why so angry?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I guess I'll just finish off this line of questioning myself.

knightmeister: Well, Doctor, the detonation logically depends on the bomb not being exploded. It is impossible to detonate a bomb that has already exploded.

Doctor S: But in the original scenario, it is stipulated that the detonation logically depends on the fuse being connected an ...[text shortened]... t must follow from the truth of my claim that you cited that bbarr's conclusion is also true.

It is impossible to detonate a bomb that has already exploded. DR


No , you don't understand probability. One can never say "impossible" only that something is unbelievably unlikely.

If you don't understand this then my whole argument will be a non-starter for you. Whitehead has rightly pointed out that there is a chance (the smallness of said chance is irrelevant) of the bomb reforming itself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I notice that many Atheists on this thread get very angry and judgemental at Theists for being self delusional , or dishonest , or brainwashed etc etc . However , if we really do have no free will then theists are just programmed to be this way. Religion is a product of nature not men. Better to get angry with evolution than the individuals. Would you ...[text shortened]... there - are you willing to either drop your anger or drop your determinism?

See my point?

What the hell do you mean that religion is a product of nature, not man?

How many bloody giraffes did you see in church today?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It is impossible to detonate a bomb that has already exploded. DR


No , you don't understand probability. One can never say "impossible" only that something is unbelievably unlikely.

If you don't understand this then my whole argument will be a non-starter for you. Whitehead has rightly pointed out that there is a chance (the smallness of said chance is irrelevant) of the bomb reforming itself.

Then answer my question. What makes your scenario different from the standard one, such that the probability of detonation reduces to 0?

Originally posted by Nemesio
The answer to my final question, actually, was evidently, 'no.'

Indeed, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then answer my question. What makes your scenario different from the standard one, such that the probability of detonation reduces to 0?

I have already addressed this in my response to Whitehead. The basic point here is that even in this scenario it's impossible to reduce the possibility to 0% , so I was mistaken. This just goes to show that BARR's scenario was incorrect as well. The possibility of the fuse becoming connected can never really be ruled out so his argument is flawed from the beginning which is the point I was trying to make all along. I have admitted my mistake (as pointed out by whitehead) now all BARR has to do is admit his.

Originally posted by shavixmir
What the hell do you mean that religion is a product of nature, not man?

How many bloody giraffes did you see in church today?

Is not man for an Atheist part of nature. If he is not then what is he ...surely not "supernatural"? My point is simply this. Who is to blame for this "idiotic" thing called religion ? Can't be God because he doesn't exist. Can't really be our fault because we don't have free will (or do we?) according to atheists. So what or who is to blame? If giraffes had made up religion would you be angry with them ? If not why not? Do giraffes have free will and are they accountable for their actions?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have already addressed this in my response to Whitehead. The basic point here is that even in this scenario it's impossible to reduce the possibility to 0% , so I was mistaken. This just goes to show that BARR's scenario was incorrect as well. The possibility of the fuse becoming connected can never really be ruled out so his argument is flawed from ...[text shortened]... I have admitted my mistake (as pointed out by whitehead) now all BARR has to do is admit his.

Do you believe that stipulation is a worthless tool of analysis?

Do you believe that the probabilities of some tautologies being false may in fact be greater than zero?

Originally posted by bbarr
Indeed, it's like talking to a brick wall.

I agree as well. He seems more likely to be made of clay and mortar than of clay and God's breath.

Originally posted by bbarr
Indeed, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Ah...but there is a 100000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-1 chance that the brick wall might answer back! Have you understood probability yet?

(I predict a 50-50% chance of a " at least that's a better chance of you responding" response)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you believe that stipulation is a worthless tool of analysis?

Do you believe that the probabilities of some tautologies being false may in fact be greater than zero?

No , I just believe in stating and re-stating simple reasoned truth until someone can knock me down with a reasoned argument instead of sophistry and "educated" babble. Now have YOU understood probability or is it just me and whitey?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I agree as well. He seems more likely to be made of clay and mortar than of clay and God's breath.

Just engage with the argument if you please.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No , I just believe in stating and re-stating simple reasoned truth until someone can knock me down with a reasoned argument instead of sophistry and "educated" babble. Now have YOU understood probability or is it just me and whitey?

I understand more about probability than you will ever understand about any subject.

Revisit the scenario that bbarr proposed. What do you think the word "unless" conveys in terms of the scenario's propositional formulation?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Revisit the scenario that bbarr proposed. What do you think the word "unless" conveys in terms of the scenario's propositional formulation?

Originally posted by bbarr
Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is lit.

Indeed, 'unless' is the key word. We're not even asserting that the
likelihood of the bomb's going off is 0; sure, it could spontaneously
blow up, but that would have nothing to do with a lit fuse in another
room or a connected, unlit fuse.

Knightmeister is confused, however, about the idea that merely one
of the two 'probability increasing' criteria increases the overall scenario.
It doesn't. That's the purpose of 'unless,' which he is misunderstanding.

Meaningfully, it is the constellation of events (lit and connected) fuse
that increases the likelihood from whatever very small, but perhaps
non-zero probability. Merely doing one and only one doesn't increase
the probability.

Surely, he recongizes that now, because every time he talks about the
likelihood's increasing with merely one of the criterial events, it's in the
serendipitous conjunction with some random event's making the other
one happening as well. Certainly, he realizes that effecting solely
one of the events doesn't raise the probability because the second
event's happening is required to make the bomb go off (subtracting,
of course, the very small, non-zero probability of spontaneous explosion,
which doesn't hinge on the single events themselves).

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I understand more about probability than you will ever understand about any subject.

Perhaps we should take a more casual example, Mr Probability.

Let's say I am making a bet at a car race in which 10 cars are racing
(numbered 'A' through 'J'😉. Let's assume that each of these cars has
an equal chance of winning/placing/showing (do they use these terms
for cars?). If I make a bet that 'A' will come in first and 'B' will come in
second (precisely), then my chances are 1/10*1/9, right (1/90)?

Assuming I got this right, let's say that in this 100 lap race, there's a
big nasty pile up such that 'A' gets a 2 lap lead over the rest of the
pack. Consequently, he wins the race and the remainder of the cars
are yet to finish. Have my odds changed?

Perhaps a simpler example will suffice. Being a professional pimp, I
have many women in my stable. Unfortunately, two become pregnant,
one due in a month, one due in three. The odds that both are male
are 1/4 (obviously). When the first gives birth to a male, have my
odds changed?

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm sorry if my penchant for precision makes it more difficult to interpret your claims. As a general rule, you shouldn't throw around words like "cause" willy-nilly in a debate about causal determinism and free will.

Anyway, you are now claiming that when you freely chose to respond to my post, you did not cause yourself to choose nor was your choi (for that would be to cause yourself to choose; an option you have already disavowed).

knightmeister,

I see that you didn't even bother to respond to this post from bbarr (page 7). That's pretty revealing: other than the fact that you yourself at first pass could not even explicate your own libertarian view without resorting to some set of statements that entails contradiction, this post is the most damning toward your libertarian view. As bbarr points out, your view fails to provide any explanatory power in reference to the content of "free" willings. In particular, its seems you cannot construct any correspondence between what you take to be the content of your own free willings and the content of your own person (your propositional attitudes, motivations, beliefs, desires, character, etc). Nor does the content of your "free" choices bear any relation to those factors that have helped shape the integral and persisting features of your character. And according to you, these uncaused choices that cannot reasonably be referenced back to you in any substantive or genuine way are the only sort for which you are supposed to be held morally responsible? Yikes!

I think you owe it to yourself to reflect a bit more on your libertarian position. After all, your notion is central to a lot of your major stances (to your version of theodicy, as one example).