I'm an atheist. Ask me anything.

[Erebus]

I think that method works fine, assuming that all the information about how the puzzle works is correct. However, in the movie (IIRC) it was the doors themselves that laid out the rules of the challenge, and since taking the challenge at face value implies assuming that one of the doors always lies, you're left with a paradox: if the description given by the doors is accurate, then it must be assumed that there's a definite chance that the description was inaccurate.

In the movie, she actually had no reliable information at all when she made her choice. Maybe both doors lie all the time; maybe one door always tells the truth and the other only lies part of the time.

Actually, IIRC, at some points the doors both say the same things, but the description of the situation implies that they'd always disagree. This means you can just throw that description away; you'd have nothing to go on.

Oh there's nothing wrong with his method, only the way he implemented it in his conclusion It can't be done in only one question.

but the description of the situation implies that they'd always disagree

a lot of people make that mistake

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Auto, I don't classify myself as a "strong" atheist, but I think there's nothing fundamentally different about how we're drawing our conclusions, just on concepts used. I would classify myself as a "strong" atheist in regards to all man-made god concepts. Not only is there no evidence for any of them, but there is also overwhelming evidence which explains them from a psychological and sociological perspective.

I think the difference comes in, in that you're concluding that god is something that doesn't exist - so, of course you believe that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. Whereas, the concept of god that I leave open to the possibility of existing, is something which is undefined, and possibly not definable from the human perspective. I leave open the possibility that something may exist that I would define as god, if I was aware of it.

The only reason that I leave this possibility open, from a rational perspective, is that there is so much we don't know - particularly, the fundamental questions, such as "why does anything exist?" There may be reasons/answers to these questions - and maybe not, but there is certainly a possibility that some type of entity which could be defined as god, is a potential answer. For this reason, I'm not willing to state that "I believe god(s) do not exist." From a practical perspective, it's nearly splitting hairs, but it appeals to my sense of logical consistency.

 

[aymen amir]

In what way?

till now scientist can't seem to find any other planet that supports life other than earth

 

[Autodidact]

yes, i have one, possible more.

is there anything that would make you change your mind and make you believe in a god? (i am not asking for a magical scenario, just asking if something would make you change your current view)

Oh yes. Evidence of the existence of God would absolutely persuade me. Again, to use my earlier example, if you could pray to your God and persuade Him to regenerate someone's amputated limb, I would be very interested and probably view that as evidence of the existence of your God. (unless you actually secretly used a medical transplant or something.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh there's nothing wrong with his method, only the way he implemented it in his conclusion It can't be done in only one question.

If the description of the challenge is correct, then sure you can. Think of it digital electronics-style. The question sets up a relationship like this:

(door "doom" state) -----> (Door 1) -----> (Door 2) -----> (Output)

Does the door lead to doom? This is true or false.

One of door 1 or door 2 is a buffer (i.e. it always tells the truth). The other one is an inverter (i.e. it always lies). If you wire a buffer and an inverter together, you'll get an inverter, and this works regardless of which one's first or second in the sequence.

The practical result is that when you ask a question about a door that way, the answer you get will be the opposite to the actual state of the door.

Logically, it works just fine.

The only issue, as I pointed out, is the question of whether the person who told you about the doors is trustworthy.

 

[Autodidact]

till now scientist can't seem to find any other planet that supports life other than earth

We only know about 9 planets. The evidence indicates that there are billions of them. The odds are overwhelming that there are other planets with life on them. It may be that we will or will not be able to find out, but you certainly shouldn't jump to any such conclusion.

This would be the sort of thing I'm referring to as a poor theist argument. The combination of ignorance and fuzzy thinking.

If you believe in God because you assume without knowing that there is no other planet with life on it, your belief is utterly without foundation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can only see one potential fault: who is it that tells you that one door always lies and one door always tells the truth? How do you know you can trust them?

Hopefully it wasn't the doors themselves, because you know that at least one of them isn't trustworthy.

It was implied that this knowledge was a given.

 

[Autodidact]

If the description of the challenge is correct, then sure you can. Think of it digital electronics-style. The question sets up a relationship like this:

(door "doom" state) -----> (Door 1) -----> (Door 2) -----> (Output)

Does the door lead to doom? This is true or false.

One of door 1 or door 2 is a buffer (i.e. it always tells the truth). The other one is an inverter (i.e. it always lies). If you wire a buffer and an inverter together, you'll get an inverter, and this works regardless of which one's first or second in the sequence.

The practical result is that when you ask a question about a door that way, the answer you get will be the opposite to the actual state of the door.

Logically, it works just fine.

The only issue, as I pointed out, is the question of whether the person who told you about the doors is trustworthy.

Alright, you people, get out of my thread already. Sheesh.

 

[MSizer]

till now scientist can't seem to find any other planet that supports life other than earth

Dude, have you ever heard of the drake equation? It basically postulates that based on what Drake knew about the universe at that time, it made sense that there are probably approximately 10 000 eartlike planets in our galaxy alone. There are roughly 500 billion galaxies. So multiply 500 billion times 10 000 (and the drake equation is now thought to actually underestimate the number of earthlike planest in our solar system btw) and the number you get is that against 1 that there are no other earth like planets. And that doesn't even account for the fact that maybe some non-earthlike planets harbour life. The likeliehood that our planet is the only one with life on it is less likely than a person being born, living for 500 years, and being struck by lightening every 20 seconds for the whole 500 years.

 

[aymen amir]

Oh yes. Evidence of the existence of God would absolutely persuade me. Again, to use my earlier example, if you could pray to your God and persuade Him to regenerate someone's amputated limb, I would be very interested and probably view that as evidence of the existence of your God. (unless you actually secretly used a medical transplant or something.)

i have heard lots of stories about medical miracles which i totally believe ... not to the point of amputated limb coming back ,but a man who had many Operations in his lungs till the doc's said he has no chance of making it and they were waiting for him to die , but out of no were he became all good , yet again you wont believe a story from a Muslim with no credibly

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No problem



I thought you had it cracked up until this point. You don't include both doors in your questioning.

There's a couple of ways of doing it. You've picked the harder way and almost cracked it, but then got confused in your conclusion.

I outlined each potential logical outcome by asking the first door what the other would say. Whether the first door says "yes" or "no," it can be deduced which door is the exit.

My method only requires one question. If you can actually point out the logical flaw in my method, I'd love to see it, but so far you just keep saying that I'm wrong.

 

[Erebus]

If the description of the challenge is correct, then sure you can. Think of it digital electronics-style. The question sets up a relationship like this:

(door "doom" state) -----> (Door 1) -----> (Door 2) -----> (Output)

Does the door lead to doom? This is true or false.

One of door 1 or door 2 is a buffer (i.e. it always tells the truth). The other one is an inverter (i.e. it always lies). If you wire a buffer and an inverter together, you'll get an inverter, and this works regardless of which one's first or second in the sequence.

The practical result is that when you ask a question about a door that way, the answer you get will be the opposite to the actual state of the door.

Logically, it works just fine.

The only issue, as I pointed out, is the question of whether the person who told you about the doors is trustworthy.

Aaaah yes I get you! frubals to both of you and my sincerest apologies

The way I was always told is you first ask a question you know the answer to (establishing whether the door is the liar or not), then ask if this is the exit.

Well done!

 

[Erebus]

I outlined each potential logical outcome by asking the first door what the other would say. Whether the first door says "yes" or "no," it can be deduced which door is the exit.

My method only requires one question. If you can actually point out the logical flaw in my method, I'd love to see it, but so far you just keep saying that I'm wrong.

All I have to say is... whoops? :sorry1:

 

[aymen amir]

We only know about 9 planets. The evidence indicates that there are billions of them. The odds are overwhelming that there are other planets with life on them. It may be that we will or will not be able to find out, but you certainly shouldn't jump to any such conclusion.

This would be the sort of thing I'm referring to as a poor theist argument. The combination of ignorance and fuzzy thinking.

If you believe in God because you assume without knowing that there is no other planet with life on it, your belief is utterly without foundation.

i guess i could say the same to you ... the other way around

 

[MSizer]

i guess i could say the same to you ... the other way around

I don't mean it disrespectfully, but you'd have missed the point if that's what you think.

 

[aymen amir]

I don't mean it disrespectfully, but you'd have missed the point if that's what you think.

enlighten me please

 

[Kerr]

another question for you (Auto) and other Atheist what's your best argument that god doest EXIST?? Am the one asking so don't ask me for my argument that DOES GOD exist

Have never seen anything to make me believe he exist. Just like I have not seen anything that makes me believe Zeus exist. But to be honest, I am not sure I care that much if there is a god or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way I was always told is you first ask a question you know the answer to (establishing whether the door is the liar or not), then ask if this is the exit.

But in some versions I've heard, you're only allowed to ask one door one question. Also, a door could still answer incorrectly if it was just honestly misinformed about whatever it is that you ask him.

Actually, that makes me think of another problem: one door's honest and one door's a liar, but what if the honest door doesn't know that the lying door lies? Solving the problem requires that both doors have perfect knowledge (within the scope of the problem, anyhow), but we're given no information about how knowledgeable the doors are.

It was implied that this knowledge was a given.

Okay. I guess I read into the challenge some extra details that were in the movie.

Alright, you people, get out of my thread already. Sheesh.

Sorry. I was just waiting around for you to answer my question.

As an atheist in the US, what sort of discrimination do you encounter in your daily life? Is it more or less severe than discrimination that you encounter as a lesbian?

... if it's possible to separate the two.

 

[AzraelsTear]

Oh yes. Evidence of the existence of God would absolutely persuade me. Again, to use my earlier example, if you could pray to your God and persuade Him to regenerate someone's amputated limb, I would be very interested and probably view that as evidence of the existence of your God. (unless you actually secretly used a medical transplant or something.)

now, not wanting to sound to pessimistic here, if this would happen, do you not think that the most likely response from atheists would be that it would most likely indeed be a victim would have gotten a "secretly medical transplant"?

of course, this is only you we talk about, atheism is not some sort of consort which other have to agree with or do, but do you seriously not that this would come up in your mind?

 

[MSizer]

enlighten me please

She pointed out that it would be fallacious to base a belief in a deity on the fact that there appears to be no other life in the universe but we simultaneously know that we don't have the means to explore distances necessary to find it.

She's essentially pointing out that your implication would be the same as saying that since we don't detect frequencies above 1000GHz, they don't exist, which means scientists are wrong and there must be god. First of all it's a false assumption that the frequencies don't exist when we know we don't have the tools to test for them, and secondly it doesn't change the likeliehood of the existence of god even if they don't exist. Actually this analogy is being more than fair too, because there is good reason to believe that life does exist based on simple probability. Of course again, it doesn't prove or disprove god. Then again, it does beg the question why he never mentions any other life anywhere in the universe. Could it be because the holy texts are really nothing but man-made? :yes: