Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 04-09-2002, 09:55 PM

Quote:

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.

That's fine with me. You use the success of methodological naturalism, which forms one of the premier foundations for my naturalistic worldview, in order to find out facts about the universe, and then you reconcile that with your own worldview.

But this is simply the whole point at issue. I have been arguing that methodological naturalism is not a foundation of any metaphysical naturalist worldview.
I argue that it�s the other way around:
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.

Quote:

Interesting. I consider this a victory since you haven't presented anything that requires me to reconcile any of your supernatural hypotheses with my worldview.

It�s the old, �if in doubt, declare victory� trick I see.

Quote:

However, my entire point is that Metaphysical naturalism does not imply Methodological Naturalism. If as you suggest above that the universe appeared disorderly to us then Methodological Naturalism is going to be useless. But I see no compelling reason to think Metaphysical naturalism would find such a universe problematic. Rather I am inclined to think that Metaphysical Naturalism would be perfectly accepting of such an absurd and random universe.

How in the world can you derive the conclusion that metaphysical naturalism could essentially reject methodological naturalism? It would be like rejecting one of the core foundations it's built upon.

Why? In what way do you think methodological naturalism can be called a �core foundation� of metaphysical naturalism?

Quote:

No, if you know some stats you?d know it adds up to 65%.
You can calculate this by:
P(At least one argument is true) = 1 - P(All arguments are false)
= 1 - P(Probability an individual argument is false) ^ Number of Arguments (*)
In this case:
= 1 - 0.9^10
= 0.651321...
Note that I assumed independence of arguments on (*) which may quite possibly not be a good assumption, so any calculation with real examples may have to be modified appropriately.

Right. Each argument has a 10% chance of being true, but the event in question has an 65% chance of being true. Who are you kidding?

Apparently, I�m managing to kid you into thinking I�m wrong.
Remember, the event in question is true if any of the ten arguments (each of which has a 10% chance of being correct) are correct.

Quote:

Not at all. Rather, I am wanting to conclude that:
C) Naturalism will never be able to explain X if naturalism in our current state of knowledge says that X does not occur.

However naturalism does not say "X does not occur". Naturalism assumes that X does not occur because no one has demonstrated that X occurs AND naturalism might assume that X does not occur because all simliar types of X have likewise failed to demonstrate that they do in fact occur.

Let me rephrase then:
If our current state of knowledge is such that we can assert with a very good degree of surety that X simply does not occur for any natural reason, then we have (I believe) good grounds for asserting that we will never be able to explain X using natural explanations.

eg X = A very definitely dead man appearing alive two days after his death and walking through locked doors.
eg X = The spontaneous healing of a broken arm.

Such things as these are not mysteries of any sort that might be explained if only we knew more about the natural world. I know this because what we already know and are sure of about the natural world assures me to the highest degree of surety that such things simply do not happen naturally. This is what I�m trying to get at with my statement here: If what we already know contradicts X then we have no reason to believe that if we knew more we could explain X. Hence a reasonable requirement for any event to be regarded as supernatural would include the idea that it must stand in contradiction to our current knowledge of the natural.

Quote:

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.

That�s some good wishful thinking you�ve got going there...

Quote:

This is the challenge to supernaturalists: Demonstrate that the supernatural is real and that we must then greatly modify or otherwise abandon metaphysical naturalism.

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� to any evidence regarding miraculous/inexplicable events that I could conceivably present?

Quote:

Peter supposedly "recanted" 3 times according to the biblical texts themselves.

That was prior to the resurrection. So if that story of Peter�s earlier recantationg is true, it only makes a better case for the resurrection.

Quote:

In order for your argument to work Tercel, you need to do the following:
1. List those eyewitnesses who were persecuted directly because of their beliefs in the resurrected Jesus. (As Paul was not an eyewitness of the physically resurrected Jesus, but rather had a vision, he cannot be counted.) Please list the sources you have on which you base these supposed events.
2. Present evidence that the eyewitnesses would not have been persecuted if they had recanted their specific beliefs regarding Jesus - i.e what they had been an actual eyewitness to.

I�m already provided these things.

Quote:

3. Explain why we should be more surprised at people who would die for a lie than we would be at those people who were willing to believe and die for their beliefs based on someone's word.

The one knew it false, the other believed it true. How are they even remotely similar cases?

Quote:

Note that none of what you have given so far meets these criteria which are necessary to prove your case.

It�s back to the �if in doubt, declare victory� I see...

For the rest, you seem to simply complain repetively that either I haven't given any evidence or that what evidence I have given is insufficient. I don't have the time to repeat over and over what I've already written simply because you assert that I haven't shown it.
I've given a list of those who we are told were witnesses to the risen Jesus. I've given a list of some of the more evidenced persecutions that we are told they underwent.
These things taken together seem to me sufficient to prove to the highest degree of certainty that the teaching of the resurrected is not based on any sort of conspiracy to lie.
If you don't like that, tough, I don't have the time to repeat myself repeat myself any further.

Tercel

David Gould · 04-09-2002, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
Note that I assumed the events were independent in my calculation. In the case of rational arguments, this assumption might be reasonable - the probability of success of one argument generally doesn't influence the probability of success of a different argument.
However with UFO abduction claims, independence is clearly a very bad assumption. Many people will no doubt claim to have been abducted because they've heard others claim it.

This to me is a very good argument against early Christians claiming to have seen the resurrected Christ...

Or people experiencing the holy spirit - et cetera.

To me, UFO claims are on par with claims of someone raising from the dead. So let's reset the chance to 1 in 2.5 million.

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 02:08 AM

David Gould,

This to me is a very good argument against early Christians claiming to have seen the resurrected Christ...

That was actually my first thought upon reading Tercel's comment but, if you scroll up and reread the discussion that led to that comment, you'll see that he is not talking about ten different witnesses to an event, he is talking about ten different arguments, whose truths are not dependent upon each other. Each has a .9 probablity of being false, which gives a .35 probability of them all being false, leaving a .65 probablity that at least one of them is true.

Now, one can certainly maintain, as I do, that such probabilistic arguments are little more than wild guesses, but you can't fault the math he's done on the numbers he guessed, or compare the independent arguments to interdependent witness claims.

madmax2976 · 04-10-2002, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
David Gould,
....Each has a .9 probablity of being false, which gives a .35 probability of them all being false, leaving a .65 probablity that at least one of them is true.

Now, one can certainly maintain, as I do, that such probabilistic arguments are little more than wild guesses, but you can't fault the math he's done on the numbers he guessed, or compare the independent arguments to interdependent witness claims.

I can. I don't even have to do the math to realize its bogus. If each argument has a no better than 10% possibility of being true and thus a 90% chance of NOT being true, it is ridiculous to think the event in question can then have a 65% chance of being true.

I took my equation out of my mathematics/calculus book. I have no idea where he got his equation.

P.S. What does it matter if "1" of the arguments is true?? The probability that the event didn't occur is still very high.

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

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 12:04 PM

madmax2976,

If each argument has a no better than 10% possibility of being true and thus a 90% chance of NOT being true, it is ridiculous to think the event in question can then have a 65% chance of being true.

ALl right, each argument has a .9 probability of being false. There are 10 arguments. What is the probability of two arguments being false?

.9 * .9 = .81

Of three?

.81 * .9 = .729

and so forth:

.729 * .9 = 6561
.6561 * .9 = .59049
.59049 * .9 = .531441
.531441 * .9 = .4782969
.4782969 * .9 = .43046721
.43046721 * .9 = .387420489
.387420489 * .9 = .3486784401

So, the probability of all 10 arguments being false is approximately .35, leaving a .65 probability that at least one of them is true. Tercel's math is good.

Now, none of this changes the fact that, as far as I am concerned, probabilistic "evidence," in cases like this, is nothing more than a wild back-of-the-envelope guessing game. How does Teercel know that each of his arguments has a .1 probability of being true? He pulled the number out of thin air. The only way he could possibly have an accurate probability estimate would be to use the ratio of arguements for the existence of god known to be true to arguements for the existence of god known to be false, and if he had even one argument for the numerator in that ratio, he wouldn't have to play probabilistic guessing games.

Edited to make my numbers line up all purdy.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-10-2002, 12:59 PM

What pointless mental masturbation! The odds of fiction being true are zero.

Let's not forget, gentlemen that none of this was written down for decades and even then it wasn't written down for any of the sheep to read.

They were told what happened (just like they are today) and told to believe the outlandish stories; aka, indoctrinated.

There weren't any pamphlets passed out or papyrus to read along with.

If I stand up and say, "In the time of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, there were 500 witnesses to the glorious resurrection," then who the fuck would challenge me within my own already believing flock?

Who stands up in church and challenges the Reverend? Who?

I have never seen it and never heard of it ever happening, so all of this bullshit regarding the "early followers" being able to ask the witnesses anything at all is just that! Bullshit.

Like sheep, they were led, just as it is today.

Why? Because they were desperate, terrified, superstitious, ignorant desert nomads under Roman persecution, most of which would live and die never having traveled more than twenty miles in their entire lives!

For fuck's sake, just rent The Life of Brian and you've got all the perspective necessary to fully understand just exactly how it all happened.

And as to Meta's dusting off the same old arguments he posts every single time he posts here, if there ever were any "martyr" for the cause among the early christians (and that's a tremendous "if" considering the victors write the history), then all that means is they believed what they believed and were willing to die for it.

Big deal! Many hundreds of millions of people have done the exact same thing (every single war there's ever been the battle fields have literally been litered with poor dumb bastards who believed their King was worth dying for or their flag was worth killing for).

That argument has never been valid, never been salient and, unfortunately, never been dropped from your lexicon.

It will never cease to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people will readily and without much hesitation admit to the disparity of actual "original" writings available to scholars and that what was translated when and how the koine greek does or does not mean this or that depending upon the direction of the argument against their position, but have no compunction whatsoever to just gloss over all of those irrefutable facts when it comes to the surety of what happened to the "early christians;" especially in regard to what they were or were not thinking!

Where's Gurdur when I actually need him?

One thing is abundantly clear, however. The minute otherwise intelligent, rational men and women start defending their beliefs is the minute they toss both intelligence and rationality right out the fuckin' window.

What a pointless waste of human intellect.

madmax2976 · 04-10-2002, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
madmax2976,
ALl right, each argument has a .9 probability of being false. There are 10 arguments. What is the probability of two arguments being false?

.9 * .9 = .81

Of three?

.81 * .9 = .729

and so forth:

.729 * .9 = 6561
.6561 * .9 = .59049
.59049 * .9 = .531441
.531441 * .9 = .4782969
.4782969 * .9 = .43046721
.43046721 * .9 = .387420489
.387420489 * .9 = .3486784401

So, the probability of all 10 arguments being false is approximately .35, leaving a .65 probability that at least one of them is true. Tercel's math is good.

Lol. Just because Tercel throws out an equation and does the math correctly does not mean the equation means anything.

If each argument has a probability of 10% then EACH ARGUMENT HAS A PROBABILITY OF 10%!!

Of course I'm really not concerned with the probability of any 1 argument being true. Tercel said he was making a cumulative case for the resurrection. That is the event in question. If each argument has a 10% chance of being true, then the event has a 10% chance of being true.

Again, my equation came out of my math book. I don't know where Tercel got his equation other than he made it up like the 10% figure.

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

David Gould · 04-10-2002, 04:21 PM

I think Tercel's point is that he only needs one of the arguments to be true for god to exist.

There is a 65% chance that one of the arguments is correct.

Therefore, God is probable.

I think the flaw in the scenario is the selection of 10% as the chance for one being correct.

How did Tercel find this number?

He made it up.

As such, the whole thing becomes meaningless.

I can assign a 1 in 20 chance and God becomes improbable all of a sudden.

Playing with numbers with no basis is no reason to have a belief in god.

Tercel may as well simply state that he thinks god is probable. That is all he is doing with his number shuffling.

madmax2976 · 04-10-2002, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
I think Tercel's point is that he only needs one of the arguments to be true for god to exist.

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

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 04:50 PM

madmax2976,

Lol. Just because Tercel throws out an equation and does the math correctly does not mean the equation means anything.

All his math means is, given that we accept his estimation for each of his arguments having .1 probability to be valid, we have to accept that there is a .65 probability that Yahweh exists. He hasn't, as far as I can see, given us any reason to accept his estimates, however. I certainly don't accept them, as they bear no relation to any measured success rate of arguments for the existence of god. In fact, I'd say that his estimation is several orders of magnitude too high as, based on the known success rate of arguments for the existence of god (0 arguments successful over some number N of arguments attempted) the probability of any given argument being valid should approach zero very closely.

If each argument has a probability of 10% then EACH ARGUMENT HAS A PROBABILITY OF 10%!!...If each argument has a 10% chance of being true, then the event has a 10% chance of being true.

The ten arguments, considered as a whole, give a 65% chance of their conclusion being true, if we accept the 10%-each estimation Tercel has presented. You'd figure it out like this:

P(E) = 1 - P(~E), where E is "at least one argument being valid" and ~E is "no arguments being valid.

P(~E) = P(~E') * P(~E'') * P(~E'''), etc., where E' is "Argument #1 being valid," ~E' is "Argument #1 being invalid," E'' is "Argument #2 being valid," etc.

Now, we know (or, rather, Tercel is guessing) the probablities of ~E', ~E'', ~E''', etc., so plugging them in, we get:

P(~E) = .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 = .3486784401

Rounding that number to .35 and going back to the original equation, we get:

P(E) = 1 - .35 = .65

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.

04-10-2002, 12:04 PM	#195
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	madmax2976, If each argument has a no better than 10% possibility of being true and thus a 90% chance of NOT being true, it is ridiculous to think the event in question can then have a 65% chance of being true. ALl right, each argument has a .9 probability of being false. There are 10 arguments. What is the probability of two arguments being false? .9 * .9 = .81 Of three? .81 * .9 = .729 and so forth: .729 * .9 = 6561 .6561 * .9 = .59049 .59049 * .9 = .531441 .531441 * .9 = .4782969 .4782969 * .9 = .43046721 .43046721 * .9 = .387420489 .387420489 * .9 = .3486784401 So, the probability of all 10 arguments being false is approximately .35, leaving a .65 probability that at least one of them is true. Tercel's math is good. Now, none of this changes the fact that, as far as I am concerned, probabilistic "evidence," in cases like this, is nothing more than a wild back-of-the-envelope guessing game. How does Teercel know that each of his arguments has a .1 probability of being true? He pulled the number out of thin air. The only way he could possibly have an accurate probability estimate would be to use the ratio of arguements for the existence of god known to be true to arguements for the existence of god known to be false, and if he had even one argument for the numerator in that ratio, he wouldn't have to play probabilistic guessing games. Edited to make my numbers line up all purdy. [ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

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

04-10-2002, 02:08 AM	#193
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	David Gould, This to me is a very good argument against early Christians claiming to have seen the resurrected Christ... That was actually my first thought upon reading Tercel's comment but, if you scroll up and reread the discussion that led to that comment, you'll see that he is not talking about ten different witnesses to an event, he is talking about ten different arguments, whose truths are not dependent upon each other. Each has a .9 probablity of being false, which gives a .35 probability of them all being false, leaving a .65 probablity that at least one of them is true. Now, one can certainly maintain, as I do, that such probabilistic arguments are little more than wild guesses, but you can't fault the math he's done on the numbers he guessed, or compare the independent arguments to interdependent witness claims.

04-10-2002, 12:59 PM	#196
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	What pointless mental masturbation! The odds of fiction being true are zero. Let's not forget, gentlemen that none of this was written down for decades and even then it wasn't written down for any of the sheep to read. They were told what happened (just like they are today) and told to believe the outlandish stories; aka, indoctrinated. There weren't any pamphlets passed out or papyrus to read along with. If I stand up and say, "In the time of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, there were 500 witnesses to the glorious resurrection," then who the fuck would challenge me within my own already believing flock? Who stands up in church and challenges the Reverend? Who? I have never seen it and never heard of it ever happening, so all of this bullshit regarding the "early followers" being able to ask the witnesses anything at all is just that! Bullshit. Like sheep, they were led, just as it is today. Why? Because they were desperate, terrified, superstitious, ignorant desert nomads under Roman persecution, most of which would live and die never having traveled more than twenty miles in their entire lives! For fuck's sake, just rent The Life of Brian and you've got all the perspective necessary to fully understand just exactly how it all happened. And as to Meta's dusting off the same old arguments he posts every single time he posts here, if there ever were any "martyr" for the cause among the early christians (and that's a tremendous "if" considering the victors write the history), then all that means is they believed what they believed and were willing to die for it. Big deal! Many hundreds of millions of people have done the exact same thing (every single war there's ever been the battle fields have literally been litered with poor dumb bastards who believed their King was worth dying for or their flag was worth killing for). That argument has never been valid, never been salient and, unfortunately, never been dropped from your lexicon. It will never cease to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people will readily and without much hesitation admit to the disparity of actual "original" writings available to scholars and that what was translated when and how the koine greek does or does not mean this or that depending upon the direction of the argument against their position, but have no compunction whatsoever to just gloss over all of those irrefutable facts when it comes to the surety of what happened to the "early christians;" especially in regard to what they were or were not thinking! Where's Gurdur when I actually need him? One thing is abundantly clear, however. The minute otherwise intelligent, rational men and women start defending their beliefs is the minute they toss both intelligence and rationality right out the fuckin' window. What a pointless waste of human intellect.

04-10-2002, 04:21 PM	#198
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	I think Tercel's point is that he only needs one of the arguments to be true for god to exist. There is a 65% chance that one of the arguments is correct. Therefore, God is probable. I think the flaw in the scenario is the selection of 10% as the chance for one being correct. How did Tercel find this number? He made it up. As such, the whole thing becomes meaningless. I can assign a 1 in 20 chance and God becomes improbable all of a sudden. Playing with numbers with no basis is no reason to have a belief in god. Tercel may as well simply state that he thinks god is probable. That is all he is doing with his number shuffling.

04-10-2002, 04:50 PM	#200
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	madmax2976, Lol. Just because Tercel throws out an equation and does the math correctly does not mean the equation means anything. All his math means is, given that we accept his estimation for each of his arguments having .1 probability to be valid, we have to accept that there is a .65 probability that Yahweh exists. He hasn't, as far as I can see, given us any reason to accept his estimates, however. I certainly don't accept them, as they bear no relation to any measured success rate of arguments for the existence of god. In fact, I'd say that his estimation is several orders of magnitude too high as, based on the known success rate of arguments for the existence of god (0 arguments successful over some number N of arguments attempted) the probability of any given argument being valid should approach zero very closely. If each argument has a probability of 10% then EACH ARGUMENT HAS A PROBABILITY OF 10%!!...If each argument has a 10% chance of being true, then the event has a 10% chance of being true. The ten arguments, considered as a whole, give a 65% chance of their conclusion being true, if we accept the 10%-each estimation Tercel has presented. You'd figure it out like this: P(E) = 1 - P(~E), where E is "at least one argument being valid" and ~E is "no arguments being valid. P(~E) = P(~E') * P(~E'') * P(~E'''), etc., where E' is "Argument #1 being valid," ~E' is "Argument #1 being invalid," E'' is "Argument #2 being valid," etc. Now, we know (or, rather, Tercel is guessing) the probablities of ~E', ~E'', ~E''', etc., so plugging them in, we get: P(~E) = .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9 = .3486784401 Rounding that number to .35 and going back to the original equation, we get: P(E) = 1 - .35 = .65 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.