Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 281
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    As it stands, your conclusion that a 747 will never be made by a tornado seems unwarranted, except perhaps if the probability is so low that, say, on average it would take longer than the time left until the heat death of the universe for such an event to happen.
    And is what I'm saying. And likewise that is the point of the analogy.

    We are suppose to completely reject the notion that a tornado will make an airplane and then hold the same belief regarding life can be made from chaos. You can say that perhaps one day a tornado will make a 747 but if you do, then you are basically rejecting one of the central premises of the analogy (the analogy asks the listener to agree that it will never happen).

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Right, but it doesn't ask you to have 100% confidence that "Life was made via chaos" is false, in the same way that you'd have 100% confidence in, say, "1+1=0" is false.
    It does not. But it does ask me to have 100% confidence that "Life was made from chaos" is false in the same way as it's something that does not happen, just like a tornado will never make a 747 before the universe ends.

    I think you are focusing on "Cannot" when the analogy asks us to focus on "will not" or "does not". The analogy doesn't say that tornado cannot make a 747 but it does say such a thing does not happen. And in that respect, the analogy is correct.

    We know enough to say, with confidence, that a tornado will never make a 747 and the theoretical possibility that it can happen does not reasonably overcome the common-sense notion that it will not happen.

    The analogy falters when it says "and it's the same for life from chaos" as we don't know enough to say with equal confidence that such a thing will not happen.

  2. #102
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And is what I'm saying. And likewise that is the point of the analogy.
    But that's not what you said. You said that it will never happen; that's not a conditioned statement ("It's unlikely to ever happen", etc.).

    We are suppose to completely reject the notion that a tornado will make an airplane and then hold the same belief regarding life can be made from chaos. You can say that perhaps one day a tornado will make a 747 but if you do, then you are basically rejecting one of the central premises of the analogy (the analogy asks the listener to agree that it will never happen).
    You don't have to completely reject it. You only have to, say, have exceedingly low confidence that it would occur (as with the sun not rising tomorrow).

    It does not. But it does ask me to have 100% confidence that "Life was made from chaos" is false in the same way as it's something that does not happen, just like a tornado will never make a 747 before the universe ends.
    No, it asks you to have ~99% confidence that "Life was made from chaos" is false.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #103
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    But that's not what you said. You said that it will never happen; that's not a conditioned statement ("It's unlikely to ever happen", etc.).
    I've consistently said it will never happen.

    You forwarded "heat death will occur first" and I agree with that notion. Once heat death occurs, it becomes impossible for a tornado to make a 747 (as a tornado cannot occur after heat death) so if heat death occurs before a tornado makes a 747, then it will never happen. And my position is that this is how it will pan out. Heat death will occur before a 747 is made by a tornado and therefore a 747 will NEVER be made by a tornado. I can't prove it of course but that is my firm belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You don't have to completely reject it. You only have to, say, have exceedingly low confidence that it would occur (as with the sun not rising tomorrow).
    You can couch it if you want, but that's not what the analogy seeks to have you do.

    If you abide by the analogy as it intends, you WILL say that a tornado will NEVER make an airplane.

    Of course you don't have to abide by the analogy (it's a free country) but then you are rejecting a central premise of the analogy.




    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    No, it asks you to have ~99% confidence that "Life was made from chaos" is false.
    No, it asks you to completely reject the notion that a tornado will ever produce a 747. If you don't then you are not doing what the analogy asks of you.

    Maybe reverse engineering the analogy will help clear this up. The destination of the analogy is to get you to agree that the universe was created by an intelligence. So using a logic chain backwards.

    1. An intelligence made life
    2. We can conclude that an intelligence made life because we know that life was not made by chaos.
    3. We know that chaos cannot make life because an orderly system such as life cannot be made by randomly swirling the components around
    4. We know that randomly swirling the components around cannot create a complex system because we know that 747 cannot be made by a tornado swirling through a junkyard.

    So to get to the conclusion (1) we have to accept point 4 which IS that a tornado WILL NOT make a 747. Of course you can challenge that premise (again, free country) but by doing so you are rejecting one of the primary premises of the analogy.

  4. #104
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    And Yes Clive, if modal logic were deductive, then, in the example given, you would be able to predict with 100% accuracy whether it would rain or not. As meteorologists are still not terribly accurate in terms of weather,
    Deductive arguments are arguments which, if their premises are true, their conclusion cannot possibly be false (in the logical sense).

    Mathematicians and philosophers routinely make deductive arguments using modal logic. Every theorem in modal logic is proved with a deductive argument; if you grant the truth of the premises, then you are obligated on pain of contradiction to accept the conclusion.

    Inductive arguments are different in that even if you grant that their premises are true, their conclusion doesn't necessarily follow (otherwise they'd be deductive arguments). Theorems in modal logic are not like this. I can cite some, if you'd like.

    the idea that modal logic is deductive without being able to deliver those kinds of results in the examples provided ... kinda prove the point and continues to highlight your failure to grasp the basic difference between inductive and deductive logic ... the basics ... even as you lecture others, quite frankly, really arrogantly.
    Consider the following argument:

    Let X be the number face-up after rolling a fair 6-sided die. Then P(X=1) = P(X=2) = ... = P(X=6) = 1/6. P(X != 1) = P(X=2) + P(X=3) + ... + P(X=6) = 5/6.

    Should we consider this argument deductive? It seems so, to me, because if you grant the premise (that X is a binomial(n=6, p=1/6) random variable) you must grant the conclusion (that P(X != 1) = 5/6).

    Should we consider this argument inductive? You seem to be arguing that we should, since its conclusion is that P(X != 1) = 5/6, which involves a probabilistic statement.

    My objection is that even though "P(X != 1) = 5/6" is a statement about a probability, it is a statement that we can know with 100% certainty is true merely by grating that the premises are true. The conclusion of an inductive argument, by my understanding, is such that we can't know with 100% certainty that it's true merely by granting that the premises are true.

    But perhaps I'm wrong. What's your take?

    You continue to twist, your the is arrogant and condescending, refuse to concede basic points, (as if the name of the game is to NEVER be wrong), act as if others are complete idiots when quoting the basics, ignore germane points, and generally act like a complete jack hole rather than acknowledge you made a mistake? Do you completely lack self awareness? Or is you competitiveness so out of whack that you will just keep right on going? Cutting of the nose to spite the face?
    This all seems like off-topic ad hominem, so I'll just pass it by.

    That would be because DEDUCTIVE proofs are CERTAIN. Is the God question answered? Then the DEDUCTIVE proofs failed.
    The deductive proofs failed to convince people (although many people find them convincing). That doesn't mean the deductive proofs were wrong. Just because people aren't actually persuaded by an argument doesn't mean the argument is invalid or unsound.

    And yet here you sit claiming the opposite out of sheer spite rather than any interest in exploring. It is PRECISELY this reality that drove ... oh famous Apologetic Authors like ... CS Lewis, to begin arguments based on ... induction - Mere Christianity is an argument from morality. Why would he even need to do that if deductive proofs worked?
    Claiming the opposite out of spite? No, I just think you're giving short shrift to some really well-thought out arguments for God that aren't inductive.

    Also, it seems perfectly natural to search for other arguments, even if you think that there's a knock-down argument already. There's been a whole bunch of different proofs for the Pythagorean theorem, even though it's been known to be true since antiquity.

    As a dialectical practice or, more specifically, as an evangelical practice, it makes sense to have additional weapons in your arsenal, even if you think that a perfectly rational person would be convinced by your very best argument.

    I don;t know, but as a historian, there was a shift HUNDREDS of years ago away from deductive argumentation to inductive argumentation, including on John Calvin, who completely rejected deductive arguments in favor of induction.

    https://bible.org/seriespage/13-refo...cs-god-said-it

    This shift is either unknown to you, or simply being withheld out of sheer spite.
    I didn't say that there wasn't such a shift. I never argued against a shift. The shift is irrelevant to my point, which is that not all arguments for God's existence are inductive (even if most or all recent ones are).

    And what's worse? You have absolutely no point to make. You are simply disagreeing to be disagreeable. Simply obeisance.
    Obeisance means deferential respect. You're probably thinking of obstinance or obstanacy.

    I'm disagreeing because you said something that I know to be wrong. That's a perfectly fine basis on which to disagree with a person's claim.

    Not only are you no expert, who treats himself as an expert, but you make MANY mistakes throughout your arguments to go absolutely no where. Putting aside your ego for a second Clive, how exactly do you respond to people to who walk into a conversation with a derisive attitude, twist people's statements to hijack the conversation to nowhere, and then utterly resist the warnings to back off or butt out?
    I'd probably ignore their posts.

    My objections are only as irrelevant as the claims that they're responding to; either defend your claims or withdraw them, but if the claims are material to your argument, then you have an obligation to defend them from objections.

    The problem here is YOUR inability to concede the point. You are STILL struggling with the difference between inductive (probability) and deductive (certain) logic.
    I'll just direct you to the question I asked earlier about the argument whose conclusion is P(X != 1) = 5/6

    Nor indeed have you conceded the validity of the 'statistical impossibility' claim.
    I don't know what claim you're referring to.

    The claim that 'statistical impossibility' is a term that appears in the literature? I defended that claim, so I wouldn't need to concede it.

    The claim that 'The universe came out of chaos' is a statistical impossibility? I have no interest in addressing that claim, so I have no need to concede it.

    Nor indeed are you commenting on the probability of the Fine Tuned Universe.
    Of course not, because it doesn't interest me. Contrast this with your refusal to comment on what the axioms of your logical system are, even though you're using this system to justify the deductions made in your argument, which makes the axioms material to your argument.

    Its just YOU, YOU, YOU ... more specific ... Clive can never be wrong. Well, you are. And you are hijacking a perfectly good conversation with deliberate straw man to avoid the main points in a game of never having to concede a point.

    That is not a discussion. Its an fallacy about pride.
    Your post is about 10% actual substance and 90% invective / name-calling, so I find it odd that you're so insistent that I'm the one being off-topic and not offering comments of substance. But perhaps my impression is mistaken.

    In any case, my points so far have been:

    (1) That probability 0 events aren't necessarily impossible. This was in response to your claim that probability 0 events are impossible. So, not a strawman.

    (2) That there are deductive arguments for God's existence. This was in response to your claim that all arguments for God's existence are inductive. So, not a strawman.

    (3) That metaphysical possibility is a type of possibility not addressed in the source you cited. This was in response to your claim that the source you cited had addressed every type of possibility.

    (4) That logical systems rely on axioms. This is in response to your claim that "inductive reasoning isn't an axiom" (which I take to mean that inductive reasoning isn't an axiomatic system). So, not a strawman.

    (5) That modal logic is a deductive system. This is in response to your claim that modal logic is not a deductive system. So, not a strawman.


    I'm very strongly convinced that my claims (1), (2), and (3) are correct. I'm pretty sure about (4) and (5).

    Show that any of these are wrong, and I'll gladly concede them.

    ---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've consistently said it will never happen.
    You forwarded "heat death will occur first" and I agree with that notion. Once heat death occurs, it becomes impossible for a tornado to make a 747 (as a tornado cannot occur after heat death) so if heat death occurs before a tornado makes a 747, then it will never happen. And my position is that this is how it will pan out. Heat death will occur before a 747 is made by a tornado and therefore a 747 will NEVER be made by a tornado. I can't prove it of course but that is my firm belief.

    How do you know that heat death will occur before a 747 is made by a tornado? Note that you're not claiming that heat death is likely to occur before a 747 is made by a tornado, but that heat death will occur before a 747 is made by a tornado.


    You can couch it if you want, but that's not what the analogy seeks to have you do.

    If you abide by the analogy as it intends, you WILL say that a tornado will NEVER make an airplane.

    Of course you don't have to abide by the analogy (it's a free country) but then you are rejecting a central premise of the analogy.
    The analogy explicitly asks you to reject a claim for the same reason you'd reject another claim. The rejection here doesn't mean "100% certain that it is false", any more than rejecting "The sun won't rise tomorrow" obligates you to be 100% certain that it's false.

    No, it asks you to completely reject the notion that a tornado will ever produce a 747.
    Yes, but we don't only reject things that we're 100% certain are false. We reject that we're brains in vats, we reject that other people are actually robots, we reject that the universe came into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, etc. None of these entail a logical contradiction, but we reject them anyway because we're confident enough that they're wrong.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Yes, but we don't only reject things that we're 100% certain are false. We reject that we're brains in vats, we reject that other people are actually robots, we reject that the universe came into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, etc. None of these entail a logical contradiction, but we reject them anyway because we're confident enough that they're wrong.
    Right. And the analogy asks you to reject the notion of a 747 being made by a tornado under the same principle.

    If one is as certain that God does or does not exist as they are certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, they certain enough to be considered a theist/atheist.

    And likewise the analogy asks you to be as certain that a tornado cannot make a 747 as you are certain that the sun will rise tomorrow (and I am equally certain of both).

    To turn this into a debate about how certain can we be of things we are certain of (like the sun rising tomorrow) is to abandon what the 747 analogy is really about.

    So I'm not saying you are wrong about being uncertain of certainty but that it's rather off-topic to the issue of the 747 analogy. The analogy does not seek to address those issues nor does it intend to factor them into its argument. It asks you to accept that a tornado will never make a 747. If you do not accept that premise then you reject the central premise of the analogy.

    So let's just say that I am as certain that a tornado cannot make a 747 as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. And if we are going to actually discuss the analogy as intended, we should go from there. To discuss what it means for me to be "certain" doesn't really matter to the intent of the analogy.

  6. #106
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It asks you to accept that a tornado will never make a 747. If you do not accept that premise then you reject the central premise of the analogy.
    No, you only have to accept that the event is of negligible probability.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed. Though I think different apologists argue it in different ways. Some actually do say statistically impossible means impossible flat out and thus they say "Science disproves abiogenesis" That one gets me riled up as you have seen.

    Then there is just the, which is more likely? At which point I have to ask, so what are the probabilities of a god who made life? To which I tend to get deafening silence.
    I consider this argument to be the cousin of the atheists' infinite regression argument.

    They both make their argument by pointing out the mind-boggling implications of the other side, ask us to reject the other side based on those implications, leading us to conclude that they are right since they are the only viable alternative while ignoring that their side has equally mind-boggling implications.

    Both the concepts that life was made by chaos or by an intelligence that is eternal are very hard to comprehend and one would be justified in denying either if more plausible alternatives were available. But neither of them seem significantly more plausible than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There is also a kind of argument underlying this saying, If it looks complicated, someone must have made it! And that is where the 747 thing gets more complicated and we have to ask what complicated means and what natural means and all kinds of other issues. I try to illustrate that complexity is not what makes a 747 hard to make by non human means, what prevents it is the unique circumstances of human beings being present without us. Many things we consider "random" are not random but simply the way natural systems work, and they are often just as complex as a 747, just in a very different way, a less human way.
    Right. One of the major flaws with the 747 analogy is that it forwards a specific outcome as the event would not occur until something that we are expecting to happen happens. But assuming the universe is just chaos, then whatever it makes it makes and there is no specific outcome to be expected. It just so happens that life is what it built just like whatever the tornado puts together is what the tornado puts together.

    ---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    No, you only have to accept that the event is of negligible probability.
    You are adding a level of sophistication to the argument that is not present in the argument itself.

    The purpose of the argument is to get one to agree that an intelligence made life and it can be assumed that the level of agreement sought on that notion is the level of agreement sought on the belief that a tornado will never make a 747. Whether the arguer seeks to get people to absolutely agree that God exists or wants people to hold that there is negligible probability that God does not exist is irrelevant to the actual point of the argument.

    So I'm not saying your argument is wrong. I'm saying it does not really address the logic/point of the 747 analogy.

  8. #108
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Deductive arguments are arguments which, if their premises are true, their conclusion cannot possibly be false (in the logical sense).

    Mathematicians and philosophers routinely make deductive arguments using modal logic. Every theorem in modal logic is proved with a deductive argument; if you grant the truth of the premises, then you are obligated on pain of contradiction to accept the conclusion.

    Inductive arguments are different in that even if you grant that their premises are true, their conclusion doesn't necessarily follow (otherwise they'd be deductive arguments). Theorems in modal logic are not like this. I can cite some, if you'd like.

    Thank you for restating what I have already written, exactly how many time have I written inductive (probability) deductive (certain)? And you write it now like its a big deal?



    Consider the following argument:
    Lets actually examine what modal logic is:

    "Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. Modals—words that express modalities—qualify a statement."

    Qualifiers on statements of probability being the key there ..

    But perhaps I'm wrong. What's your take?
    I think you are plagiarizing equations of the internet without proper citation.



    The deductive proofs failed to convince people (although many people find them convincing). That doesn't mean the deductive proofs were wrong. Just because people aren't actually persuaded by an argument doesn't mean the argument is invalid or unsound.
    So the God question has been fully answered and solved?

    Again, inability to concede a point - even with proof that the shift in argumentation happened CENTURIES ago.



    Claiming the opposite out of spite? No, I just think you're giving short shrift to some really well-thought out arguments for God that aren't inductive.
    See above. Pride. One of us HAS conceded a point. You?

    Also, it seems perfectly natural to search for other arguments, even if you think that there's a knock-down argument already. There's been a whole bunch of different proofs for the Pythagorean theorem, even though it's been known to be true since antiquity.
    Deductive arguments are certain, not 'knock outs'.

    If 1+1=2 does it make sense to find a inductive argument that its most likely true? Of course not. Science, math, and logic do not work that way. Pride does though.

    As a dialectical practice or, more specifically, as an evangelical practice, it makes sense to have additional weapons in your arsenal, even if you think that a perfectly rational person would be convinced by your very best argument.
    Do you even know what the Hegelian Dialectic is? What exactly is the antithesis of 1+1=2?



    I didn't say that there wasn't such a shift. I never argued against a shift. The shift is irrelevant to my point, which is that not all arguments for God's existence are inductive (even if most or all recent ones are).
    In short you are simply being obstinate. Go ahead and produce a valid deductive argument for God. Prove it. Again, you point is one of pride and minutia, that has nothing to do with the the actual argument at hand. Not a thing.

    I'm disagreeing because you said something that I know to be wrong. That's a perfectly fine basis on which to disagree with a person's claim.
    No, you've been screwing up basic logic since you jumped into the thread. Now spite.



    My objections are only as irrelevant as the claims that they're responding to; either defend your claims or withdraw them, but if the claims are material to your argument, then you have an obligation to defend them from objections.
    No one has to defend straw men, and when people do present evidence that what you are claiming is false - you have to accept that rather than hijack a thread



    I'll just direct you to the question I asked earlier about the argument whose conclusion is P(X != 1) = 5/6
    I'll simply ask you for a citation.



    I don't know what claim you're referring to.
    So you have no idea what point your opponent is even making? The concept of a thesis is beyond you grasp?

    The claim that 'statistical impossibility' is a term that appears in the literature? I defended that claim, so I wouldn't need to concede it.
    Then perhaps you can explain all the fuss about modal logic which you just discovered?

    The claim that 'The universe came out of chaos' is a statistical impossibility? I have no interest in addressing that claim, so I have no need to concede it.
    That is not the claim I made, and if just above you demand people respond to your points however off topic?



    Of course not, because it doesn't interest me.
    Neither does responding to a bunch of plagiarized equations that lead nowhere appeal to many other people. Do you see the thread title?

    Fewer people wish to engage with someone who is incapable of conceding basic point - even go so far as to requote the definitions of something back at them - like their doing so finally get the delineation between induction and deduction - now that YOU have defined it (and previously ignored it) Well, we get that a lot.

    ""Modal-formal accounts of logical consequence combine the modal and formal accounts above, yielding variations on the following basic idea:
    \Gamma \vdash A if and only if it is impossible for an argument with the same logical form as \Gamma/A to have true premises and a false conclusion."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical...ormal_accounts

    In short, yet more proof that modal logic requires the ability to be falsified.

    Your post is about 10% actual substance and 90% invective / name-calling, so I find it odd that you're so insistent that I'm the one being off-topic and not offering comments of substance. But perhaps my impression is mistaken.
    So, its OK for you to be off topic, refuse to concede points, declare the subjection have hijacked uninteresting, and then ignore 90% of what is written to play victim? Noted.

    Perhaps we should try an exercise in modality.

    Clive is necessarily be the victim of invective.

    Clive is possibly the victim of invective.

    Well? Go ahead and prove that its 90% of the time ... deductively

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...dal/#WhaModLog

    Both terms you see, require PROBABILITY.


    In any case, my points so far have been:

    (1) That probability 0 events aren't necessarily impossible. This was in response to your claim that probability 0 events are impossible. So, not a straw man.
    Already conceded - when we start involving infinities - and the initial example provided was not a zero probability event.

    (2) That there are deductive arguments for God's existence. This was in response to your claim that all arguments for God's existence are inductive. So, not a straw man.
    Never denied, nor indeed was the term ALL ever used by me. Nor is it relevant to the topic at hand.

    (3) That metaphysical possibility is a type of possibility not addressed in the source you cited. This was in response to your claim that the source you cited had addressed every type of possibility.
    Who cares? And its not relevant to the argument being made is it?

    (4) That logical systems rely on axioms. This is in response to your claim that "inductive reasoning isn't an axiom" (which I take to mean that inductive reasoning isn't an axiomatic system). So, not a straw man.
    Once again, who cares? Not relevant to the topic at hand.

    (5) That modal logic is a deductive system. This is in response to your claim that modal logic is not a deductive system. So, not a straw man.
    Simply wrong. You are free to come up with an actual deductive modal argument rather than equations ripped form the internet without support.


    I'm very strongly convinced that my claims (1), (2), and (3) are correct. I'm pretty sure about (4) and (5).

    Show that any of these are wrong, and I'll gladly concede them.[COLOR=Silver]
    Its been done, several times, and no, you will not.

    Again, feel free to actually address the points of the argument rather than demand scatalogical responses with no valid purpose in the discussion.

    The point being made is that the Universe FROM NATURALISTIC causes is so improbable as to be statistically impossible.

    That presupposed a designer or engineering process of some kind.

    If instead we are treated to random equations in which you are arguing about hypothetical with 100% certainties in order to be valid? Then you fundamentally don't understand the problem set or how to use logic to solve problems. Its OK not to have a pragmatic grasp of logic and problem solving.

    The rest? Appears to be point scoring and petty spite Clive.

    None of your arguments have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. None. But thank you for hijacking the thread with unlearned lesson about basic logic that applies mostly to computer programming - so, at the very least we now know what type of languages are used to program the simulations that have confirmed the gravitational possibilities of universe and its ability to support life. Thanks.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    No, you only have to accept that the event is of negligible probability.
    A challenge for Clive. As apparently being called to task for making irrelevant points with nothing germane to the subject is too much for two adults to simply agree to disagree, and the ability to make points leading no where is apparently no valid criticism, I have no choice but to issue a challenge.

    What does modal logic have to do with probability as related to statistically impossible events or the statistical impossibility of the universe through naturalistic causes? Name:  chall4a.jpg
Views: 378
Size:  3.1 KB

    If the answer is nothing, then perhaps you can concede the point.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  10. #110
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Thank you for restating what I have already written, exactly how many time have I written inductive (probability) deductive (certain)? And you write it now like its a big deal?
    I write it now to show that arguments in modal logic often have characteristics of deductive arguments rather than inductive arguments.

    Lets actually examine what modal logic is:

    "Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. Modals—words that express modalities—qualify a statement."

    Qualifiers on statements of probability being the key there ..
    If you want to talk about what modal logic is, let's go to the actual definition. There are chiefly two different approaches: semantics and axiomatic. The semantic formulation is as follows:
    First we define a frame, which consists of a non-empty set, G, whose members are generally called possible worlds, and a binary relation, R, that holds (or not) between the possible worlds of G. This binary relation is called the accessibility relation. For example, w R v means that the world v is accessible from world w. That is to say, the state of affairs known as v is a live possibility for w. This gives a pair, . Some formulations of modal logic also include a constant term in G, conventionally called "the actual world", which is often symbolized as
    Next, the frame is extended to a model by specifying the truth-values of all propositions at each of the worlds in G. We do so by defining a relation v between possible worlds and positive literals. If there is a world w such that , then P is true at w. A model is thus an ordered triple, .
    Then we recursively define the truth of a formula at a world in a model:

    • if then
    • if and only if
    • if and only if and
    • if and only if for every element u of G, if w R u then
    • if and only if for some element u of G, it holds that w R u and
    • if and only if

    According to these semantics, a truth is necessary with respect to a possible world w if it is true at every world that is accessible to w, and possible if it is true at some world that is accessible to w. Possibility thereby depends upon the accessibility relation R, which allows us to express the relative nature of possibility. For example, we might say that given our laws of physics it is not possible for humans to travel faster than the speed of light, but that given other circumstances it could have been possible to do so. Using the accessibility relation we can translate this scenario as follows: At all of the worlds accessible to our own world, it is not the case that humans can travel faster than the speed of light, but at one of these accessible worlds there is another world accessible from those worlds but not accessible from our own at which humans can travel faster than the speed of light.
    It should also be noted that the definition of □ makes vacuously true certain sentences, since when it speaks of "every world that is accessible to w" it takes for granted the usual mathematical interpretation of the word "every" (see vacuous truth). Hence, if a world w doesn't have any accessible worlds, any sentence beginning with □ is true.


    The axiomatic definition is as follows:

    Modern treatments of modal logic begin by augmenting the propositional calculus with two unary operations, one denoting "necessity" and the other "possibility". The notation of C. I. Lewis, much employed since, denotes "necessarily p" by a prefixed "box" (□p) whose scope is established by parentheses. Likewise, a prefixed "diamond" (◇p) denotes "possiblyp". Regardless of notation, each of these operators is definable in terms of the other in classical modal logic:

    • p (necessarily p) is equivalent to p ("not possible that not-p")
    • p (possibly p) is equivalent to p ("not necessarily not-p")



    Now, it's not at all clear to me that inferences within these frameworks are at all significantly different from inferences in standard propositional logic (which we all recognize as being deductive).

    I think you are plagiarizing equations of the internet without proper citation.
    ...what? I wrote all that myself. Discrete uniform distributions are about the easiest random variables that you can construct in probability theory.

    In any case, I'll repeat the question, because I think it will help get to the heart of what arguments we each consider inductive or deductive:

    My objection is that e
    ven though "P(X != 1) = 5/6" is a statement about a probability, it is a statement that we can know with 100% certainty is true merely by grating that the premises are true. The conclusion of an inductive argument, by my understanding, is such that we can't know with 100% certainty that it's true merely by granting that the premises are true.

    But perhaps I'm wrong. What's your take?

    Or, more succinctly, is the argument that P(X != 1) = 5/6 a deductive or inductive argument?

    So the God question has been fully answered and solved?
    Well, that's really two different questions:

    (1) Is there still ongoing debate about God's existence?

    (2) Have all the objections to God's existence been fully addressed?

    Even if I think (2) is true, I might also think that (1) is true.

    Take for example global warming or evolution. In these cases, proponents often believe that the central question has been settled, but also recognize that there is ongoing debate--they just think the other side refuses to see reason/evidence/etc.

    So with that in mind, I'll give my answers separately:

    (1) There is still ongoing debate about God's existence.

    (2) I don't think there is a great, knock-down argument for God's existence to which there is no reasonable objection.

    Again, inability to concede a point - even with proof that the shift in argumentation happened CENTURIES ago.
    I didn't say that there wasn't a shift in argumentation. I said that there are deductive arguments for God's existence. Take the various ontological arguments (Anselm, Plantinga) or Aquinas's five ways. How are these arguments not deductive arguments for God's existence? Are you claiming that they're invalid or unsound? Must every deductive argument be valid--and if so, isn't valid deductive argument superfluous?


    See above. Pride. One of us HAS conceded a point. You?
    I think that the modal ontological argument is a deductive argument, even if it ends up not being persuasive (say, if people don't grant the premises). I think Anselm's ontological argument is deductive. I think Godel's ontological argument is clearly deductive.

    If you can show that these arguments aren't deductive, then I will concede that they aren't deductive.

    Deductive arguments are certain, not 'knock outs'.

    If 1+1=2 does it make sense to find a inductive argument that its most likely true? Of course not. Science, math, and logic do not work that way. Pride does though.
    People use inductive reasoning for true statements all the time. The whole point of the scientific method is to hopefully land on true statements via inductive reasoning.

    Do you even know what the Hegelian Dialectic is? What exactly is the antithesis of 1+1=2?
    Probably 1+1 != 2. How does this relate to my point? My claim was that as a matter of rhetorical or conversational practicality, it makes sense to have a few different ways of describing or arguing for a point, in case one of the arguments doesn't find success.

    In short you are simply being obstinate. Go ahead and produce a valid deductive argument for God. Prove it. Again, you point is one of pride and minutia, that has nothing to do with the the actual argument at hand. Not a thing.
    Here's a valid deductive argument for God:

    (1) If 1+1 = 2, then God exists.
    (2) 1+1=2
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    This is perfectly valid; if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) necessarily follows.

    Or did you mean to ask for a sound argument?

    No, you've been screwing up basic logic since you jumped into the thread. Now spite.
    More ad hominem--and I hope you didn't confuse validity with soundness just before accusing someone else of screwing up basic logic!

    No one has to defend straw men, and when people do present evidence that what you are claiming is false - you have to accept that rather than hijack a thread
    What evidence has been presented that contradicts any of my claims? I haven't seen any evidence that the modal ontological argument, Anselm's ontological argument, or Godel's ontological argument aren't deductive arguments. I haven't seen any evidence that there is only one inductive reasoning system.

    I haven't seen evidence that modal logic is necessarily inductive--although this is part of an ongoing dispute about precisely which kinds of arguments are inductive and which are deductive, so there is some hope for progress in the discussion, once you answer my question about the P(X != 1) argument.

    I'll simply ask you for a citation.
    What part of that section needs a citation? It's original work. Do you want a citation for the notation? It's used pretty universally in probability theory (until you get to the measure-theoretical formulations, perhaps).

    So you have no idea what point your opponent is even making? The concept of a thesis is beyond you grasp?
    There have been a few claims made, so when you fail to specify which claim I should be conceding, I won't know specifically which claim you're referring to.

    Then perhaps you can explain all the fuss about modal logic which you just discovered?
    Modal logic was an example I offered in support of my counter-claim that there are many different logics, as well as in support of my counter-claim that logic isn't always simple, since modal logic is a somewhat more mind-bending system than, say, classical propositional logic.

    That is not the claim I made, and if just above you demand people respond to your points however off topic?
    You're correct, "The universe came out of chaos" isn't an accurate characterization of your argument. Here's what you said earlier in the thread:

    Wat we do not have is any evidence whatsoever to believe that life arose from a magically but naturally occurring and singular event that happened to create gravity first, and the in JUST the right amount, and then take hundreds upon hundreds of improbable steps required to go from energy to matter, to elements, to compounds, to organic compounds, to life ... The chances of it happening are literally statistically impossible.

    Would you say that "It is a statistical impossibility that life came from chaos" is a fair summation of your claim?

    Neither does responding to a bunch of plagiarized equations that lead nowhere appeal to many other people. Do you see the thread title?
    You think equations like P(X=1) = 1/6 is plagiarized from somewhere? That's like thinking that 2X = 6 is plagiarized. It's a very commonplace, unremarkable equation.

    The equations lead to important points: first, that probability 0 events are not necessarily impossible (which you conceded), and second, they provide an example of an argument that I think is deductive but which I believe you might think is inductive. I'm still awaiting your response on that point.

    Fewer people wish to engage with someone who is incapable of conceding basic point - even go so far as to requote the definitions of something back at them - like their doing so finally get the delineation between induction and deduction - now that YOU have defined it (and previously ignored it) Well, we get that a lot.
    Now you're mad that I accepted the deductive/inductive distinction you offered? Or are you just mad that I restated it in the course of making a point?

    ""Modal-formal accounts of logical consequence combine the modal and formal accounts above, yielding variations on the following basic idea:
    \Gamma \vdash A if and only if it is impossible for an argument with the same logical form as \Gamma/A to have true premises and a false conclusion."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical...ormal_accounts

    In short, yet more proof that modal logic requires the ability to be falsified.
    Doesn't this show that modal logic has deductive arguments? Suppose \Gamma \vdash A; then if \Gamma has true premises, A necessarily follows. How is that not deductive? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a deductive argument, that if its premises are true, you must grant the conclusion?

    So, its OK for you to be off topic, refuse to concede points, declare the subjection have hijacked uninteresting, and then ignore 90% of what is written to play victim? Noted.
    It's not all all OK for me to be off topic (except perhaps in small doses; everyone gets some leeway, even for non-substantive remarks like comic asides).

    If any of my points or claims are in response to claims you haven't made, then give your argument that I'm strawmanning. If my claims are in response to claims you've made, then how are they off-topic?

    Perhaps we should try an exercise in modality.

    Clive is necessarily be the victim of invective.

    Clive is possibly the victim of invective.

    Well? Go ahead and prove that its 90% of the time ... deductively

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...dal/#WhaModLog

    Both terms you see, require PROBABILITY.
    Well, not technically, no. Probability requires axioms that aren't present in modal systems per se.

    What about this modal logic argument:
    (1) Necessarily (p & q) [premise]
    (2) Necessarily, [box proof]
    (2a) p & q ["Necessarily" in]
    (2b) Therefore p [Conjunction elimination]
    (3) Therefore, Necessarily p ["Necessarily" out]
    (4) Necessarily,
    (4a) p & q ["Necessarily" in]
    (4b) Therefore q [Conjunction elimination]
    (5) Therefore, Necessarily q ["Necessarily" out]
    (6) Therefore, Necessarily p & Necessarily q. [&-introduction]
    This establishes Necessarily (p & q) -> [(Necessarily p) & (Necessarily q)]

    (1') Necessarily p & Necessarily q
    (2') Necessarily q [conjunction elimination
    (2') Necessarily p [conjunction elimination]
    (3') Necessarily, [box proof]
    (3'a) p ["Necessarily" in]
    (3'b) q ["Necessarily" in]
    (3'c) p&q [&-introduction]
    (4') Necessarily (p&q) ["Necessary" out]

    This establishes Necessarily p & Necessarily q -> Necessarily (p&q)

    Combined with the previous result, we have:
    Necessarily p & Necessarily q <=> Necessarily (p&q)

    At which step was probability invoked? How does this deduction differ from a deduction in propositional logic? If you grant the truth of the premises, does the truth of the conclusion necessarily follow?

    Already conceded - when we start involving infinities - and the initial example provided was not a zero probability event.
    Actually, it was. I'll type it up on mathb.in for you. On which line does the error occur?

    Never denied, nor indeed was the term ALL ever used by me. Nor is it relevant to the topic at hand.
    You seemed to deny that there were deductive arguments for God in this post:

    ...[T]he ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST GOD are inductive arguments.

    This could be taken one of two ways:

    (1) All arguments for and against God are inductive arguments. This usage would be similar to "The integers are a subset of the rationals", which is typically a statement about all integers.
    (2) A subset of arguments for and against God are inductive arguments. Here you would rely on context to make clear which subset is being identified; if you were reviewing a particular book, for instance, the subset might be the arguments for and against God contained in that book.

    (1) is clearly false, and it seems you agree. Since plenty of philosophers still talk about the ontological argument and various other deductive arguments for God, (2) is false if it refers to the subset of arguments still debated by philosophers.

    Who cares? And its not relevant to the argument being made is it?
    You cared enough about what types of possibilities were covered by your source to claim that the source had covered every type of possibility. I've given a counterexample to that claim. Your response here is to say, "So what? My claim was irrelevant." If you don't wish to defend your claim, the appropriate response is to retract it or concede the point.

    Once again, who cares? Not relevant to the topic at hand.
    If you don't wish to defend your claim, the appropriate response is to retract it or concede the point.

    Simply wrong. You are free to come up with an actual deductive modal argument rather than equations ripped form the internet without support.
    Challenge to support a claim.What equation did I rip from the internet without support?

    And I've offered a deductive modal argument in this very post!

    Its been done, several times, and no, you will not.
    Where? Give me quotes and links to specific posts and I'll respond.

    Again, feel free to actually address the points of the argument rather than demand scatalogical responses with no valid purpose in the discussion.
    I am definitely not interested in scatalogical responses.

    I am addressing specific claims you've made in the course of this thread. If you don't wish to defend them, the appropriate action is to retract them or concede the point.

    The point being made is that the Universe FROM NATURALISTIC causes is so improbable as to be statistically impossible.

    That presupposed a designer or engineering process of some kind.

    If instead we are treated to random equations in which you are arguing about hypothetical with 100% certainties in order to be valid? Then you fundamentally don't understand the problem set or how to use logic to solve problems. Its OK not to have a pragmatic grasp of logic and problem solving.
    You have made various claims regarding inductive reasoning (that there is essentially one unique system of inductive reasoning) and inductive arguments. I have brought up mathematical equations only when doing so would help illustrate a point, as in the "probability 0 doesn't imply impossible" discussion, and in the "arguments whose conclusions are about probabilities might still be deductive arguments" discussion.

    None of your arguments have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. None. But thank you for hijacking the thread with unlearned lesson about basic logic that applies mostly to computer programming - so, at the very least we now know what type of languages are used to program the simulations that have confirmed the gravitational possibilities of universe and its ability to support life. Thanks.
    Again, I'm responding to specific claims you've made during the course of the thread. If you aren't interested in defending those claims, the appropriate response is to retract them or concede the points.

    ---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    What does modal logic have to do with probability as related to statistically impossible events or the statistical impossibility of the universe through naturalistic causes?
    The challenge tag is inappropriate, since I haven't claimed a particular connection between modal logic and the probability theory involved in "statistically impossible events" or the probability of the universe developing life through naturalistic causes.

    But I'll answer the question anyway, because I'm a nice guy:

    Not much, unless the arguments involve utilize modal logic.

    If the answer is nothing, then perhaps you can concede the point.
    I mentioned modal logic as an example of one of the many types of logic that abound in the literature. You claimed it was inductive, a characterization I have thus far resisted and argued against. If you don't wish to defend your characterization of modal logic, the appropriate action is to retract your characterization or concede that it was wrong.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; March 16th, 2015 at 10:44 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  11. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    The challenge Clive was why you were introducing modal arguments in the first place as they have no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

    In short, the criticism is that you hijacked the thread with a non-germane point - which you reported to the moderators as 'invective'. Rather poor sportsmanship.

    Second, you might want tor ever to your twaddle (that is the strength of your argument about axioms.

    Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

    Third, the second there has direct relevance to your 'deductive proof'.

    Here's a valid deductive argument for God:

    (1) If 1+1 = 2, then God exists.
    (2) 1+1=2
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    "It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:

    All odd numbers are integers.
    All even numbers are integers.
    Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers."

    Apparently, its rather difficult for people to see the error in logic there?

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

    Furthermore: "If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

    By all means Clive, do I need to issue a challenge point out how 1+1 = 2 proves God beyond question? Because every atheist in the universe, and every religious person of sound mind is going to disagree with you that this is the case.

    So congratulations Clive, you have not only given an INVALID deductive argument for God - you have spectacularly proved my point that you don't understand deductive logic - or modal logic - much less having met your challenge to display the relevance of issuing modal logic to this thread at all.

    In short, you hijacked the thread with pointless minutia, and that is not an insult - it's the reality of not being able to connect the dots between your pedantic tsk tsk about modal logic and connect it to your opponents point in the least. That people grow frustrated at that behavior? Shocking.

    PS - you are still wrong about modal logic, which has been proven - but I see that you are incapable of acknowledging it - so pearls to swine and all. Have a nice day!
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 17th, 2015 at 04:46 AM.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  12. #112
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    First, I notice that you didn't respond to my proof against your claim that "the initial example provided was not a zero probability event." I Challenge to support a claim. you to substantiate your claim that P(X = 0.5) is not 0.

    Also, I had messed up the Challenge! syntax in my previous post (I have since emended it), so I'll repeat that challenge here:

    Challenge to support a claim.What equation did I rip from the internet without support?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The challenge Clive was why you were introducing modal arguments in the first place as they have no bearing on my argument whatsoever.
    I first brought up modal logic when you said this:

    Logic isn't overly complex.

    The context of your remark was that earlier you had mentioned in broad strokes the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, and specifically you had said this:

    This is the fundamental difference between INDUCTIVE REASONING (probability based logic - not certain) and DEDUCTIVE REASONING (Certainty). Like our religious tenets, the tenets of logic are not hidden.

    I commented that this was an oversimplified account of reasoning and logic, and that there were in fact many different kinds of logics. "The tenets of logic" doesn't really make sense if there are a bunch of different logics, each with their own tenets/axioms.

    In response, you said "Logic isn't overly complex." My response was to note

    Logic can get pretty complex. Here's a
    tiny little primer on elementary modal logic that gets a bit complicated in parts. For a more complicated beginner's example, check out this proof of the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. For an intermediate example, read this proof of Lindstrom's theorem.

    Also, as I said there are lots of different logics. Binary, ternary, n-ary, modal, first order, second order, etc.

    The examples here were to show that logic can get complex, and that there are different logic systems, each with their own sets of axioms and rules of inference.


    While these points don't bear directly on your argument about the probability of the universe naturally producing life, they do bear on comments, claims, and characterizations you have made in this thread. If you don't wish to defend those comments, claims, or characterizations, then the appropriate action is to retract them or concede the points.

    In short, the criticism is that you hijacked the thread with a non-germane point - which you reported to the moderators as 'invective'. Rather poor sportsmanship.
    I reported your post with the words "light flaming". The report had nothing to do with your substantive criticism (even if it was criticism that I thought was unmerited or unpersuasive), but rather to do with your name-calling and poor debate etiquette (assuming bad faith, etc.).

    Second, you might want tor ever to your twaddle (that is the strength of your argument about axioms.
    I don't know what "tor ever to your twaddle" is supposed to mean.

    Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy
    This is not how "axiom" is used in mathematical contexts broadly, or mathematical logic in particular. Axioms are simply assumptions--sentences or formulas that you assume are 'true' for the sake of working in the model you're interested in. Set theorists who work in ZFC or its various natural strengthenings do so because of the usefulness of ZFC in analysis, not necessarily because they think the axioms are actually "true" in an objective sense.

    Third, the second there has direct relevance to your 'deductive proof'.
    I don't know what "the second there" is supposed to refer to.

    "It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:

    All odd numbers are integers.
    All even numbers are integers.
    Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers."

    Apparently, its rather difficult for people to see the error in logic there?

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
    The error is obvious: the deduction of (3) from (1) and (2) is unjustified, i.e. doesn't use the permissible logical inferences/transformations.

    The source you've quoted here seems to support my claim particularly well:

    A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.

    This characterizes the modal proofs I've given, where the truth of the premises (such as "Necessarily (p & q)") guarantees the truth of the conclusion ("(Necessarily p) & (Necessarily q")).


    Furthermore: "If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

    By all means Clive, do I need to issue a challenge point out how 1+1 = 2 proves God beyond question? Because every atheist in the universe, and every religious person of sound mind is going to disagree with you that this is the case.
    Sure, they'll disagree with me. But the argument is valid. The problem with it isn't its validity, because it's obviously a valid argument (it follows the classic syllogistic form); it's that (1) is a controversial premise.

    Even sound arguments (valid arguments with true premises) aren't necessarily persuasive. For example, you and I are both Christians, so we both agree that "God exists" is true. So we should also agree that "God exists or 1+1=3" is true (if P is true, then "P or Q" is true even if Q is false). So consider the following argument:

    (1) God exists or 1+1=3.
    (2) 1+1 != 3.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    As I mentioned before, we agree that (1) is true, since we agree that God exists. Everyone agrees that (2) is true. And if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) holds by modus tollens. So (1)-(3) is a valid argument, and we agree that it's sound, since we agree that its premises (1) and (2) are true.

    But even people who think the argument is sound would never think that it's a persuasive argument or demonstration that God exists.


    In any case, I believe I met your challenge to provide a valid argument that God exists.

    So congratulations Clive, you have not only given an INVALID deductive argument for God - you have spectacularly proved my point that you don't understand deductive logic - or modal logic - much less having met your challenge to display the relevance of issuing modal logic to this thread at all.
    Modus ponens is not an invalid argument form.

    In short, you hijacked the thread with pointless minutia, and that is not an insult - it's the reality of not being able to connect the dots between your pedantic tsk tsk about modal logic and connect it to your opponents point in the least. That people grow frustrated at that behavior? Shocking.

    PS - you are still wrong about modal logic, which has been proven - but I see that you are incapable of acknowledging it - so pearls to swine and all. Have a nice day!
    A proof that modal logic isn't deductive would have do a few things:

    (1) It would establish a set of criteria for a logical system to be deductive;
    (2) It would establish a definition of modal logic;
    (3) It would deduce (directly or indirectly) a contradiction from the assumption that modal logic is deductive.

    The only argument you've given so far has been to say that modal logic contains sentences like "possibly P", so therefore it must be inductive rather than deductive. In response to this argument, I gave an argument that P(X != 1) = 1/6 and argued that although it mentions probability, the argument is still deductive, which would show that arguments that contain statements about probability aren't necessarily inductive, which defeats the inference you employed in your argument against modal logic.
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 17th, 2015 at 04:49 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    First, I notice that you didn't respond to my proof against your claim that "the initial example provided was not a zero probability event." I Challenge to support a claim. you to substantiate your claim that P(X = 0.5) is not 0.
    Its not a claim that I have made - my claim is that I asked you to support it with a citation. You cannot challenge me to support a claim that I did not make prideful one. A citation please.

    Also, I had messed up the Challenge! syntax in my previous post (I have since emended it), so I'll repeat that challenge here:

    Challenge to support a claim.What equation did I rip from the internet without support?
    All the ones you listed without support. The ones from modal logic that you apparently are just walking around with in your head? Should ne no problem for you to list a citation for the equations you present. And if so, then then we can get to meat of the puzzle here because those equations WITH citations will give us more than you are letting on.

    In short, the CLAIM I MAKE OPENLY, is that you are pulling equations off the internet without fully understanding them. In short plagiarism. It's up to you to prove that the is not the case.

    As equations are all on the internet, shouldn't be a problem. Again, just to make the disjunction clear, you are pulling often complex equations out of your head, and yet your argumentation is ... 1+1=3 ... Kinda a mismatch there. We'll address that one shortly.

    Back on target, you can see, the basics of modal logic are pretty easy.

    Logic Symbols Expressions Symbolized
    Modal Logic □ It is necessary that ..
    ◊ It is possible that …
    Deontic Logic O It is obligatory that …
    P It is permitted that …
    F It is forbidden that …
    Temporal Logic G It will always be the case that …
    F It will be the case that …
    H It has always been the case that …
    P It was the case that …
    Doxastic Logic Bx x believes that …

    Which is how we get to know that modal logic deals primarily with ... drum roll ... computer programming.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

    You will also not that in the citation with each equation comes paragraph or two of explanation, and as the basis of modal logic if qualifiers in PROBABILITY, a point you cannot concede, one is left with the rather pallid reflection that you are simply cutting the equations off the internet, using the paragraph of explanation out of context, to justify a point that is not even germane to the discussion.

    Your point about different subsets of logic all require INDUCTION or DEDUCTION to function, yet another point you failed to concede.

    Additionally, as we see above, the forms of modal logic are far more expansive than you let on, so, having now made the point, I will bash you about continuously until you concede that there is more to modal logic than the term modal ... for no apparent purpose whatsoever.

    In short, every equation you listed without support and citation has not been properly supported. The error is yours clive, and the challenge is not on me to prove that there are no citations, that is what is called prima facie - its self evident. Modal logic is well known and easily cited, as I demonstrated EVERY TIME I listed it with a source - which is how one avoids accusations of plagiarizing - by properly supporting there work.

    However, as mentioned above, you are reduced to 1+1=3 - and I am going to introduce you to another form of invalid logic: the fallacy.

    Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

    Specifically, we call this an argument from absurdity/ignorance.

    "There are lots of "proofs" that claim to prove something that is obviously not true, like 1 + 1 = 1 or 2 = 1. All of these "proofs" contain some error that most people aren't likely to notice. The most common trick is to divide an equation by zero, which is not allowed (in fact, you cannot ever divide by zero.) If a "proof" divides by zero, it can "prove" anything it wants to, including false statements.

    It's important to recognize that while these "proofs" may be funny and cute, they always contain some error, and are therefore not real proofs."

    http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.false.proof.html

    So now we have both mathematicians and historians laughing at your version of logic. Congrats. You cannot divide by infinity or zero - as ... drum roll ... you can then fallaciously prove ANYTHING AT ALL! But ... another drum roll please ... it mathematically fallacious! (Insert roaring crowd).

    #1 - maybe you should address the thesis of of your opponent rather than introducing irrelevant minutia.

    #2 - Support your work.

    If the outcome is not certain - its inductive. If you have to manipulate something with a claim that 100%, an axiom, when it clearly is not, then its inductive. And argument is only as strong as its support, and as yo have no point other than minutia and pride ... what is the point?

    Statistically speaking, the universe from naturalistic causes is statistically impossible. What that infers?

    Who knows, because we can't get past you demanding people accept minutia that is not only not relevant, its often wrong. Really Clive, this discussion is not about you - and I for one would like it to return to the subject - whether or not logic supports God.

    1+1=2 and 3 as proof? Is laughably fallacious. But thanks for a proof that is basely insulting to the intelligence of others. I'll ring Richard Dawkins now, and let him know that God is conclusively proved so he can get his meal of crow ready - its deductive and certain. Richard will be SO glad.
    Last edited by gree0232; March 16th, 2015 at 11:43 AM.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  14. #114
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    You make the point about much of what the average person knows is gleaned from books or other people. Look at the technical progress of science in most fields of endeavour. See how the various branches of knowledge support each other.The landscape of the world is being transformed and many religious movements are changing in step with progress.
    What is in debate is wether we are morally improved. If not, then religion has failed us in its own province.

  15. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    I hereby formally retract my concession to Clive that zero probability events can happen.

    This concession was based on the concepts of 'zero' which you cannot mathematically divide anything by (its fallacious) and infinite - as in picking a number along ainfinite point, because you cannot divide numbers by infinity. For example, what is the probability of dividing one by ... 2 x infinity? Same as dividing it by infinity. So technically, the probability of something happening along an infinite point is 1/infinity or a .0(infinite number of zeros)1 ... which is mathematically the same as dividing it by zero. Its fallacious. in the extreme.

    "In math, when you hear people say things like "1 over infinity is
    zero" what they are usually referring to is something called a limit.
    They are just using a kind of shorthand, however. They do NOT mean
    that 1 can actually be divided by infinity. Instead, they mean that,
    if you divide 1 by successively higher numbers, the result becomes
    closer and closer to 0. If I divide 1 by a very large number, like a
    billion, then I get one-billionth, which is a VERY small number, but
    it isn't 0. Since there is no largest number, I can always divide 1 by
    a bigger number. But that will just produce an even smaller number,
    right? It will NEVER produce 0, no matter how high I go. But since the
    answer to the division is getting closer to and closer to 0, we say
    that "the limit of the expression is zero." But we have still not
    divided anything by infinity, since that isn't a number."

    http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

    Our expert in equations should have cleared this up much sooner, rather than taking a concession as a means of lording it over someone. Now caught? Perhaps the Bible's warnings about pride become ... apparent - unless of course you divide them by zero ... or infinity.

    Statistical impossibility stands.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  16. #116
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    So technically, the probability of something happening along an infinite point is 1/infinity or a .0(infinite number of zeros)1 ... which is mathematically the same as dividing it by zero. Its fallacious. in the extreme.
    You are wrong.
    In mathematics, a probability measure is a real-valued function defined on a set of events in a probability space that satisfies measure properties such as countable additivity.[3] The difference between a probability measure and the more general notion of measure (which includes concepts like area or volume) is that a probability measure must assign value 1 to the entire probability space.

    Probability measures are real-valued functions, which means their codomain (output) is contained the set of real numbers. Real numbers are an Archimedean field, which means they contain no infinitesimal numbers.

    This means that expressions like "1/infinity" and ".000...1" either aren't real numbers, or are precisely equal to 0.

    ".000...1" isn't even a decimal representation:
    A decimal representation of a non-negative real number r is an expression in the form of a series, traditionally written as a sum
    where a0 is a nonnegative integer, and a1, a2, are integers satisfying 0 ≤ ai ≤ 9, called the digits of the decimal representation. The sequence of digits specified may be finite, in which case any further digits ai are assumed to be 0.


    There can't be anything "after" an infinite number of 0's in a decimal representation, since the terms in the series form a sequence, and between any two terms in a sequence there are only a finite number of other terms. I can provide a rigorous proof if you like.

    Alternatively, if you define 0.000...1 as the limit of {0.1, 0.01, 0.001, ...}, then 0.000...1 = 0. I can provide a rigorous proof if you like.



    I've specified a state space (S = [0,1], the closed unit interval, as well as its Lebesgue-measurable subsets) and a probability measure (defined by a probability density function) for what's called a continuous uniform distribution. This is an incredibly commonplace random variable. The method for computing a probability in this context is taking an integral of the density function, and for the event that X = 0.5 (or equivalently that X is in the set {0.5}), the probability is 0.

    For more information/examples involving the continuous uniform distribution, see here, here, or here.

    Here's an introductory text for mathematical statistics. Chapter 4 introduces continuous random variables.

    ---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Its not a claim that I have made - my claim is that I asked you to support it with a citation. You cannot challenge me to support a claim that I did not make prideful one. A citation please.
    First, you said:
    Already conceded - when we start involving infinities - and the initial example provided was not a zero probability event.

    Emphasis mine. The event in question was X=0.5, where X is a uniformly distributed continuous random variable on the closed unit interval. Your claim is that this event--that X = 0.5--is not a probability 0 event. Equivalently, you are claiming that P(X = 0.5) is not equal to 0.

    All the ones you listed without support.
    Quote and link.

    The ones from modal logic that you apparently are just walking around with in your head? Should ne no problem for you to list a citation for the equations you present.
    What equations are you talking about? You mean like the argument I gave? A good introductions to modal proofs in K logics is given here, which includes this remark:
    Modal logic is not the name of a single logical system;there are a number of different logical systems thatmake use of the signs and , each with its ownset of rules.

    And if so, then then we can get to meat of the puzzle here because those equations WITH citations will give us more than you are letting on.
    The proofs and equations stand on their own. What do I need to cite for you to understand that P(X=1) = P(X=2) = ... = P(X=6) = 1/6 is a legitimate discrete probability distribution? I could prove it for you; would you need a citation for each line of the proof? Someone else would have needed to make this particular argument before in order for you to believe that the proof makes sense? You can't look at the logic on your own?

    In short, the CLAIM I MAKE OPENLY, is that you are pulling equations off the internet without fully understanding them. In short plagiarism. It's up to you to prove that the is not the case.
    Who fully understands anything in mathematics? Not even Gauss could truthfully make such a claim.

    In any case, the proofs and equations I'm writing are elementary, mathematically speaking. You'd run into this level of math around freshman or sophomore year in university.

    As equations are all on the internet, shouldn't be a problem.
    What kind of bizarre statement is this? Would you need a citation to understand that the polynomial (x-1591359154298357439857942859218341343)(x -e^5723957239867239602975943258943259847230985742) has two real roots? Someone else would have needed to have written this specific equation before on the internet for you to believe that? You wouldn't even accept a proof?

    Again, just to make the disjunction clear, you are pulling often complex equations out of your head, and yet your argumentation is ... 1+1=3 ... Kinda a mismatch there. We'll address that one shortly.

    Back on target, you can see, the basics of modal logic are pretty easy.

    Logic Symbols Expressions Symbolized
    Modal Logic □ It is necessary that ..
    ◊ It is possible that
    Deontic Logic O It is obligatory that
    P It is permitted that
    F It is forbidden that
    Temporal Logic G It will always be the case that
    F It will be the case that
    H It has always been the case that
    P It was the case that
    Doxastic Logic Bx x believes that

    Which is how we get to know that modal logic deals primarily with ... drum roll ... computer programming.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
    It's of use to computer programming, but much of the interest in modal logic (including historically its development by philosophers like Saul Kripke) is philosophical and mathematical.

    You will also not that in the citation with each equation comes paragraph or two of explanation, and as the basis of modal logic if qualifiers in PROBABILITY, a point you cannot concede, one is left with the rather pallid reflection that you are simply cutting the equations off the internet, using the paragraph of explanation out of context, to justify a point that is not even germane to the discussion.
    Modal logic's quantifiers are from logic. They're frequently compared to universal quantification ("for all") and existential quantification ("there exists"), which aren't specifically probability quantifiers, but rather quantifiers in general.

    Your point about different subsets of logic all require INDUCTION or DEDUCTION to function, yet another point you failed to concede.
    Why would I concede a claim I never made? Where did I say that there was a subset of logic that didn't require induction or deduction? Indeed, my point was quite to the contrary: that each of the very different kinds of logics had their own rules of deduction, resulting in a wide diversity of deductive systems.

    Additionally, as we see above, the forms of modal logic are far more expansive than you let on, so, having now made the point, I will bash you about continuously until you concede that there is more to modal logic than the term modal ... for no apparent purpose whatsoever.
    I didn't say that there wasn't more to modal logic than the term modal. You are strawmanning here.

    And I'm quite happy to agree that there are many forms of modal logic. It only further supports my argument that there are many different kinds of logics, contrary to your claim that logic is simple.

    In short, every equation you listed without support and citation has not been properly supported. The error is yours clive, and the challenge is not on me to prove that there are no citations, that is what is called prima facie - its self evident. Modal logic is well known and easily cited, as I demonstrated EVERY TIME I listed it with a source - which is how one avoids accusations of plagiarizing - by properly supporting there work.
    I'll go through every equation I've written, right now.
    Let X be a continuous random variable with a probability density function given by f:R->R where

    f(x) =
    1 for 0 < x < 1
    0 otherwise

    This function is a specific case of the more general family of functions of probability densities for continuous uniform random variables, as you can see here:


    From the same post, we have the following statement:

    Then P(a <= X <= b) is given by the integral of f(x) from a to b. Thus
    P(X = .5) = P(.5 <= X <= .5) = the integral of f(x) from .5 to .5, which is trivially 0.


    The first statement follows from the definition of the cumulative distribution function...

    The cumulative distribution function of a real-valued random variable X is the function given by
    where the right-hand side represents the probability that the random variable X takes on a value less than or equal to x. The probability that X lies in the semi-closed interval (a, b], where a < b, is therefore

    The CDF of a continuous random variable X can be expressed as the integral of its probability density function X as follows:

    ...which by the second part of the Fundamental theorem of calculus

    Let f and F be real-valued functions defined on a closed interval [a, b] such that the derivative of F is f. That is, f and F are functions such that for all x in [a, b],
    If f is Riemann integrable on [a, b] then

    ...is equal to the integral of the probability density function:

    If the CDF F of a real valued random variable X is continuous, then X is a continuous random variable; if furthermore F is absolutely continuous, then there exists a Lebesgue-integrable function f(x) such that



    I made the following statement here:


    Technically results like this can occur because measures in general (and probability measures in particular) are only required to be countably additive, i.e. the measure of a disjoint countable union of sets is the countable sum of the measures of each set in the union. This entails that if the measure of each set is 0, then the measure of the union is forced to be 0.


    However, when you have a disjoint uncountable union of sets, the measure of each set being 0 doesn't allow you to conclude that the measure of the union must also be 0. So e.g. P(X in [0,1]) = P(X in the union of {r} for 0 <= r <= 1) = 1, but P(X in {r}) = 0 for each r in [0,1].


    This follows from the definition of a measure:




    .


    ...along with the fact that rR{r}=R, which follows from the definition of union:


    The most general notion is the union of an arbitrary collection of sets, sometimes called an infinitary union. If M is a set whose elements are themselves sets, then x is an element of the union of M if and only if there is at least one element A of M such that x is an element of A. In symbols:


    ...and the fact that probability measures must return 1 for the event space itself:



    • μ must return results in the unit interval [0, 1], returning 0 for the empty set and 1 for the entire space.



    ...as well as the fact that the event space for a continuous uniform distribution is the set of real numbers (since its pdf is defined for all real numbers, as previously cited).



    I gave the following statement here:


    1/2^100 (=7.89 x 10^-31)


    This statement is false as written; 7.89 x 10^-31 has been rounded to 2 decimal places, but is easily verified as being the correct 2-decimal estimation by a suitably powerful calculator.



    I gave the following statement here:


    Let X be the number face-up after rolling a fair 6-sided die. Then P(X=1) = P(X=2) = ... = P(X=6) = 1/6. P(X != 1) = P(X=2) + P(X=3) + ... + P(X=6) = 5/6.

    This is a standard presentation of a random variable with a discrete uniform distribution with parameters a = 1, b = 6:

    Parameters


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...%28discrete%29

    The verification that P(X != 1) = P(X=2) + P(X=3) + P(X=4) + P(X=5) + P(X=6) follows from the fact that the event space is equal to S = {1,2,3,4,5,6}, and P(X in S and X not in {1}) = P(X in {1,2,3,4,5,6} - {1}) = P(X in {2,3,4,5,6}), along with the countable additivity of the probability measure and the fact that {1,2,3,4,5,6} is the (finite, and therefore countable) union of the pairwise disjoint sets {1},{2},{3},{4},{5},{6}.




    I gave this statement here:
    (1) Necessarily (p & q) [premise]
    (2) Necessarily, [box proof]
    (2a) p & q ["Necessarily" in]
    (2b) Therefore p [Conjunction elimination]
    (3) Therefore, Necessarily p ["Necessarily" out]
    (4) Necessarily,
    (4a) p & q ["Necessarily" in]
    (4b) Therefore q [Conjunction elimination]
    (5) Therefore, Necessarily q ["Necessarily" out]
    (6) Therefore, Necessarily p & Necessarily q. [&-introduction]

    This establishes Necessarily (p & q) -> [(Necessarily p) & (Necessarily q)]

    (1') Necessarily p & Necessarily q
    (2') Necessarily q [conjunction elimination]
    (2') Necessarily p [conjunction elimination]
    (3') Necessarily, [box proof]
    (3'a) p ["Necessarily" in]
    (3'b) q ["Necessarily" in]
    (3'c) p&q [&-introduction]
    (4') Necessarily (p&q) ["Necessary" out]

    This establishes Necessarily p & Necessarily q -> Necessarily (p&q)
    Combined with the previous result, we have:
    Necessarily p & Necessarily q <=> Necessarily (p&q)


    This proof follows the system described here.

    That about sums it up, I think.

    However, as mentioned above, you are reduced to 1+1=3 - and I am going to introduce you to another form of invalid logic: the fallacy.

    Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

    Specifically, we call this an argument from absurdity/ignorance.

    "There are lots of "proofs" that claim to prove something that is obviously not true, like 1 + 1 = 1 or 2 = 1. All of these "proofs" contain some error that most people aren't likely to notice. The most common trick is to divide an equation by zero, which is not allowed (in fact, you cannot ever divide by zero.) If a "proof" divides by zero, it can "prove" anything it wants to, including false statements.

    It's important to recognize that while these "proofs" may be funny and cute, they always contain some error, and are therefore not real proofs."

    http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.false.proof.html
    Right, not all sequences of sentences form a valid argument. I've never claimed otherwise. None of this contradicts anything I've written.

    So now we have both mathematicians and historians laughing at your version of logic.
    You haven't quoted any mathematician or historian (other than perhaps yourself) who has even addressed either the logic systems I've mentioned or the claims I've made about them.

    Congrats. You cannot divide by infinity or zero - as ... drum roll ... you can then fallaciously prove ANYTHING AT ALL!
    I'm glad you agree. I take it that you therefore retract your previous claim that probabilities include numbers like "1/infinity", which would involve dividing by infinity.

    But ... another drum roll please ... it mathematically fallacious! (Insert roaring crowd).

    #1 - maybe you should address the thesis of of your opponent rather than introducing irrelevant minutia.

    #2 - Support your work.
    #1 - All of my points have addressed specific claims made by you.

    #2 - Proof should speak for themselves, but I'm glad to link to wikipedia articles or other introductory texts if you're not yet comfortable with the technicalities.

    If the outcome is not certain - its inductive. If you have to manipulate something with a claim that 100%, an axiom, when it clearly is not, then its inductive. And argument is only as strong as its support, and as yo have no point other than minutia and pride ... what is the point?
    I'm certain that the probability that a uniform discrete random variable equals an event in its support is equal to 1/n, where n is the number of elements in its support. This can be proved deductively from the definitions of the event space and the probability measure. Do you agree, therefore, that there is a deductive argument whose conclusion is a statement about probability?

    Who knows, because we can't get past you demanding people accept minutia that is not only not relevant, its often wrong. Really Clive, this discussion is not about you - and I for one would like it to return to the subject - whether or not logic supports God.
    Then simply retract your claims about the uniqueness of inductive reasoning, that 1/infinity is a probability, that logic is simple, that modal logic isn't deductive, etc.

    1+1=2 and 3 as proof? Is laughably fallacious. But thanks for a proof that is basely insulting to the intelligence of others. I'll ring Richard Dawkins now, and let him know that God is conclusively proved so he can get his meal of crow ready - its deductive and certain. Richard will be SO glad.
    It's a valid argument, since it is an example of modus ponens.
    If you think it is unsound, then please identify which premise is false.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; March 16th, 2015 at 06:49 PM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  17. #117
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    In short, the CLAIM I MAKE OPENLY, is that you are pulling equations off the internet without fully understanding them. In short plagiarism. It's up to you to prove that the is not the case.
    Uhh... no it isn't. I don't know how it works on your planet, but here on earth we don't accuse people without evidence and burden them with proving that they didn't do it.

    Furthermore~

    From the rules page (rules to which you agreed when you created your ODN account):

    "Supporting Claims

    All claims, both positive and negative, must be supported if an opponent requests it (generally, but not exclusively with the challenge tags, Challenge to support a claim.). A claim can be supported either by a relevant piece of external evidence and/or a sound logical deduction.

    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim."

    Challenge to support a claim.

    I challenge you to support that Clive has plagiarized anything in any of his posts in this thread.

  18. #118
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Gree: Clive is a scientist by trade and a big fan and student of logic by choice. He really does know what he's talking about, generally far better than the rest of is do on these subjects. Not that this means you can't argue with him, but I promise he is not just slinging BS at you.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #119
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Clive is a scientist
    Mathematician (or data scientist, if you prefer), actually.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  20. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  21. #120
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    This has nothing to do with the the violation of physics that is the Big Bang - not just something coming from nothing, but everything. By definition, this is a supernatural event. That people once mistook dew from nothing has no bearing on quantum singularity creating an entire universe. It's essentially, an appeal to your faith. But, as I have taken issue with, what it is decided not - is hard evidence.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Please support that the Big Bang is about something coming from nothing, rather than about the phases of evolution of the early universe (e.g. radiation dominated epoch, baryogenesis and leptogenesis, big bang nucleosynthesis, recombination, and so on) which occurred after the first fractions of a second after the "Big Bang."

    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support that the Big Bang violates the laws of physics. In other please, explicate which physical principle the Big Bang violates.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    What is curious here is that science caught up to religion on this one. Thousands of years ago, before cosmology had even figured out that the earth was revolving around the Sun,
    Astronomers*. Cosmology was still caught up in the hopelessly incorrect notions of cosmogeny and other religious/philosophically-dominated views.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    we have a group of primitive people who claim that God created the universe by 'let there be light'. Thousands of years later, we now know both that the Universe was Created and that it came from an apparently magically appearing singularity. Indeed, religion says the universe was created specifically to create life, and the Universe seems to have elements geared precisely toward that end ... including the very first thing created - gravity. Too little (the most statistically possible),
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support that this is "the most statistically possible."

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    and we are just diffuse energy - no life. Too much, (next most probable), and we are just a bunch of black holes - no life.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support that this is the next most probable.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    But we got just enough to slow energy enough to crate matter and start the universal processes that would create life.
    Please explain how the precise balance of dark matter and dark energy allows for the growth of structure in the early universe. I'm familiar with the basics of how this works, I'm just curious if you understand it.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Its the first law of thermodynamics actually. Physicists the world over list the big bang as an exception to that rule.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Defend the claim that physicists hold the Big Bang to be the only exception to the first law of thermodynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    But I tell you what, I want you to use a blow torch, in the vacuum of space, and using just the flame ... create life. (I am not, as the Big Bang did, asking you to create the required fundamental forces of the universe to make that transition from energy to life happen - that has been provided for you.) Let me know when you succeed.
    Please explain to me what you think the theory of planetary formation is. Then please explain to me what you think the most current theory of abiogenesis is.

    Finally, please explain to me what a flame (where's the oxygen source?) has to do with either of these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and no Biology will not magically transform into Physics, and be subjected to equations that posit if x then y
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Then please explain what biophysics and biochemistry is, and why (or explain why it's not the case that) they're rapidly forming the core of biology (in terms of the microscopic explanations of how biology works, that is).

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

    There is a reason that scientists classify things as 'theory' and 'laws'.
    Please explain, in very clear and precise terms, what you believe the difference between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific law" is, and then please explain what the reason is for why scientists use this classification.

    Bonus question: Can you find a scientist claiming to have discovered a law of science in the past 100 years?


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Actually, there is an inner core to a black hole that sciences like quantum mechanics are teaching us about. The event horizon of a black hole has, to date, never exploded and created a universe. Whatever happened in the Big Bang CREATED black holes or, at the very least, allowed for them to be created. Before the Big Bang, nothing existed. To date, everything that has gone into a black hole has remained there. Its quite the opposite of the Big Bang.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Please explain what quantum mechanics has taught us about the existence of the horizons of black holes.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    Science is clearly not the only field in existence, and science with ethics is ... dangerous.
    Right, because scientists with no ethics is vastly preferable.


    Wait a minute...


    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    Most of the early cosmologists, like Di Vinci, were religious.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Please cite for me one correct prediction that Di Vinci made about cosmology.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    And please note, 4,000 years ago, a bunch of sheep herders predicted the the universe WAS created at a time when man believed the universe was eternal and unchanging.
    I would give them credit, but clearly they were copying their answers from the Egyptians, who gave the correct prediction that the universe begins to exist thousands of years earlier than that. Clear plagiarism.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree
    We do know that it was created, that is precisely what the Big Bang postulates.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Please defend the claim that cosmologists are claiming that the universe was literally created 13.7 billion years ago, as opposed to the claim that the universe was in a hot dense state (from a previous state about which nothing else is known) and then proceeds to explain how the universe obtained its current large scale (and small scale) structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Physical impossibility. This is something that defies the physical laws of nature as we now understand them. Science is an every-changing field with new rules, new exceptions to existing rules, and even brand new branches appearing that dramatically change our understanding of the natural world and turn the once impossible into possible. As Lord Kelvin once said, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." At the time, according to the known laws of nature, he was describing what was a physical impossibility. But the Wright brothers never got that memo, and sparked the scientific community to re-examine the laws after they apparently defied them. It is impossible to reverse gravity and cause levitation? Is it possible to move object with only our minds? Is it impossible for humans to instantly teleport to another part of world? In all practical terms, yes -- these are examples of physical impossibilities. But this does not mean that some day, no matter how improbable, the laws we know will be better understood to make these things possible.
    That's statement is stupid, or at least that's an extraordinarily clumsy and poor example. A far better example might have been pretty much anything relating to Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Field Theory.

    1.) One physicist uttered this statement, and it was in response to other scientists asking him to be a part of the Aeronautical Society created during his day. So clearly at least some other scientists believed that it was possible.

    2.) Challenge to support a claim.

    I challenge you to defend the claim that the Wright brothers "sparked the scientific community to re-examine the laws after they apparently defied them." The Navier-Stokes equations were known well before the 1900, and people had definitely tried and succeeded in doing temporary flights with wings. So this was hardly something that violated known physical laws.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  22. Likes Dionysus liked this post
 

 
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Absurdity of Religion
    By Booger in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 12th, 2013, 04:09 AM
  2. Christians Marrying Agnostics or Atheists
    By Scarlett44 in forum Religion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: June 11th, 2012, 04:11 PM
  3. Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says
    By ladyphoenix in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 16th, 2010, 01:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •