08 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou know, I might be a lot more likely to respond to your query if I thought you even gave the tiniest little damn possible.
On what basis do you judge your unsupported faith based beliefs to be more probable than other peoples unsupported faith based beliefs?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI give a damn about all kinds of things...
You know, I might be a lot more likely to respond to your query if I thought you even gave the tiniest little damn possible.
What is it in particular that you don't think I give a damn about at the moment?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by darvlayReally?
From your profile I can tell you take yourself and trench coats very seriously.
Huh... See I don't think my profile says that at all... If for no other reason than
there are no trench coats on it at all, and I don't take myself very seriously at all...
Maybe you are reading into it what you think is there?
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeGah, you are the worst.
Really?
Huh... See I don't think my profile says that at all... If for no other reason than
there are no trench coats on it at all, and I don't take myself very seriously at all...
Maybe you are reading into it what you think is there?
10 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeShow me sufficient evidence for your god and I will believe it exists.
Wrong.
I have an open mind because I am prepared to believe whatever the evidence shows to be true.
Show me sufficient evidence for your god and I will believe it exists.
YOU have a closed mind because there is nothing I can possibly show you that would change your
mind because you DON'T care about evidence.
You are the one 'cop'-ing' out here. Not me.
I'll bite.
What constitutes "sufficient evidence," according to you?
What are the standards?
10 Jan 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI have a regrettable 'beast' on my right shoulder: a cow's skull.
ðŸ˜
I have no markings on my body of any kind. Now or ever.
All native American-themed and whatnot.
If I could go back to 30 year-old me, I'd smash me in the mouth and tell me to quit being a douche.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBasically....
[b]Show me sufficient evidence for your god and I will believe it exists.
I'll bite.
What constitutes "sufficient evidence," according to you?
What are the standards?[/b]
Evidence [E] for X, is a fact/ observation about our reality that makes P more likely.
So the probability of X given E {p[X|E]} is greater than the probability of X a priori. {p[X]}
So in mathematical terms p[X|E] is greater than p[X].
Sufficient evidence for belief is evidence that raises the probability of X being true past the
threshold of reasonable belief. [lets say for arguments sake 95%]
Sufficient evidence for Knowledge is evidence that raises the probability of X being true
past the threshold of Knowledge. [99.9999... % depends on the situation, definition of
knowledge ect]
However it's slightly more complicated because you can have multiple possible explanations
for E, and in general it's the relative probabilities that matter.
So E might make X 5% more likely than it was before, but if it makes A 95% more likely
than it was before then we would consider E to be strong evidence for A and only
very weak evidence for X.
Sufficient evidence for god is very very hard because god's probability a priori is unimaginably
tiny. [possibly infinitely so].
Probabilities for a proposition a priori are given by it's complexity, the simpler the idea the
more likely it is.
This is because the probability of A must always be greater or equal to the probability of A & B.
As you increase the complexity of a proposition you increase the number of elements that
all must be true and thus must be supported by evidence and thus lower the probability
of the proposition a priori.
As god as described is incredibly, if not infinitely, complex the a priori probability is infinitesimally
small. And thus requires huge amounts of evidence.
So much in fact that it's hard to image what evidence for god could be because almost nothing
seems enough. However I do like Matt Dillahunty's answer that while he doesn't know what
evidence would convince him that god existed, god must know what evidence would convince him.
However in the past I've given an answer that gives evidence for an immensely powerful being
that would look like a god from our perspective.
Imagine one day that hundreds of extra planets with thousands of moons [many habitable] suddenly
appeared in our solar system, with the Earth becoming the moon of a gas giant bigger than
Jupiter. And that all the other gas giants, including this one became encircled by Banksian Orbitals,
and that all these new worlds were impossibly held in unstable orbits, and that all this happened without
disrupting the Earth's tides or causing earthquakes... Then you have an idea of the kind of scale of
thing I mean.
So when I say that I see no evidence for god, the kind of thing that qualifies is not something
anyone could miss...
10 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeCould we have this in English, please, not 'logicspeak'?
Basically....
Evidence [E] for X, is a fact/ observation about our reality that makes P more likely.
So the probability of X given E {p[X|E]} is greater than the probability of X a priori. {p[X]}
So in mathematical terms p[X|E] is greater than p[X].
Sufficient evidence for belief is evidence that raises the probability of X being true past th ...[text shortened]... ee no evidence for god, the kind of thing that qualifies is not something
anyone could miss...