Originally posted by RJHindsWell we all know that gravity is just a huge scientific conspiracy designed to keep us in our place!
It is still called a theory. It is not called the Law of Evolution is it?
So that means it is not fact in my book.
P.S. We have a Law of Gravity -- that is fact
We also have a theory of gravity -- that means it is not a proven fact
The Truth is here! ... http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoTaken a step further and based on the last time I looked at the pie chart, around 10% of the population is non-theist.
From Wiki, I have estimated that 2.505 billion adult people on this planet are theists. By adult I mean people between 18 and 65 years age. The christians are 1 billion,muslims are 1 billion,hindus are 0.5 billion,jews are 0.5 million. Total adult population of our planet is about 4.5 billions. So is about half of the total population of earth to be considered idiots?
I have attempted to argue the theory of probability before--that if 9 out of 10 people believe--even today--that there is a creator. Then doesn't the law of probability tell us that the odds are (however so slightly) in favor of a creator?
All I ever get in response is ad hominem attacks, insults, and condescension. It's not like I'm trying to one-up anyone. I'm seriously thinking that the law of probability should be a factor here. Afterall, civilization has had a full 7,000 years to talk itself out of such fairytales and yet, theism exists. Strongly. Perhaps more than ever. If it were all fairytale, even the unintelligent would eventually be able to see the falseness of it and pull back the curtain.
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidA democratic approach to the truth?
Taken a step further and based on the last time I looked at the pie chart, around 10% of the population is non-theist.
I have attempted to argue the theory of probability before--that if 9 out of 10 people believe--even today--that there is a creator. Then doesn't the law of probability tell us that the odds are (however so slightly) in favor of a creato unintelligent would eventually be able to see the falseness of it and pull back the curtain.
No need for any scientific method - just a show of hands will do!
Don't know why that money was wasted on the LHC - just take a vote on whether the Higgs boson exists or not.
PS There is no "Law of Probability" and whenever I see someone quote it I know they are not talking out of their mouth.
2 edits
Well excuse me. I should have said Law of Averages and just merely argued that "from a probability standpoint" if 9 out of 10 people, after 7,000 years of experience and study, draw a certain conclusion, then it is more likely to be correct than incorrect. (however slightly more likely)
If you want to throw probability completely out the window then throw science out the window as well, because there is always a small percentage of the scientific community that argues against what the establishment takes for granted. According to you, if 9 out of 10 physicists agree on something, it is no more likely to be correct than incorrect. I beg to differ.
Originally posted by sumydidApparently Wolfgang59 is not a Math teacher.
Well excuse me. I should have said Law of Averages and just merely argued that "from a probability standpoint" if 9 out of 10 people, after 7,000 years of experience and study, draw a certain conclusion, then it is more likely to be correct than incorrect. (however slightly more likely)
If you want to throw probability completely out the window then thr ...[text shortened]... cists agree on something, it is no more likely to be correct than incorrect. I beg to differ.
A glass jar contains 6 red, 5 green, 8 blue and 3 yellow marbles.
If a single marble is chosen at random from the jar, what is the
probability of choosing a red marble?
a green marble?
a blue marble?
a yellow marble?
The outcomes are not equally likely to occur. You are more likely
to choose a blue marble than any other color. You are least likely
to choose a yellow marble.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well you should know about statistics and probability that is
A Maths Honours degree from London University.
What are your credentials?
covered at the end of a college algebra book even if you did
not take a course in statistics. It is a branch of mathematics;
but you made a political statement instead.
3 edits
Originally posted by sumydidI have attempted to argue the theory of probability before--that if 9 out of 10 people believe--even today--that there is a creator. Then doesn't the law of probability tell us that the odds are (however so slightly) in favor of a creator?
Taken a step further and based on the last time I looked at the pie chart, around 10% of the population is non-theist.
I have attempted to argue the theory of probability before--that if 9 out of 10 people believe--even today--that there is a creator. Then doesn't the law of probability tell us that the odds are (however so slightly) in favor of a creato unintelligent would eventually be able to see the falseness of it and pull back the curtain.
No. Probability suggests it's more likely the next person you meet will believe in some sort of creator, it says nothing about how likely they are to be correct in this belief. Your argument is just a rephrasing of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergNo sunnydid is not saying it is true like Argumentum_ad_populum says.
[b]I have attempted to argue the theory of probability before--that if 9 out of 10 people believe--even today--that there is a creator. Then doesn't the law of probability tell us that the odds are (however so slightly) in favor of a creator?
No. Probability suggests it's more likely the next person you meet will believe in some sort of creator, it says ...[text shortened]... t is just a rephrasing of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum[/b]
He clarified his thoughts in a later post. He is saying the probability of
it being true is more likely without good evidence to the contrary. It still
may not be true, while the Argumentum_ad_populum says it is true. Of
course your probability example is correct too. It can apply in both cases
and just because you don't like the result of one application over the
other is not a valid reason to dismiss it. As he pointed out in his later
post, it still may not be true and he was not saying it was true.
P.S. post by sunnydid
Almost completely without exception, the skeptics I present the probability argument to, take it as I'm arguing "therefore believers are correct." Nope.
Originally posted by RJHindsNow let me recast this to be consistent with the actual probability argument sumydid posed...
A glass jar contains 6 red, 5 green, 8 blue and 3 yellow marbles.
If a single marble is chosen at random from the jar, what is the
probability of choosing a red marble?
a green marble?
a blue marble?
a yellow marble?
The outcomes are not equally likely to occur. You are more likely
to choose a blue marble than any other color. You are least likely
to choose a yellow marble.
A glass jar contains 6 red, 5 green, 8 blue and 3 yellow marbles. What is the probability that
a red marble will be the best type of marble?
a green marble will be the best type of marble?
a blue marble will be the best type of marble?
a yellow marble will be the best type of marble?
They are not equally likely It is more likely that blue marbles are best. It is least likely yellow marbles will be best
See something wrong??? 😕