User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 85

  1. #51
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Okay, a quick summary of the argument (without special characters that evidently do not show up for everyone):

    The degree to which a hypothesis is probabilistically supported by evidence is equal to the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence minus the probability of the hypothesis alone. Let "ps" be probabilistic support:

    ps(h|e) = p(h|e) - p(h)

    The degree to which a hypothesis is inductively supported by the evidence is equal to the probability of the material conditional, where the evidence is the antecedent and the hypothesis is the consequent, minus the probability of the same material conditional given the evidence. Let "is" be inductive support:

    is(h|e) = p(e -> h|e) - p(e -> h)

    Here's the deal: for any evidence which probabilistically supports some hypothesis, that same evidence will also inductively counter-support that same hypothesis. In other words, probabilistic and inductive support for the hypothesis move in opposite directions given the same evidence.

    Another way to say this is that as the conclusion of an inductive argument becomes more probable given new evidence, the logical inference from the premises to the conclusion becomes weaker. That is, the evidence actually supports the conclusion less and less even while its probability keeps rising. Whatever is responsible for the increasing probabilistic support, it is not anything resembling an inductive or partially deductive inference.

    This creates a dilemma for atheists (most are empiricists/Bayesianists): every time they observe something that is not God, the (subjective) probabilistic support for God not existing increases, but, logically, the same evidence inductively supports the conclusion that God does exist.
    I'm still not seeing why this is a new dilemma, just seems to be worded differently and maybe goes into more detail than the usual "can't prove god doesn't exists, induction, neener neener" arguments that most atheists encounter at some point.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  2. #52
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I guess scientologists shouldn't be playing with math.
    I guess not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica View Post
    There is no probability of god's existence in my mind.
    A (subjective) Bayesianist would say the only place a probability could be is in your mind. Then it would only depend on whether we decide to include 0 and 1 as probabilities.

    Anyway, it is customary among such philosophies to only assign the probability of 1 or 0 in the cases of, respectively, tautologies and contradictions. Anything else is something like (notwithstanding Quine) a synthetic proposition (i.e. a proposition that cannot be proved true or false by purely logical reasoning) and should only be assigned a probability between 0 and 1. Perhaps some theories of God are contradictory, but I don't think all have to be.

    Of course, these kind of philosophies often have difficulties with synthetic propositions that do not predict anything in particular about what can be observed, i.e. metaphysics. Normally these philosophies just refuse to deal with such statements, branding them "meaningless" or "irrelevant." They normally get themselves into a host of logical quandaries for that reason.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #53
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    This creates a dilemma for atheists (most seem to be empiricists/Bayesianists): every time they observe something that is not God, the (subjective) probabilistic support for God not existing increases, but, logically, the same evidence inductively supports (defined as partial deducibility) the conclusion that God does exist.
    I repeat: What qualifies as evidence? Without that, your equations are meaningless.

  4. #54
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    [YOUTUBE="_w5JqQLqqTc"]The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence[/YOUTUBE]

  5. #55
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    I'm still not seeing why this is a new dilemma, just seems to be worded differently and maybe goes into more detail than the usual "can't prove god doesn't exists, induction, neener neener" arguments that most atheists encounter at some point.
    The problem is that, logically, the evidence does not support the most probable conclusion. This brings into question what it means for the evidence to support a hypothesis. It also challenges the use of probability to overcome the traditional problem of induction, i.e. how can evidence of past events imply anything about future events? If probabilistic support has nothing like the character of inductive (or partial deductive) support, then what does the probability of a hypothesis have to do with the probability of any of its future predictions?

    More to the point, why do atheists, who normally purport to support only that which is supported by the evidence, not believe that God is more likely to exist every time they observe a chicken?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #56
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    I think I follow you. I think we're both saying that the OP left out the important part about what qualifies as a "God thing" (aka, Gx - proof of God's existence), other than being represented by Ga, Gb, Gc, etc. As in, what qualifies as Gx? Splitting a molecule with water??
    Yes. Since not a single property of "G" is referenced throughout the argument, it could be anything you want and work the same. "e" becomes any evidence towards "h" which is any hypothesis. You don't even need the whole first section about god, only the second half has the actual reasoning in it. Follow the trick logic and empty premises, and you get "proof" that the more evidence you gather for something's lack of existence, the more likely it is to exist.

  7. #57
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    This is lovely mutual exchange.

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Yes. Since not a single property of "G" is referenced throughout the argument, it could be anything you want and work the same. "e" becomes any evidence towards "h" which is any hypothesis. You don't even need the whole first section about god, only the second half has the actual reasoning in it. Follow the trick logic and empty premises, and you get "proof" that the more evidence you gather for something's lack of existence, the more likely it is to exist.
    Thanks for the reply. Makes sense.

  8. #58
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    I repeat: What qualifies as evidence? Without that, your equations are meaningless.
    Whatever you want: it hardly matters because the argument is mostly formal. That's why I used meaningless symbols to begin with. The argument can then have general application regardless of what "qualifies as evidence."

    No need to be so concrete. What are you, an SJ?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #59
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    More to the point, why do atheists, who normally purport to support only that which is supported by the evidence, not believe that God is more likely to exist every time they observe a chicken?
    Is this like some version of the clock argument, the one where we find a clock on the beach and wonder how it got there?

    ETA: This is starting to sound like the ontological argument for god
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  10. #60
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinker683 View Post
    Is this like some version of the clock argument, the one where we find a clock on the beach and wonder how it got there?

    ETA: This is starting to sound like the ontological argument for god
    No, it's not like that. I am not really arguing that God exists. I am arguing that atheists should, by their own standards (normally those of empiricism/Bayesianism), consider the existence of God as more supported by the evidence every time they observe something new that is not God. It's really an argument about epistemology.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. If there is no god of any kind...
    By iNtrovert in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 09:55 AM
  2. There is no God
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  3. Who, or what, is this "God"?
    By Iriohm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:09 PM
  4. OH MY GOD THERE IS A CRISIS!
    By Antimony in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 09:28 PM
  5. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO