Jump to content


Photo

The "ill" Logic Of Atheism An D Agnosticism


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 01:18 PM

Goku, Goku, Goku, I don't debate matters of personal belief. I am discussing these things with you at a mild level of general talkification since you were tongue-in-cheek and in relaxed mode.

 

Sure, you have studied enough of the Big Bang that I probably couldn't win a debate about it, so what's the point in debating me unless a third party is present that is neutral and knows the alternative explanations? My point is, in times past you have argued similarly, saying, "there is no other explanation", like you do with CMB. I've heard the same types of arguments for macro evolution, "you can't explain whale bones without evolution", and things like that, only to find there are perfectly parsimonious explanations without evolution.

 

There's no point in arguing with my beliefs because like your beliefs they're not really a matter of debate. That's why I defended you in the topic earlier, because if someone is totally convinced by belief and will of X, they have free will so debating it is almost like knocking on the door of freewill and saying, "let me in to control what you think, you should think this."

 

I'm not in debate mode either; I just gave an overview of the evidence for the big bang, albeit skipped over the expanding universe beyond mentioning it because most/all people here accept it, and did this to point out that no one is asking you or anyone else to accept the big bang on blind faith.

 

In a sense every stance someone takes is a personal belief, but if we are to distinguish between personal beliefs that have been objectively verified and personal beliefs that are evidentiarily lacking, then the big bang falls in the former group.

 

My beliefs are up for debate/reflection/introspection; if they weren't I would still be a religious person. Sure people have the free will to believe anything they want, but the whole point of an intellectually honest debate is to convince people based on evidence, logic, and reason. Obviously there is a time and place for such debates, but an online debate forum like EFF seems like an appropriate place for such debates.

 


Goku: There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang

 

I know, I just don't believe their answers are correct. I am "open" to them being half-correct but when it comes to created things I don't believe natural, random processes can create created things. By definition, the universe has design, and it's organisms.

 

I appreciate that you're genuine enough that you preach big bang to me because you think I am the type of person willing to listen and not be a dogmatic fundy. You're right. In fact if I read about the big bang I would probably not disagree that certain types of evidence might fit, and that they even predicted X but ultimately my position is that I don't believe we are smart enough to figure out how God done it. Now science give the illusion that because the likes of Einstein and Newton's brilliance were off the scale, that science is some sort of omni-tool. No, all I am saying is that science is limited in what it can do for us. If it tells us a bunch of stories about how processes created giraffes, cheese and hairy knees then I say it's only coming up with those stories because it has crossed the line and therefore lost it's usefulness my lad. :D

 

Ironically the main point I am trying to make to you in this thread is that science is limited, and saying that the big bang necessitates an atheistic origin (as a matter of ontology rather than a methodological limitation) as you have implied is beyond the scope of science.

 

So your position is basically that despite any and all evidence, real or potential, you reject the big bang because your personal belief, which is not up for debate, is that science will never figure out how God made the universe?

 

Again I see a disconnect; the big bang theory doesn't say where the universe itself came from; it turns back the clock on the universe to when the universe was a 'singularity', but it does not say how this 'singularity' came about (although there are educated guesses, but nothing confirmed) nor explains the underlying mechanism of the laws of nature that drives the general history of the universe or any potential explanation for the origins of the big bang (e.g. if the big bang was some sort of quantum fluctuation via the laws of nature). I guess what I am trying to say is that from my perspective you are rejecting the big bang, apart from that it is your personal belief which is not up for debate, on false premises of what the big bang entails. 

 

 

P.S. So if I tell you that cheese is created from milk that has been processed you would not believe me?  ;) 



#42 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 01:40 PM

Conversation between Goku and Mike the wiz:
 

mike the wiz, on 30 Aug 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

1. Science can't include God.

What law of the universe backs this Jehovian decree? Me thinks it an attempt to form a neurotic agreement. "Lets all agree to believe God is unreasonanable (unscientific). And yet our claim is God created our ability to reason (practice science)! Go figure! So, I did an experimenmt and told myself to think about God. I did! I felt no force preventing me from doing so! I am unaware of any limits on my reasoning process (practice of science).

 

It's not so much a decree as it is a consequence of the rules of science that explanations are to be testable. In essence no one knows how to formulate a God explanation that is testable with the tools of science.

 

As an analogy imagine you are playing basketball. You could punch your opponent in the face, tackle him to the ground, take the ball and run it down the court without dribbling, and have your friend bring a step ladder onto the court for you to climb up it and drop the ball in the basket. You could do all those things, and 'win', but then you would not be playing basketball. Similarly bringing in God as an untestable explanation means that you are no longer playing the game of science.

 

There is nothing in the philosophy of science or the methodology itself that says the game of science will yield the Truth, but people tend to value the conclusions of science because they seem to work and be accurate to a high degree.



#43 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 September 2017 - 02:45 PM

 

 

Goku: In a sense every stance someone takes is a personal belief, but if we are to distinguish between personal beliefs that have been objectively verified and personal beliefs that are evidentiarily lacking, then the big bang falls in the former group.

 

But I don't accept that. My position is that the big banged tornado in a junkyard assembling 747 jets is that essentially it's a story predicated on tenuous confirmation evidence. I can't be convinced that it could be a random big bang.

 

 

 

Goku: Ironically the main point I am trying to make to you in this thread is that science is limited, and saying that the big bang necessitates an atheistic origin (as a matter of ontology rather than a methodological limitation) as you have implied is beyond the scope of science.

 

I see it different though. As I shown earlier, science can't say anything about God as God can't be tested, so then the big bang must contain Godless assumptions. A scientific model establishes scientific cause not theistic cause. The model must work without God, at no stage can a big bang theory require God or it wouldn't be science according to their rules, therefore the big bang theory is a theory of how the universe invented itself.

 

My point is this; if there is an assumption in science that God can't be involved in the science AND there is an assumption that everything can be explained scientifically then if they grant both assumptions which they do, then inevitably they will end up with scientific explanations for a creation, whereas I accept that the true cause of a creation is a creator. 

 

It's the same with design, imagine if a new rule was made that everything with the features of intelligent design wasn't designed by a designer but by natural process. If you went with that assumption you couldn't argue that your car was designed without going against science.

 

 

 

Goku: So your position is basically that despite any and all evidence, real or potential, you reject the big bang because your personal belief, which is not up for debate, is that science will never figure out how God made the universe?

 

A bit of a distortion this though. My position is that I accept the real evidence of intelligent design, (the ID features) and all of the inductive 1 in 1 evidence that shows created/designed things, have a creator/designer.

 

To my mind if it's about personal beliefs, the burden of proof is on those saying something could create itself, and that will take more than tenuous consistent evidence to convince me. But I am being fair because if someone claimed something non-atheistic, like superman's existence, I would have the same standards, I would require them to show that a man could fly against the facts that show that 1 in1 men can't. 

 

Their version of the creation story, a scientific explanation of created things, strikes me as underwhelming and unconvincing. Sure the "evidence" superman exists may be there such as witnesses, video footage, people of high status believing he is superman, nevertheless that's insufficient to convince me.



#44 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 September 2017 - 04:01 PM



Goku said: It's not so much a decree as it is a consequence of the rules of science that explanations are to be testable. In essence no one knows how to formulate a God explanation that is testable with the tools of science.

And how do we test the big bang?
And who wrote the rules of science? Who enforces them except you! Or do you think they wrote themselves? As Henry Ford once said; "If you think you can, you are right! If you think you can't you are right!"

Goku: As an analogy imagine you are playing basketball. You could punch your opponent in the face, tackle him to the ground, take the ball and run it down the court without dribbling, and have your friend bring a step ladder onto the court for you to climb up it and drop the ball in the basket. You could do all those things, and 'win', but then you would not be playing basketball. Similarly bringing in God as an untestable explanation means that you are no longer playing the game of science.

Yeah. So? Someone wrote the rules for the game--ssomeone intelligent. Besides what do you win except yourself telling yourself you won?

Then you'd be playin g football? LOL
Thus sayeth Goku! Yep as as an intelligent creative being you can create anything you wish--another just so story!.

Goku: There is nothing in the philosophy of science or the methodology itself that says the game of science will yield the Truth, but people tend to value the conclusions of science because they seem to work and be accurate to a high degree.

By inferrring science is an entity, you help create the illusion that sciennce is not just another name for our reasosning process.
All of us reason (practice science) Goku. Our software gives us that skill.

I am against turning our reasoning process into a demi-god. I trust my ability to reason (practice science). Take gravity as an example. I observe and test it just about every day. So I am very scientific!

What's the evolutionary mechanism that wrote our software?

 



#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 September 2017 - 04:38 PM

Goku: Ironically the main point I am trying to make to you in this thread is that science is limited, and saying that the big bang necessitates an atheistic origin (as a matter of ontology rather than a methodological limitation) as you have implied is beyond the scope of science.

Here we go again with the "science is limited" Nonsense! Thinking (reasoning or practicing science) can not function when Goku saying it can. Goku 3:16.

I'd like to offer my own replacement idea. "We can't think about the origin of the universe," because Goku said so! "It's unscientific!" Goku said so!" LOL

 

I see it different though. As I shown earlier, science can't say anything about God as God can't be tested, so then the big bang must contain Godless assumptions. A scientific model establishes scientific cause not theistic cause. The model must work without God, at no stage can a big bang theory require God or it wouldn't be science according to their rules, therefore the big bang theory is a theory of how the universe invented itself.

 
Right on Mike

My point is this; if there is an assumption in science that God can't be involved in the science AND there is an assumption that everything can be explained scientifically then if they grant both assumptions which they do, then inevitably they will end up with scientific explanations for a creation, whereas I accept that the true cause of a creation is a creator.

Translation: "We can explain everything."
Right again. We have just as much right to create a story as anyone. 

 

It's the same with design, imagine if a new rule was made that everything with the features of intelligent design wasn't designed by a designer but by natural process. If you went with that assumption you couldn't argue that your car was designed without going against science.

Good point and logical but Goku's mystical power, nature, is the real god. 
 

Goku: So your position is basically that despite any and all evidence, real or potential, you reject the big bang because your personal belief, which is not up for debate, is that science will never figure out how God made the universe?
 
A bit of a distortion this though. My position is that I accept the real evidence of intelligent design, (the ID features) and all of the inductive 1 in 1 evidence that shows created/designed things, have a creator/designer.
 
To my mind if it's about personal beliefs, the burden of proof is on those saying something could create itself, and that will take more than tenuous consistent evidence to convince me. But I am being fair because if someone claimed something non-atheistic, like superman's existence, I would have the same standards, I would require them to show that a man could fly against the facts that show that 1 in1 men can't.

And make no mistake that is exactttly what Goku et al are saying. Though thinking (intelligence) is allowed and good enough for Goku et al to use (only his thinking is sacrosaanct as he speaks from the chair!)
He created it and therfore the truth!



#46 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:21 PM

But I don't accept that. My position is that the big banged tornado in a junkyard assembling 747 jets is that essentially it's a story predicated on tenuous confirmation evidence. I can't be convinced that it could be a random big bang.

 

I don't know what the "big banged tornado in a junkyard assembling 747 jets" phrase means. The 'tornado...' phrase was made by Hoyle describing biological evolution, which is a completely different scientific field than cosmology.

 

I would not call the CMB prediction and then finding the CMB tenuous evidence. When a theory predicts a unique observation, and then that observation is observed, that is generally considered very strong evidence in favor of the theory. In a nutshell it was the observation of the CMB that forced scientists who didn't like the big bang because it sounded too theistic to accept the big bang despite their personal bias against it.

 

I am also at a loss at the phrase "random big bang"; "random" in what sense? The scientific answer to where the big bang came from is that scientists have a few ideas, educated guesses and speculation, but at the end of the day "we don't know". It could have been a 'random' quantum fluctuation, but assuming that scenario is correct then exactly how pertinent is the 'random' part as while quantum fluctuations are random such fluctuations are in essence inevitable given the laws of nature (provided that scenario is correct). Maybe our universe came about when two other universes in a multiverse collided, how could we know that such a collision was "random"?

 

My point, as I have tried to say before, is that you seem to be implanting ideas onto the big bang theory itself that are either simply not there or are part of some unconfirmed speculation in an extended view of the big bang which may or may not be true but we simply don't know.

 

 

I see it different though. As I shown earlier, science can't say anything about God as God can't be tested, so then the big bang must contain Godless assumptions. A scientific model establishes scientific cause not theistic cause. The model must work without God, at no stage can a big bang theory require God or it wouldn't be science according to their rules, therefore the big bang theory is a theory of how the universe invented itself.

 

My point is this; if there is an assumption in science that God can't be involved in the science AND there is an assumption that everything can be explained scientifically then if they grant both assumptions which they do, then inevitably they will end up with scientific explanations for a creation, whereas I accept that the true cause of a creation is a creator. 

 

It's the same with design, imagine if a new rule was made that everything with the features of intelligent design wasn't designed by a designer but by natural process. If you went with that assumption you couldn't argue that your car was designed without going against science.

 

That's like saying the theory of gravity must work without invoking God (true), therefore to believe that God sustains the natural laws such as gravity is unscientific (true), therefore you cannot accept the theory of gravity and also believe that God is the creator and sustainer of those laws (false).

 

The big bang theory in its present form does not attempt to describe where the singularity came from; there are extensions to the big bang model that scientists are looking into that attempt to explain it, but none of that is confirmed and not part of what I consider the big bang theory proper - i.e. what is evidentially confirmed about the big bang.

 

You seem to be conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism; the two are not the same thing.

 

Let me phrase it as a question: What prevents you from saying that God created the universe, in part, through the big bang?

 

Then the 'new rule' would not find the correct answer to the origins of the car. As I told the other Mike there is nothing in science or its' underlying philosophy that says science will find the Truth, but people value science and science has a certain aura of authority in our society because it seems to work and work well. What I have tried to do in this conversation is to separate what is evidentially confirmed and known about the big bang and what is not. To continue your car analogy it would be like me saying we know the cars were assembled in this fashion, but where the machines came from to assemble the car or where the blueprints came from we haven't a clue. No where near a perfect analogy, but it should suffice for the point I am trying to make.

 


Goku: So your position is basically that despite any and all evidence, real or potential, you reject the big bang because your personal belief, which is not up for debate, is that science will never figure out how God made the universe?

 

A bit of a distortion this though. My position is that I accept the real evidence of intelligent design, (the ID features) and all of the inductive 1 in 1 evidence that shows created/designed things, have a creator/designer.

 

To my mind if it's about personal beliefs, the burden of proof is on those saying something could create itself, and that will take more than tenuous consistent evidence to convince me. But I am being fair because if someone claimed something non-atheistic, like superman's existence, I would have the same standards, I would require them to show that a man could fly against the facts that show that 1 in1 men can't. 

 

Their version of the creation story, a scientific explanation of created things, strikes me as underwhelming and unconvincing. Sure the "evidence" superman exists may be there such as witnesses, video footage, people of high status believing he is superman, nevertheless that's insufficient to convince me.

 

As I've been saying 'the universe creating itself' is something you have implanted into the big bang theory without warrant. Cutting out the speculations and educated guesses surrounding the big bang and focusing on what is evidentially confirmed we can more or less go back to the singularity, but where it came from "we don't know".

 

To say that because science cannot entertain untestable God explanations, and that some 'hypotheses' in science explain the singularity without God means that God could not have been involved in the process nor the sustainer of natural laws allowing/guiding the processes involved is a misapplication of the philosophy involved.



#47 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:39 PM

And how do we test the big bang?

 

 

The most salient test was the prediction of the CMB.

 

By inferrring science is an entity, you help create the illusion that sciennce is not just another name for our reasosning process.

 

 

Science isn't "just another name for our reasoning process"; science is a particular method of inquiry.



#48 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:50 PM

...
I don't know what the "big banged tornado in a junkyard assembling 747 jets" phrase means. The 'tornado...' phrase was made by Hoyle describing biological evolution, which is a completely different scientific field than cosmology.
...

.
ROFLMFAO^10!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe that I can only think of the loathesome, detestable Bill Clinton's famous words, "I feel your pain."

That was so funny.

Let's not forget that it was this idiotic "analogy" that "G g" clung to at the beginning of her downward spiral!

Precious.
.

Schera, I'm no mathematician on probability I will admit, BUT, that doesn't mean I can't understand that a tornado ripping through a junkyard isn't going to assemble a 747 jet.
.

.
How is the truth-value of your statement about the natural phenomenon's inability to create a man-made object relevant to our discussions on this forum? We discuss the alleged process of some first life (natural entity) changing into some other form of life (natural entity): Natural into Natural. I've stated nothing about what occured, only what is the alleged process. Your analogy states something about the process of going from a natural entity (tornado) to a man-made entity (jet). Perhaps, you've committed some named fallacy. You would know.

If you don't mind my interjecting, I see Mike's familiar junkyard tornado analogy as applicable to emphasizing and making more imaginable, the likely hood of life forming from non-life due to natural processes. Perhaps the analogy would be more accurate that if instead of a tornado, millions of years of sunlight, wind, rain, oxidation, and an occasionally tornado were allowed to act on that "junkyard".

The natural - natural and manmade-manmade argument is not an invalidation to the analogy. It is instead the natural processes acting on the physical. But the goal is to form a complex, inter coordinating, functioning physical thing. It does not matter if a jet is man-made because we are not trying to say that literally a 747 is going to be formed. The analogy is that life REQUIRES very specific interdependent, functional, micro-machinery, with numerous essential parts including instructional information and information storage systems for its own assembly and propagation. And the "parts" to form that micro-machinery require specific proteins which themselves need instructional information and micro organelles with which to build and assemble them. Then, the Natural components...the energy supplied by sun, wind, etc.,plus the naturally occurring raw materials available.... instead of helping to build this integrated micro-machinery, continually work to degrade and disassemble instead of actually building.

So the tornado might actually have a BETTER probability of forming a 747, than life has of forming withing the age of the Earth given the natural forces/materials available.

.
I re-read your post and the comma after "imaginable" cause me to mis-understand the first time I read the first sentence. Now that I understand, I'm baffled at who "liked" your post.

How is it that m-the-w likes that the analogy he used has the effect of "emphasizing and making more imaginable[] the [likelihood] of life forming from non-life due to natural processes"?

To repeat: [Natural raw materials --> (into) Natural] Vs. [Natural raw materials --> Un-natural, man-made object].

Does anyone realize that the junkyard analogy takes natural, non-life and produces un-natural non-life? Who is going to peddle support for that result?

I'm only asking...



#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 September 2017 - 02:58 AM

 

 

Goku: I don't know what the "big banged tornado in a junkyard assembling 747 jets" phrase means. The 'tornado...' phrase was made by Hoyle describing biological evolution, which is a completely different scientific field than cosmology.

 

It just means I don't think a natural process can assemble a 747 jet. Don't forget scientists aren't just talking about a singularity, but the big bang is part of a greater story. After the big bang they also say this led to galaxies being formed, so they do argue the big bang explosion of matter caused matter to act in a way by which galaxies would form on their own, planets would form on their own, then life would form on it's own, then evolve after forming on it's own.

 

Goku come on - this simply IS the way of saying it all happened on it's own.

 

By analogy if I accept a certain driver was the best driver of F1 of all time, then it follows as a fan od Damon Hill that I also must accept that Damon Hill isn't the best driver of all time.

 

If I accept a big banged tornado in a junkyard, then I have to believe the rest of the story because the initial big bang is what is supposed to have led to the rest of the story.

 

 

 

Goku: I would not call the CMB prediction and then finding the CMB tenuous evidence. When a theory predicts a unique observation, and then that observation is observed, that is generally considered very strong evidence in favor of the theory. In a nutshell it was the observation of the CMB that forced scientists who didn't like the big bang because it sounded too theistic to accept the big bang despite their personal bias against it.

 

It's not only confirmation evidence that counts though, (selective cherry picking) but the evidence that doesn't fit, like far parts of the universe being too high a temperature in the time available for a big bang, since the heat can't radiate faster than the speed of light. Did you know big-bangists have tried to create excuses for that like YECs try and find a way around 6,000 years? So basically you need many more billions of years to explain how the heat got there too fast. (that's what I hear anyway, I hope I have understood it right, I believe I have.)

 

 

 

Goku: That's like saying the theory of gravity must work without invoking God (true), therefore to believe that God sustains the natural laws such as gravity is unscientific (true), therefore you cannot accept the theory of gravity and also believe that God is the creator and sustainer of those laws (false).

 

There's a difference though, the operation of things within a car can be shown to operate on their own, having been designed to, but the car itself and all of it's components, show distinct intelligent design which cannot be created by natural process. 

 

A universe and all that within it isn't caused by natural process but it's functions are explainable. This is why, "science" is so successful in explaining the functions of the universe but poor at proving processes like evolution/abiogenesis/big bang. Think how provable exotic air is, germ theory, forces such as energies, kinetic energy, friction, centripetal force, linear/angular momentum, etc...all of these things can be tested so that they are both induced and deduced thousands of times and there is nothing stopping us inducing those results billions of times be we know there is no point, because every time we breathe in and out we prove exotic air, and how many times have people and animals breathed? Every time a race car with a certain X amount of downforce defies linear momentum by cornering at high speed we prove downforce, and how many times has that happened?

 

Now remind me the results in the lab for testing of macro evolution and abiogenesis and big bangs and accretion? ;)



#50 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 06:02 AM

The analogy using natural phenomenon to create a man-made object is so thoroughly preposterous that, well, I quote from the other thread.
.

Schera, I'm no mathematician on probability I will admit, BUT, that doesn't mean I can't understand that a tornado ripping through a junkyard isn't going to assemble a 747 jet.
.

.
To quote myself:

How is the truth-value of your statement about the natural phenomenon's inability to create a man-made object relevant to our discussions on this forum? We discuss the alleged process of some first life (natural entity) changing into some other form of life (natural entity): Natural into Natural. I've stated nothing about what occured, only what is the alleged process. Your analogy states something about the process of going from a natural entity (tornado) to a man-made entity (jet). Perhaps, you've committed some named fallacy. You would know.

If I am right, then the sincere Creationist who offers anything more than "X is true because I say God did it" is a walking, talking, typing contradiction. This site is full of such "anything more"--for example, scientific principles or facts.

.

...
...

Schera, I'm no mathematician on probability I will admit, BUT, that doesn't mean I can't understand that a tornado ripping through a junkyard isn't going to assemble a 747 jet.
...

.
"m[] the [pee-stream]", I do have one question about your original tornado/junkyard/747 analogy: Do the contents of the pre-tornado junkyard represent living or non-living entities? In other words, is the tornado REQUIRED to perform the "immaculate conception" THEN the monumental result of a non-living, man-made 747?

I've identified YET another inadequacy of the analogy.

.
If I were a creationist and someone like this peddled such fatuity, then I would never tell anyone I was creationist.

#51 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 September 2017 - 06:07 AM

Yawn.



#52 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 September 2017 - 12:49 PM

Goku said:

Mike Summers, on 05 Sept 2017 - 6:01 PM, said:

And how do we test the big bang?
 
 
The most salient test was the prediction of the CMB.

Avoiding the question?
It's hard to believe as intelligent as you are that you don't know the difference between an observation and a prediction.

Predict means that you claim something will happen BEFORE it happens! To do that a live intelligent being has to observe before and after the event. No one observed the CMB's origin.

Suppose I pull into a car parking lot and observe a license plate with LSH234? I realize there are over 15,000,000 vehicle plates issued for the state I am in. And yet, the odds of me observing LSH234 are 100%. Prediction are made before an occuence not after the fact!

By inferrring science is an entity, you help create the illusion that sciennce is not just another name for our reasosning process.
 
 
Goku: Science isn't "just another name for our reasoning process"; science is a particular method of inquiry.

And who is making the inquiry?

You are a candidtate for my "I am not saying what I am saying!" award!
Science is not a stand alone entity. Science is something living intelligent beings do--commonly called reasoning. We do science to aswer the question, "What caused this effect? Sure we can systematically do science with precision and I advocate that. On the othr hand our everyday reasoning need not be so precise. When we do science I feel it best be devoid of the magic you and others seem to infer it has. Science is our reasoning tool--not an entity that can be limited by your or others verbagee in an attempt to control others's reasoning process. Who does science? Intelligent human beings!

Goku, what you are trying to do is tell
Dorthy and Toto, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." It's to late!


 



#53 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 03:01 AM

...
Suppose I pull into a car parking lot and observe a license plate with LSH234? I realize there are over 15,000,000 vehicle plates issued for the state I am in. And yet, the odds of me observing LSH234 are 100%. Prediction are made before an occuence not after the fact![/size][/b]
...

.

A math teacher's illogic lesson. It may have been improbable but Evo happened because it did! Evo logic?

Saw this on another site:
A professor of math about to pull into a parking space noticed a license plate wth the letters and numbers LHS-230 on it. The USA has over 258,000,000 registered vehicles. When he arrived in class he posed a question about odds and logic:


"What are the odds of me pulling into our parking lot and finding a license plate with LHS-230 on it"? He gave his students the information that the state they were in alone had over 15 million license vehicles. What are the odds of finding that particular plate in the parking lot of 70 cars?

Comments?

.
The probability of an event occurring that has NOT YET occurred is not statistically calculable. "In general: Probability of an event happening = Number of ways it can happen (divided by) Total number of outcomes" (source)

This is no surprise as a divisor of 0 is undefined.

To return to the teacher's question. We need to know whether the lot in question requires parking registration. If it does and all the spots are reserved by pre-registered drivers, then there are 70 unique plate numbers elligible to appear in the lot and no others are elligible to be seen. This last then-clause is true if there is a tag reader or security guard who controls which cars are permitted to enter. In this case, we may be justified in assuming that ONLY a fixed set of 69 plates out of X total in the USA MAY be seen by the teacher on any day on which classes are being held. What's not explicit is whether the teacher pulls into the lot on a vacation day or a day that classes are being held. Further, if the teacher has plate with "LHS-230" on it, then he will not see his own plate. Further still, we have not been told whether the lot MUST BE FULL with 70 when he enters--his car being the 71st--or whether the lot MUST BE FULL and he is the 70th.

I think this is a good beginning. I have read the entire thread yet and apologize had someone already posted this.

.
Old posts, new posts, not exactly "same as it ever was."

Please note that I asked the question, The probability of an event occurring that has NOT YET occurred and gave the answer, in October 2015.

The asylum for the insane.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users