Originally posted by ckoh1965It is up to you.
There is no need to continue 'talking' about it. I have no doubt that you are very sure of the accuracy of the contents of the Quran; just as so many people here are equally sure of their Bible. And I am equally sure of my conclusion on both books.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I still do not follow you, did you pay for your will? Do you make
OK, that sounds fair enough. At least we are clear on that. It's just that most christians appear to promote christianity on, amongst others, the strength of god giving us all 'free will', which unfortunately gives the impression that we are allowed to do as we pleased without any consequences. But that is not exactly the case.
It was just the other day ...[text shortened]... alent to the FREE WILL that god gives us. I guess it is true that NOTHING'S free in life.
payments for it now, is there a bill coming to you? No on all accounts
it was given to you, you are free do with it whatever you will; however,
as in all things in life, what you do, and do not do, will affect not only
your life, but all those around you in some degree. I do not even buy
into "free will" as a good term to describe what we have, because we
are bound by our sinful nature. Adam and Eve were given free will, yet
they made a bad choice with that will with the full knowledge of what
was and was no proper to do. We since then are pulled into a selfish
nature that cares more about self than most anything else.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, you must excuse me, Kelly. English isn't my first language. Perhaps I'm not so good in expressing myself. Let me see... how should I say this...
I still do not follow you, did you pay for your will? Do you make
payments for it now, is there a bill coming to you? No on all accounts
it was given to you, you are free do with it whatever you will; however,
as in all things in life, what you do, and do not do, will affect not only
your life, but all those around you in some degree. I do not even buy
n are pulled into a selfish
nature that cares more about self than most anything else.
Kelly
Now, the christians are saying, god gives us free will. What exactly do they mean by this? All I'm saying, such line tends to give the impression that we can do anything we like, even disobey god's wishes, and we won't be penalized for it.
If I have a dog, I can say, I give free will to my dog, it can do as it pleases. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if my dog mess up my garden or dig a hole under my fence, I am not going to take action on it, because it has free will? Or, I can punish it by food deprivation?
Now in the second scenario, I can still argue that the dog dug that hole on its own accord. It's exercising its free will. BUT! I'm punishing it for the choice of action it has chosen. I can say, well, it's not my fault, I'm just giving that dog something it deserves for making the wrong choice. To me, I don't consider this second scenario as free will. Yes, admittedly the choice is the dog's, but it's not for 'free'.
God says to us, you have free will. But in the event that I do something against his wishes, I'll have to pay for it. Maybe not now, not immediately, but in the end, I'll have to pay for it. Which means, it's not for free. The choice I make costs something!
You are free not to worship me, Kelly. It's up to you. You have free will. But just in case you decide not to worship me, just remember that I'll send you to hell on judgement day. But I'm not saying you must worship me.... the choice is yours!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA familiarity with basic concepts of probability.
But the wager is 50/50. Maybe I'm just tired: what am I missing?
It's stunning how many people actually believe that all wagers with two possible outcomes are 50/50 propositions. It's the oldest fallacy in the book.
You really should get a basic education.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Free will does not mean you may do what you will, but that you can
Well, you must excuse me, Kelly. English isn't my first language. Perhaps I'm not so good in expressing myself. Let me see... how should I say this...
Now, the christians are saying, god gives us free will. What exactly do they mean by this? All I'm saying, such line tends to give the impression that we can do anything we like, even disobey god's wishes, ...[text shortened]... day. But I'm not saying you [b]must worship me.... the choice is yours![/b]
do what you will, and even there you are limited to the choices put
before you by the circumstances of your life. Without free will for
example you would be like the computer you are typing on, you'd
only do what is programmed within your DNA and nothing more, you'd
simply a programmed robot without the ability to pick and choose
anything outside of what your software demands you to do.
Kelly
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI, for one, would be interested in hearing you expand upon this.
A familiarity with basic concepts of probability.
It's stunning how many people actually believe that all wagers with two possible outcomes are 50/50 propositions. It's the oldest fallacy in the book.
You really should get a basic education.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI wonder if you would be interested in investing in my "lottery investment opportunity". here is how it works, take all the money you have and buy lottery tickets - now, only two things can happen, you can win or you can lose so your chances are 50/50!
A familiarity with basic concepts of probability.
It's stunning how many people actually believe that all wagers with two possible outcomes are 50/50 propositions. It's the oldest fallacy in the book.
You really should get a basic education.
(blatently stolen from Chris Rock on SNL)
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperExactly. Anybody who thinks Freaky's analysis is sound would be willing to invest any sum of money up to half of the amount of the jackpot, and delusionally think he is expecting positive returns.
I wonder if you would be interested in investing in my "lottery investment opportunity". here is how it works, take all the money you have and buy lottery tickets - now, only two things can happen, you can win or you can lose so your chances are 50/50!
(blatently stolen from Chris Rock on SNL)
TheSkipper
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettBecause stochastic processes exist and operate independently of how we choose to examine their outcomes.
Of course not. But I would like to hear your explanation of why it isn't.
Let us consider a simple, concrete example: rolling a standard theoretical 6-sided die, defined to be an object that yields a number 1 through 6, each with probability 1/6.
Now, suppose we construct the following wager: If the die rolls a 3, you get $100 dollars. If it doesn't roll a 3, you get $0. That is, all that matters to us is whether the die rolls 3 or does not roll 3.
Would you pay $50 to play this game? After all, the die will either roll a 3 or it will not, so if you accept that such things are 50/50 propositions, you ought to be willing to pay up to $50 to play and think that you are getting a positive expectation.
But this is clearly incorrect, since by supposition the die rolls 3 with probability 1/6 and it does not roll 3 with probability 5/6, which contradicts our finding that the wager is a 50/50 proposition.
Thus, it is simple to demonstrate via proof by contradiction that probabilities cannot be assessed by constructing a partition of outcomes (e.g., God does/does not exist, or Die does/does not roll 3) and then blindly assuming that such arbitrary partitions are equally likely. The root of the fallacy is that there is no inherent connection at all between such partitioning and the actual underlying stochastic process. Probabilities can only be properly assessed by examing all available information about the stochastic process itself, not its outcomes as they fall into some arbitrarily partitioned space.
To speak more directly to the God problem at hand, we can liken it to the die example. Clearly one flaw in Freaky's analysis is that he only posits the existence of one God, rather than a variety of conceivable Gods. This is akin to being concerned only with one side of the die, and then fallaciously concluding that the die rolling a 3 is a 50/50 proposition, since he has arbitrarily partitioned the space of outcomes into two states (God does/does not exist) instead of six (which would be just another arbitrary partition, and no more meaningful with respect to actually determining the likelihood that the God of interest actually exists).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think part of the problem is that one can easily see the number of variables with a dice roll. We can confidently assess a 1 in 6 probability to a 3 being rolled. But with god, the probability is unknowable. There is no way to say its 1 out of 2, or 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 1,000,000. When the probability is unknowable, and the outcome is untestable, the natural inclination for many people is to assume that one is just as likely as the other.
Because stochastic processes exist and operate independently of how we choose to examine their outcomes.
Let us consider a simple, concrete example: rolling a standard theoretical 6-sided die, defined to be an object that yields a number 1 through 6, each with probability 1/6.
Now, suppose we construct the following wager: If the die rolls a ...[text shortened]... with respect to actually determining the likelihood that the God of interest actually exists).
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThis is still flawed on two major points.
I think part of the problem is that one can easily see the number of variables with a dice roll. We can confidently assess a 1 in 6 probability to a 3 being rolled. But with god, the probability is unknowable. There is no way to say its 1 out of 2, or 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 1,000,000. When the probability is unknowable, and the outcome is untestable, the natural inclination for many people is to assume that one is just as likely as the other.
A die doesn't roll 3 with probability 1/6 in virtue of having six possible outcomes that you can easily see. A weighted die, for example, could look identical and have 6 possible outcomes but roll 3 with probability .8. There is no connection between the cardinality of the space of outcomes -- apparent or contrived -- and the actual probability that the underlying stochastic process yields any one of those outcomes.
Regarding a lack of information or testability, even under such conditions it is obviously a fallacy to assume that all outcomes in some arbitrary partition are equally likely. I have already demonstrated this with the example that you can posit the existence of n Gods to make the existence of any one of them 1/n using this fallacious reasoning. Since this immediately leads to a contradiction (the Christian God exists with probability 1/2 and 1/6, for example), it must be flawed.
If your post was just to say that people are stupid, then I concede your point. If it was intended to justify their stupidity, then I hope I have shown why it is unjustified.
The Monty Hall problem encapsulates both of these points well. I would encourage you to solve it and understand its solution. I think there are about 70 threads in Posers and Puzzles that discuss it.
Originally posted by ckoh1965youre totally wrong about what i said and im in a bad mood im not even going to explain myself.
So are you saying that whoever believes in a non-christian god may be subject to punishment? Would that be a harsher punishment when compared to a non-believer at all? In other words, there IS something to lose if we did pull that lever, right?
basically when all is said and done the christians are saying god has given us free will yet we must worship him at the same time. this is kinda a strange free will to have, if god needs to be worshipped why give us free will? this is like me letting my son play in the road and then blaming him when he almost gets hit by a car! also, why does god need to be worshipped? don't you find this worrying? what kind of ego are we dealing with here - not only does he need to be worshipped, he gives us free will then says if you don't do what you're told i send you to hell..! and you want me to worship this belief... on that note, isn't an evil persons idea of heaven really hell anyway?