Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

TooBad,
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Uh...no.

Both sets of numbers *do not* have an equal probability of winning.

We have 2 numbers in the 'blue' set.

We have 99,999,999,998 numbers in the 'red' set.


What is the probability that the winner is blue?


SOMMS

TooBad

You misunderstand. By "set of numbers" I meant a distinct combination of six numbers, i.e. a single lottery entry. In the UK lottery there are just under 14 million possible combinations. Each member of the red class is one such combination. The sole member of the blue class is another such combination. Each combination has an equal chance of winning, i.e. 1 in 14 million, regardless of whether it belongs to the red class or the blue class.

Last week's winning combination was: 10, 22, 23, 30, 33, 42. This combination was the one and only member of the blue class.

If you need me to explain this to you yet again, I suggest we move to a new thread. We've already drifted well off-topic, and I suspect the other posters in here are growing weary of the repetition.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

TooBad,
There are 2 members in the blue class...not one.

Absolutely. However we aren't interested in the probability of any arbitrary instance winning.

We are interested in the probability of a blue player winning the lottery.


Again I ask you...what is this probability?

If you wish to start a new topic feel free to do so.

SOMMS

TooBad

The answer to your question is: 1 in 14 million.
New thread is
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001333" target="_blank">here</a>
if you're interested.

Jamie_L

Philip:

It seems to me that if you argue that there is no "best world", (for this discussion: no world without evil), then it follows that there would be evil in heaven.

This seems directly contrary to all the Christian theology of which I'm aware.

So, again, while your arguement may address the issue of evil, it invalidates a fundamental aspect of Chrisianity. Thus, IMO, in still doesn't work as a defense against the arguement from evil when applied to Christianity.

Jamie

Philip Osborne

"It seems to me that if you argue that there is no "best world", (for this discussion: no world without evil), then...."

This is a pretty interesting objection. However, the sense of "best possible world" I used is the one that fulfills God's purpose the best. On your construal, God could create the best possible world by doing nothing, since this world would contain no evil. However, it is clear on the basis of Christian theology that this kind of world does not fulfill God's purposes.

First, it seems true on the basis of Christianity that God will not create only Heaven; Christian theology teaches that God created the cosmos to bring about His purposes, from which it follows that the existence of Heaven cannot fulfill all of His purposes. My argument is that there is no best possible world, so God is not violating any moral obligation by creating the best one. Going further, it is conceptually coherent for the world God creates to contain evil, so long as this world in some respect fulfills God's plans. This in itself does not imply that there must be evil in Heaven.

In short: Since the existence of Heaven does not completely fulfill God's plans, God must create some non-Heaven portion of the world. I will call such portions of the world x. My argument is that there is no best possible x; God can create any x, so long as the x God creates fulfills some aspect of God's plan. Given this, the possibility that the x God creates contains evil cannot be precluded. This does not entail that there must be evil in Heaven. I think the major point is that we are using two different senses of "best possible world."

Sincerely,

Philip

Synaesthesia

Philip,
Of course it is also not inconsisitent with the proposition that God, for some inscrutable purpose, has eternal torment awaiting those destined for heaven.

The point is that nothing is excluded from God's plan. It could be anything just as easily as it could be nothing.

SRB

PO
My argument is that there is no best possible world, so God is not violating any moral obligation by creating the best one. Going further, it is conceptually coherent for the world God creates to contain evil, so long as this world in some respect fulfills God's plans. This in itself does not imply that there must be evil in Heaven.

SRB
The evidential argument from evil (AE) need not presuppose that if God existed, God would actualise the best possible world. Nor need AE presuppose that if God existed, God would have any moral obligations towards humans. AE can be framed in terms of the fact that a loving deity would probably prevent much of the suffering that goes on, rather than in terms of the (supposed) fact that an all-good deity is obliged to bring about the greatest good. By dropping the language of morals, values and obligations, much is gained in clarity. AE need only assume that a maximally-loving and rational deity, with sufficient power and knowledge, assuming such a thing existed, would probably actualise a world which contains less suffering than the actual world.

PO
In short: Since the existence of Heaven does not completely fulfill God's plans, God must create some non-Heaven portion of the world. I will call such portions of the world x. My argument is that there is no best possible x; God can create any x, so long as the x God creates fulfills some aspect of God's plan. Given this, the possibility that the x God creates contains evil cannot be precluded. This does not entail that there must be evil in Heaven. I think the major point is that we are using two different senses of "best possible world."

SRB
I too, do not believe that there is such a thing as the best possible world, but I do believe that evidential forms of AE do go through. Much talk of values is subjective, and talk of best possible worlds is one example of that. As the saying goes, one man's meat is another man's poison. There is no more a best possible world than there is a best piece of music.

SRB

lcb

Immnauel Kant;well, are you in the peace corps?

Jamie_L

That makes sense, but in a way it goes back to the UPD. Effectively we are back to: the world with it's current amount of evil exists because that is God's plan. Why does God's plan include this much evil? We cannot know, because such knowledge is beyond us. I.E. UPD.

Jamie