Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 04-10-2002, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax2976:


Forgetting the nonsensical math equations he's throwing out, which argument would that be?

I think he talks about them earlier in the thread but I don't think the particular arguments are relevant.

Let us say that one is: Mark was telling the truth.

If this is true, Jesus was real.

He has simply assigned probabilities to this being true without any basis for those probabilities.

That is the flaw - I too thought there must be something wrong with the math but I was wrong.

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 05:09 PM

David Gould,

He has simply assigned probabilities to this being true without any basis for those probabilities.

Exactly. Thank you for stating concisely what I've been trying to say for three posts now.

lpetrich · 04-10-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Tercel:
To me my Methodological Naturalism seems to be right at home in my Metaphysical Supernaturalism. I would say it’s implied by my particular version of Metaphysical Supernaturalism.
LP:
However, the only sort of God it would likely support is some sort of Deist God; it does not fit the God of the Bible very well.
Tercel:
I don't see why you say this.
Remember, many of the early scientists were Christian Theists, they believed their science (via Methodological naturalism) could work because of God.

Another possibility: they saved their rear ends by seeming pious, a trick that is very effective in suckering believers. Some, however, did have a serious interest, consider how Isaac Newton had kept his mouth shut about the heresies he had believed -- otherwise, he could have lost his job -- or worse.

Quote:

(me on Christ being a vision to Paul...)
Tercel:
Hardly. Paul mentions that: (lot of details that suggest a human Jesus Christ...).

Some of them could have been insertions by later scribes, such as marginal notes that were later misunderstood to be part of the text.

Quote:

Tercel:
According to Paul in 1 Cor 15 (not to mention the Gospels), James, Peter and John had all seen the risen Jesus. ...
LP:
Visions again. Anyone can have a vision of something.
Tercel:
Multiple people having the same vision? Now that is impressive!

If they were fasting or eating hallucinogenic mushrooms together, that could induce a seemingly-shared vision.

Quote:

Tercel:
Even if I accepted that all four gospels were anonymous, what basis does that give for ignoring what they say? For example the joint books of Luke/Acts have shown themselves accurate in over 95% (and for the remainder of that it is not at all certain they are wrong) of the cases we have been able to test their historical accuracy.
LP:
That's probably correct for background details, but any good historical novelist would likely score at least as good. And it would be interesting to score the Iliad using the same "technique". If the Iliad turns out to score high, then will Tercel convert to Hellenic paganism?
Tercel:
The difference between the genres is pretty obvious. It’s not as if we are worried about whether the historian Tacitus was writing history or historical fiction: It’s obvious he was writing a history. Luke/Acts is clearly intended to be a historically accurate account. You only need to read the introduction to Luke to see that. That the writer includes so many historical details that we can check that it is indeed an historically accurate account is simply an added plum in the pudding. Only pure wishful thinking can suggest anything other than that Luke is intended to be accurate history.

I reread Luke 1, and that account is so sketchy that it can hardly be called a statement of method.

Furthermore, that is not an attempt at careful examination of the historical record, but a totally uncritical "account" -- and one which contradicts the other Gospels in some areas.

Simply compare to the work of some Greco-Roman historian like Herodotus or Thucydides or Livy or Tacitus; they show much more critical sense than the writers of the Bible.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ is the sort of person who is likely to have myths created about him; the same has happened with many other religious prophets. So why uncritically swallow things about Jesus Christ that one would spit out if they were about anything else? Why believe that Jesus Christ was the son of a god and a virgin and not believe that Romulus and Remus were also sons of a god and a virgin?

Quote:

Tercel:
As far as the Illiad goes, I am given to understand it was written by a Bard some centuries after the supposed events took place and that the only confirmation we have of the truth of events related in the tale is that archaeologists have found the site of Troy and it looks like it may well have fallen in battle.

And lots of other details that would be considered impressive if they had appeared in Luke or Acts, such as boar's-tusk helmets. So applying that same standard would mean that one ought to convert to Hellenic paganism.

Quote:

Tercel:
You use the success of methodological naturalism, which forms one of the premier foundations for my theistic worldview, in order to find out facts about the universe, and then you reconcile that with your own worldview.

Followers of rival creeds can make exactly the same claim. A Hellenic pagan might claim that the deities of Mt. Olympus have decided that the Universe will follow natural laws, for example.

Quote:

madmax:
Your forgetting that methodological naturalism is a cornerstone of metaphysical naturalism. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the former. Theists have been forced to integrate methodological naturalism into their worldview and pretend it was expected all along.
Tercel:
That’s some good wishful thinking you’ve got going there...

No, it's the painful truth. Miracle-working has gone out of style, it would seem, and the theologians are now trying to take credit for having first proposed a miracle-less Universe.

Quote:

madmax:
This is the challenge to supernaturalists: Demonstrate that the supernatural is real and that we must then greatly modify or otherwise abandon metaphysical naturalism.
Tercel:
What is to stop you responding “Well, it might seem impossible and inexplicable now, but it’s entirely possible that some time in the future we’ll be able to give a naturalistic explanation for it” ...

MadMax is asking for some criterion other than "what else can it be?"

madmax2976 · 04-10-2002, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
madmax2976,
I apologize for being overly anal, but you're misunderstanding probability equations. At any rate, I don't think that Tercel's argument holds water, but not because he can't do math.

No apologies necessary. I never claimed to know stats. But I am confused as to why my math book has the equation:

P(E) = number of chances favorable to event E / total number of chances

Now Tercel already agreed that he made up the 10% number so thats not an issue. I'm just trying to figure out which equation makes sense. If I buy the equation Tercel has offered, then sure the math works out, but I'm looking for support for the equation that's being used here and I haven't been able to find any.

Just on the face of it, it seems to defy common sense.

Now it might be that we're arguing different things.... The equation I offered can be used to show the probability of any given event. (And each argument could be an event unto itself) The equation Tercel offers apparently is used to show the probability of at least one argument of his "cumulative" case being correct. Assuming the equation is applicable, he'll have to present his 10 arguments (or however many) and then derive the chance of being true for it to work.

Of course I believe I've exposed the weaknesses of his "die for a lie" argument sufficiently enough at this point, such that it may all be rather moot. I'll just wait for him to rescue his case if he can do so.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 10:09 PM

madmax2976,

No apologies necessary. I never claimed to know stats. But I am confused as to why my math book has the equation:

P(E) = number of chances favorable to event E / total number of chances...The equation I offered can be used to show the probability of any given event. (And each argument could be an event unto itself) The equation Tercel offers apparently is used to show the probability of at least one argument of his "cumulative" case being correct.

You hit it right there. The equation in your math book is used to find the P of any single event. We don't need this one because Tercel pulled P = .1 (10%) out of the air for his arguments. The equation Tercel is using, which I stepped through in a previous post, is used to find the P of at least one of ten events. It is pretty counterintuitive.

Datheron · 04-10-2002, 11:48 PM

MadMax,

I'm sludging through discrete mathematics and probability theory myself right now; I agree that it seems weird.

Anyway, here's my attempt to explain what Tercel did. Basically, he wants to show that at least one of ten arguments is true. Think of it as flipping a coin ten times. Normally, the flipping of a fair coin is just 50/50. However, if we make the condition that at least one flip out of n is heads (where you can also have 2, 3, ... n heads), then it's obvious that the chance of having at least one head come up is pretty probable. In this case, we can think of it in the reverse case - how to not get at least one head? That would mean getting n tails in a row, which is (0.5)^n. (in Tercel's case, it's 0.9^10) Of course, since we're working with what we don't want, we have to negate the probability at the end, arriving at the equation 1-p^n.

madmax2976 · 04-11-2002, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Datheron:
MadMax,

I'm sludging through discrete mathematics and probability theory myself right now; I agree that it seems weird.

Anyway, here's my attempt to explain what Tercel did. Basically, he wants to show that at least one of ten arguments is true. Think of it as flipping a coin ten times. Normally, the flipping of a fair coin is just 50/50. However, if we make the condition that at least one flip out of n is heads (where you can also have 2, 3, ... n heads), then it's obvious that the chance of having at least one head come up is pretty probable. In this case, we can think of it in the reverse case - how to not get at least one head? That would mean getting n tails in a row, which is (0.5)^n. (in Tercel's case, it's 0.9^10) Of course, since we're working with what we don't want, we have to negate the probability at the end, arriving at the equation 1-p^n.

Hmm. That helps... a little

Thanks

Ted Hoffman · 04-11-2002, 05:58 AM

I strongly believe that someone (the Moderators for instance) should frog-march Atticus_Finch here and get him to respond squarely to relevant posts.

madmax2976 · 04-11-2002, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
I strongly believe that someone (the Moderators for instance) should frog-march Atticus_Finch here and get him to respond squarely to relevant posts.

Frog marching?

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2002, 09:48 AM

I don't know what it is either, buy I certainly like the sound of it!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2002, 05:09 PM	#202
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	David Gould, He has simply assigned probabilities to this being true without any basis for those probabilities. Exactly. Thank you for stating concisely what I've been trying to say for three posts now.

04-10-2002, 10:09 PM	#205
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	madmax2976, No apologies necessary. I never claimed to know stats. But I am confused as to why my math book has the equation: P(E) = number of chances favorable to event E / total number of chances...The equation I offered can be used to show the probability of any given event. (And each argument could be an event unto itself) The equation Tercel offers apparently is used to show the probability of at least one argument of his "cumulative" case being correct. You hit it right there. The equation in your math book is used to find the P of any single event. We don't need this one because Tercel pulled P = .1 (10%) out of the air for his arguments. The equation Tercel is using, which I stepped through in a previous post, is used to find the P of at least one of ten events. It is pretty counterintuitive.

04-10-2002, 11:48 PM	#206
Datheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 553	MadMax, I'm sludging through discrete mathematics and probability theory myself right now; I agree that it seems weird. Anyway, here's my attempt to explain what Tercel did. Basically, he wants to show that at least one of ten arguments is true. Think of it as flipping a coin ten times. Normally, the flipping of a fair coin is just 50/50. However, if we make the condition that at least one flip out of n is heads (where you can also have 2, 3, ... n heads), then it's obvious that the chance of having at least one head come up is pretty probable. In this case, we can think of it in the reverse case - how to not get at least one head? That would mean getting n tails in a row, which is (0.5)^n. (in Tercel's case, it's 0.9^10) Of course, since we're working with what we don't want, we have to negate the probability at the end, arriving at the equation 1-p^n.

04-11-2002, 05:58 AM	#208
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I strongly believe that someone (the Moderators for instance) should frog-march Atticus_Finch here and get him to respond squarely to relevant posts.

04-11-2002, 09:48 AM	#210
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	I don't know what it is either, buy I certainly like the sound of it!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.