analogy to causation — 3017amen

"Seek the thread and you shall find."

(sorry, too lazy to start finding the links to the comments)

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).

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?

He's incorrigible. Can't stop talking, even now. Well, he was a lawyer.

What is a betting man meant to conclude? — Devans99

Not to make silly generalisations from one event.

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. — Devans99

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

eternal inflation was caused by something — Devans99

Nope, by definition it is eternal.

If you were God, would not you consider it a mighty deed to create a whole multiverse of life supporting universes? — Devans99

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

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...

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. — Devans99

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...

- 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 — Devans99

I've gone over this before. If there's a 25% chance that he's guilty given the first evidence then there's a 75% chance that he's innocent given the first evidence, and if there's a separate 50% chance that he's guilty given the second evidence then there's a separate 50% chance that he's innocent given the second evidence.

The way you then add the guilty probabilities together can also be used to add the innocent probabilities together, and these lead to the contradictory result that both the probability of guilt and the probability of innocence are > 50% which is a contradiction.

Consider this example:

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.

6. Given that iff John is the shooter then John is guilty and iff Mary is the shooter then John is innocent, there is a 75% chance that John is guilty and a 75% chance that John is innocent.

The conclusion is contradictory.

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?

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.

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? — Devans99

This appears to be the irreducible complexity argument borrowed from anti-Darwinist creationists. It a) is no less ridiculous than the prior arguments and b) 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.

But that's two separate propositions:

- Is John the shooter?
AND

Its just fine for it to be 75% probability for BOTH of these separate propositions are true. — Devans99

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.

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. — Devans99

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.

So the evidence that one of them did it is evidence that neither of them did it. Yet another contradiction.

Your understanding of probability is deeply flawed.

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?

Feeling so special that you think the universe was fashioned with you in mind is self-elevation and personification.

As an aside, you can never prove that God does not exist! — Devans99

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.

Start over. Try something more defensible. (Could at least respond to prior replies.)

(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)
You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best.

with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe

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

...

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%

They could both be the shooters. — Devans99

Not in this case. Evidence C shows that there is a 100% chance that there is only 1 shooter.

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

Yes, and I'm also saying:

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

Which clearly cancels out to 0%

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

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.

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%

could you do me a favour and 'just not believe' there could be any less than ten grand in my savings account, there's a dear. — Isaac

Could he do that, he could retire on commissions!

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% — Devans99

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.

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.

Can you disprove the existence of unicorns for me please? — Devans99

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).

Have you been there then? Which holiday agency was that? — Devans99

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

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. — Devans99

Devans!

How does that square with the Multiverse theory ? In quantum uncertainty, we know there are things that exist that we cannot observe, so can the atemporal and temporal exist within this realm?

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.

The idea I am using is NEW TO PROBABILITY - get it! — Devans99

Right, got it. You're a kook. I wish you'd started with this.

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.

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!

I've already proved time has a start to you! Did you not read my reply? Once again:

- The past is either a finite number of days long, or greater than all finite number of days long
- Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever
- So time has a start

Did you not read my reply? 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. Not only do you not derive a contradiction, this argument is explicitly circular and question-begging: infinite sequences going on forever cannot be the premise for rejecting an infinite past (its your 2nd premise in the above) since whether the past can be infinite is precisely the claim that is in dispute.

So all you've done here is merely restate your faith in a finite past... a bit of personal trivia (Devans99 believes in a finite past), not an argument much less a proof and not especially philosophically interesting. This entire thread is like a bad parody of Thomas or William Lane Craig- and that's saying alot since their own apologetics/natural theology are rather comical in their own right.

"God almost certainly exists" is a probability assertion.

There is absolutely NO WAY to arrive at that conclusion using LOGIC, REASON, SCIENCE, OR MATH.

This is an interesting thread, especially the side-bars. But the initial assertion is nothing more than, "I 'believe' (in) GOD."

Okay...you "believe" a god exists...and that that god is the god you worship.

So...do you think that The Godfather or The Godfather II was the better movie?

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 can ignore what I said. I'm replying to you whilst watching TV and wasn't concentrating.