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 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 218

Thread: Supernatural?

  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    For starters, all of the times she looked up at the sky and didn't see an alien. If out of, say, ten thousand skyward glances one doesn't see an alien, they have to figure the odds of seeing an alien at any particular time is at least ten thousand to one.
    The same type of evidence can just as easily be applied to the Peter/Not-Peter scenario:
    All the possible names he could have that aren't Peter. If out of, say, ten thousand different names, not one is "Peter", you have to figure the odds of "Peter" being one of all possible names is at least ten thousand to one.

  2. #142
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The same type of evidence can just as easily be applied to the Peter/Not-Peter scenario:
    All the possible names he could have that aren't Peter. If out of, say, ten thousand different names, not one is "Peter", you have to figure the odds of "Peter" being one of all possible names is at least ten thousand to one.
    That's been addressed already. I think you need to go back a bit further in my debate to get the full context of the "Peter" argument. Obviously the debate is not actually about the odds of someone being named "Peter" but that scenario is being used to address the actual issue of the debate.

  3. #143
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's been addressed already. I think you need to go back a bit further in my debate to get the full context of the "Peter" argument. Obviously the debate is not actually about the odds of someone being named "Peter" but that scenario is being used to address the actual issue of the debate.
    Rodriguez: Look at the example again. If you have no evidence whatsoever for the proposition "Rodriguez's first name is Peter," then you cannot define the probability with which you know that proposition to be true.
    Mican: Which means that if I had to guesstimate the odds that your name is Peter, the only logical choice is to guess that it's equally likely that you are named Peter as it is that you are not named Peter.
    Blonde: If I had to guesstimate the odds of meeting some aliens, the only logical choice is to guess that it's equally likely that I will meet some aliens as it is that I won't.

    Are you saying the blonde is not correct in picking C?

  4. #144
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Rodriguez: Look at the example again. If you have no evidence whatsoever for the proposition "Rodriguez's first name is Peter," then you cannot define the probability with which you know that proposition to be true.
    Mican: Which means that if I had to guesstimate the odds that your name is Peter, the only logical choice is to guess that it's equally likely that you are named Peter as it is that you are not named Peter.
    Blonde: If I had to guesstimate the odds of meeting some aliens, the only logical choice is to guess that it's equally likely that I will meet some aliens as it is that I won't.

    Are you saying the blonde is not correct in picking C?
    No. And if you were properly familiar with the entire "Peter" discussion, you would probably know that. But since you stepped in mid-way and therefore are apparently not properly familiar with my position, you aren't really challenging my position.

    So here is where "Peter" is first introduced.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560076

    Once you've read the full back and forth between us, then I think you will probably be familiar enough with what I'm saying to ask relevant questions regarding my position.

  5. #145
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And this in no way rebuts the argument that I made so I stand by what I said.
    What you offered as evidence for the proposition "Ghosts exist" is so weak it's not worthy of serious consideration in making the determination whether that proposition is true. That's all I intended to point out. In fact, if you actually look at the videos from those websites, it's probably better evidence for the proposition "Ghosts do not exist" than it is for "Ghosts exist."


    If there are only two possibilities, in this case "name is Peter" and "name is not Peter" and there is no reason to think one is more likely than the other, then both options are equally supported and assuming one has to estimate which is more likely to be correct, the only logical guess one can make is that they are equally likely to be correct.
    We're trying to measure the probability that a proposition is known to be true, not the possibility. Possibility is binary. It's always either "It is" or "It isn't." There is no range of probability values for possibility. Not so for probable knowledge, however. The probability that something is known to be true is often indicated on a range of values between 0.0 and 1.0, depending on the evidence we have for the proposition. The probability that we're trying to measure is how likely it is that you know "Rodriguez's first name is Peter" in the absence of all evidence for that proposition. And that is not 0.5. That, instead, is undefined.

    On a somewhat related sidenote: Does this slight misunderstanding of possibility and probability contribute to your calling yourself an agnostic? Just because the proposition "God exists", like any other proposition, is either true or false, this doesn't mean that, in the absence of all evidence, the probability that we know the proposition "God exists" is true is 0.5. If truly there were no evidence for that proposition then the probability that we know the proposition is true is undefined.



    Which means that if I had to guesstimate the odds that your name is Peter, the only logical choice is to guess that it's equally likely that you are named Peter as it is that you are not named Peter.
    Again you're confusing probability with possibility. It is 100% posssible that my first name is Peter and it is 100% possible that it's not. But neither proposition can be defined in terms of probability of being known to be true until or unless there is evidence to support it.

    As far as I can tell, you are saying that I shouldn't even bother to make a guess.
    I'm simply saying that guessing is all you'd be doing if you were to assign a probability to your belief without any evidence. With no evidence of any kind to back it up, such an assertion would be a pure shot in the dark .

    But if that's the case, then your scenario fails to represent the debate because I was specifically asked to pick from letters A - E that represent varying degrees of likelihood that ghosts exist.
    But that was based on the available evidence that you believe supports the proposition "Ghosts exist."

    Now, if we apply the A-E to the likelihood that your name is Peter and I HAVE TO PICK A LETTER (just like I had to pick a letter in regards to ghosts), it's pretty obvious that C (equally likely) is the best letter to pick.
    No, it's not, not unless there is evidence that makes that proposition as likely true as not. In the absence of all evidence, the probability that the statement is true cannot be determined. It is certainly not 0.5! If you think about that for a while you'll see the absurdity in believing that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true.

    If you disagree, then tell me why in regards to "Peter", I should pick A, B, D, or E instead of C.
    You shouldn't choose any of them because probability isn't applicable to a situation where there's no evidence at all to support a proposition.

  6. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. And if you were properly familiar with the entire "Peter" discussion, you would probably know that. But since you stepped in mid-way and therefore are apparently not properly familiar with my position, you aren't really challenging my position.

    So here is where "Peter" is first introduced.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560076

    Once you've read the full back and forth between us, then I think you will probably be familiar enough with what I'm saying to ask relevant questions regarding my position.
    It's really not as complicated as you seem to think. You're saying that having no knowledge of either choice's likelihood means it's valid to conclude that they have equal likelihood.
    As Rod put it: If you think about that for a while you'll see the absurdity in believing that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true.

  7. #147
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    What you offered as evidence for the proposition "Ghosts exist" is so weak it's not worthy of serious consideration in making the determination whether that proposition is true. That's all I intended to point out.
    Okay but you have not rebutted my statement so I still stand by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    In fact, if you actually look at the videos from those websites, it's probably better evidence for the proposition "Ghosts do not exist" than it is for "Ghosts exist."
    That doesn't make sense. At worst, they are no evidence at all. I don't see how bad evidence for X can be considered evidence against X.




    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    We're trying to measure the probability that a proposition is known to be true, not the possibility. Possibility is binary. It's always either "It is" or "It isn't."
    No, we are measuring the probability that something is true based on evidence. And lack of evidence that X is true or not true makes the PROBABILITY of X being true is 0.5.

    If someone is about to flip a coin and it is proposed that it will land heads but you have no evidence that it will land heads or tails prior to the flip, you WILL estimate the probability of the coin landing heads at 0.5 (at least I hope you will).

    The same logic applies to Peter and it applies to ghosts.

  8. #148
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This reminds me of an old "blonde joke":
    Some astronomy students are doing a survey on their campus, asking people about other galaxies, planets, possibility of life, etc.
    They go up to a blonde and ask, "What do you think the chances are of you ever meeting some aliens in your lifetime?"
    "Oh, I'd say about 50/50," she replies.
    "Seriously? Why do you think so?" they ask her, incredulously.
    She answers, "Well, either I will meet some aliens, or I won't."
    Exactly. She's confused the probability of meeting ETs (which is the question she was asked) with the possibility of meeting ETs (which is the questioned she answered).

  9. #149
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It's really not as complicated as you seem to think. You're saying that having no knowledge of either choice's likelihood means it's valid to conclude that they have equal likelihood.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As Rod put it: If you think about that for a while you'll see the absurdity in believing that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true.
    Which would be a straw man argument in regards to my position.

    There is a definite difference between thinking

    1. Something is as likely true as not because the evidence for and against it being true due to lack of evidence showing that either is more likely than the other.

    and

    2. Something is as likely true as not because it's possible that it is true.

    #1 is my position. #2 is not my position and therefore pointing out the flaw in that position does not address any argument of mine.

  10. #150
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    No, we are measuring the probability that something is true based on evidence. And lack of evidence that X is true or not true makes the PROBABILITY of X being true is 0.5.

    If someone flips a coin and it is proposed that it will land heads but you have no evidence that it will land heads or tails prior to the flip, you WILL estimate the probability of the coin landing heads at 0.5 (at least I hope you will).
    For all intents and purposes, you've practically stipulated that the evidence shows the probability to be 50/50!

    However, in the absence of ALL evidence regarding such a situation, no probability can be assigned to the proposition "The coin will land heads."

    How about this situation. I'm going to flip a coin but I'm not going to give you any evidence whatsoever about the coin. Maybe there's a "head" on one side of the coin, maybe not. Maybe the coin is heavily weighted to come up on a certain side almost every time, maybe not. Maybe I will flip the coin in a fashion in which I can predict which side will come up with 90% certainty, maybe not.

    OK, so now I ask you "What is the probability that the coin I'm about to flip will come up 'heads'?"

    Remember, it's just as true that the coin will either come up 'heads' or not in this scenario, one in which you have no evidence whatsoever to reasonably assign a probability to the claim "The coin will come up 'heads,'" as in the other, one in which you had tons of evidence to support a probability assignment, correct?

    So do you still say the probability is 50-50?

  11. #151
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    For all intents and purposes, you've practically stipulated that the evidence shows the probability to be 50/50!

    However, in the absence of ALL evidence regarding such a situation, no probability can be assigned to the proposition "The coin will land heads."
    Of course it can. I have no evidence that the coin will land heads and I have no evidence that the coin will not land heads. And yet it is commonly accepted that the odds of it landing heads is 50%. Are you saying that that is incorrect?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    However, in the absence of ALL evidence regarding such a situation, no probability can be assigned to the proposition "The coin will land heads."

    How about this situation. I'm going to flip a coin but I'm not going to give you any evidence whatsoever about the coin. Maybe there's a "head" on one side of the coin, maybe not. Maybe the coin is heavily weighted to come up on a certain side almost every time, maybe not. Maybe I will flip the coin in a fashion in which I can predict which side will come up with 90% certainty, maybe not.

    OK, so now I ask you "What is the probability that the coin I'm about to flip will come up 'heads'?"
    I would say that the probability that the coin will come up heads is now below 50%. Your weights and ability to manipulate the flip makes no difference because unless you are intentionally going to try to defeat my guess, you are just as likely to manipulate it to end up heads as tails. So that makes no difference and would still guess 50/50. But if I can't be guaranteed that there is heads on EITHER side of the coin, then I have to guess that the odds are greater that the coin will not land heads than it will land heads. In fact, logic would dictate that that variable would make it 75% to 25% that it won't land heads.

    So I've still made a valid prediction even if it's no longer 50/50.


    But getting back the proper analogy, where there are ONLY TWO options (just like there are only two options on whether ghosts exist or not), lack of evidence supporting either side gives both sides equal weight so just like a REAL coin flip, one's best guess would be 50/50.
    Last edited by mican333; May 30th, 2018 at 03:25 PM.

  12. #152
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Of course it can. I have no evidence that the coin will land heads and I have no evidence that the coin will not land heads.
    How is it possible for you to say such a thing? Of course you have evidence that it will land heads! For one thing, you know that a "head" is on one side of the coin!

    Or is it your contention that a coin which either may or may not have a heads on one side is nonetheless 0.5 probable to land showing heads?

  13. #153
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    How is it possible for you to say such a thing? Of course you have evidence that it will land heads! For one thing, you know that a "head" is on one side of the coin!
    But the coin MIGHT land tails so I don't have evidence that it WILL land heads instead of tails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Or is it your contention that a coin which either may or may not have a heads on one side is nonetheless 0.5 probable to land showing heads?
    I do.

    It occurs to me that I didn't explicitly state the alternative to "landing heads" and you assumed that the alternative was "not landing heads". But of course when a coin is typical flipped, the alternative to "landing heads" is "landing tails" so that's what I mean. Unless there is evidence showing that the coin is more likely to land heads than tails or vice versa, the odds of landing heads instead of tails is 50%

    While it's possible that there is no heads on the coin, it is no less possible that there is no tails on the coin either so this variable makes no difference in regards to the likelihood that it will land heads instead of tails or vice versa.

    And really, the option of the coin not having heads or tails should not be factored in for the coin toss is analogous to the ghost issue where there are only two possible options - ghosts do exist or ghosts don't exist. So allowing for the coin to have something other than heads on one side and tails on the other side means it no longer analogous to the ghost debate.
    Last edited by mican333; May 30th, 2018 at 04:34 PM.

  14. #154
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which would be a straw man argument in regards to my position.
    No, it's the implicit unstated part of your position.
    Without any knowledge whatsoever of what you're considering, all you're left with is merely its possibility. When you say that a proposition has a complete lack of evidence for and against it and because of that it's rational to conclude that it's as likely true as it is not, then all you can possibly base such a conclusion on is its possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Something is as likely true as not because it's possible that it is true.
    You misquoted his statement: "the absurdity in believing that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true", meaning the only reason you have to say that it's as likely true as not is the possibility of it being true or not, which is actually 50/50.

    If you're going to claim that something is 50/50 not just because it's possible that it is true, but that there's some other reason(s) to conclude that it's 50/50, you'd need to support why such a conclusion is rational. A lack of evidence doesn't get you there. Just like the blonde, you are concluding that something is as likely true as not, without any reason other than the fact that it's possible that it's true or not. Likelihood/probability is not the same as possibility, and without evidence supporting probability, all you're left with is possibility, and mere possibility can't be applied to statements like the A-E.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But getting back the proper analogy, where there are ONLY TWO options (just like there are only two options on whether ghosts exist or not), lack of evidence supporting either side gives both sides equal weight so just like a REAL coin flip, one's best guess would be 50/50.
    This is not a proper analogy, since it's smuggling in the 50/50 probability which is commonly associated with coin flips (the knowledge we are supposed to lack). By using such an analogy, you are simply making the claim that ghost existing or not is 50/50, without supporting that claim.

    A better analogy with a coin would be to consider the possibility and likelihood of the coin landing on its edge vs. it not landing on its edge, without any knowledge whatsoever about the coin or the physics involved in the toss. One can reasonably conclude that it's 50/50 possible for the coin to land on its edge vs not, but the likelihood of it landing on its edge is completely unknown, hence a conclusion in the A-E range is absurd.

  15. #155
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, it's the implicit unstated part of your position.
    Without any knowledge whatsoever of what you're considering, all you're left with is merely its possibility.
    I never said I had no knowledge of what I'm considering. I said I have no evidence that shows that X exists and I have no evidence that X does not exist. That does not mean that I know nothing else about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You misquoted his statement: "the absurdity in believing that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true", meaning the only reason you have to say that it's as likely true as not is the possibility of it being true or not, which is actually 50/50.
    No, it means that it's absurd to believe that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true. And when I argue that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true then his statement will apply to one of my arguments. But since I never made such an argument, it doesn't apply to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you're going to claim that something is 50/50 not just because it's possible that it is true
    Well, I'm not going to claim that so this point is a non-issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Just like the blonde, you are concluding that something is as likely true as not, without any reason other than the fact that it's possible that it's true or not.
    Wrong again. I have presented entirely different reasoning for concluding that something is as likely to exist as not.

    And I really don't care to debate the debate so I'm not going to respond to this straw-man except that point out that it's a straw man. I ask that you respond directly to the arguments that I actually make - as in include the quoted argument of mine and then respond to that without telling me what my own argument means.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Likelihood/probability is not the same as possibility, and without evidence supporting probability, all you're left with is possibility, and mere possibility can't be applied to statements like the A-E.
    As if I said otherwise. Moving on...

    But what I will say that if the evidence for and against X being true is equally convincing, then it makes the most sense to pick the letter that corresponds with "as likely to be true as not be true". Agree?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is not a proper analogy, since it's smuggling in the 50/50 probability which is commonly associated with coin flips (the knowledge we are supposed to lack). By using such an analogy, you are simply making the claim that ghost existing or not is 50/50, without supporting that claim.
    No, it's a PERFECT analogy for a situation where there is NO EVIDENCE that one option is more likely than the other.

    Whether that applies to ghosts is entirely dependent on whether someone provides evidence that supports that they are more likely to not exist than exist or vice versa. If no one provides evidence that one is more likely than the other, then it's pretty much equivalent of a coin flip on which is more likely to be correct. If one presents evidence that a coin is weighted then the odds of it landing heads is no longer 50/50.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    A better analogy with a coin would be to consider the possibility and likelihood of the coin landing on its edge vs. it not landing on its edge, without any knowledge whatsoever about the coin or the physics involved in the toss. One can reasonably conclude that it's 50/50 possible for the coin to land on its edge vs not, but the likelihood of it landing on its edge is completely unknown, hence a conclusion in the A-E range is absurd.
    Why would it be absurd? Unless one is not going to guess (in which case this scenario has no relevance to a debate on the probability of ghosts existing and therefore is indeed a poor analogy) one would have to venture a guess. And with no evidence supporting that the coin will land on its side or on its edge, they would have to pick 50/50. If not, why not?

  16. #156
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I never said I had no knowledge of what I'm considering.
    Huh? Here we go again ...

    futureboy - #146: You're saying that having no knowledge of either choice's likelihood means it's valid to conclude that they have equal likelihood.
    mican - #149: Yep.

    So, when considering the likelihood of X being true and X being false and reaching a conclusion A-E, do you or don't you have any knowledge of the likelihood?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it means that it's absurd to believe that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true. And when I argue that something is as likely as not true just because it's possibly true then his statement will apply to one of my arguments. But since I never made such an argument, it doesn't apply to me.
    Again, if you have no knowledge of the likelihood, then all you are left with is the possibility. If you do have knowledge of the likelihood, then provide it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But what I will say that if the evidence for and against X being true is equally convincing, then it makes the most sense to pick the letter that corresponds with "as likely to be true as not be true". Agree?
    Sure, but that entails there being knowledge of the evidence. Let's look at your statement with the Peter/Not-Peter question again:
    "But if we remove that knowledge and I have no idea what the odds are that any one person is named Peter, then I would, going by the evidence, have to conclude that the odds are 50/50 that you are named Peter."
    Are you talking about the possibility of him being named Peter vs not being named Peter, or the odds/probability/likelihood of him being named Peter vs. not being named Peter?
    If you have no knowledge either way, then any statement about the likelihood is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it's a PERFECT analogy for a situation where there is NO EVIDENCE that one option is more likely than the other.
    Are you saying that the lack of evidence that one is more likely than the other equals evidence that they are equally likely?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If no one provides evidence that one is more likely than the other, then it's pretty much equivalent of a coin flip on which is more likely to be correct.
    It again seems like you're saying that not having evidence that one is more likely than the other means you have evidence that they are equally likely.

  17. #157
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Huh? Here we go again ...

    futureboy - #146: You're saying that having no knowledge of either choice's likelihood means it's valid to conclude that they have equal likelihood.
    mican - #149: Yep.

    So, when considering the likelihood of X being true and X being false and reaching a conclusion A-E, do you or don't you have any knowledge of the likelihood?
    Correct. But let's look at the quote I responded to:

    Futureboy: Without any knowledge whatsoever of what you're considering

    I may have knowledge of what I'm considering. I just don't have knowledge of its likelihood.

    One can have knowledge about ghosts without having knowledge of the likelihood that they exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Sure, but that entails there being knowledge of the evidence.
    No it doesn't. If you have no evidence for X and you have no evidence against X but still had to forward your best guess on the odds that X exists, the most logical answer you can give based on what evidence you have is that it's equally likely that X exists than it does not exist. 0 = 0. Therefore the evidence equals out.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Let's look at your statement with the Peter/Not-Peter question again:
    "But if we remove that knowledge and I have no idea what the odds are that any one person is named Peter, then I would, going by the evidence, have to conclude that the odds are 50/50 that you are named Peter."
    Are you talking about the possibility of him being named Peter vs not being named Peter, or the odds/probability/likelihood of him being named Peter vs. not being named Peter?
    If you have no knowledge either way, then any statement about the likelihood is absurd.
    Because you say so?

    If the evidence points to being named Peter is as convincing as the evidence against being named Peter (and no evidence on either side means the evidence for both sides is equally convincing), then my best guess is that it's equally likely.

    I can't imagine this is that hard to comprehend. Let me use a common scenario - a coin flip.

    Before the coin is flipped, you have no knowledge that the coin will land heads and you have no knowledge that the coin will land tails. Given that, if you had to guesstimate the odds of it landing heads, you would almost certainly pick 50/50. Same principle with Peter. Until Rod tells me whether his first name is Peter, I have no evidence on whether he is or is not named Peter, so I would put the odds at 50/50 (this hypothetical assumes that I am unaware of the multitude of other names that could exist for such a thing would be evidence).



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Are you saying that the lack of evidence that one is more likely than the other equals evidence that they are equally likely?
    Did I say "evidence"? Nope.

  18. #158
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How could science explain or quantify Jesus being able to suspend gravity by thought alone?

    However, if Jesus were available for testing on his ability to walk on water, at least we would know the phenomena exists.
    Well, if he was available for testing we could ask him to explain how his consciousness did it and we most likely will learn something new. After all, Peter, his disciple, also walked on water for a few moments, which shows (if you consider the validness of the Bible) that the average man has the potential to do this.

    So your comment makes me wonder, if some Eastern adept came down from the Himalayas, subjected himself to scientific testing for a few days, and he walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant, demonstrated super human strength, to name just a few siddhis, and all this would be recorded and documented – yes, some might say these phenomena exist. But then what? Wouldn't this just be tucked away in some vast library of paranormal observations?
    Last edited by eye4magic; May 30th, 2018 at 10:19 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  19. #159
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, if he was available for testing we could ask him to explain how his consciousness did it and we most likely will learn something new.
    This assumes Jesus understands the mechanics of it and not just the capabilities (birds don't understand how they can fly just because the can do it).

    Also if he did stop by, it could clear up what version of religion is "true", why wouldn't he want to do that?

    ---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So your comment makes me wonder, if some Eastern adept came down from the Himalayas, subjected himself to scientific testing for a few days, and he walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant, demonstrated super human strength, to name just a few ?
    Yes that would be fascinating if it could be studied scientifically and not be just "lore" of the past. From your own source:
    " Many of these tales exist within the literature and lore, but they are just stories, up to the readers to determine their credibility. Of course, one who subscribes to various ancient teachings would be more inclined to believe that these are more than just folklore."

    The only phenomena Harvard reported in that article was the ability to control, to some extent, the body's own metabolic functions. Like:
    " where they were astonished to find that these monks could lower their metabolism by 64%."

    They make no mention of any sort of levitation, clairvoyance, etc being observed at all.

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So your comment makes me wonder, if some Eastern adept came down from the Himalayas, subjected himself to scientific testing for a few days, and he walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant, demonstrated super human strength, to name just a few siddhis, and all this would be recorded and documented – yes, some might say these phenomena exist. But then what? Wouldn't this just be tucked away in some vast library of paranormal observations?

    Any actual levitation video being shown to be scientifically true from a reputable source and repeatable would go viral in a heartbeat!!

    People have offered thousands to millions of dollars for that! Lots of attempts but no one has ever shown any of this to be true.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_paranormal
    http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

    This would literally take over social media and the news. You would have to look to find a Kardashian story thru all the supernatural stories.

    After all, if everyone could levitate we wouldn't need cars and would be saved form "global warming" at the same time.

    None of these things you have mentioned "walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant," have ever stood up to any scrutiny.

  20. #160
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This assumes Jesus understands the mechanics of it and not just the capabilities
    If we consider the context of Jesus’ mission which included repeatable demonstration of his mastery to manipulate matter, i.e., changing water to wine, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing the sick, removing demons from people, resurrecting, walking through walls – this would reasonably show that he could probably enlighten us today regarding the laws (principles) he used to accomplish these acts. In fact, he was so familiar with the principles he used he used to manipulate matter, that he informed us during his mission, that his work (acts) were repeatable by others: “whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. John 14:12.
    Also, if he is willing to be tested, it doesn’t hurt to ask, right?

    Also if he did stop by, it could clear up what version of religion is "true", why wouldn't he want to do that?
    I think he would be more then gracious to enlighten us on the matter.

    Yes that would be fascinating if it could be studied scientifically and not be just "lore" of the past. From your own source:
    " Many of these tales exist within the literature and lore, but they are just stories, up to the readers to determine their credibility. Of course, one who subscribes to various ancient teachings would be more inclined to believe that these are more than just folklore."
    It also points out “With science shedding light on the possible truths of ancient mysticism, it’s not implausible to think that, at one time, these abilities were more common knowledge….

    The only phenomena Harvard reported in that article was the ability to control, to some extent, the body's own metabolic functions. Like:
    " where they were astonished to find that these monks could lower their metabolism by 64%."
    From the perspective of the Buddhist monks, this is probably icing on the surface. “In Buddhism, for example, the existence of advanced powers is readily acknowledged; in fact, Buddha expected his disciples to be able to attain these abilities, but also to not become distracted by them.”

    The ability to influence our autonomic nervous system and immune system at will for many people today would be considered abnormal, supernatural, if not unbelievable to many. Just think if millions of people could, through no use of drugs or machines, control their body temperature, autonomic nervous system and immune system with their mind as this study shows? That could revolutionize medicine,health care and our way of life. Where’s the viral video on this scientific study and observation?

    Granted, a study that shows one person with this super natural ability doesn’t mean everyone can do it, but the Iceman has subjected himself to scientific scurtiny and he has trained others, with a fair amount of success, to do what most people would consider to be impossible, abnormal and unnatural.

    They make no mention of any sort of levitation, clairvoyance, etc being observed at all.
    Any actual levitation video being shown to be scientifically true from a reputable source and repeatable would go viral in a heartbeat!!
    What would that prove? That one person is able to levitate at will; that this is possible using a rigorous ancient type of meditation practice? And if most people find that they can’t easily duplicate the results, does that make the observation any less real?

    This would literally take over social media and the news.
    I would think the scientific study and observation referenced above about Iceman and his super human abilities and the monks would have more immediate and practical social interest since it involves the ability of people to have more control over their health in a society where autoimmune diseases are effecting millions of people today. The ability to control our body temperature and other systems with our mind…. the implications of this are massive.

    After all, if everyone could levitate we wouldn't need cars and would be saved form "global warming" at the same time.
    Why would you assume everyone could levitate if we observed and verified someone levitating?
    Also, if we observed one supernatural event that we can’t easily duplicate, does that make the observation any less real?


    None of these things you have mentioned "walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant," have ever stood up to any scrutiny.
    Perhaps, more Buddhist monks in the East will opt to work with researchers to study their practices. Meanwhile, there are some mind-bending studies out there that challenge our notion of natural and supernature and could revolutionzie our approach to health.
    Last edited by eye4magic; June 1st, 2018 at 12:12 AM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bias Against the Supernatural
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: August 26th, 2011, 12:32 AM
  2. Supernatural Forum?
    By Oh snap in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 07:13 PM
  3. Definition of the supernatural
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 05:02 PM
  4. Do you believe in the supernatural?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 10:06 AM
  5. Why believe in the Supernatural?
    By Withnail in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: May 5th, 2004, 09:59 PM

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
  •