label means.
Which is sort of hypocritical of me to say, I admit, given that not more than a few paragraphs ago I myself made a philosophical deduction about what all Christians are required to believe and know at simultaneous time instances. I'm tempted to point out that mine is a logical deduction and yours is just trying to assert your definition as superior to everyone else's, but I'd rather respond with a trite, "To hell with it" and leave the floor to someone else.
Notes:
* As usual, I capitalize "God" in this case not out of reverence but merely as I would any proper noun, much as I would capitalize John. God refers to the Christian god specifically, but the argument applies to any lower-cased god as well.
** By the same token, I do not capitalize pronouns. 
*** Note that not all beliefs are extrapolative. Some people make predictions about the future (and, as it happens, god) based on no real data whatsoever. In the case of weather, of course, we have good reason to believe that it may rain tomorrow, even if there is some uncertainty about the amount. Which is why rainfall amounts are given as ranges. There is inherent quantitative error involved in extrapolation. See note 4.
**** The difference is, as alluded in note 3, that while (scientific) predictions of (beliefs about) the future are extrapolations of, essentially, knowledge (i.e., the past), beliefs about god are extrapoliations of nothing. They have no basis in reality. That doesn't, by definition, make them wrong. It does make them irrational. I find that it also makes them unnecessary, but that's the psychological difference between me and a Christian I suppose. To tie this back to weather, believing in god is about the same as believing it will rain tomorrow when you've been trapped alone deep in a cave for the past year. Why do you believe it will rain? *shrugs* You just do. Yeah, maybe it will rain tomorrow, but you certainly had no data that could be logically linked to the prediction. That is precisely the irrational nature of religious belief. Except, of course, that nobody kills the guy in the next cave over simply because he believes it will be sunny.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker, here is summary of why you are wrong. A probability of EXISTENCE does not CHANGE. Something that does not EXIST cannot exist at a later time.
If I make a RANDOM statement that ALIEN INTELLIGENT LIFE exists in the Universe, which is NOT based on ANY evidence whatsoever (or show it to me, if you so please), and we find such intelligence in 1000 years... how do you explain that?
Something that had probability 0 of existence suddenly exists?
It's illogical, contradiction. You do not assign SPECIFIC VALUES to UNKNOWN variables. In mathematics, you DO NOT assign 0 to unknown variables.
BTW just so we are clear, by "alien intelligent life" I do not mean 'biological life' as we know it... something completely ALIEN instead.
Your error is, that the unknown variables are neither unknown nor variables, they are imaginary fantasies.
The Milky Way is NO imaginary fantasy, it's therefore something you can make statements about that you can assign probabilities.
An Elf is no unknown variable, but an imagined fantasy - it doesn't even reach the realm of the unknown variable. The question: Might Elves really exist is NONSENSICAL: there is no evidence that would point to it, and if there was, there WOULD be evidence.
I mean, don't you see that? For ANY statement (to believe in), there must be a REASON, evidence, an explanation for why things and evidence are what they are and so on. Otherwise the statement makes no sense.
So: I direct your attention back to the Succubi and Incubi I made my first example of.
I claim, Succubi and Incubi do not exist.
Do you agree or would you say it's possible they exist?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 02:07 AM |
|
|
Damn I love reading your posts, Corribus
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 05:59 PM |
|
|
I recently came by a debate with the title "Atheism is the new fundamentalism," featuring an illustrious cast of panelists, such as Richard Harris and Charles Moore (for). Not to forget A C Grailing and our beloved father sunshine, Richard Dawkins (against).
The debate has very much some of the same themes that have been prevalent in our own discussions. I'd say that it is very similiar to what we've gone by some pages ago with the exception that the debate is more organized and people bring up interesting points along with quips of great wit.
This could rekindle the flames of discussion and perhaps bring new perspectives to discussions of the past. Without further ado, for your consideration, I link Atheism is the new fundamentalism.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your error is, that the unknown variables are neither unknown nor variables, they are imaginary fantasies.
the "variable" is not the fantasies, but the probabilities of them. The probabilities of said things, are unknown.
There's a saying, put an infinite number of monkeys in a room with a typer and they'll eventually type english and mathematical formulas, by accident.
Now I say, put enough people in a world, and some will eventually "imagine" REAL stuff, by accident. How can this have probability 0, when it already exists?
Prove to me that something that is imaginary is FALSE. In all cases whatsoever.
Quote:
The Milky Way is NO imaginary fantasy
It was before it was discovered.
Quote:
I mean, don't you see that? For ANY statement (to believe in), there must be a REASON, evidence, an explanation for why things and evidence are what they are and so on. Otherwise the statement makes no sense.
Making no sense hardly makes it false. It can be true by accident, for instance.
Quote:
I claim, Succubi and Incubi do not exist.
Do you agree or would you say it's possible they exist?
No problem with that at all. You have stated an opinion, a pretty valid one at that. It is different than stating an absolute measured fact, such as, the probability of their existence being 0.
In that case, you NEED proof and derivation how you got to that result.
The simple difference is the same as between an atheist, agnostic (of any kind), and a theist.
Both atheists (non-agnostics) and theists (non-agnostic) make absolute statements, and need PROOF for them. If you say "there's no reason to believe God exists" it's perfectly fine, but if you say "the absolute probability of God existing is 0" you need proof.
Impossible proof, but then, extraordinary statement too
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 07:59 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
Quote:
Your set of conditions regarding the attributes of a Christian essentially requires that no Christians understand the difference between knowledge and belief.
No, it merely requires that they ignore the difference when it comes to religion. A Christian would say, "I know God exists because I believe that God exists." Yes, there is no empirical evidence, but that's how faith works.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 09:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now I say, put enough people in a world, and some will eventually "imagine" REAL stuff, by accident. How can this have probability 0, when it already exists?
You simply don't understand that it doesn't matter whether something imagined happen to be "real" later. If someone PURELY imagines something, that is: NO evidence that the imagined might INDEED exist, than the imagined is PURE fiction. It makes no sense to say, that the imagined MIGHT exist in "reality" - BECAUSE NOTHING SUGGESTS IT.
You might say it this way: if no evidence exists for something, that something is very probably not existing
Prove to me that something that is imaginary is FALSE. In all cases whatsoever.
Something that is PURELY imaginary (no evidence for real existance) is imaginary. The question whether it's false or not (in reality) isn't existing.
Quote:
Quote:
The Milky Way is NO imaginary fantasy
It was before it was discovered.
Not at all. People always have seen the stars. EVIDENCE...
Quote:
I mean, don't you see that? For ANY statement (to believe in), there must be a REASON, evidence, an explanation for why things and evidence are what they are and so on. Otherwise the statement makes no sense.
Making no sense hardly makes it false. It can be true by accident, for instance.
"Sigh" WHO CARES? If there is NO EVIDENCE for something, why would you even ask? I mean, Is there evidence for a brightly striped spaghetti monster anywhere? So it's PURE imgination. I doesn't exist. The thought, oh, but it might exist somwhere, anywhere, it just might - who cares? Thinking THAT, EVDERYTHING just might be possible, no matter what. And everything might exist. However, if everything was possible, we'd have EVIDENCE for that, and I don't think we have evidence that everything is possible.
Quote:
Quote:
I claim, Succubi and Incubi do not exist.
Do you agree or would you say it's possible they exist?
No problem with that at all. You have stated an opinion, a pretty valid one at that. It is different than stating an absolute measured fact, such as, the probability of their existence being 0.
In that case, you NEED proof and derivation how you got to that result.
I don't. There's no evidence for their existance.
HOWEVER, there has been evidence 800 or so years ago - there has been a phenomenon people didn't understand, and they fabricated an explanation. Of course the fabrication hadn't much true evidence going for it. THEN there was a certain possibility they might exist - today though, there simply is no evidence. So they are pure imagination.
Quote:
The simple difference is the same as between an atheist, agnostic (of any kind), and a theist.
Both atheists (non-agnostics) and theists (non-agnostic) make absolute statements, and need PROOF for them. If you say "there's no reason to believe God exists" it's perfectly fine, but if you say "the absolute probability of God existing is 0" you need proof.
Impossible proof, but then, extraordinary statement too
No, it's simply a question of the EVIDENCE.
People didn't believe in whatever gods without having subjective evidence, so gods were no imagination. Which means, every known god has a certain probability at the time of "creation", and people believed in one or another or not at all. The fact THAT people DID believe in them at a time, doesn't say anything - lots of people have believed in lots of nonsense over time.
Which leaves the actual and initial evidence plus the evidence - or lack thereof - that comes when people LIVE a religion.
Which means, ultimately it depends on the evidence and how you judge it.
You may see it different, but ultomately it's very detrimental for the evidence, that there are so many different religions - in other words, if there was only one, this would make it immediately a lot more likely
Anyway, just a question of the evidence.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 10:48 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:56, 07 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Maybe you should re-read some posts better? It is Elodin who constantly calls everbody an atheists who is not a true christian.
Like: "Atheists killed millions, not true christians..."
False statment. I have certainly mentioned Muslims, Jews, strong atheism, weak atheimm anti-theism, strong agnosticism, weak agnosticism, ect.
I have said that the Bible defines Christians in a certain way and that no Christian commits murder and backed that up with Bible references.
Quote:
by the way, do you know about the fact that genesis was composed of at least nine different texts, and that the adventures of moses had 4 different authors. If it is divinely inspired, then why so many versions? Why would there exist a sect of christians called the Luciferians during the period 353-371 AD if lucifer was meant to be the force of evil? What about the king of Ugrid? His followers were discredited by those who wrote moses adventure later on by transforming their god, Ba'al Zebul, to Beelzebub due to the fact it was conflicting with moses rising religion. What of the Nicea convenstion in the C4th to discuss what was to be held as christian doctrine, and dismissed 16 other doctrines of the new testiment by popular vote?
Ah, found anothere website, did you?
No, Genesis did not have a buch of different authors.
Luciferians had nothing to do with Satan (Lucifer.) That is refering to followers of a bishop named Lucifer.
You seem to be unaware that lots of local pagan gods had the title Ba'al (henceforth refered to as Baal.) Baal of Tyre, Baal of Zebul, ect. Only the context would determine which god the title was refering to.
Perhaps you could post which of the Nicene decision you think they got wrong and give Bible refernces backing up your claims and we can discuss the merits of their decisions. My doctrine is the Bible, not any cred or dogma that came out of Nicea. I can tell you now that I don't agree with everything attributed to that council.
Quote:
If this is the word of god, why so many re-writes and editations. surely, if the bible is the word of god, there would be no need for humans to go back and edit their gods work?
This keeps coming up even though I've debunked it a number of times. We know we haver the words of the original writings to withing 99.9% accuracy due to the many thousands of manuscripts we have and textual criticism.
Have the original words been lost?
Quote:
On the average, Old Testament documents yield about one variation per page of text; New Testament manuscripts yield only a tenth of one percent variance. In other words, 99.9% of those manuscripts are in perfect agreement.
Though an occasional scribe altered a text to be copied, the resulting deviant copy constitutes only an infrequent departure from the plethora of copies available for corroborating comparison. Even as later copyists unknowingly passed on certain aberrations, appeals to still earlier or more reliable documents still preserve the original message.
Thanks to textual criticism and on-going archaeological discoveries, even as time passes far beyond the date of the original writings, we may be confident that the Bible of today is a fully trustworthy duplication of the original autographs.
Quote:
and it's pretty sloppy editing, in that they reference books that are not found, like the book of Jasher and the book of the acts of solomon.
Huh? They refer to a historical document that we don't have. So what?
Quote:
I doubt I would want to follow the words of men who thing spousal abuse, child molestation, cannibalism and prejudice on the bases of sex.
The Bible condemns such things, not condones them.
Quote:
No, you don't understand. A Christian can't say, "I don't know if God exists." There's a difference between being unsure about his nature or teachings and doubting his existence.
You are right. Acoording to the Bible a Christian has to believe that God exists and that Jesus is God.
Quote:
[quote
]:
Yes, there is a difference between knowledge and belief, but a Christian still can't say, "I don't know if God exists", as that would be a violation of faith.
Why not?
Because fiath is not "Well maybe God exists or not. Fatih sees it as true. Perhaps reading chapter 11 in Hebrews would help you. Here are the firest couple of verses.
Hebrews 11
Quote:
Heb 11 (NIV)
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
Quote:
The difference is, as alluded in note 3, that while (scientific) predictions of (beliefs about) the future are extrapolations of, essentially, knowledge (i.e., the past), beliefs about god are extrapoliations of nothing. They have no basis in reality. That doesn't, by definition, make them wrong. It does make them irrational.
Actually, the irratinoal belief is atheism. You have to beleive eithter the universe is eternal or that it produced itself out of absolute nothing with no cause. Both beliefs are irrational.
Christianity is based divine revelation, not the musings of man.
Quote:
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 01:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Angelito
Like I said in my previous post, "care" does not define an agnostic or a non-agnostic. Or how would you call a person that is extremely interested in the issue and yet holds the agnostic stance that he doesn't know?
Maybe "care" is not the right term in english, so then take the word "irrelevant" instead. There are different directions of Agnosticism. I tend more to those who would belong to ignosticism.
I do not CARE, because it doesn't play ANY role in my life. For me, thinking about an upper being or about a life after death is nothing else but wasted time. Why? Because time will show, that easy.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 07:00 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, are you omniscient or something? If not, you make no sense whatsoever.
The whole evolution theory is about RANDOM ACCIDENTS, for goodness' sake. Are you telling me, an imaginary "accident"'s probability that is PURE fiction but happens to be true later, can be calculated?
It doesn't matter if OUR CURRENT FREAKING BODY OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTS IT OR NOT. We are not omniscient. Are you doing this on purpose, seeing as God is omniscient. Do you have something hidden in your analogies? Because otherwise, you make no sense at all.
A "very low" probability of existence, because it has no evidence? That's purely OPINION and SUBJECTIVE -- how did you measure it? I want to see, exactly, how you did the entire process.
You didn't, because it's filled with unknown variables.
For a different example, if you say, "there is nothing beyond the observable Universe", how do you calculate the probability of this statement? I want to see, exactly, how. All variables and stuff.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 09:07 PM |
|
|
Death, you ddon't seem to be able tp grasp a very simple thing.
Close your eyes for a moment. 5 seconds. Open them again.
In the 5 seconds you closed your eyes EVERYTHING may have happened. An angel may have flown through your room. A camera was running? So what, them angels aren't captured with camears.
Anything MAY have happened. EVERYthing, in fact. However, if you don't find any evidence of something happening, it's safe to assume, NOTHING happened.
Period.
Whether there is something beyond the observable or not - the question doesn't make sense: you either won't ever know or it's not unobservable.
It makes no sense to ask questions that make no sense. Neither does it make sense to assume things there is no evidence for, and give them a probability ONLY because someone assumes them.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, you ddon't seem to be able tp grasp a very simple thing.
Close your eyes for a moment. 5 seconds. Open them again.
In the 5 seconds you closed your eyes EVERYTHING may have happened. An angel may have flown through your room. A camera was running? So what, them angels aren't captured with camears
My very basic grasp of Schrödinger says that, indeed, everything did happen.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted March 07, 2010 10:29 PM |
|
Edited by Daystar at 22:32, 07 Mar 2010.
|
Doooods, you can't mix evidence and religion. Religion relies on faith. I don't have anything that 100% proves to me my gods (and goddesses and spirits and little green kittens named Fred who appear in my dreams) are real, sentient entities, a single entity with many faces, a powerful imagination or mixes therein. I have faith that the gods exist, and I've seen things that I call evidence of Their power, but such things could have been simply random, as could everything else, such as Humanity and the fact that America didn't blow up Cuba and...I don't know, Grape Jam?
I was going somewhere with this and then I gave up. Hug the trees!
Also, Mods: Forgive the non-seriousness of this post, it made more sense when I started writing but I lost the thread half way thru when I went looking for a quote that I couldn't find.
Oh, something else I meant to bring up: In the debate about who's caused more deaths, Christians or Atheists or Muslims or whatnot, we pagans were slaughtering people for AGES before you lot were. It's not exactly what I'd like paganism to be famous for but at least give us some credit.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 06:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Death, you ddon't seem to be able tp grasp a very simple thing.
Close your eyes for a moment. 5 seconds. Open them again.
In the 5 seconds you closed your eyes EVERYTHING may have happened. An angel may have flown through your room. A camera was running? So what, them angels aren't captured with camears
My very basic grasp of Schrödinger says that, indeed, everything did happen.
Huh? Everything CANNOT happen, neither with Schrödinger or anyone else. In fact, he says, if I'm not wrong it's undecided WHAT happened, as long as you are not looking.
However, if you are not able to look and you don't even know there IS SOMEthing, you have nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, since this seems so difficult, here's the simple steps with an example:
1) Let's assume, some bones are found, let's say 3. The bones cannot be assigned to any known animal, so - since the bones were found in a relatively small area - so it's assumed, the bones belong to one animal. The animal is reconstructed from those bones, is named and fleshed out. It's called the Spaghetti Monster and looks quite frighteningly.
Years later a cache with nearly fully conserved skeletons is found and among others, three animals are found, with each one having one of those 3 bones found, so it's clear that the 3 bones didn't belong to the Spaghetti Monster, but to 3 different animals.
The Spaghetti Monster has been a hypothesis, based on some very real evidence, so at that point the SM might have been real.
NOW, however, the evidence on which the existance of the SM had been founded, has evaporated into thin air. In hindsight, the SM was a concoction. The probability of the SM having been a real animal therefore drops to 0. The question, whether the SM may have been walking the Earth doesn't ask itself anymore. Factually the evidence was never there - there has been a mistake.
It makes no sense to discuss the SM anymore, because it has switched back again to sheer imagination. About sheer imaginations, though, there's nothing more to say. And while for a specific person sheer imagination may take on a certain reality, for that reality to become a general one, there has to be EVIDENCE.
For "religion" the principle is the same. Let's just assume (in reality it's a bit more complicated, so just to get the point), that the evidence there was for what a religion is stating, was a simple manuscript, a couple of pages written undoubtedly in the "right" time. So that specific religion is based on that writings.
Now suppose that some time later - the religion is well established - more writings are found that appear to be "test versions"; it is uncovered, that the author of that manuscript had been paid to work out something like this, in short, overwhelming evidence shows that the initial manuscript has been a work of imagination.
In this case, the religion suddenly loses the evidence on which it had been based. You may say, it's "probability" or credibility drops from a certain percentage bigger than 0 to 0. (Of course the followers of the religion would see that different, mind you.)
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 02:46 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:48, 08 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Death, you ddon't seem to be able tp grasp a very simple thing.
Close your eyes for a moment. 5 seconds. Open them again.
In the 5 seconds you closed your eyes EVERYTHING may have happened. An angel may have flown through your room. A camera was running? So what, them angels aren't captured with camears.
Anything MAY have happened. EVERYthing, in fact. However, if you don't find any evidence of something happening, it's safe to assume, NOTHING happened.
Period.
Whether there is something beyond the observable or not - the question doesn't make sense: you either won't ever know or it's not unobservable.
It makes no sense to ask questions that make no sense. Neither does it make sense to assume things there is no evidence for, and give them a probability ONLY because someone assumes them.
ah, but I'm not giving them a probability because it is unknown. I cannot say if it has probability of 0, 0.5, 0.25, 0.99, or any other probability. I do not know.
I can say "It does not exist to me, until you prove it." but I cannot say "The absolute probability of it existing is 0" because that is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.
You CAN do these in mathematics easily, using logical proofs. But contingent proofs are not "proofs" in the same way as in mathematics -- they are not absolute, they are not "absolute truth" or whatever you want to call it.
That is why, keep probabilities away from measurable phenomena... you don't even define them. Again, I do not assign a probability to them, like you said. Because I do not know. (and, neither does the person "imagining" them). 
Quote:
Huh? Everything CANNOT happen, neither with Schrödinger or anyone else. In fact, he says, if I'm not wrong it's undecided WHAT happened, as long as you are not looking.
However, if you are not able to look and you don't even know there IS SOMEthing, you have nothing.
Maybe you need to brush up on the "Many Worlds theory"
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 03:36 PM |
|
|
Death, it's simple: IF something is INDECIDABLE as in "I don't know", it MUST have a probability bigger than 0 to be true, otherwise you could say it was false. Don't you see that?
However, where does that probability come from?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 03:39 PM |
|
|
It doesn't -- I didn't say it has a probability of existing. I said the probability is unknown. It can be 0, it can be 0.5... but I have no idea about the distribution, so I can't say even the "probability of the probability being x", I have no idea about the distribution and factors.
Saying it has ANY probability whatsoever, 0 included (but also 1, 0.5, w/e, or even an "x" probability!!!!), is wrong, because it is unknown.
"It has a probability of x" --> you have to prove it/back it up.
For example, if I say "God has a probability of 0.75 of existing", I need to back it up... otherwise you can take it as an opinion. (not that it is my opinion, just an example)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 05:00 PM |
|
|
No, it's a lot simpler.
If a claim isn't backed up by evidence it's a fantasy. A fantasy would be something there IS no evidence for, let's say, there is hiddden world in the centre of the Earth.
When there is no evidence for something, the question whether this fantasy might be true doesn't ask itself, because it's a fantasy. You KNOW it's a fantasy with NO evidence whatsoever, so the question isn't even there. You might say, there is no foundation for serious discussion, leaving only speculation, so for all intents and purposes the question makes no sense.
it's not "unknown" since it CANNOT be known, since there is nothing that would suggest it - it's at this point not existing.
Take another example: Could the story told in Star Wars somewhere in the universe indeed happen or may have happened?
I mean, who cares? But can you prove it didn't? No. Can you believe in that? Yes, of course: you my think, hey, hy not? Everything is possible, right?
Wrong. Before you ask that question, there has to be a POSITIVE REASON WHY IT COULD HAPPEN SOMEWHERE! It could IS NO REASON.
And as long as there is no reason, any such assumption makes no sense.
Let's say you are outside. Blue heaven as far as the eye can see. Blazing sun, nicely warm. No cloud, not even a haze. Someone comes up and says, it will start to rain in half an hour. Automatic question: "Huh? Why do you think so?" If the person says something like, I just had the notion, has this in any way changed the probability of it raining?
So, I repeat for the umptieth time: when you claim something, you need some reason or evidence, otherwise the claim is basically non -existing.
That's why usually not the claims are discussed, but THE EVIDENCE.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 05:02 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:05, 08 Mar 2010.
|
On the Probability of God
You guys keep throwing around the word "probability", but either you don't know what it means, or you are just being lazy in your usage of the term.
The phrase "God has X probability of existing" is nonsense, because probability only applies to replicate future measurements.
Think of it this way. Say I have a standard coin, and I ask you what is the probability that it will land on heads when I flip it? Easy, right? The probability is 1/2. There are two possible outcomes to a coin flip, and upon many, many replicates I would find that exactly half the time the coin would land on heads and half the time it would land not on heads. Because prior to flipping the coin I know that it will land on one of these two possibilities, therefore the probability of heads is appropriately given the value 1/2.
Now say I flip the coin, whereupon it lands but the value (heads or tails) is not revealed. Now I ask you what is the probability that the coin is heads or tails? The appropriate value is not 1/2 (at least, not for macroscale objects - quantum realm is a matter of philosophical debate). Because the event is already past, probability has no meaning. The sidedness of the coin (measurement value) has already been determined. You have no knowledge of the value yet, because it has not been revealed, but that does not mean the value is subject to uncertainty. The value is either certainly heads or certainly tails. If you say that, at this point, the probability of a heads reveal is 50%, you are implying that, if you could rewind time to after the coin is flipped but before it is revealed, you could get a different value.
Let's clarify this by using three scenarios.
Scenario 1.
I hold a coin in my hand. I flip the coin and reveal the value. It is heads. I flip the coin again. It is tails. I flip the coin again. It is heads.
Scenario 2.
I hold a coin in my hand. I flip the coin but do not reveal the value. We'll call this time zero. Now I reveal the coin. It is heads. Now I rewind time back to time zero. Now I reveal the coin again. It is tails. Now I rewind time back to time zero. Now I reveal the coin again. It is heads.
Scenario 3.
I hold a coin in my hand. We'll call this time zero. I flip the coin and reveal the value. It is heads. Now I rewind time back to time zero. Now I flip and reveal again. It is tails. Now I rewind time back to time zero and flip the coin again. It is heads.
Scenario 1 obviously makes sense. We know that if we flip a coin multiple times, we are liable to see different results each time. And we know that if we flipped the coin an infinite number of times, we would expect that the number of times it will land on heads is precisely the same as the number of times it will land on tails. Thus, the probability of any given future replicate to be valued asheads is 0.5.
Scenario 2 is nonsense. Assuming we can time travel, we cannot expect the value of a coin already flipped to change. We know the value has been determined after a flip. The act of observation does not determine the value of a macroscopic coin. Probability at this point has no meaning.
Scenario 3, like 1, also makes sense. If the universe is non-deterministic (the future is uncertain), and if you can go back in time to before the coin was flipped, then probability has meaning because each unfolding of history could in principle be different. (Note: Naturally, if the entire future course of the universe is already determined, then naturally we would not expect the result to change if you rewound time and let history unfold again (much as you would not expect a movie to play out different every time you watch it). Of course, in such a universe you do not need time travel scenarios to discuss probability. Probability has no meaning in such a universe, period.)
What's the point of all this rambling on about coins? The point is that God either exists (now) or he doesn't. There's no probability because we're not talking about a future event. For instance, what's the probability that there's a guy named Steve Pickleton who lives (now) in Topeka, Kansas? Well, either there's a guy named Steve who lives there (now) or there isn't. Probability has no meaning, because the value has already been determined - like the coin already flipped, the value just hasn't been revealed to you yet. You might ask what the probability is that there will be a guy named Steve Pickleton who lives in Topeka, Kansas in fifty years. That, at least, makes sense, though it would be hard to evaluate. It would be some function of the total number of people named Steve Pickleton divided by the total number of people living in Topeka, Kansas. Unlike coins, however, the variables aren't fixed in time, and, for that matter, aren't completely random either, so any ascribed measure of probability would be highly uncertain. When it comes to God, asking about the probability of his existence in the future is even more ridiculous, because not only are the variables not fixed in time, we don't even know what the variables are, much less how to measure them. Supposing of course that there are measureable variables at all, which there aren't, because to suppose that there are measureable variables would imply a very different sort of God than that which we often speak of.
So please, people, stop talking about the probability of God. It's nonsense talk.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The act of observation does not determine the value of a macroscopic coin.
And yet Schrödinger's cat is may be dead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
