Concerning God: What do you mean, when you say, "I know for certain that he does/does not exist."?

[Willamena]

One

What is the difference between a probability of one and a certainty?

 

[allfoak]

Like the way they communicate, perhaps?

Again i am sorry.

Others are able to understand the things i say, so i am not going to take what you say about me too seriously.
I will continue to try and help you to understand if you like but apart from looking at yourself and asking why it is that you do not understand when others are able to "get it", not much is going to change i'm afraid.

One or two of the posts that you have bemoaned the fact that you can't understand i have gotten likes for.
It seems your lack of understanding is your only excuse for your criticism and the lack of understanding is your own problem not mine.

 

[SkepticX]

Others are able to understand the things i say ...

More likely they make sounds that enhance the perception of faux profundity and you find that affirming.

Covered that in 116, but you've chosen not to acknowledge those points, which indicates you're not willing to examine that angle.

Here's a good video on this kind of dynamic.

 

[allfoak]

More likely they make sounds that enhance the perception of faux profundity and you find that affirming.

Covered that in 116, but you've chosen not to acknowledge those points, which indicates you're not willing to examine that angle.

Here's a good video on this kind of dynamic.

Now your just being insulting.

 

[outhouse]

Now your just being insulting.

I don't think so.

I think he is just a very skilled word smith.

 

[viole]

What is the difference between a probability of one and a certainty?

You can have things with probability one which are not certain.

Example: i have probability one of not guessing an arbitrarily large integer number that you might have in mind. However, I could still guess it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticX]

Now your just being insulting.

Not my intention, though I have been blunt, so I apologize since you've obviously found that offensive (the boundaries of bluntness vary a great deal between people).

Maybe a better way to put it is that we need to be wary of how we perceive things in general, and all the more when the stimulus or impetus is vague and/or open to interpretation. Your paradoxes are wide open in that sense, and people behave in ways that can be deceptive under those circumstances. It's not that they're actively trying to be deceptive--at least not generally--it's that they feel a kind of pressure to respond in a certain way, so to ensure appearances aren't deceiving (we always have to be wary about that) some scrutiny is required, and in my experience that only very rarely really happens in any truly functional capacity. People value affirmation too highly, and they tend to be complicit in the deception that is often the key to it (that's one of the things we have to take careful measures to keep in check--it's a difficult aspect of our nature).

So I'm skeptical of the accuracy of your report about others understanding what you're saying, not that you're reporting what you really perceive. Frankly I'm not convinced yet that even you really have a clear idea of what you're communicating because you don't seem inclined to elaborate or to use less problematic language to describe it, and that carries implications I don't ignore (see previously posted video on that). It looks from the outside as if all this sense of spirituality and significance and meaning and such is in the gaps of perceptual clarity where the imagination and our desires have a great deal of influence to filter and otherwise manipulate what we actually perceive. Without applying some rigor to that sort of thing to ensure otherwise you're most likely operating more in the realm of imagination than anything that's real outside of the mind--a la Hume's Maxim and Occam's Razor and such.

We humans invest a great deal in our personal sense of importance (usually by proxy because that's a lot more palatable and has more traction for most), and in our sense of awe and wonder (our sense of the neato, as I like to say). Again, that's just our nature, and that's why we need to muster up all the more self-discipline to genuinely consider such things. Where we have strong emotions we're liable to fool ourselves, as Carl Sagan said. That's what sound critical thinking and science are all about--they're methods that help to keep us from fooling ourselves. The thing is we have to be more interested in what's there when we don't fool ourselves than what we see when we do, and that tends to run headlong into some of these key problematic aspects of our nature. We're often our own worst enemy when it comes to understanding the cosmos around us--we're very talented at getting in our own way.

 

[allfoak]

Not my intention, though I have been blunt, so I apologize since you've obviously found that offensive (the boundaries of bluntness vary a great deal between people).

Maybe a better way to put it is that we need to be wary of how we perceive things in general, and all the more when the stimulus or impetus is vague and/or open to interpretation. Your paradoxes are wide open in that sense, and people behave in ways that can be deceptive under those circumstances. It's not that they're actively trying to be deceptive--at least not generally--it's that they feel a kind of pressure to respond in a certain way, so to ensure appearances aren't deceiving (we always have to be wary about that) some scrutiny is required, and in my experience that only very rarely really happens in any truly functional capacity. People value affirmation too highly, and they tend to be complicit in the deception that is often the key to it (that's one of the things we have to take careful measures to keep in check--it's a difficult aspect of our nature).

So I'm skeptical of the accuracy of your report about others understanding what you're saying, not that you're reporting what you really perceive. Frankly I'm not convinced yet that even you really have a clear idea of what you're communicating because you don't seem inclined to elaborate or to use less problematic language to describe it, and that carries implications I don't ignore (see previously posted video on that). It looks from the outside as if all this sense of spirituality and significance and meaning and such is in the gaps of perceptual clarity where the imagination and our desires have a great deal of influence to filter and otherwise manipulate what we actually perceive. Without applying some rigor to that sort of thing to ensure otherwise you're most likely operating more in the realm of imagination than anything that's real outside of the mind--a la Hume's Maxim and Occam's Razor and such.

We humans invest a great deal in our personal sense of importance (usually by proxy because that's a lot more palatable and has more traction for most), and in our sense of awe and wonder (our sense of the neato, as I like to say). Again, that's just our nature, and that's why we need to muster up all the more self-discipline to genuinely consider such things. Where we have strong emotions we're liable to fool ourselves, as Carl Sagan said. That's what sound critical thinking and science are all about--they're methods that help to keep us from fooling ourselves. The thing is we have to be more interested in what's there when we don't fool ourselves than what we see when we do, and that tends to run headlong into some of these key problematic aspects of our nature. We're often our own worst enemy when it comes to understanding the cosmos around us--we're very talented at getting in our own way.

Bravo sir, Bravo!

What does all of this have to do with me?
I presume the we, is you and me?

I do not recall you asking me any specific questions.
If i missed one i apologize.

I would hazard a guess that we could have a much better conversation than this if you would just drop this whole nobody can understand me charade.
I suspect you understand me just fine.
What is your game sir?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Strong Faith? Since facts are not involved, faith has to be based upon a hope. Once something is proven, it no longer requires faith.

Hebrews 11:1,6 King James Version (KJV)

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


The writer of Hebrews was innovative as he actually turned faith into a religious currency:


6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Faith is an apparatus that allows all evidential concerns to be conveniently avoided.

"Of course I have the deed. It'll be yours after you've paid. C'mon ... where's that faith yer always talkin' about?"

...

It's the selective application of faith that makes it so utterly obnoxious.

 

[SkepticX]

I would hazard a guess that we could have a much better conversation than this if you would just drop this whole nobody can understand me charade.

IOW if I ignored the actual issue/problem here.

Not my nature, sorry.

But you do realize that if I did, it still wouldn't go away, right?

I suspect you understand me just fine.

When you're not firing off overt contradictions calling them paradoxes and such, sure. Straightforward language that doesn't require me to make up what you're actually saying and pretend that we're conversing when it's necessarily really just separate dialogs in each man's own head ... I'm good to go with that.

What is your game sir?

My game is no game.

 

[allfoak]

IOW if I ignored the actual issue/problem here.

Not my nature, sorry.

But you do realize that if I did, it still wouldn't go away, right?



When you're not firing off overt contradictions calling them paradoxes and such, sure. Straightforward language that doesn't require me to make up what you're actually saying and pretend that we're conversing when it's necessarily really just separate dialogs in each man's own head ... I'm good to go with that.



My game is no game.

You should not ignore your own problems, this is sound advice.

 

[allfoak]

You should not impose them upon others, this is not sound behavior.

 

[Sapiens]

What is the difference between a probability of one and a certainty?

A certainty has a probability of one with and error term of zero, a probability of one has an error term in excess of zero.

 

[SkepticX]

You should not ignore your own problems, this is sound advice.

Spiteful twist?

You should not impose them upon others, this is not sound behavior.

How do you feel imposed upon here? No response to my other points?

I'm getting the sense you're kind of being passively nasty/cordially caustic. I hope that's a misperception.

 

[Willamena]

You can have things with probability one which are not certain.

Example: i have probability one of not guessing an arbitrarily large integer number that you might have in mind. However, I could still guess it.

Ciao

- viole

How is that probability one then?

 

[Willamena]

A certainty has a probability of one with and error term of zero, a probability of one has an error term in excess of zero.

Thank you. I'll read about those.

 

[allfoak]

Spiteful twist?



How do you feel imposed upon here? No response to my other points?

I'm getting the sense you're kind of being passively nasty. I hope that's a misperception.

I am simply trying to dismiss your efforts to tell me that i am unable to be understood.
Not one of us will ever be completely understood by another.
Compound it by the fact that we are strangers posting on a message board.
Meaning, all most can ever have is a "sense" as you say, of what emotion may be attached to a post.

I really have little desire to go round and round with you about why i may not be understood even by the people that say they understand.
I am well aware of the limitations.

Your efforts to convince me of this defy logic at this point.
I have made passive efforts to dismiss you in an effort not to have this be an all out personal confrontation, now i feel i have been pushed into a corner.

If you continue to do this after i have asked you to stop i will be forced to say something to the staff.
This has nothing at all to do with this thread and it looks as if no one else is interested in being involved in our little rif.
I'm sorry but i am done with this...

 

[SkepticX]

I am simply trying to dismiss your efforts to tell me that i am unable to be understood.

Maybe if you didn't exaggerate what I'm actually posting it would help?

Never mind though--that was purely rhetorical.

I had no idea we were in a tiff, and the fact you saw it that way leads me to the same conclusion as yours--there's no real potential for discussion here.

On the other hand I'm curious as to how the ReligiousForums.com staff would handle such a complaint, so by all means, if you feel it's warranted do so.

 

[viole]

How is that probability one then?

Because, according to the theory of probability, probability = 1, does not entail certainty. In some cases it does (if the set of possible outcomes is finite). in others (when the set is infinite) it is not necessary..

So, if I throw a die, I have probability 1 that a number between 1 and 6 will be the outcome. This is also certain.

If I choose randomly an arbitrary integer, I have probability 1 that it will not be 2. But I have not certainty.

Ciao

- viole