Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not hard to comprehend; but hard to believe that you would hold such a nonsense view.

It's a "nonsense view" to say that claims don't become evidence by believing them?

Owkay then.

Assume this hypothesis : “Restaurant A” is closer from the hotel than “Restaurant B”

Ok. That's a claim.

Assume that you are a tourist that has no idea, so for all you know the intrinsic probability for the hypothesis being true is 50%

No. You have no way of calculating that probability. You are a tourist. Assuming you didn't do any research on the town, the hotel, the restaurants, etc before you went there (so you went to the town blind), you have no clue. All you have is the claim of the unknown person.

So if a local man (say someone that works at the hotel) tells you that Restaurant A is closer than B that would be evidence for that hypothesis

No. That would be the "hypothesis" itself. He's the one who's making that claim.

…………. Why? because given the testimony the probabilities of this hypothesis being true go up, beyond the initial 50% …………given the testimony, the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true than false, (where as initially the probabilities where the same)

You are not making any sense. Where did the "hypothesis" come from? It's the supposed local who's telling you this, right?
Claims aren't evidence of themselves.

You can assess the claim based on circumstances. Is it trustworthy? Since it's a person working at the hotel, you could reason that this person has incentive not to lie to you, since that would damage the rep of the hotel. So you might decide to take his word for it. Note that language: take his word for it.

This means there is no evidence. There is just the claim and you deciding on its trustworthyness. Your basis for believing it thus has nothing to do with the claim, but rather with the fact that he's working at the hotel and has a reputation to uphold and customer satisfaction to take care of.

The "testimony" itself is not the evidence. The "testimony" is the claim.

This is my justification for why I would say that the claim of the local man counts as evidence..

Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.
And in the case above, there is no evidence.

There is merely an assessment of evaluating trustworthyness, based on your understanding of hotel employees caring about customer satisfaction and the hotel's reputation of providing accurate intel to tourists.

The claim is just the claim.
Claims are not evidence of themselves. They never are.

because it makes the hypothesis more probable..............what mistakes do you find?

(note that I said evidence, not absolute proof)

I just provided your mistakes above.

You consistently confuse claims with evidence.
Claims are not evidence. Claims require evidence.
And in the case above, there is no evidence.

There is merely an assessment of trustworthyness of the person making the claim, based on the idea that hotel workers have incentive to provide tourists with accurate intel.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've come to the conclusion that you can only repeat yourself so many times before realizing these questions and claims don't come up to learn anything or enter into legitimate debate or discussion. At least, that is my take.

It's my take as well. So we need other reasons to be here doing this.

But don't let me stop you guys from bringing up established knowledge, theory and sound reasoning. That I am still interested in discussing.

That's one of those other reasons. There are people here who teach and learn.

Another principal benefit of this activity is to get a broad vista of the types of theists and their distribution, and contrast them with the atheistic humanist spectrum, which is much narrower (homogeneous), and I would say clusters around well-informed, decent people. We see such people among the theists as well, especially among the polytheists (I include the dharmics here).

I'd rather talk with some of the atheists than many of the people claiming they are Christian like me.

Not surprising. They share most of your values and much of your knowledge. You're what I've come to call a theistic humanist, and I can't find much to disagree with you about other than that you have a god belief which doesn't cost you your humanist values and beliefs. It's people like you that have led me to conclude that Abrahamic religion isn't harmful per se, just too much of it. It appears that only zealous Abrahamic theists lose their way morally and intellectually.

I think the theistic Jews do well here too (I'm including the atheistic or cultural Jews among the atheistic humanists), but the same provisos apply. The more zealously religious they become, the more conservative and dogmatic they become, and the less I share with them.

The Baha'i are an interesting group. They're also fairly homogeneous unlike the Jews and Christians (and probably the Muslims). I only know them through RF, a great benefit of participating here for a few years. They seem like decent people, and even the most devout don't come across as zealous. But they come across as tribal, and none have been very clear thinkers.

Anyway, my tentative conclusions: polytheists outperform monotheists in general using an atheistic humanist worldview as a standard, education and liberalism have a good effect on people's moral and intellectual status, and zealotry is harmful to both the zealot and his neighbors.

Still no evidence that what I said was misunderstood in the context.

Shouldn't that be "not understood"? Just kidding.

Actually, I'm quite a language pedant, but I don't share my opinions or correct others often. Just yesterday, I read "passive-aggressiveness" and I thought, "that should be passive-aggression," but didn't post that opinion.

"-ness" words get my attention often. We start with a noun like specificity or complexity, make it an adjective like specific or complex, then return to the noun form with a new "ness" word like specificness or complexness. One can't call these ness words wrong. They eventually appear in dictionaries. But that's the pedant in me.

Likewise with words like healthy for healthful. It's long since grandfathered into the vocabulary to call food healthy, but the pedant in me says the food may be healthful, but it's probably dead, not healthy.

Or when I hear or read "a suspicious vehicle was spotted" and I think to myself, "I wonder what the vehicle suspected. Oh, he meant a suspicious appearing vehicle. My bad."

Where I can't resist chiming in is when somebody is criticizing somebody else's intelligence and makes a mistake. Another poster was referring to Biden's "gaffs" and I pointed out that the words is spelled gaffe. Who can resist commenting on "Your [sic] an idiot"? [/RANT]

God did not deny Eve the knowledge of good and evil. He did not, however, allow her to decide for herself without consulting with Him first because the tree belonged to HIM.

It's already been noted by another poster, but that's a flawed concept. You're assuming at least some moral knowledge to know that disobedience is wrong or that the property of others should be respected.

Eve obviously wanted the decision to rest with herself. She paid the price. It's like a child saying to the parent, "You have no right to tell me what to do."

That child also already has a sense of what is right and wrong, although it might not be a mature sense. He's telling his parent that the parent is in the wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I'm quite a language pedant, but I don't share my opinions or correct others often. Just yesterday, I read "passive-aggressiveness" and I thought, "that should be passive-aggression," but didn't post that opinion.

"-ness" words get my attention often. We start with a noun like specificity or complexity, make it an adjective like specific or complex, then return to the noun form with a new "ness" word like specificness or complexness. One can't call these ness words wrong. They eventually appear in dictionaries. But that's the pedant in me.

Likewise with words like healthy for healthful. It's long since grandfathered into the vocabulary to call food healthy, but the pedant in me says the food may be healthful, but it's probably dead, not healthy.

Or when I hear or read "a suspicious vehicle was spotted" and I think to myself, "I wonder what the vehicle suspected. Oh, he meant a suspicious appearing vehicle. My bad."

Where I can't resist chiming in is when somebody is criticizing somebody else's intelligence and makes a mistake. Another poster was referring to Biden's "gaffs" and I pointed out that the words is spelled gaffe. Who can resist commenting on "Your [sic] an idiot"? [/RANT]

Here is my testimony with a side of links.
My peeve is -ate as in orientate and commentate, I can orient myself just fine without the suffix.
As for -ness, apparently that is the suffix to be used with non-latinate words (news to me) while -ity is the rarer method of converting the root adjective into a noun but it gets real weedy real fast.

Analogy in suffix rivalry: the case of English -ity and -ness​

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2014

Abstract​

Rivalry between the two English nominalising suffixes -ity and -ness has long been an issue in the literature on English word-formation (see esp. Marchand 1969; Aronoff 1976; Anshen & Aronoff 1981; Romaine 1983; Riddle 1985; Giegerich 1999; Plag 2003; Säily 2011; Baeskow 2012; Lindsay 2012; Bauer et al. 2013: ch. 12). Both regularly attach to adjectival bases, producing nouns with (mostly) synonymous meanings. Most standard accounts assume that stronger restrictiveness of -ity is an effect of -ity being less productive than -ness, and that the observed preferences are an effect of selectional restrictions imposed on bases and/or suffixes. The focus of the present study is on the productivity of the two suffixes in synchronic English and on the diachronic development of that productivity in the recent history of the language. The article presents a statistical analysis and a computational simulation with an analogical model (using the AM algorithm, Skousen & Stanford 2007) of the distribution of -ity and -ness in a corpus comprising some 2,700 neologisms from the Oxford English Dictionary from three different centuries (the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth). Statistical analysis of the OED data reveals that -ity preference for pertinent bases is far more widespread than hitherto thought. Furthermore, the earlier data show a consistent development of these preference patterns over time. Computational modelling shows that AM is highly successful in predicting the variation in synchronic English as well as in the diachronic data solely on the basis of the formal properties of the bases of nominalisation. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the AM model it is shown that, unlike many previous approaches, an analogical theory of word-formation provides a convincing account of the observed differences between the productivity profiles of the two nominalising suffixes and their emergence over time.

"a suspicious vehicle was spotted"
No, a spotted vehicle had suspicions.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

The difference is that complex intelligence emerged from simple components, so from an evolutionary perspective it makes more sense that what we would have at the beginning of the evolution of life on earth (and presumably at the beginning of the universe) would be much simpler than what we see now, and you wouldn't expect to see something as complex as a god emerge in the beginning out of nothing with no simpler components.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My peeve is -ate as in orientate and commentate, I can orient myself just fine without the suffix.

That is only because you are well orientated

 

[leroy]

When a Christian refers to "God," I assume that he means the god of Abraham. Although I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not say that gods don't exist (how could I know that even if correct?), some gods can be ruled out by their descriptions. The flood story is preposterous. It depicts an immoral and stupid god, one that is said to be perfect and perfectly good, who regretted having made man, and who cruelly drowned virtually all terrestrial life because it was unhappy that humans were imperfect just as it created them and then attempted to fix the problem using the same breeding stock. Thus we have the imperfect perfect god who is unfair, sadistic, and not too smart.

This god is also said to have created reality in six days in a specified order of steps. That didn't happen. Nor was there a Tower of Babel. That god doesn't exist any more than Marduk or Odin do.

Well worst case scenario, “those stories are not real” falsifying Noa´s Ark does nothing to falsify the existence of God nor the resurrection, nor any other important doctrine for Christians (my opinion)

To me the stories of the bible are secondary in terms of relevance, The way I see it “who cares if there really was a talking snake or not” as a Christian the resurrection is the important thing (my opinion, other Christians might disagree)

But the deist god, who allegedly set up the universe to run without it and who is nowhere to be found, how can one say that that didn't happen? I have no reason to believe it did, but no grounds on which to say that it didn't.

Does that mean that you are somewhere around the 50% / 50% probability when it comes to a deist God?

For example, I don’t know if there are intelligent Aliens or not in other planets, perhaps yes perhaps not, nobody seems to have good evident in favor or against the existence of Aliens ………….would you put God in this same category ?

There's another large expat community closer to you, San Miguel de Allende, also a Pueblo Magico.

If you ever decide to visit Lake Chapala in Jalisco, please let me know. I'd love to meet you and show you and your family around.

Pueblos Magicos are awesome, my dream is to live in one, some day. ……..thanks for the invitation, you are also welcome to visit me, if you ever come to Mexico City

 

[Pogo]

Pueblos Magicos are awesome,

Do they include the "Cultural Richness of black pickups with multiple AR wielding gunmen in the back?
I didn't believe they were real till I saw them cruising Mazatlan but it was still an excellent vacation.
My ex-wife got to experience the Narcos on the gulf coast when she tried to retire there They didn't like gringas even though she learned spanish in East LA as a child.

 

[leroy]

Explain how your idea of God is more plausible than Santa Claus.

Because I think thee is good conclusive evidence against the existence of Santa Claus…….and against the claim “Santa Clause is the cause for Christmas presents in the Christmas tree” ………..I can provide an alternative hypothesis (Parents) and show that this hypothesis is better.

Can you do the same with the claim “God created the universe” can you provide good conclusive evidence that the claim is false? Can you provide an alternative hypothesis and show that your hypothesis is better? (I guess no) so Santa Clause and God are not the same

It would be an answer. What is your obsession with the word testimony?

My obsession? ……. Wow that was unexpected, you and your friends are the ones that are obsessed , any normal person would have said “whatever this is not how I understand the word, but who cares, words are just words, as long as we all know what you mean, you can use any word that you like”

Imagine if I say something like

“An asteroid impact was the main cause for the extinction of all the dinosaurs” (followed by arguments supporting that hypothesis)

You options are

1 accept my claim, shake hands and move to a different topic

2 refute the claim, and provide evidence for why you think is false, perhaps provide an alternative hypothesis and explain why is that hypothesis better than mine

3 claim that I a wrong, because birds are dinosaurs and they didn’t go extinct (therefore not AlL dinosaurs died)………….and then mock me and say ohhhh see Leroy is claiming that birds died 64M years ago, hasn’t he noticed that chickes are still alive?”

Obviously going for option 3 and having a 100+ endless conversation of definitions on weather if birds are dinosaurs or not would be the most boring and less productive route, …………any rational person would simply say,,,, “you are technically wrong, but who cares I know what you mean" “



Also going for option 3 would be suspicious, it would seem as if you can’t ‘refute the arguments presented, and you are using semantic games as an escape route.



It seems to me that this is what you (plural) are doing , focus on the definition of “testimony” instead of letting go and refute my actual argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do they include the "Cultural Richness of black pickups with multiple AR wielding gunmen in the back?

That's not an uncommon site here. I just saw that yesterday - a convoy of three state police pickup trucks with men in balaclavas and camo uniforms wielding assault rifles.

Well worst case scenario, “those stories are not real” falsifying Noa´s Ark does nothing to falsify the existence of God nor the resurrection, nor any other important doctrine for Christians (my opinion)

Let's make the distinction again between the god of Abraham, a specific god with specified qualities who it is claimed did specific things, and the concept of a god in general like the deist god, about which nothing is claimed apart from that it designed our universe and set it in motion never to be see seen or heard from again.

Falsifying the stories about the god of Abraham lets us know that no such god exists, but does nothing to rule out other possible deities.

To me the stories of the bible are secondary in terms of relevance,

I feel that way about the whole book, but that's because if one is forced to disregard some of it, why believe its unfalsifiable claims about gods or accept that any of it is of divine provenance? Such a source would need to be free of error and contradiction. You might find this interesting:

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED?​

​

by Robert G. Ingersoll​

​

If it is, it should be a book that no man-no number of men-could produce. It should contain the perfection of philosophy. It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature. There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science. Its morality should be the highest, the purest. Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired. It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous. It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty. It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition. It should develop the brain and civilize the heart. It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest. It should be true.​

Does that mean that you are somewhere around the 50% / 50% probability when it comes to a deist God?

No. I can't put a number on the likelihood of the deist god or any other noninterventionist god existing. There's no evidence for or against it to use to make such an estimate.

For example, I don’t know if there are intelligent Aliens or not in other planets, perhaps yes perhaps not, nobody seems to have good evident in favor or against the existence of Aliens ………….would you put God in this same category ?

No. I expect the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials now or in the past to be very likely. Intelligent aliens that travel to other stars may be rare to nonexistent, and even if they exist, them making contact with man might be even less likely.

What can I say about gods except that I have no reason to believe that intelligence ever arises any other way than naturalistically through abiogenesis and evolution. I don't call such creatures deities. The aren't the first things that ever existed, and they are natural, not supernatural (whatever that means apart from not a part of nature). The whole notion feels impossible to me, but I can't say that with more conviction than I do any other intuition.

And thanks for the invitation.

 

[leroy]

That's not an uncommon site here. I just saw that yesterday - a convoy of three state police pickup trucks with men in balaclavas and camo uniforms wielding assault rifles.

Let's make the distinction again between the god of Abraham, a specific god with specified qualities who it is claimed did specific things, and the concept of a god in general like the deist god, about which nothing is claimed apart from that it designed our universe and set it in motion never to be see seen or heard from again.

Falsifying the stories about the god of Abraham lets us know that no such god exists, but does nothing to rule out other possible deities.

I feel that way about the whole book, but that's because if one is forced to disregard some of it, why believe its unfalsifiable claims about gods or accept that any of it is of divine provenance? Such a source would need to be free of error and contradiction. You might find this interesting:

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED?​

​

by Robert G. Ingersoll​

​

If it is, it should be a book that no man-no number of men-could produce. It should contain the perfection of philosophy. It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature. There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science. Its morality should be the highest, the purest. Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired. It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous. It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty. It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition. It should develop the brain and civilize the heart. It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest. It should be true.​

No. I can't put a number on the likelihood of the deist god or any other noninterventionist god existing. There's no evidence for or against it to use to make such an estimate.

No. I expect the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials now or in the past to be very likely. Intelligent aliens that travel to other stars may be rare to nonexistent, and even if they exist, them making contact with man might be even less likely.

What can I say about gods except that I have no reason to believe that intelligence ever arises any other way than naturalistically through abiogenesis and evolution. I don't call such creatures deities. The aren't the first things that ever existed, and they are natural, not supernatural (whatever that means apart from not a part of nature). The whole notion feels impossible to me, but I can't say that with more conviction than I do any other intuition.

And thanks for the invitation.

Just for context, when I talk abbot probabilities I am talking about the probabilities in your mind based on the information that you have.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you don’t have evidence for nor against a deist God, shouldn’t the probabilities be 50% / 50%........ for example I know nothing about Base Ball, I have no idea which teams are good and which teams are bad, and if I put a random game on my TV, I would have no evidence for nor against any team, so from my point of view the probability of any team winning would be 50% / 50% (assuming that draws are not possible)…………….. shouldn you feel the same about the deist God ? shouldn’t 50% be the probability ?

 

[Pogo]

Just for context, when I talk abbot probabilities I am talking about the probabilities in your mind based on the information that you have.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you don’t have evidence for nor against a deist God, shouldn’t the probabilities be 50% / 50%........ for example I know nothing about Base Ball, I have no idea which teams are good and which teams are bad, and if I put a random game on my TV, I would have no evidence for nor against any team, so from my point of view the probability of any team winning would be 50% / 50% (assuming that draws are not possible)…………….. shouldn you feel the same about the deist God ? shouldn’t 50% be the probability ?

chatGPT
The probability of a god existing is not something that can be calculated in a traditional mathematical sense because it's a philosophical and theological question that involves subjective beliefs, interpretations, and personal convictions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just for context, when I talk abbot probabilities I am talking about the probabilities in your mind based on the information that you have.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you don’t have evidence for nor against a deist God, shouldn’t the probabilities be 50% / 50%........ for example I know nothing about Base Ball, I have no idea which teams are good and which teams are bad, and if I put a random game on my TV, I would have no evidence for nor against any team, so from my point of view the probability of any team winning would be 50% / 50% (assuming that draws are not possible)…………….. shouldn you feel the same about the deist God ? shouldn’t 50% be the probability ?

Maybe, but I don't think so. To me, 50% probability mean that something is just as likely to be the case as not, and that means knowing something about what makes it that way. I can say that there is a 50% chance of a fair coin turning up heads when flipped because we can test coins. I can say that there is 1% chance of a given clover being 4-leafed if we have learned that 1 in a hundred grow that way. Anything that can be studied can be quantified and odds determined including baseball games and their outcomes.

But I can't do anything like that with gods. I have absolutely nothing to work with to set a probability. And yes-no questions aren't 50-50 just because there are two choices.

 

[leroy]

Maybe, but I don't think so. To me, 50% probability mean that something is just as likely to be the case as not, and that means knowing something about what makes it that way. I can say that there is a 50% chance of a fair coin turning up heads when flipped because we can test coins. I can say that there is 1% chance of a given clover being 4-leafed if we have learned that 1 in a hundred grow that way. Anything that can be studied can be quantified and odds determined including baseball games and their outcomes.

Then why is “no God” your default position? (well that is my assumption about you, perhaps I am wrong)

Is your view on a deist God, analogous to my baseball example? If not, would you try to explain your view with an example/analogy?

But I can't do anything like that with gods. I have absolutely nothing to work with to set a probability. And yes-no questions aren't 50-50 just because there are two choices.

If there are only 2 possible options and there is zero evidence on both sides, and zero arguments on both sides then the probability should be 50%, any other number would indicate that there is something (evidence) in favor of one.

I dont see why isent this necesairly true

 

[Pogo]

Then why is “no God” your default position? (well that is my assumption about you, perhaps I am wrong)

Is your view on a deist God, analogous to my baseball example? If not, would you try to explain your view with an example/analogy?



If there are only 2 possible options and there is zero evidence on both sides, and zero arguments on both sides then the probability should be 50%, any other number would indicate that there is something (evidence) in favor of one.

I dont see why isent this necesairly true

There universe could end tomorrow, yes or no, two choices but that doesn't make the probability 50%. You cannot calculate a probability without information and since gods are undisproveable, there can't be any information to use. Basic probability 101.

 

[Pogo]

Then why is “no God” your default position? (well that is my assumption about you, perhaps I am wrong)

Is your view on a deist God, analogous to my baseball example? If not, would you try to explain your view with an example/analogy?



If there are only 2 possible options and there is zero evidence on both sides, and zero arguments on both sides then the probability should be 50%, any other number would indicate that there is something (evidence) in favor of one.

I dont see why isent this necesairly true

Intuition fails in this case. for example you are given a cat and know nothing about them but you see it has 4 basic sides. Top bottom left and right so intuition says that it will land on each of the sides an equal number of times if you throw it in the air. 25% probability of any side. Now try it, it is it will land on its feet better than 90% of the time from even twice it's height off the floor.
Without further information, like cats have a very well developed sense of equilibrium, you cannot actually calculate a probability.
No I don't suggest you try it, but has been done. and it shows that intuitive probabilities without information are just wild guesses.

 

[leroy]

There universe could end tomorrow, yes or no, two choices but that doesn't make the probability 50%. You cannot calculate a probability without information and since gods are undisproveable, there can't be any information to use. Basic probability 101.

I didn’t say that the probability is always 50% / 50% when we have 2 choices, …………..what I said is that if you have the same amount of evidence on both sides (even if zero in on both sides) the probability shouldn necessarily be the same for both .

In the case of the universe we have good reasons to think (evidence) that it won´t end tomorrow therefore we have evidence in favor of one of the 2 options

 

[Pogo]

I didn’t say that the probability is always 50% / 50% when we have 2 choices, …………..what I said is that if you have the same amount of evidence on both sides (even if zero in on both sides) the probability shouldn’t necessarily be the same for both .

In the case of the universe we have good reasons to think (evidence) that it won´t end tomorrow therefore we have evidence in favor of one of the 2 options

but you have evidence, although it would be misleading as well. In the god case you have zero and so you cannot make a prediction, it is like dividing by 0, seems like it should work but it doesn't.

 

[leroy]

but you have evidence, although it would be misleading as well. In the god case you have zero and so you cannot make a prediction, it is like dividing by 0, seems like it should work but it doesn't.

If think thee is zero evidence for the God excist hypothesis

And

Zero evidence for the no God hypothesis

Then why did you pick the no god hypothesis?

..
Btw I am defining evidence as "anything that increases the probability of a claim being true"

If you have a different definition in mind, my comments dont apply.

...

 

[F1fan]

Because I think thee is good conclusive evidence against the existence of Santa Claus…….and against the claim “Santa Clause is the cause for Christmas presents in the Christmas tree” ………..I can provide an alternative hypothesis (Parents) and show that this hypothesis is better.

We have history that explains how St. Nicholas morphed into a legend and then Christmas icon. Of course Santa isn't real.

Can you do the same with the claim “God created the universe” can you provide good conclusive evidence that the claim is false? Can you provide an alternative hypothesis and show that your hypothesis is better? (I guess no) so Santa Clause and God are not the same

We also have histories of the evolution of gods through cultural evolution. Yahweh was one of many Canaanite gods that included Baal and Ashera. Ashera was Yahweh's partner. These other gods were folded into Yahweh as Judaism became a monotheistic religion. Yahwah doesn't coorepond to anything that can be considered real, no more than Santa. But the difference is how Western cultures have evolved the god Yahweh into various personalities and beliefs. This is how Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Islam evolved from both. Later we have Mormons, JWs, and other fringe religions.

So it's notable that you offered no evidence that any god is more plausible than Santa.

My obsession? ……. Wow that was unexpected, you and your friends are the ones that are obsessed , any normal person would have said “whatever this is not how I understand the word, but who cares, words are just words, as long as we all know what you mean, you can use any word that you like”

Yeah, you're shocked that others have noticed your ongoing insistance on the word testimony be used by you in contexts it doesn't fit or belong. You had the chance to drop the error, but you haven't. You persist in trying to get away with using it.

I can't tell if it's an embarrassment that you got caught making a language error, and to offset the feelings you are trying to justify the usage. If so you are just making the embarrassment larger.

Imagine if I say something like

“An asteroid impact was the main cause for the extinction of all the dinosaurs” (followed by arguments supporting that hypothesis)

You options are

1 accept my claim, shake hands and move to a different topic

I know it isn't your work. You're not an expert on anything. I will accept what experts report, even if you present it to the forum with valid citations. I won;t accept any of your beliefs or interpretations of what experts report. You have no credibility.

2 refute the claim, and provide evidence for why you think is false, perhaps provide an alternative hypothesis and explain why is that hypothesis better than mine

I'm not an expert, and don't assume expertise to challenge what experts report.

I will challenge you and your beliefs and claims.

3 claim that I a wrong, because birds are dinosaurs and they didn’t go extinct (therefore not AlL dinosaurs died)………….and then mock me and say ohhhh see Leroy is claiming that birds died 64M years ago, hasn’t he noticed that chickes are still alive?”

Mock you? You open that door as a habit.

Obviously going for option 3 and having a 100+ endless conversation of definitions on weather if birds are dinosaurs or not would be the most boring and less productive route, …………any rational person would simply say,,,, “you are technically wrong, but who cares I know what you mean" “

Then you should listen carefully to the critique of others, and learn better discourse skill.

Also going for option 3 would be suspicious, it would seem as if you can’t ‘refute the arguments presented, and you are using semantic games as an escape route.

Is this a persecution complex that you are building? Could that be your motive, to deliberately say wrong things for the attention, to which you defend yourself?

It seems to me that this is what you (plural) are doing , focus on the definition of “testimony” instead of letting go and refute my actual argument.

See how you hold onto the word and try to shift the blame onto others? You really lack self-wareness, don't you?

 

[F1fan]

Just for context, when I talk abbot probabilities I am talking about the probabilities in your mind based on the information that you have.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you don’t have evidence for nor against a deist God, shouldn’t the probabilities be 50% / 50%

No. The chance of 50/50 needs to have both options be plausible and certain. You can't flip a coin and if it comes up heads all of a sudden God exists as a fact. The probablity of any of the most common ideas of a god existing is near zero.

........ for example I know nothing about Base Ball,

How about baseball?

I have no idea which teams are good and which teams are bad, and if I put a random game on my TV, I would have no evidence for nor against any team, so from my point of view the probability of any team winning would be 50% / 50% (assuming that draws are not possible)…………….. shouldn you feel the same about the deist God ? shouldn’t 50% be the probability ?

Yeah, but this game actually exists. These teams actually exist. These teams are playing a game where they will play until there's a winner, so one will win 100%. A certainty.

What are the odds of an imaginary team winning a game that isn't known to exist? That's God.