Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Evandr]

It is wise to question and seek answers, in fact we are commanded to do so. To that end we are given intellegence and the materials needed to find the answers we seek. It is imparative that one finds the correct source for those answers and they must not be founded in confusion, supported by fantastic illogical declarations, or hidden in a maze of smoke and mirrors like the vast majority of christian religions are.

 

[Vile Atheist]

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.

Good point. I hadn't thought of P(x) = 1/infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is indeed zero. Frubals.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Would you agree that it is also possible that Bob's wife was killed by an invisible demon?

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Not misrepresenting at all. By definition if something is possible it could have happened or could not have happened. Both possibilities must be given equal weight given no other factors.

 

[PureX]

Not misrepresenting at all. By definition if something is possible it could have happened or could not have happened. Both possibilities must be given equal weight given no other factors.

Yes, I do agree with that. Sorry, I hadn't seen what you meant, before.

 

[PureX]

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:

On the other hand, however, religionists often do not recognize that their religion is an intellectual paradigm through which they view their experience of life. And so are the other religions. And so are the various philosophical positions like secularism and humanism. What sets these paradigms apart is mostly language. They each use different terminology to define important conceptual landmarks, and most of the arguing that people do regarding their beliefs is really arguing over terms and definitions.

In the future, maybe try to think about how your understanding of Christ might be 'translated' into the language of those you are interacting with. For example, I have noticed that if you leave the word "God" out of the discussion, atheists become a lot more reasonable. And "God" is just a word, after all. A word that refers to an idea in the human mind.

 

[PureX]

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.

That's clever, but wrong. If possibility is infinite, then so is probability. To claim that something is possible, but that it's probability is absolutely zero, is to contradict one's self logically. It's the same as saying something is possible, but impossible.

 

[McBell]

If possibility is infinite, then so is probability.

How do you figure?
What is the probability that I will become pregnant?
I seriously doubt that it is infinity probable as you seem to be claiming here.

To claim that something is possible, but that it's probability is absolutely zero, is to contradict one's self logically. It's the same as saying something is possible, but impossible.

I agree.
However, this is NOT what was said.

Why did you feel the need to add the word absolutely?
In doing so you change the dynamics of the arguments.
Thus you created a strawman.

 

[PureX]

How do you figure?
What is the probability that I will become pregnant?

If there is a possibility, then there is a probability. Both may be very low, but if we claim that what's possible is infinite, then what's probable is also infinite.

I seriously doubt that it is infinity probable as you seem to be claiming here.

But logically, if it is possible, there is SOME probability.

Why did you feel the need to add the word absolutely?
In doing so you change the dynamics of the arguments.
Thus you created a strawman.

I was responding to "Commoner". He did that with the math when he defined probability as absolutely zero.

I may have confused your posts a bit, and responded to your post as if it were his.

 

[Commoner]

1. That's clever, but wrong. 2. If possibility is infinite, then so is probability. 3.To claim that something is possible, but that it's probability is absolutely zero, is to contradict one's self logically. 4.It's the same as saying something is possible, but impossible.

1. It is clever, it is also correct. Take a look at any math textbook that deals with probability or even just statistics. I'm sure you have one lying around.

2. "Posibility is infinite" - what does that even mean? :no:

3. Yes, a possible event can have the probability of 0. This is not a contradiction, because (and I'll say it for the last time) possibility =/= probability.

4. It's not possible and impossible, it's possible and the probability of it happening is zero (0).

Sorry, that's how math works, some things are just counterintuitive. It is true, however, that we often misuse "probability" in casual conversation to mean something that it doesn't, so I suggest we simply avoid using it.

 

[Commoner]

But logically, if it is possible, there is SOME probability.
I was responding to "Commoner". He did that with the math when he defined probability as absolutely zero.

You are not using "probability" correctly. This is not a "common sense" issue.

 

[Commoner]

If there is a possibility, then there is a probability. Both may be very low, but if we claim that what's possible is infinite, then what's probable is also infinite.

It is either "possible" or "not possible". There is no low or high.

 

[Copernicus]

You are not using "probability" correctly. This is not a "common sense" issue.

This is why I like to use the word "plausible" rather than "probable" in these discussions. Technically, God is implausible, not improbable. Probability implies that there is some kind of quantification process involved.

 

[PureX]

This is why I like to use the word "plausible" rather than "probable" in these discussions. Technically, God is implausible, not improbable. Probability implies that there is some kind of quantification process involved.

I like the word 'plausible' better, too. But I do think that for most people there is some degree of quantification; as evidence 'accumulates' it increases plausibility for them.

 

[PureX]

It is either "possible" or "not possible". There is no low or high.

But 'possible' is where the probability scale begins, and 'impossible' is where it ends.

 

[PureX]

You are not using "probability" correctly. This is not a "common sense" issue.

I have lost track of this part of the conversation, and mixed up posters. I'm sorry.

 

[Commoner]

I like the word 'plausible' better, too. But I do think that for most people there is some degree of quantification; as evidence 'accumulates' it increases plausibility for them.

Yes, let's agree on "plausible". Well, the "quantification" would come in when you'd try and assign actual "numbers" to it, wouldn't it?

That being said, we still have to agree on some sort of methodology regarding the "evidence". Clearly, we can't accept just anything as "good enough" to be evidence.

 

[Copernicus]

In the context of this discussion, I think that Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis is very relevant. Stenger argues that one can take the question of God's existence as a scientific hypothesis that can and has been tested. Normally, people assume that one cannot prove or disprove God's existence from a scientific perspective--that science has nothing to say about the matter. Stenger demurs in an interesting way. He argues that the empirical evidence weighs against the existence of God.

 

[Vile Atheist]

That's clever, but wrong. If possibility is infinite, then so is probability

Not so. Take his number analogy. There is an infinite amount of numbers you can choose between 1 and 10. The probability of choosing one number is 1 over infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero. This means that the greater the value of x, the smaller the probability. As x approaches infinity (goes on indefinitely), the probability gets closer and closer to zero.

Infinity is not a number, it is only a symbol to represent something. Thus we cannot actually mathematically calculate the probability of 1/infinity. But we say the limit is zero. Thus we say the probability of an event being 1/infinity is zero.

 

[PureX]

Yes, let's agree on "plausible". Well, the "quantification" would come in when you'd try and assign actual "numbers" to it, wouldn't it?

That being said, we still have to agree on some sort of methodology regarding the "evidence". Clearly, we can't accept just anything as "good enough" to be evidence.

I think the biggest problem is going to be that we're going to come down to subjective experience, and subjective reasoning. I would contend that collective experience, subjective or otherwise, must stand as evidence of something. The rest of that aspect of the discussion will likely fall to what that something is, exactly. For example, millions of people "experience God" in some way. So the questions become, what are these ways? Can we categorize them somehow? And then can we ascertain how these experiences effect the plausibility of there being an actual God?

The same difficulty arises with subjective reasoning. Some people look at the universe and see 'cause/effect' everywhere, and so naturally are led to ask about the first cause. Then we have the "God of the gaps" proposal. I personally tend to steer away from that, but on the other hand, it has some legitimacy in that the question is reasonable. So is the answer if the definition of the term "God" is left mostly undefined. (I realize that strictly speaking, this becomes a pointless point.) And as you know, I have a little bit different take on the 'first cause' question. And my take will lead us into questions like: does the nature and character of the universe tell us anything about the nature and character of it's source? And this will naturally lead to subjective definition of the nature and character of the universe. Nevertheless, I believe these should stand as evidence, regardless of their subjectivity, just as we use 12 jurors to resolve evidence of a criminal trial. We know those jurors MAY be wrong, but we don't have any better way to deal with unverifiable evidence.

What do you think?