Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[McBell]

Of course possibilities are evidence. The probability of evidence reflects the value of said evidence, but that in no way excludes it from being evidence regardless of its value.

I did not say I agreed with the point.
Only that your post indicates you missed it.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Every court in the land will consider access and opportunity to the crime as evidence. You can keep denying it, but any fact that effects the plausibility of the theory is evidence. That the theory is possible is crucial evidence in support of the theory. Just as if the theory were impossible, it would likewise be crucial evidence in negating the theory.

I agree with you here PureX. However, all I see going on here is a semantics battle. Access and oppurtunity to the crime are evidence against that person, but only taken in context. The fact is that there are varying degrees of evidence. Which is why we have a Jury system and reasonable doubt... The keyword being reasonable.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm not going to have a discussion with anyone who thinks they are going to decide for me what is and is not evidence.

Dude, you are using a word in a way that no one else uses it, which would be fine if you were sitting in a room musing to yourself. But you are on a forum telling other people that you have "evidence" for the existence of God. I think we have a right to make sure you understand what evidence is.

Possibilities are evidence. The fact that it's possible for Bob to have killed his wife is certainly evidence, just as a set of facts that show that he could not have killed his wife would also be evidence.

The absurdity of this assertion (possibility = evidence) is demonstrated by rudimentary analysis. Let's say that you are right. That the mere possibility of something constitutes evidence for it. Let's also say that Bob's wife is dead and we are considering whether or not Bob did it.

• It is possible Bob did it.
• It is possible Bob did not do it.

Possibiilty give us zero point zero insight into the truth of the matter. The fact that SO MUCH in the world is merely possible means that any "evidence" FOR a conclusion derived from possibility is cancelled out by the contrasting "evidence" AGAINST the conclusion derived from possibility. For instance:

• It is possible God exists
• it is possible God does not exist

These are assertions, not evidence, and even if they were evidence, they cancel each other out.

I agree that a possibility is not a probability. However, possibilities effect the probability, just as impossibilities do.

Impossible = zero probability. Possible = something greater than zero to 100% probability. It's binary. It's just another way of saying something is possible or it's not.

If it is impossible for Bob to have killed his wife, because he was in jail at the time his wife was killed, then it's going to be considered highly improbable that he did it.

Dude, are you kidding me with this crap? If it was truly impossible for him to do it, then it is not going to be considered highly improbable. Probability won't enter into it. Impossible means zero probability.

And I believe there is unobservable evidence as well, regarding how Bob felt about his wife. Did he love her? Did he hate her? Was she heavily insured? Was she wanting to leave him?

And how do you suppose a lawyer would go about proving those things in a court of law? Through observable phenomena!

 

[Beaudreaux]

Incorrect.....Intent and motive are facts that are not always observable, but have to be proven nonetheless.

And how does a lawyer go about proving these things in court?

 

[Commoner]

Impossible = zero probability. Possible = something greater than zero to 100% probability. It's binary. It's just another way of saying something is possible or it's not.

I do have to clarify a little. Zero probability does not mean that it is impossible. Possible events can have a probability of 0.

 

[Enoch07]

And how does a lawyer go about proving these things in court?

Your distracting yourself here bub. That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Your distracting yourself here bub. That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

But it does. You claim that some facts, like motive to commit a crime, are not observable. Yet lawyers offer observable evidence of motive everyday. In fact, I challenge you to present a single example of evidence that is not observable by one or more of the 5 senses.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I do have to clarify a little. Zero probability does not mean that it is impossible. Possible events can have a probability of 0.

Wow! So something that has zero chance whatsoever of happening....could still happen. That's deep....

Can I assume you also believe that something that is 100% absolutely certain to happen....could not happen at all?

I don't usually recommend books to people on RF, but you should really check this one out.

 

[Commoner]

Wow! So something that has zero chance whatsoever of happening....could still happen. That's deep....

Yes.

Can I assume you also believe that something that is 100% absolutely certain to happen....could not happen at all?

Yes and No.

I don't usually recommend books to people on RF, but you should really check this one out.

I'm quite sure this is actually explained in Probability for Dummies.

Consider picking any random number between 1 and 10. The probability that you'll choose 1.427 is zero, yet it is not an impossible event. The probability is zero, because the number of choices are infinite.

[SIZE=-1]A probability of 1 doesn't guarantee the event (but it doesn't make it impossible either): when choosing a random number between 1 and 10 the probability that you'll choose a number other than 1.427 is 1.[/SIZE] So, yes and no.

Any more books to recommend?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm quite sure this is actually explained in Probability for Dummies.

Consider picking any random number between 1 and 10. The probability that you'll choose 1.427 is zero, yet it is not an impossible event. The probability is zero, because the number of choices are infinite.

[SIZE=-1]A probability of 1 doesn't guarantee the event (but it doesn't make it impossible either): when choosing a random number between 1 and 10 the probability that you'll choose a number other than 1.427 is 1.[/SIZE] So, yes and no.

Any more books to recommend?

No, that isn't an impossible event, then. Most people just assume that one expects them to choose integers between 1 and 10. But if you ask someone to choose any number between 1 and 10 without defining the number system you are using, it's still a possibility, albeit a very unlikely one, getting more unlikely as the number of decimal places increases.

So the probability of choosing 1.427 is not zero. You just state it is zero without justification. It's very very close to zero. But not quite zero.

The same works in reverse. The probability that you choose any number BUT 1.427 is not 1. It's close to 1, but not exactly 1. You are not comparing a zero probability event to an event with a probability of 1. Again, here you simply state without justification that the probability is 1.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, that isn't an impossible event, then. Most people just assume that one expects them to choose integers between 1 and 10. But if you ask someone to choose any number between 1 and 10 without defining the number system you are using, it's still a possibility, albeit a very unlikely one, getting more unlikely as the number of decimal places increases.

So the probability of choosing 1.427 is not zero. You just state it is zero without justification. It's very very close to zero. But not quite zero.

The same works in reverse. The probability that you choose any number BUT 1.427 is not 1. It's close to 1, but not exactly 1. You are not comparing a zero probability event to an event with a probability of 1. Again, here you simply state without justification that the probability is 1.

Essentially it all boils down the fact that no matter how many times you run the experiment, the resulting probablity will infinitely approach zero.

 

[Commoner]

No, that isn't an impossible event, then. Most people just assume that one expects them to choose integers between 1 and 10. But if you ask someone to choose any number between 1 and 10 without defining the number system you are using, it's still a possibility, albeit a very unlikely one, getting more unlikely as the number of decimal places increases.

So the probability of choosing 1.427 is not zero. You just state it is zero without justification. It's very very close to zero. But not quite zero.

The same works in reverse. The probability that you choose any number BUT 1.427 is not 1. It's close to 1, but not exactly 1. You are not comparing a zero probability event to an event with a probability of 1. Again, here you simply state without justification that the probability is 1.

I agree, it's not an impossible event. That was my point. It's a possible event, the probability of the event is zero. I say it without justification, because this example is given in every math texbook.

It's not very close to zero, it is zero. It's because of how probability is defined. In this case, the probability is P(x)=1/inf=0.

We should really not mix concepts like probability in this kind of a debate, I was just pointing out that the statements that Beaudreaux made were not entirely correct.

 

[Commoner]

Essentially it all boils down the fact that no matter how many times you run the experiment, the resulting probablity will infinitely approach zero.

Yup. Hurts my head every time.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yes.



Yes and No.



I'm quite sure this is actually explained in Probability for Dummies.

Consider picking any random number between 1 and 10. The probability that you'll choose 1.427 is zero, yet it is not an impossible event. The probability is zero, because the number of choices are infinite.

[SIZE=-1]A probability of 1 doesn't guarantee the event (but it doesn't make it impossible either): when choosing a random number between 1 and 10 the probability that you'll choose a number other than 1.427 is 1.[/SIZE] So, yes and no.

Any more books to recommend?

Touche. I tried to Frubal you but it says I must spread the love around a bit first.

 

[Commoner]

Touche. I tried to Frubal you but it says I must spread the love around a bit first.

Spread the love!

Even the forum is christian.

 

[PureX]

I agree with you here PureX. However, all I see going on here is a semantics battle. Access and oppurtunity to the crime are evidence against that person, but only taken in context. The fact is that there are varying degrees of evidence. Which is why we have a Jury system and reasonable doubt... The keyword being reasonable.

And I agree with you, here. All I'm saying is that possibility is evidence, not that it's overwhelming evidence. I would certainly need more than just a possibility before drawing a conclusion, and I suspect so would most people.

Just because it's possible that Bob killed his wife, doesn't mean it's probable. But neither can we dismiss this possibility. It must be considered until further evidence affirms or denies it.

 

[PureX]

Let's also say that Bob's wife is dead and we are considering whether or not Bob did it.

• It is possible Bob did it.
• It is possible Bob did not do it.

Possibiilty give us zero point zero insight into the truth of the matter. The fact that SO MUCH in the world is merely possible means that any "evidence" FOR a conclusion derived from possibility is cancelled out by the contrasting "evidence" AGAINST the conclusion derived from possibility.

This of course a false representation of the question. The question is; is it possible for Bob to have killed his wife. And the answer will be yes, or no. If it is possible, then the door is open to investigate how probable this theory is. If the answer is no, then this theory is closed and we should begin investigating another theory.

 

[Evandr]

To my way of thinking, to a truly wise person the question about the existence of a God is a no brainer, Bible or no Bible – there has to be one and we have to let Him in because we cannot face eternity alone and be happy about our condition. Ancient civilizations had no Bible and yet some concept of God was still an inseperable and intricate part of who and what they were and I refuse to believe that every invocation of the concept of God was the result of some scheming leader trying to control the masses, that's ludicris.

It’s really weird that, by virtue of a little technology, we seek to claim ourselves as somehow greater than those who have come and gone before us. To think that one can site high minded questions that no mortal man can answer or, in reality, have no answers, make haughty statements using big or exotic words crafted by the best educated scientific wordsmiths and deep thinking sages of the ages, and then proceed to think that such can establish an adequate eternal foundation of wisdom upon which to anchor immortal consciousness in an eternal universe – and all this presumption without the need of an omnipotent guide, is a glaringly shaky platform indeed.

The reality is that mankind simply does not have sufficient depth of knowledge or understanding about anything to formulate adequate philosophies that can translate into real power. A wise person will stop arguing in an effort to claim the victors bragging rights and start searching for answers supplied by those eternally more intelligent than themselves.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To my way of thinking, to a truly wise person the question about the existence of a God is a no brainer, Bible or no Bible – there has to be one and we have to let Him in because we cannot face eternity alone and be happy about our condition. Ancient civilizations had no Bible and yet some concept of God was still an inseperable and intricate part of who and what they were and I refuse to believe that every invocation of the concept of God was the result of some scheming leader trying to control the masses, that's ludicris.

It’s really weird that, by virtue of a little technology, we seek to claim ourselves as somehow greater than those who have come and gone before us. To think that one can site high minded questions that no mortal man can answer or, in reality, have no answers, make haughty statements using big or exotic words crafted by the best educated scientific wordsmiths and deep thinking sages of the ages, and then proceed to think that such can establish an adequate eternal foundation of wisdom upon which to anchor immortal consciousness in an eternal universe – and all this presumption without the need of an omnipotent guide, is a glaringly shaky platform indeed.

The reality is that mankind simply does not have sufficient depth of knowledge or understanding about anything to formulate adequate philosophies that can translate into real power. A wise person will stop arguing in an effort to claim the victors bragging rights and start searching for answers supplied by those eternally more intelligent than themselves.

Your religion does not make you wise. It is more wise to question and to seek answers than to follow like blind sheep. I believe the atheists are wiser for that reason.

 

[Evandr]

Your religion does not make you wise. It is more wise to question and to seek answers than to follow like blind sheep. I believe the atheists are wiser for that reason.

Religion does not make a person wise, it is the source of knowledge at the root of that religion that can make one wise. It is my belief that Christ is at the root of His church, a church established to maintain order, organization and to eliminate confusion. We must individually find the stem associated with that root.

Looking to tie many, if not thousands, of different religious dogmas to the same root is like trying to graft a branch of every different tree in the world to the same root system, it just cannot work. Atheists, by their own admittance, deny any spiritual root at all, opting instead to rely on the collective wisdom of mortal man. I would not want to be caught up in the eternities with nothing more than that to carry me through. :no: