So Im sincerely sorry to be the one to tell you that your critical thinking, logic and understanding of basic probability are very poor and fundamentally flawed — DingoJones

How?

Consequently, is it true that if one says that another is amoral for denying judeo-christian values, which are revelation, then it follows that they would be amoral for merely denying god's existence because, once again, to deny god's existence is to deny revelation? — Aleph Numbers

Maybe we have to define amoral? I know my definition and it is certainly not 'not believing in God'. But let's go with that definition for now.

I'll try paraphrasing what you say above, sorry if I have it wrong:

Is it true that if one says that another is amoral for denying God, then it follows that they would be amoral for denying god's existence because, once again, to deny god's existence is to deny revelation?

Who is the 'they' in the above? - I've underlined it. It could be 'one' or 'another'.

directly above.. — Enai De A Lukal

Quote it for me... I will demonstrate you are wrong!

I've pointed out your continued failure to derive a self-contradiction from, or provide a non-circular or question-begging argument against an infinite sequence or eternal past — Enai De A Lukal

WHERE?

Nonsense can't be understood, that's why it's nonsense. — Michael

Other people on the forum got it. One did anyway - he said so.

Your problem is that you are not willing to spend sufficient time considering ideas outside established dogma.

How about this:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

Is this thread in the Lounge/Casual section I hope? Not any philosophy here, just the OP's personal confession. — Enai De A Lukal

WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOUR COUNTER ARGUMENTS?

I just demonstrated perfectly that infinite past time leads to a contradiction.

You have not pointed out a single flaw in my argument!

I thought creation mirrors God? What an ugly God! — Gregory

My guess is its all randomly generated - God initiated it (the BB) - what he initiated was brute force generation of life.

The idea being that we would sort of work things out for ourselves.

As time goes on, life gets better, so it seems reasonable.

[

I didn't understand your arguments on probability because they were nonsense as shown here and here. — Michael

How exactly can you demonstrate something is nonsense if you don't even understand it?

A contradiction- between your assertion (that nothing can be greater than "all finite numbers"), and the proposition in question (an infinite sequence). Not a self-contradiction. So, no proof, no reductio, no logical impossibility. Show that an infinite past or infinite sequence contradicts itself, not that it contradicts your personal views on the matter. — Enai De A Lukal

Oh my...

How can something be larger than something that goes on for?

Think it through carefully please!

I can safely say that Cantor and Euclid know more about maths than you do. Otherwise you would be publishing your ground-breaking thesis right now, not making terrible arguments on here. — Michael

You have not understood my arguments. None of your counter arguments have had any merit.

What are you talking about! Look at the statement:

'Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever'

That means:

'Something must be greater than all finite numbers but nothing can be greater than all finite numbers'

Thats a contradiction! — Devans99

Look how can something be BOTH:

- Greater than than X
- And not greater than X

At the same time? - that's a contradiction!

3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct
5) So Euclid, Cantor and co MUST HAVE IT WRONG!
6) QED I am not a kook!
— Devans99

You have 3) backwards. It's point length/line length. e.g. if we have 2cm points and a 10cm line then there are 2/10 = 5 points on the line. — Michael

You are not paying attention clearly!

If you wish to establish how many points are on a line, its LINE LENGTH / POINT LENGTH.

For a line segment length 1 with 0 lengthen points, that 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.

You can ignore what I said. I'm replying to you whilst watching TV and was concentrating. — Michael

Maybe that is the problem! You have to read through my arguments carefully and think about them - they demonstrate major flaw in our understanding of maths - so they challenge well established assumptions - hence you need to think about this stuff from first principles.

This is not a proof, not a reductio, not a successful way to establish something as logically impossible, even in principle: you need to derive a contradiction — Enai De A Lukal

What are you talking about! Look at the statement:

'Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever'

That means:

'Something must be greater than all finite numbers but nothing can be greater than all finite numbers'

Thats a contradiction!

You're a kook — Michael

You think I'm a 'kook'! Thats funny. Take this! (please kindly read it carefully and think it through - its important):

1) Mathematics defines points to have zero length.
2) How many points are there on a line segment length one?
3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct
5) So Euclid, Cantor and co MUST HAVE IT WRONG!
6) QED I am not a kook!

They do exist — in children's stories and fantasies.
Unless that's what your god is supposed to be, the onus probandi still remains in your court (along with the increasing fallacy-count). — jorndoe

I'm just pointing out that if you cannot possibly disprove something as incredibly unlikely as a unicorn, how can you possibly disprove intelligence behind the universe?

The other day. A dull place. Inert and lifeless. Half a star out of five. — jorndoe

It can't logically be that way. Nothing in time is permanent and the existence of anything requires something permanent, so that thing must have somehow caused time.

I'm not introducing additional evidence. I'm stating the known fact that there is a 50% chance that the coin will land heads and a 50% chance that the coin will not land heads. This doesn't "cancel out" to there being a 0% chance that the coin will land heads. — Michael

BUT MY WHOLE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT INTRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE!

If you don't understand this post and if you continue to talk about these kind of probabilities "cancelling out" to 0% then my attempts to educate you are futile and so I won't waste any more time. I suggest you do some research into probability theory. This is really basic stuff. — Michael

You are just not reading or understanding my posts at all!

Not sure there is much point continuing this either. The idea I am using is NEW TO PROBABILITY - get it! If you won't even take the time to properly read my posts, then we cannot discuss it meaningfully.

I'm trying to determine whether or not not believing in god is tantamount to denying god's commands after granting that divine command theory is infallible. — Aleph Numbers

Divine command theory could perhaps have two interpretations:

1) Everything that happens is explicitly commanded by God
Or
2) Somethings that happens are explicitly commanded by God

Could you say which one (or elsewise) you prescribe to?

No it doesn't. There is a 50% chance that a coin lands heads and a 50% chance that a coins lands tails. This is the same as saying there is a 50% chance that a coin lands heads and a 50% chance that a coins does not land heads. Therefore this "cancels out" to there being a 0% chance that the coins lands heads? Surely you can see how wrong that is? — Michael

But we must combine evidence here:

- We know that the chance of heads is 50%
- You have introduced additional evidence that the chance of heads is 50% and the chance of not heads is 50%
- That is not evidence - it cancels out
- So the chance of heads remains at 50%

There's that fallacy once again, repeated unabated as if never having been pointed out before.
Comments suggests you started out with the divine fallacy. — jorndoe

Can you disprove the existence of unicorns for me please?

Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best.

Have you been there then? Which holiday agency was that?

So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading)

Well I admit this is where I am stuck. I have possibly in mind that an atemporal being maybe like a brick - the brick is timeless - so the left side of the brick is static, but the right side of the brick can grow to accommodate additional actions.

The actions it performs only need to be expressed in spacetime.

It isn't fine. If Mary is the shooter then John isn't the shooter, so if there is a 75% chance that Mary is the shooter then there is a 75% chance that John isn't the shooter, which contradicts the other conclusion that there is a 75% chance that John is the shooter. — Michael

They could both be the shooters.

Your reasoning also entails that there is 50% chance that Mary did it and a 50% chance that Mary didn't do it, giving a 0% chance that Mary did it. So despite the evidence being that there's a 50% chance that John did it and a 50% chance that Mary did it, it's actually the case that there's a 0% chance that either of them did it. — Michael

You do just not read my posts properly I think...

50% chance Mary did it = 50% chance John did not do it

So when you say:

Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter

You are actually saying:

Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that John is NOT the shooter

Which clearly cancels out to 0%

has no bearing here since there's no sense in which the particular universal constants we have can be said to be complex in themselves. — Kenosha Kid

Well a lot of factors go into making a watch. It's incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.

And a lot of factors go into making a life supporting universe. Thats also incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.

We will maybe have to agree to disagree on the fine tuning argument, I'm not sure we are getting anywhere?

1. Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter.

2. Evidence B shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter.

3. I use the reasoning you've used before and say that there's a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% chance that John is the shooter.

4. I use the reasoning you've used before and say that there's a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% chance that Mary is the shooter.

5. There is a 75% chance that John is the shooter and a 75% chance that Mary is the shooter (and so also a 25% chance that John is not the shooter and a 25% chance that Mary is not the shooter). — Michael

Good effort!

But that's two separate propositions:

- Is John the shooter?
AND
- Is Mary the shooter?

Its just fine for it to be 75% probability for BOTH of these separate propositions are true.

I think also there maybe a problem with your evidence. It seems contradictory to state that one piece of evidence can both support and deny the conclusion that John is the shooter. I would say that 50% John. 50% Mary, cancel out - there is a 50% chance that John did it and a 50% chance that John did not do it - giving a 0% chance that John did it.

That's not a betting man's argument, that's a missionary's argument, based on ignorance and bad logic. Even with only one universe, the parameters of that universe only need an explanation at all if life is some kind of desired outcome from the start. That's why creationists can't get their heads around it. It has to be about me... — Kenosha Kid

I don't agree. If you found a watch on the beech that told the time, would you conclude:

A) By some random co-incidence, particles have arranged themselves into a functioning watch?
Or
B) Someone made that watch?

Interesting!

I am new to it forgive me, from wikipedia:

"Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism)[1][2] is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by God's commands and that for a person to be moral he is to follow God's commands."

So it seems it leaves wriggle room? The actions that are not directly commanded by God are allowed to be non-moral, and that would presumably include denying God's existence?

God has also not communicated his commands clearly to us! Ideally, we could have done with some sort of user manual: 'Welcome to your new universe! Here is how to use it'. That would have been nice!

So the lack of clear communication could mean:

- God has no commands for us
- We are meant meant to work out what God commands using our own intellect

Not to make silly generalisations from one event. — Kenosha Kid

But there is no option with the fine tuning argument - the BB happened once and will not be repeated for our edification. And the 20 or so fine tuned parameters - sort of count as 20 separate events / instances of fine tuning. Both the WAP and SAP are rubbish. Fine tuning for life is a strong argument.

But its fundamentally a probabilistical argument, so no-one has any option but to be a betting man on fine tuning for life.

It doesn't need to. It ceases to be a meaningful question. — Kenosha Kid

Eternal inflation has all the matter of our universe being created in the inflation field. The cause of this is given as a piece of anti-gravity material.

Nope, by definition it is eternal. — Kenosha Kid

It is in actual fact claimed by its creator (Guth) to be 'future eternal' but not 'past eternal'. I can't really go into this on this thread - its too busy - I will do a separate thread later.

Especially if I didn't exist. Creating a universe while not existing is hugely impressive. — Kenosha Kid

As an aside, you can never prove that God does not exist!

Snookered! as they say in my parts...

I have no explanation that includes fine-tuning, because that's a creationist myth. — Kenosha Kid

I would rather put it as: 'fine tuning does not exist' is a scientific myth.

But that has all been covered above.

To illustrate, role a die. Whatever value you get had a low probability of occurring compared with it not occurring. This is not evidence that the die is loaded. It's just that you only rolled the die once. Refer to the anthropic principle for the rest. — Kenosha Kid

But that's all the evidence we have about the universe!

Sure we can't say for sure that the universal die (that determined all the constants) was loaded towards deliberate fine tuning for life - we'd have to inspect the die (talk to God) to prove that.

All we know is that the universal die rolled sixes 20 times in a row, and came up with a life supporting universe!

What is a betting man meant to conclude?

Recurring eternal inflation explains not only that our current physical laws are as likely as any other, but also that, if our current set of laws is possible (an empirical fact), they are inevitable. It explains how a hot Big Bang could occur, why there was an initial period of massive expansion, and it does so with an "agent" that meets the criteria of being outside of time. — Kenosha Kid

It does not explain fine tuning - the multiverse (if it exists) MUST BE FINE-TUNED for life - many of the fine tuned parameters are multiverses level parameters.

And it also implies a first cause - eternal inflation was caused by something.

If you were God, would not you consider it a mighty deed to create a whole multiverse of life supporting universes?

The die example is not very good, but what I mean by additional is that:

- there is a 25% chance that he's guilty because of fingerprints on the knife
- there is a SEPARATE 50% chance he's guilty because of blood on his cloths

So you can't just do 25%+50%=75% chance he's guilty.

Because out of the 50% of times that he's guilty (because of blood on his cloths), he is already guilty 25% of that time (because of fingerprints on the knife).

Because you're no longer talking about an additional 20%. You're saying that it's weighted such that the probability increases to 20%. — Michael

No I am not saying that the 'probability increases to 20%'.

I am saying that there is a 10% probability of a 10 (because of 10 sides) and
AN ADDITIONAL 20% probability (because its weighted)

- So we take the 20% first.
- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted
- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28%

And I asked you to explain what you mean by there being an additional 20% chance of it landing a 10. The only coherent interpretations of this are 10 + 20 = 30 or 10 * 1.2 = 12. — Michael

So it has a 10% chance of 10 because it has 10 sides.

But there is an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 because its weighted.

You can't just add 10 and 20 and get 30 - that's wrong!

How you get to 28% is beyond me. Your reasoning makes no sense at all. — Michael

Say the die lands on 10 20% of the time because it's weighted.

Then 10% of those 20% times, the die would land on 10 anyway (because it 10 sided)

So it is absolutely not 20%+10%=30%.

No, you don't. If a die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10 because it's weighted then the die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10. — Michael

You are missing the whole point of my argument! I'll try one more time:

1) The die has a 10% chance of landing on 10 (because its 10 sided)
2) IN ADDITION to [1], there is also an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 (because its weighted)

If you think about it, the chance of the die getting 10 is not 10%, not 20%, not 30%, it 28%.

I think you need to read through the examples I've given you again.

Excuse my French, but what the fuck? — Michael

If a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted.

You also have to allow for the addition 10% chance of a 10 (due to the fact it has 10 sides).

That depends on what you mean by "weighted such that there's an additional 20% chance". Do you mean that there's a 30% chance of getting 10 or (10 * 1.2) = 12% chance? — Michael

No. I am trying to construct an example where there is a boolean question with a skewed distribution and then there is a completely separate piece of evidence for which we have a completely separate probability estimate for.

So I mean:

- There is a 10% chance of a 10
PLUS
- An additional 20% chance of a 10 due to the die being weighted.

You can't just add 10% and 20% to get 30%. If you think about it a different way:

- 20% of the time the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted
- 10% of the time it would have a 10 anyway (because its a 10 sided die)
- So 20% X 90% = 18%
- Then we have to add that to the 10% (because its a 10 sided die)
- Giving 28%

Which agrees with my method.

How do you know this? Or are you saying that 90% of people up for trial are found guilty? Because that's not the same thing. In fact your reasoning will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy; jurors will assume guilt from the start, regardless of any subsequent evidence, and so find them guilty, which in turn will make it more likely that subsequent jurors will assume guilt from the start. — Michael

You are just not getting it! Try this:

- We have a die with 10 sides - 10% chance of getting 10
- It is weighted towards landing on 10 - represented by an additional 20% chance of getting 10.

Then the combined chance of getting 10 is:

10% + 90% X 20% = 28%

With your approach, you would conclude that the chance of getting a 10 is 20% which is wrong - it must be higher than 20%

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that in the above scenario there is a 75% chance that the defendant is guilty of murder? — Michael

1) We have evidence that 50% of people up for trial are in fact guilty.
2) Then we have separate evidence that indicates 50% likelihood of guilt (prints on the knife).

I do not think you can just disregard the evidence of [1] - it has to be taken into account in the calculation.

If you think about it [1] says there is a 50% chance of guilt.

[2] says separately that there is ADDITIONAL evidence giving a separate 50% chance of guilt

So the combined probability of him being guilty must be higher than 50%.

75% in fact.

Now, does that seem sensible to you? Somehow you've gone from "there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally" to "there's a 65% chance that he's guilty of murder". — Michael

- Say 90% of people up for trial are actually guilty
- Then we have a piece of evidence saying, by itself that there is a 50% chance of guilt.

Its wrong just to say there is therefore an overall 50% chance of guilt - 95% chance of guilt is correct.

I admire the alacrity with which you adopt overwhelming authority on subjects you're clearly not remotely informed on, but there's a whole bunch of actual quantum theorists out there who know you're wrong. Now maybe to you this seems very biased, but in evaluating the likelihood of a scientific theory of genesis, I'm going to err on the side of the physcists, not the creationist. — Kenosha Kid

Quantum cosmology is the synergy of GR and QM - two completely incompatible theories. So quantum cosmology is on shaky foundations. Quantum cosmology based theories are therefore very speculative and have a low probability of being correct.

The universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't buy that it could be anything other than God who started it.
Therefore God exists. — Kenosha Kid

Well, give me your explanation for how a random event caused the start of time, the BB and the fine tuning of the universe please.

1. 60% guilty + 40% innocent x 25% = 70% guilty
2. 40% innocent + 60% guilty x 25% = 55% guilty — Michael

I'm multiplying the evidence of guilt given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).

Your approach (1) multiplies the evidence of innocence given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife). — Michael

Approach [2] does not make sense to me - we have 60% guilty to start with. Then we say a piece of evidence additionally makes it 25% likely that he is guilty. So the initial guilt estimate of 60% has to increase rather than decrease (to 55% as in [2]).

Before we continue, clarify something for me. If the initial distribution is 60% chance he is guilty, which of these is correct:

1. 60% guilty + 40% innocent x 25% = 70% guilty
2. 40% innocent + 60% guilty x 25% = 55% guilty — Michael

[1] is the approach I am using.

Not quite sure what you mean with [2].

Then if that were true, the only possibility would be intelligent creation which would be 100%, not 50%. And your argument reduces to:

Given that the universe had a beginning
And I don't believe anything other than an intelligent creator could've done it
God exists

Not very compelling. — Kenosha Kid

Look at it this way - spacetime is either a deliberate or random creation. If its random, then it resulted in the start of time, the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the universe. I just don't buy that. No quantum fluctuation does that kind of thing.

I didn't say it doesn't have a creation, I said it wasn't created by an intelligent deity. — Kenosha Kid

I don't believe in random so that just leaves the creation of spacetime as a deliberate act.