Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 04:40 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 09:18 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Seriously, when I hear these "god of the gaps" arguments, in this day and age, when we know so much about science, it'd be like someone saying, "Okay, sure, most of those dice-rolls were natural, but roll #78 and roll #86 weren't tested, and you can't know it wasn't God!"

I should say that my interest here is not to argue for the existence of God. If my points are to taken as arguments for God, than I'd likely agree with you, that they are not particularly good ones.

I'm more interested in finding where our intersections exist, rather the convincing someone to cross over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:49 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 04:52 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
Quote:In the dice example, provided all we observed is the dice rolling 20s a hundred times, and we're not able to inspect the dice, or the throw. What conclusion should we jump to?

Should we jump to the conclusion that it was a fluke? That it was intentional?

Or would you suggest that we shouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other?

Exactly!

no conclusive evidence = no conclusion

Let's assume we all observed a D20 dice rolling 20s a hundred times in a row.

A pot is going around taking bets as to whether it was a fluke, or intentional. (in this example we're assuming the dice can be verified further after the bets are in to determine if they were weighted, or whether the throw was manipulated, etc..). Let's say the pay out for a fluke, is $1000 for every dollar bet, and for intentional it's $100 for every dollar bet.

I would bet a considerable amount of my fortune wagering that it was intentional, even though the return is less than for betting a fluke and winning.

But you one the other hand, would find this inadvisable? You would stay out of betting in this situation all together?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:51 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:09 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Really, I'm bewildered that someone can have the knowledge presented in this video, and not hypothesize that god doesn't exist.

What do you mean by "hypothesize that god doesn't exist"? Does it just mean to be open to the idea of God not existing, as opposed to believing God doesn't exist?

To make a similar analogy to the dice scenario, let's say it hits three 20's, but all of the other rolls appear to be random. Would you still bet on weighted dice? Would you bet on un-weighted dice?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:57 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Exactly!

no conclusive evidence = no conclusion

Let's assume we all observed a D20 dice rolling 20s a hundred times in a row.

A pot is going around taking bets as to whether it was a fluke, or intentional. (in this example we're assuming the dice can be verified further after the bets are in to determine if they were weighted, or whether the throw was manipulated, etc..). Let's say the pay out for a fluke, is $1000 for every dollar bet, and for intentional it's $100 for every dollar bet.

I would bet a considerable amount of my fortune wagering that it was intentional, even though the return is less than for betting a fluke and winning.

But you one the other hand, would find this inadvisable? You would stay out of betting in this situation all together?

I have no problem with hypothesizing (betting). My issue lies with drawing conclusions without conclusive evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:03 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:51 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What do you mean by "hypothesize that god doesn't exist"? Does it just mean to be open to the idea of God not existing, as opposed to believing God doesn't exist?

To make a similar analogy to the dice scenario, let's say it hits three 20's, but all of the other rolls appear to be random. Would you still bet on weighted dice? Would you bet on un-weighted dice?

I would bet that it was a fluke. Would you?

Would you bet that it was not a fluke, that it was intentional when the dice rolled 20s, a hundred times in a row?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:20 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:51 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  To make a similar analogy to the dice scenario, let's say it hits three 20's, but all of the other rolls appear to be random. Would you still bet on weighted dice? Would you bet on un-weighted dice?

I would bet that it was a fluke. Would you?

Would you bet that it was not a fluke, that it was intentional when the dice rolled 20s, a hundred times in a row?

Yes I would. But if you consider the information presented in the video, then my best guess is that the universe hit's 20's 5% of the time. It seems very plausible to me that there is no intention, and no intention would be my hypothesis. I'm very happy to admit that it's only a guess though, and could very well be wrong. Until I see conclusive evidence one way or the other, I won't form a belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 06:02 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Yes I would. But if you consider the information presented in the video, then my best guess is that the universe hit's 20's 5% of the time. It seems very plausible to me that there is no intention, and no intention would be my hypothesis. I'm very happy to admit that it's only a guess though, and could very well be wrong. Until I see conclusive evidence one way or the other, I won't form a belief.

Only a guess in the sense that betting that the dice being rolling 20s , 100 times in a roll was intentional is a guess? Or more a long the lines of a guessing on the outcome of heads on a single coin toss? There's a great deal more confidence in the outcome of one guess, than the other.


And I should say when I speak of rolls in regards to the universe, I'm not really speaking of multiple rolls that produced all sorts of planets, that one roll was able to produce ours. But rather the single roll that produced everything else, even the multiple subsequent rolls. (it would be perfectly fine to include multiple universes as product of the single all encompassing roll as well).

The analogy here wouldn't be a game designer who created a meticulously crafted game world, coloring in every single piece and shape of it. But one that created a software able to generate multiple worlds, an algorithm, the allows for an endless amount of diversity, and is able to form a grand planet in the shape of our own, and creatures like ourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Only a guess in the sense that betting that the dice being rolling 20s , 100 times in a roll was intentional is a guess? Or more a long the lines of a guessing on the outcome of heads on a single coin toss?

Not at all like guessing at the coin toss. That has a calculated probability of 50%. As far as the probability of whether or not cheating took place, there really isn't one. Me being a skeptic, I would doubt that we would see it happen without cheating, and I would hypothesize that cheating had taken place. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of fluke though, because I know that it's possible hit 100 20's

(13-08-2015 05:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I should say when I speak of rolls in regards to the universe, I'm not really speaking of multiple rolls that produced all sorts of planets, that one roll was able to produce ours. But rather the single roll that produced everything else, even the multiple subsequent rolls. (it would be perfectly fine to include multiple universes as product of the single all encompassing roll as well).

The analogy here wouldn't be a game designer who created a meticulously crafted game world, coloring in every single piece and shape of it. One that created a software able to generate multiple worlds, an algorithm, the allows for an endless amount of diversity, and is able to form a grand planet in the shape of our own, and creatures like ourself.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying that you can't imagine our universe not having at least a deistic "prime mover." I can sympathize with that, as I've held that position in the past.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:16 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Not at all like guessing at the coin toss. That has a calculated probability of 50%. As far as the probability of whether or not cheating took place, there really isn't one. Me being a skeptic, I would doubt that we would see it happen without cheating, and I would hypothesize that cheating had taken place. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of fluke though, because I know that it's possible hit 100 20's

Even though you know a fluke is possible, you would still bet on it being intentional. Which to me would mean you believe that it’s more probable that it was intentional, rather than a fluke, though you’re not able to devise the exact probability here.

Quote:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying that you can't imagine our universe not having at least a deistic "prime mover." I can sympathize with that, as I've held that position in the past.

No, I can imagine it. Just like I can imagine the dice rolls being a fluke, even if my bets are on it’s not. But I’d say that a case for a deistic prime mover, is more convincing to me than the case for a fluke.

I would also hypothesize that your transition from deism to atheism, was based less on finding the case for a fluke more convincing, but more so on the irrelevancy of a deistic prime mover. That it has more to do with a God who seems absent in the lives of his creature more so than anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:46 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
Tomaisa, you've never shown me the proof of my rock's unintent.

How do you demonstrate in this example (or in the case of the dice) conclusive evidence of unintent to kill the person or roll 100 20's in a row?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: