U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-22-2011, 04:28 AM
 
34,660 posts, read 8,934,164 times
Reputation: 4805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue View Post
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill ...page 12

I would add this though:
1. Any given explanation we have now will likely have a very small probability of being correct, given the wide ranges of possibilities

KC replies

What's the range and distribution of the probabilities?

Boxcar says

Stictly speaking, a "probablity" doesn't have a range and distribution.
The range and distribution are used to describe data that leads to a probability. So while the probability might not change, the range and distribution would be dependent on the data. In other words, you could change the sample size and come up with different ranges and distributions of the data.So the correct questions is, what are the range and distribution of the data.
In this case, the range of data is "infinity" and the distribution is also infinite, since each theory is different.

KC reply

Sorry, math disagrees with you : Probability distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Box reply

Yours was either a dishonest post or you don't understand the terms we are discussing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mistakenly believe "probability" and a "probability distribution" are the same thing. They are not.
There is a clear difference between "probability" and a "probability distribution"
Probability is simply the likelyhood of a single event happening, and it can mathmatically be expressed in a range from 0 to 1. Thus the probability of a coin toss landing on heads is roughly equal to .5.
There is no mention of range and distribution in reporting a simple probability.
Accordingly, as I correctly stated, a "probability" does not have a range and distribution, it's underlying data does.
However, as a curtesy to you I went on to correctly calculate the range and distribution of the underlying data, which in both cases was "infinite". because there are an infinte number of possible theories.
A "probability distribution" on the other hand describes the "probability" of every individual possible outcome. For example, if we through a pair of dice, the probability distribution would tell us the likely hood of getting every possible outcome, while Probability would tell us the likelyhood of getting an individual outcome.

Here is my unedited original post:
Quote:
Stictly speaking, a "probablity" doesn't have a range and distribution.
The range and distribution are used to describe data that leads to a probability. So while the probability might not change, the range and distribution would be dependent on the data. In other words, you could change the sample size and come up with different ranges and distributions of the data.
So the correct questions is, what are the range and distribution of the data.
In this case, the range of data is "infinity" and the distribution is also infinite, since each theory is different.

Blue says...

You are implying a probability event in a random variable without... ability in taking necessary certain values due to an infinite circumstance which you above describe and then employ

In other words....lets say I ask you to pick a number , any number as long in whole numbers as you like.....(infinite)....in this example there lies no probability factor or distribution. There is simply no instance in required value without a required barrior...."infinite".. probability is a relative concept

therefore your comment at the top of this page which started this whole thing off...Box says
I would add this though:
1. Any given explanation we have now will likely have a very small probability of being correct, given the wide ranges of possibilities

Blue continuing...by saying the data is "infinite" in order to dress up the alledged distribution, the word probability cannot be fixed to the subject..it is illogical due to lack in value or defined pool to draw a consequential distribution from....
I'd say that's right. A probability is where a particular postulate, as it might be Goddunit, an asteroid strike or winning the lottery, would come on a probability grid or spread. We could then estimate the probability or improbability on the basis of what information we have.

So far as I can see, fiddling around with the parameters of probability theory does nothing to make goddunnit any better than it now is, which is, I'd say, too speculative to even get on the graph.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2011, 07:54 AM
 
307 posts, read 224,827 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I stand corrected, and offer my apologies. I jumped past quite few posts and obviously misunderstood some of your statements. I think my heartburn is/was that you still seem to place equal, no I'd say, more weight to a cause with an originator with one that did not, when we have all the evidence of initial chaos I talk of. Your continuously stated position that we have absolutely no evidence of my version of the BB flys in the face of all we see.
Apology accepted, and you were doing so good until that last sentence. If "your version of the BB" includes the detail of it being naturalistically caused, or uncaused altogether, then, yes, we have absolutely no evidence for that particular detail. As for the other details, like that it happened billions of years ago and caused an expanding universe, left behind CMBR, etc., yes we have evidence for those details. Just no scientific evidence of what, if anything, caused it to happen in the first place. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Quote:
And, to boot, such an event doesn't necessarily require a God, In fact, His participation is simply a complication hat then requires i's on set of add-on explanations.
I agree it doesn't "require" a God, but I find a God to be the best (though not only) explanation for why we ended up with a universe capable of creating and sustaining life for billions of years. I have yet to hear any other explanation that doesn't ultimately boil down to "it just happened for no particular reason". I find hypotheses that explain the facts preferable to those that don't.

Quote:
To that little problem (for you) we have ongoing and relentless evidence, proof in fact, of the absolute lack of any need for your God in all the more mundane events of life on this planet to date
Saying it doesn't "need" a God isn't the same as saying there is no God. And, again, claiming that "the mundane events can be shown to occur without any involvement from God, therefore God didn't cause the universe to happen", is like pointing to a top spinning on a table and saying, "since it continues to spin without anyone holding it up, then no one must have set it spinning in the first place."

Quote:
The existence of Jesus as the son of a non-existent God versus being just a wandering minstrel, is another little problem of simple logic, well addressed by the SM (event dating, local anthropology and paleontology.)
No, that's not something the SM can test or falsify.

Quote:
Again, I will continue to claim now that your personal understanding of the SM is somewhat faulty, since you don't see how it's worked to date, and yet it's SO DURNED LOGICAL!
I may not be a scientist myself, but I do understand how the SM basically works, and agree that it's an excellent tool, when used properly. I have no particular disagreement with any knowledge that has been gained via the SM through its proper use.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 07:59 AM
 
307 posts, read 224,827 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Re: (1); You disallow anything as ever happening by pure chance?
Of course not. Neither do I disallow the possibility of the universe having been created by pure chance. I think it's possible, just very unlikely.

Quote:
Given the simple precursors of amino acids, they will form up (been proven now, in the last year). Then, for those to "arbitrarily" link up into DNA "by chance"? Sorry, but also proven. Then, Venter (the inventor of the human DNA Mapping Project, BTW, and not an intellectual lightweight) did that little study last year where he inserted some "chancy" DNA into a lipid ballon (lifeless and darned if it didn't close up the cell walls and start reproducing. Wow, huh? And all "chaotic" according to you. Nope; directed by molecular interaction rules, and once established, DNA does an admirable job of retaining whatever it's learned, and by reproduction and testing, a simple-enough process, it tests and learns.
All of which requires time and a universe capable of creating and sustaining life. Having both suggests, to me, that our universe was purposely, not naturalistically, created.

Quote:
Chaos? Nope.
A universe that was created naturalistically probably would be too chaotic for this stuff to happen.

Quote:
(2): Yep; we know (again, sorry 'bout that...) these simple organisms did continue to exist and survive to this day. That basic simplicity is the reason they could achieve this stability and durability.
That's not the only reason, though. Try putting these organisms into a universe that is totally hostile to life, and their structure and simplicity won't allow them to thrive for billions of years.

Quote:
Finally, as to my OP's original point: all these facts-in-evidence are all achieved by the SM's singular and directed approach: it eliminates a mystical supernatural rationale as non-functioning, and it also provides all the probable Godless alternatives you seem (or need?) to so dislike.
The SM does neither of these things. It's unable to test what caused the universe to exist, nor can it test whether God has intervened in the past. For example, the SM can't test or falsify whether Jesus was resurrected or not, since it is not an event that we would expect to be testable or repeatable via the SM.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 08:33 AM
 
307 posts, read 224,827 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
As I recall, you were referring to my statement about being completely content with not necessarily knowing everything, about not having some glorified perspective about the existence of a heavenly afterlife, etc., and being able to doze of each night to a peaceful, not fitful, atheists' sleep.
Correct.

Quote:
Your response, that this is ridiculous, tells me so very much about you, in fact. It completely confirms what I've said all along, that Christians just cannot accept there's potentially nowhere to go after this apparently miserable (to them, anyways..) life,
Saying we don't believe in it isn't the same as saying we can't accept it. If "absolutely nothing" comes after this world, then we have "absolutely nothing" to fear about death. And I ain't afraid of "nothing"!

I could just as easily argue that atheists don't believe in the afterlife because they're afraid of hell (which is something to potentially fear about what comes next), but that would be just as irrational and just as wrong as what you're saying. I don't believe that most atheists disbelieve because of a fear of what comes after, and the same holds true for most Christians. There may be some on both sides who do believe out of some sort of fear of what comes after, but I think they're a small minority in each case, and certainly aren't representative of the majority.

Quote:
and so they are very creative and inventive about defending that beloved (and critically necessary) myth.
The problem seems to be that you are so sure it's a myth and so sure that what you believe is true that you can only assume that no rational person can disagree with you, therefore you assume that our believing what we do can only be done through irrationality. It's just not possible (to you) that one can be swayed through logic, since it's not the logic that you happen to agree with.

Quote:
Well, on that note, you have my sincere condolences. We atheists, knowing there really is no such handy soul-saving process awaiting even those who "religiously' tow the line, must therefore, of needs, come to some other peaceful conclusion.
Exactly my point. You're so convinced that God doesn't exist that you pretend to "know" it for a fact (which you don't), thus anyone who believes otherwise is clearly irrational and self-deluded. I've seen that exact same kind of arrogance in a few Christians, I must admit, but it's just as arrogant and wrong for them as it is for you.

I accept the fact that different people can have different perspectives on things, and I can't say for sure who's right and who's wrong. I've considered the state of the universe and the evidence for what happened in the early 1st century, and concluded that God's existence and Jesus' resurrection best explains the way things are. But I completely understand why other people looking at the same things I am come to different conclusions, and I respect those people and their conclusions and am willing to debate them without acting like they believe what they do out of some sort of fear or desire or self-delusion or because it helps them sleep better at night. If I accused them this, it would not sway their thinking, it would do nothing to further the debate, and would just make me look like an arrogant know-it-all and an embarrassment to anyone else on the board who happens to be watching, unless they're as arrogant as I'd be pretending to be.

Quote:
No, we don't look forward to death, but we can and do realize this life, the one we're in now, is frankly all there is.
You believe it's all there is, but you can't possibly know for certain. You can act like you do all you want, but you don't.

Quote:
You could even say, relative to the OP here, that the SM has proven that. Logically.
How so?

Quote:
So, yupsters-indeedy-do, I'm quite happy to witness life around me, without any internalized deceptions, and with all it's glories and problems.
I don't even need to respond, since it seems like you're making my case with practically every sentence you type. You clearly cannot come to grips with the idea that people are able to view God and Christianity any different than you do, and can only conclude that anyone who does is deceiving themselves. It's the same kind of thing that those on the extreme right or extreme left, politically, do about those on the opposite side of the center line.

Quote:
Not to mention deliberately denying the SM and it;s abilities.
I've never denied the SM and its abilities, when used properly.

Quote:
But certainly absent a grandé-sized delusional myth and über-denialist mentality.
I'm not going to respond to this, but I wanted to quote it so that maybe you would take a harder look at what you're writing and think about it a bit.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 08:40 AM
 
307 posts, read 224,827 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I think so my friend. I believe KD is a Deist who in no way disputes the scientific methodology, but only disputes that it's application refutes Deism.
For the record, I'm a Christian, not a Deist. But I used to be a Deist, and my perspective on how and why God created the universe hasn't changed since I've been one. I guess you could say that I'm a Deist who also believes that Jesus was resurrected. But for now, I'm only debating Deism.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 11:38 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,649,551 times
Reputation: 3293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
But your second paragraph is completely vacuous. There is no way to find unambigous emperic evidence beyond the obserable universe, by the very definition of the words you use. We are again back to saying that everything that has been detected has been detectable things. Of course that's true, but it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything.

I'm NOT saying that what you are claiming is untrue, only that it is irrelevant to whether or not the supernatural or unnatural actually exists. It's a fallacious argument because of the way you define the terms, in my opinion.

Since there is no evidence of phenomenon beyond the observable universe, there is no reason to assume that there is something beyond what we can observe and detect. We don't assume that the observable universe exists because there is plenty of direct evidence for it. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for something "else", it seems rather silly to then make up words to describe it as if it has already been shown to exist. I submit that the word "supernatural" is simply based on an emotional reaction to unknown/unexplained events and experiences. But just because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 07:56 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,786,836 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Yours was either a dishonest post or you don't understand the terms we are discussing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mistakenly believe "probability" and a "probability distribution" are the same thing. They are not.
"Any given explanation we have now will likely have a very small probability of being correct, given the wide ranges of possibilities"

Remember this? You were talking about a range of possibilities. I just wanted to know what that range was and how likely each of the choices might be. Either you know or you don't and were just making stuff up - and based on the bluster and distraction rather than answering the question, I think I know which one is true.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 07:59 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,786,836 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
This seems like a pretty silly topic to dwell on, but you guys seem pretty interested in it, so lets go.
I said the probability was small.

Strangely, he asked about the range and distribution of the number of possible theories.

The range is infinite.
So all imaginable explanations are possible and equally likely? I think I like where this is going, since it means it's just as likely that I created the universe as any other explanation. I'll have to tell my manager - I think I deserve a raise. Then again, maybe not, since everyone else in the team is also equally likely to have created it.

What? That's not possible? Then I guess the probability distribution isn't as smooth as you'd like us to believe. Some ideas just aren't possible. Others are possible but unlikely. Even fewer are possible and reasonable. And even fewer still are possible, reasonable and match the evidence we see. You seem to be implying that these distinctions mean nothing. I disagree.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:40 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,573,729 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
"Any given explanation we have now will likely have a very small probability of being correct, given the wide ranges of possibilities"

Remember this? You were talking about a range of possibilities. I just wanted to know what that range was and how likely each of the choices might be. Either you know or you don't and were just making stuff up - and based on the bluster and distraction rather than answering the question, I think I know which one is true.
Dear lord I don't know why this is so important to you. Maybe you think you have a better answer? Or is your best answer that you asked question that wasn't very good? I'm not sure here, honestly.

In as much as it could be answered, I answered it.

What is the range of the possibility of explainations for the beginning of the universe? Infinity.

What is the distribution of those theories? Pretty silly question, but to the extent it can be answered it would also be infinite.

Quote:
So all imaginable explanations are possible and equally likely? I think I like where this is going, since it means it's just as likely that I created the universe as any other explanation. I'll have to tell my manager - I think I deserve a raise. Then again, maybe not, since everyone else in the team is also equally likely to have created it.

What? That's not possible? Then I guess the probability distribution isn't as smooth as you'd like us to believe. Some ideas just aren't possible. Others are possible but unlikely. Even fewer are possible and reasonable. And even fewer still are possible, reasonable and match the evidence we see. You seem to be implying that these distinctions mean nothing. I disagree.
Let's assume for a second that you have an honest point to make, and I missed it.

I said:
Quote:
Any given explanation we have now will likely have a very small probability of being correct, given the wide ranges of possibilities"
How many theories do you think there are regarding the cause of the Big Bang?

I'm not talking about wild speculation. I'm not asking you about deistic or theistic ones. I'm only talking about different theories held in mainstream science. How many of them do you think are right, and how many do you think are wrong?

Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-24-2011 at 04:21 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 04:20 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,573,729 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Since there is no evidence of phenomenon beyond the observable universe, there is no reason to assume that there is something beyond what we can observe and detect. We don't assume that the observable universe exists because there is plenty of direct evidence for it. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for something "else", it seems rather silly to then make up words to describe it as if it has already been shown to exist. I submit that the word "supernatural" is simply based on an emotional reaction to unknown/unexplained events and experiences. But just because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable.
I don't disagree with that, except that I disagree that the words and argument have much meaning.

For example:
Quote:
Since there is no evidence of phenomenon beyond the observable universe,...
Of course not, how could there be evidence of things that are not observable? If it's not observable, where would we get the evidence from? It's hard to get evidence without observations.

The argument isn't that useful until you state what can and can't be "observable." Only then will you have a meaningful, and falsifiable statement. If all you are saying is that there is no evidence for those things that there are no evidence for, I agree but don't find the statement meaningful.


Quote:
...there is no reason to assume that there is something beyond what we can observe and detect.

If you mean there is no reason to assume there is something beyond what we can observe and detect right now, I think that is probably untrue.
The Higgs boson particle I think is a good example. There are probably many other things that exist but that we can't detect at this moment.

If you mean those things are unobservable by there very nature, I would agree but I'm not sure why you believe such things as the supernatural or unnatural, if they exist, would be unobservable. If a god existed, would he only be a god if we were unable to observe him? If I claim to have seen a ghost, does that make it a non-supernatural claim? Are only those ghost that are speculated to exist but which no one has observed supernatural?

Anyway, that's why I find those statements empty.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top