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
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
Not quite sure what you mean with [2]. — Devans99
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. — Devans99
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
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
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
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
So [1] by itself implies a 50% chance he is the killer. And [2] separately implies a 25% chance he is the killer. The question is how do you combine these into a single probability estimate?
It is clear the combined probability estimate must be higher than the 50% alone we have for the first piece of evidence. I can see no other way of doing the calculation than:
50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% = 62.5% guilty — Devans99
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
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
Say 90% of people up for trial are actually guilty — Devans99
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. — Devans99
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% — Devans99
You are just not getting it! — Devans99
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
- 20% of the time that 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% — Devans99
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). — Devans99
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) — Devans99
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
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) — Devans99
So it is absolutely not 20%+10%=30%.
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!
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
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. — Devans99
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% — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.