How Certain Are You?

[Snakefoot]

I have two observations from this thread ...

1) I'm very surprised by the level of certainty many seem to have regarding the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It makes no logical sense. They may conclude that probabilistically they don't believe, but one can not conclude God is logically impossible.

2) The gate is frequently left open for the supernatural. Judging from reading other areas of this site. I think this is way under reported, too.

 

Personally I think people over compensate in their "certainty" of the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

This thread segues nicely (no coincidence) into two other subjects; The Nature of Evidence, or how can one be "certain", and two, The Implications of the Existence of the Supernatural. You'll find the former here.

 

1) The existence of the Christian God is logically impossible, so therefore it is indeed possible to conclude with absolute certainty that he does not exist. See this link, just for starters:

 

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

 

I'm quite sure that if you do a search as I did for "christian god logically impossible" or something similar, you'll find plenty of reading material, just as I did. Why is it that Christians refuse to do or at least fail to do even the most basic research before they start asking questions and attempting to apologize for their absurd beliefs?

Thanks for the link. I understand that many believe they have certain evidence for the logical impossibility of God. I personally have not seen a plausible case made to sustain these claims. Sometimes I think people confuse a logical impossibility with a probabilistic case for unlikelihood.

I have not seen a plausible refutation of those claims.

[Ouroboros]

In Laplace's time, a lottery only seemed to be random—people believed the result was not predictable because of a lack of information. Today, quantum mechanics shows that randomness is not due to a lack of information but is a part of nature.

Kirkland, Kyle. "applications of quantum mechanics." Particles and the Universe, Physics in Our World. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin= PIOWPU0002&SingleRecord=True (accessed February 20, 2010). Last paragraph.

 

I can find more if you want.

 

 

 

But there is a limit to how many transistors can be crammed onto a small chip. The miniaturization process is now beginning to reach a point where the components behave in a random, unpredictable fashion—the realm of quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of atomic particles like electrons. Relatively big electrical circuits do not suffer from quantum mechanical effects because they use a lot of electrons; while individual electrons are unpredictable, the average behavior of a large number of them is predictable, and the circuits perform as expected. The problem arises when the transistors and circuits become small enough to involve only a few electrons.

Kirkland, Kyle, and Sean M. Grady. "optical computing." Optics, Science and Technology in Focus. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin= STIFO0013&SingleRecord=True (accessed February 20, 2010).

 

Notice the contrast in above paragraph? Individual particles: unpredictable. In group: predictable.

 

They confirm what I said: Localized quantum events are unpredictable.

[OrdinaryClay]

I cannot help but feel you have a somewhat scripted monologue that you are adhering to.

 

But the more you define the supernatural, the more certain I am that it does not exist. I cannot begin to comprehend an event which fits your criteria, which is the problem Snakefoot and others have presented to you. The only reason you do not get to the point as I see it, is because it isn't following the specified order of argument you have planned.

No script. I stated in my introduction I've given this a lot of thought. If you look at the thread title you will see I have stuck to the point. Perhaps others are the ones not sticking to the point. You will see in any other thread I start, that I strive to stay on subject and build from there.

[Guest Net Eng]

How certain are you?

 

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

 

1. 100%

2. Null term

 

 

OrdinaryClay please provide proof for claim #1.

[Legion]

I'd put it at about a 90% chance that using probabilities to describe nature is not the best way to go about things.

[OrdinaryClay]

A probability distribution is in fact predictive. This is exactly why statistical inference is a branch of mathematics. This is why so many other branches of science use it. The scale does not matter. You need to understand the distribution is in fact induced on the events. What matters is the form of the distribution. True unpredictability is a potentially random event not influenced by some by fixed distribution.

 

Just because a single event has some level of uncertainty does not mean there is in fact no predictive power in what we know about that single event. This can be demonstrated by just choosing a tighter distribution. Also, The Law of Large Numbers says definitively that given a distribution you will get a certain result given enough events.

 

BTW - The Casimir Effect does not violate the conservation of energy laws. Quantum fluctuations do not create new energy.

 

I'm sorry if you find this all inconvenient to our faith.

You don't get it. The individual quantum events cannot be predicted. It's a core foundation of quantum mechanics.

 

Let me quote Heisenberg: "We cannot know, as a matter of principle, the present in all its details."

 

I don't care how much you skip and jump around the subject, but I am quite certain about this.

 

What you are talking about is certainty on a higher level, the statistical level, but it is a core principle of quantum mechanics that the individual and localized events are unpredictable.

 

End of story.

You seem to be confusing uncertainty with unpredictability. A prediction with well defined limits of uncertainty is indeed still a prediction. The exact location of a electron in an orbital cloud can not be positioned, but we still have a well defined and predicted cloud that tells us where the electron will most likely be.

 

Indeterminism. Given an initial state of an isolated system, what evolves from that state at future times is only partially determined by the initial state. The system is described by a wave function, which evolves deterministically until the system spontaneously and suddenly undergoes a transition, such as radioactive decay, or until a measurement is performed on it. The occurrence of transitions and the values of physical quantities are not in general uniquely determined. Rather, the wave function gives the probabilities of transitions and the probabilities that the system's physical quantities, when measured, will have any of their allowed values. It is the probability, then, that is determined, while indeterminism reigns with regard to the actual occurrence of transitions and to the values of quantities. From this state of affairs, it follows that quantum predictability exists only with respect to probabilities. The time of occurrence of a spontaneous transition or the actual value measured for some physical variable are, in general, undetermined and therefore unpredictable.

(Encyclopedia of Physics:Quantum Physics)

The exact time of occurrence is not predictable but well defined probabilistic predictions are still made. Meaningful predictions are still made. A prediction is a prediction. You can not pick and choose which predictions apply.

 

The predictability of a free agent does not fit into a probability distribution.

[OrdinaryClay]

Okay, though I don't understand exactly what you mean.

Fair enough, there are many things that I don't yet understand. And so I may not be making myself clear, because there is still confusion within me.

I certainly have plenty of missing understanding.

 

Thanks for being honest. I was also being honest. I simply don't see how our feelings are relevant. Truth exists independent of our feeling. Otherwise it is not truth.

Well I think in some sense this is our central issue. And so I'll say it one more time.

 

I think we humans, all of us, Christian or not, have a tendency to believe things not only on the basis of their truth, but also based on how believing them makes us feel.

I can agree with that.

[Ouroboros]

Dude, you're arguing against Encyclopedias from the field we're discussing. Get over it. I'm not confusing anything. I gave you the sources, so just look them up yourself and confirm that I quoted them correctly.

[ghost_warlock]

How certain are you?

 

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

 

1) 100% - the god of Christianity is self-contradictory and logically impossible.

2) 100% - the laws of nature are inviolate.

[Kuroikaze]

 

The exact time of occurrence is not predictable but well defined probabilistic predictions are still made. Meaningful predictions are still made. A prediction is a prediction. You can not pick and choose which predictions apply.

 

The predictability of a free agent does not fit into a probability distribution.

 

Sure it could. Do you not understand how statistics work?

 

Lets say there is a god. That god does things, and we can observe those actions. Give those assumptions, if we observed god acting enough times we could build a statistical model that would predict which actions he is more likely to take than others. Much like flipping a quarter, each flip is undetermined but we can still predict a 50/50 average with enough coin flips.

 

You can statistically measure ANYTHING if your data set is large enough.

[Shyone]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it.

If something is detectable how is it not testable? If a detection is made. I can then analyse the evidence of detection, and see if it was a false detection. Is this not testable? I agree the non-predictability makes this more difficult, but the evidence gained through detection can be tested. This is what skeptics do all the time when trying to debunk.

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

 

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural.

I made no claim the supernatural existed. I repeatedly stated if the supernatural existed. My claim is that it can be defined, which I did, even if you disagree with it. You are making the positive claim that "when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion." This calls for evidence on your part..

 

So then we both agree that the supernatural does not exist. Fine. Let's leave it at that. I make no claims, you make no claims, and the issue is settled.

 

If you can define it, then for pete's sake do so.

 

Can you show one claim or event that is undoubtedly supernatural? You can't. Your definition is so vague that you may as well be describing how fairies make flowers grow. It would be in an undefinable unpredictable way, but flowers do grow, so it is detectable. Right?

 

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

[Snakefoot]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it.

If something is detectable how is it not testable? If a detection is made. I can then analyse the evidence of detection, and see if it was a false detection. Is this not testable? I agree the non-predictability makes this more difficult, but the evidence gained through detection can be tested. This is what skeptics do all the time when trying to debunk.

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

 

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural.

I made no claim the supernatural existed. I repeatedly stated if the supernatural existed. My claim is that it can be defined, which I did, even if you disagree with it. You are making the positive claim that "when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion." This calls for evidence on your part..

 

So then we both agree that the supernatural does not exist. Fine. Let's leave it at that. I make no claims, you make no claims, and the issue is settled.

 

If you can define it, then for pete's sake do so.

 

Can you show one claim or event that is undoubtedly supernatural? You can't. Your definition is so vague that you may as well be describing how fairies make flowers grow. It would be in an undefinable unpredictable way, but flowers do grow, so it is detectable. Right?

 

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

Maddening, isn't it.

[Shyone]

The fifth problem is recognition. If someone saw a supernatural event, how would they know it was supernatural and not a coincidence, trick, illusion, delusion, hallucination or just an unusual event that could be explained naturally? Psychological phenomena are known to occur, and many people have claimed to be possessed by ancient spirits, demons or thetans. Some have even claimed to be God or the reincarnation of someone from the past. Some have claimed to have telepathic communications with aliens or ghosts. If the person so possessed cannot tell the difference between a mental illness and contact with the supernatural, then neither can people hearing the person making the claim. The kinds of proof that might be acceptable, such as expressing some knowledge that can be confirmed but could otherwise not be known without such contact, has not yet been produced. If the knowledge of the supernatural is gained solely by second hand account, then Thomas Paine’s caveat about believing the person needs to be considered; Is the person more likely to be lying (or delusional or fooled) or did they have some contact with the supernatural? In the end, one could be extremely gullible and believe all accounts of the supernatural, or acknowledge that lying or delusion could be behind the account. There is no good way to discriminate, and so a high degree of skepticism is in order.

Recognition was fundamental to my definition. Your concern is not actually regarding recognition per se. You concern is regarding human fidelity and veracity. This same concern permeates our history and culture. How do we trust any human testimony? Through the standard methods established through societal agreement across 1000s of years of human culture. Our legal system, historiography and even science all have ways of dealing with this issue. In short your concern is a red herring.

 

I maintain that you are indeed a bundle of fallacies.

 

"Recognition is fundamental to my definition"? You failed to say how one could recognise a supernatural event. Failed!

 

You restate my argument, but mistate it. Strawman fallacy. Not only do you fail to explain "recognition" or deal with the problems of how one is to distinguish illusion, self-delusion or failure to recognise a natural phenomenon, you don't even consider that testimony regarding supernatural claims (in particular) cannot be trusted. Our legal system does not allow psychics, prophecy or divine revelation as testimony. "I had a vision" does not cut it. That concern is not a red herring, but lies at the heart of discussions of the supernatural.

 

It takes more than testimony for the unbelievable to be believed, and you can't simply dismiss the concerns without justification.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

The exact time of occurrence is not predictable but well defined probabilistic predictions are still made. Meaningful predictions are still made. A prediction is a prediction. You can not pick and choose which predictions apply.

 

The predictability of a free agent does not fit into a probability distribution.

 

Sure it could. Do you not understand how statistics work?

 

Lets say there is a god. That god does things, and we can observe those actions. Give those assumptions, if we observed god acting enough times we could build a statistical model that would predict which actions he is more likely to take than others. Much like flipping a quarter, each flip is undetermined but we can still predict a 50/50 average with enough coin flips.

 

You can statistically measure ANYTHING if your data set is large enough.

No, a free willed agent is not required to produce a distribution. A random variable is by definition one that has a distribution associated with the set of events. If this distribution is not repeatable for each event then you do not have a random variable. For example, if the Law of large Numbers is not followed (i.e. there is no convergence) then you do not have a an induced distribution.

 

You are implicitly assuming no free will, which is a claim I don't think is sustainable with reason or evidence.

[OrdinaryClay]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it.

If something is detectable how is it not testable? If a detection is made. I can then analyse the evidence of detection, and see if it was a false detection. Is this not testable? I agree the non-predictability makes this more difficult, but the evidence gained through detection can be tested. This is what skeptics do all the time when trying to debunk.

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

I did define it here and in following posts. If you wish to engage in fallacious reasoning by begging the question, then feel free.

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural.

I made no claim the supernatural existed. I repeatedly stated if the supernatural existed. My claim is that it can be defined, which I did, even if you disagree with it. You are making the positive claim that "when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion." This calls for evidence on your part..

 

So then we both agree that the supernatural does not exist. Fine. Let's leave it at that. I make no claims, you make no claims, and the issue is settled.

I did not claim it did not exist.

 

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

I'm not sure you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not proof or even evidence of anything. It is an heuristic principal.

[OrdinaryClay]

The fifth problem is recognition. If someone saw a supernatural event, how would they know it was supernatural and not a coincidence, trick, illusion, delusion, hallucination or just an unusual event that could be explained naturally? Psychological phenomena are known to occur, and many people have claimed to be possessed by ancient spirits, demons or thetans. Some have even claimed to be God or the reincarnation of someone from the past. Some have claimed to have telepathic communications with aliens or ghosts. If the person so possessed cannot tell the difference between a mental illness and contact with the supernatural, then neither can people hearing the person making the claim. The kinds of proof that might be acceptable, such as expressing some knowledge that can be confirmed but could otherwise not be known without such contact, has not yet been produced. If the knowledge of the supernatural is gained solely by second hand account, then Thomas Paine’s caveat about believing the person needs to be considered; Is the person more likely to be lying (or delusional or fooled) or did they have some contact with the supernatural? In the end, one could be extremely gullible and believe all accounts of the supernatural, or acknowledge that lying or delusion could be behind the account. There is no good way to discriminate, and so a high degree of skepticism is in order.

Recognition was fundamental to my definition. Your concern is not actually regarding recognition per se. You concern is regarding human fidelity and veracity. This same concern permeates our history and culture. How do we trust any human testimony? Through the standard methods established through societal agreement across 1000s of years of human culture. Our legal system, historiography and even science all have ways of dealing with this issue. In short your concern is a red herring.

 

I maintain that you are indeed a bundle of fallacies.

 

"Recognition is fundamental to my definition"? You failed to say how one could recognise a supernatural event. Failed!

Detectable but not Predictable. It is detectable via our five sense.

[Ouroboros]

Detectable but not Predictable. It is detectable via our five sense.

There you go again, then quantum mechanics is supernatural. You can't detect quantum events with your senses, you can only infer them from indirect measurement.

[Snakefoot]

I think I have this figured out. Clay has deduced a way to divide by zero.

[Shyone]

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

I did define it here and in following posts. If you wish to engage in fallacious reasoning by begging the question, then feel free.

 

Here is your definition from the above post:

 

"The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world)."

 

That is a meaningless description and explains nothing.

 

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the stolen concept?

 

That is what you are using here.

 

"'Supernatural', 'is' defined as beyond nature - i.e. 'not nature', a purely negative definition without any remaining universe of discourse, ergo the term "supernatural" is a broken concept. As a broken concept it cannot refer to anything by definition. So to say that something beyond nature, has a nature, is to steal the concept of naturalism. To define something as supernatural is to say it is beyond limits, hence, beyond identity, hence beyond character, hence without a nature."

[Shyone]

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

I'm not sure you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not proof or even evidence of anything. It is an heuristic principal.

You cut my quote! You distorted what I said! You dishonest little prick!

 

Here it is in full:

 

Can you show one claim or event that is undoubtedly supernatural? You can't. Your definition is so vague that you may as well be describing how fairies make flowers grow. It would be in an undefinable unpredictable way, but flowers do grow, so it is detectable. Right?

 

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

 

The reference to Occam's Razor was in reference to fairies making flowers grow.

 

Flowers can grow without fairies, and so the concept of fairies is superfluous.

 

Oh, you're slick. So slick you are slimy.

[Snakefoot]

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

I'm not sure you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not proof or even evidence of anything. It is an heuristic principal.

You cut my quote! You distorted what I said! You dishonest little prick!

 

Here it is in full:

 

Can you show one claim or event that is undoubtedly supernatural? You can't. Your definition is so vague that you may as well be describing how fairies make flowers grow. It would be in an undefinable unpredictable way, but flowers do grow, so it is detectable. Right?

 

Use Occam's razor. Don't mistake us for being as gullible as you.

 

The reference to Occam's Razor was in reference to fairies making flowers grow.

 

Flowers can grow without fairies, and so the concept of fairies is superfluous.

 

Oh, you're slick. So slick you are slimy.

Did you really expect any better from a xtian apologist?

[Shyone]

Did you really expect any better from a xtian apologist?

<sigh> No, not really.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

I did define it here and in following posts. If you wish to engage in fallacious reasoning by begging the question, then feel free.

 

Here is your definition from the above post:

 

"The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world)."

 

That is a meaningless description and explains nothing.

 

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the stolen concept?

 

That is what you are using here.

 

"'Supernatural', 'is' defined as beyond nature - i.e. 'not nature', a purely negative definition without any remaining universe of discourse, ergo the term "supernatural" is a broken concept. As a broken concept it cannot refer to anything by definition. So to say that something beyond nature, has a nature, is to steal the concept of naturalism. To define something as supernatural is to say it is beyond limits, hence, beyond identity, hence beyond character, hence without a nature."

You only used part of my definition. I qualified it further as can be seen in my original post.

 

There is no stolen concept fallacy because I'm not stealing the concept of "naturalism". I'm excluding naturalism which means by definition I'm not "stealing" it.

[Snakefoot]

 

Something undefined is detectable in an undefined and unpredictable way? That is nonsense! I mean, really, it makes no sense!

I did define it here and in following posts. If you wish to engage in fallacious reasoning by begging the question, then feel free.

 

Here is your definition from the above post:

 

"The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world)."

 

That is a meaningless description and explains nothing.

 

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the stolen concept?

 

That is what you are using here.

 

"'Supernatural', 'is' defined as beyond nature - i.e. 'not nature', a purely negative definition without any remaining universe of discourse, ergo the term "supernatural" is a broken concept. As a broken concept it cannot refer to anything by definition. So to say that something beyond nature, has a nature, is to steal the concept of naturalism. To define something as supernatural is to say it is beyond limits, hence, beyond identity, hence beyond character, hence without a nature."

You only used part of my definition. I qualified it further as can be seen in my original post.

 

There is no stolen concept fallacy because I'm not stealing the concept of "naturalism". I'm excluding naturalism which means by definition I'm not "stealing" it.

Oh, what a slimy web we weave,

When all we want is to deceive.

[Ouroboros]

I think I have this figured out. Clay has deduced a way to divide by zero.