Originally posted by Agerg Just an unsolicited clarification here, I don't absolutely deny the possibility of some little 'g' god but I am probably one of the rare ones that [b]does absolutely deny the possibility of big 'G' "G"od (because it is a silly god! no way to take it seriously).
[hidden]I deny it as firmly as I deny that all apples are purple (and I don\'t put much stoc ...[text shortened]... t if they so wished but I would throw it out without pause for consideration).[/hidden][/b]
Bayesian theory here is your friend http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
Originally posted by Agerg P(G:g) = P(g:G)P(G)/P(g) = (1 x epsilon)/delta = (to any degree of accuracy you specify) 0 (for 0 < 10 bazillion x epsilon << delta < 1)
On the contrary P(G:g) is the set of values of c in the complex plane for which the orbit
of 0 under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial zn+1 = zn2 + c remains
bounded. That is, a complex number c is part of the P(G:g) set if, when starting with z0
= 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of zn remains bounded
however large n gets. In other words, its not coincidence that the universe is guided
by precise mathematical formulae.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie On the contrary P(G:g) is the set of values of c in the complex plane for which the orbit
of 0 under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial zn+1 = zn2 + c remains
bounded. That is, a complex number c is part of the P(G:g) set if, when starting with z0
= 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of zn remains bounded
h ...[text shortened]... other words, its not coincidence that the universe is guided
by precise mathematical formulae.
Your wiki copy/paste made a bit of a hash of the z_{n+1} = z_n^2 + c bit
Originally posted by LemonJello [b]it was a question without a good answer which is what we
run into with the universe.
Well, there are at least two very obvious problems with your stance.
For one, if you really think there are no good answers to the question of the cosmological origins, then you should of course simply withhold judgment on the matter, pending further analy ative or lazy. You've turned your brain off; you've stuck your head in the sand.[/b]
It does not MATTER if God did it or not, if you don't know how! You don't know
what it looked like when it started that is the same as not knowing if a candle
was lit for 5 mins or 5 hours, or how it began the knowledge you require is not
there for you or me. You look at the wax and judge anything since the wax is
only telling you what is going on now, not when it was lit.
You want to make a claim using information that does not address the claim.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay It does not MATTER if God did it or not, if you don't know how! You don't know
what it looked like when it started that is the same as not knowing if a candle
was lit for 5 mins or 5 hours, or how it began the knowledge you require is not
there for you or me. You look at the wax and judge anything since the wax is
only telling you what is going on now, ...[text shortened]... was lit.
You want to make a claim using information that does not address the claim.
Kelly
You answered me in exactly the same way and it is exactly the same way wrong.
You simply are too programmed to see reality for what it is.
Originally posted by sonhouse You answered me in exactly the same way and it is exactly the same way wrong.
You simply are too programmed to see reality for what it is.
Its the same because truth doesn't change on a whim. Your not having the key
bits of data means you are NOT going to be able to answer the question of age.
As I pointed out your use of dating objects assumes quite a bit, but you are a
true believer, your faith is such that what your doing allows for it, but it is not
facts your dealing with, but your beliefs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Its the same because truth doesn't change on a whim. Your not having the key
bits of data means you are NOT going to be able to answer the question of age.
As I pointed out your use of dating objects assumes quite a bit, but you are a
true believer, your faith is such that what your doing allows for it, but it is not
facts your dealing with, but your beliefs.
Kelly
you're using fallacy reasoning. it has already been pointed out to you that we can get a pretty good idea of how long the candle has been burning from the rate at which it is currently burning and by examining the melt patterns we can glean other information.
Originally posted by KellyJay It does not MATTER if God did it or not, if you don't know how! You don't know
what it looked like when it started that is the same as not knowing if a candle
was lit for 5 mins or 5 hours, or how it began the knowledge you require is not
there for you or me. You look at the wax and judge anything since the wax is
only telling you what is going on now, ...[text shortened]... was lit.
You want to make a claim using information that does not address the claim.
Kelly
Why did you post this in response to that particular post of mine?
The post of mine to which you responded stated that there are at least two problems with your stance: (1) you endorse something that puports to be an answer to a question; on the other hand, you say this same question has no good answers and (2) you have no good reasons for blanketly declaiming on the ability of science to come up with justified answers to such questions.
How does what you have written here address either of these concerns?
Originally posted by VoidSpirit you're using fallacy reasoning. it has already been pointed out to you that we can get a pretty good idea of how long the candle has been burning from the rate at which it is currently burning and by examining the melt patterns we can glean other information.
Yes, you can get much from the candle, but you don't know how many times it has
been blown out and restarted, so how long the current flame has been lit will
be a beyond your math.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Yes, you can get much from the candle, but you don't know how many times it has
been blown out and restarted, so how long the current flame has been lit will
be a beyond your math.
Kelly
This analogy doesn't fit your particular scenario.
We can work out how long the candle has burnt for if it is burnt in one continuous go, but you are correct in that i if blow out the candle for a day/week/month/year and then come back and light it i we wouldn't be able to measure the interim period when it was not lit. Do you see the problem here though? How is this analogy comparable to your view that the universe is younger? Your analogy is demonstrating the the universe, could be, older. It's back to front.
What would you accept as evidence of a creator?
15 Oct '12 12:58
YouTube
Back to Top