Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[attention]

Ex-Fundy:

Thanks for this contribution, but your argument against this argument from probability was not new to this discussion (have you read all the posts?).

In fact I took an even much broader approach, and brought into discussion what would the conceivable probability be that the universe exists in the exact state in which it in fact does exist. This one can not even calculate, and the only figure that comes near to this in a probabilistic way would be the probability of exactly zero.

Yet, the universe DOES exists, and that is a 100% certainty.
Which just shows that you misuse probability theory for everything, but that it doesn't make sense.

And consider this: Bob acknowledges the fact that there is NO known mechanism that can account how life eveolved from non life.
So, how can one even calculate the probability if one does not know the mechanism how it works?
In fact that is just ABSURD. And it only constitutes for one thing, to have people believe in such absurdities as deities. Like this: see how much absurdity I can write in only one post? This must mean then that anything absurd can exist. Which proofs my absurd Deity also exists....

Good night, mr Enyart!

We know now that your Deity is the most extreme of the extremest absurdities.

We however choose for a more sensible and intellectual approach to reality itself.

 

[attention]

Ex-Fundy can not possible exist

Ex-Fundy can not possible exist

Ex-Fundy:

And add to your argument also, that you are constituted of a a umimaginable high number of atoms, in an unimaginable improbable arrangement, and also that you are at a specic location at a specific time for each subsquent duration of your entire existence, and given the number of places and times that could be concieved of, would trace down your estimate of probability of existence to be EXACTLY ZERO.

So, Mr Ex-Fundy, we now figured out that you CAN NOT EVEN EXIST!

It is simply impossible!

So, for the rest of the discussion, we will have to simply state that you are not even there, cause you can not in any conceivable way exist.

And don't come and argue here, that this logic does not even make sense, and that you DO exist, we simply refuse to accept that!

 

[attention]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave
BEAUTY IS ALL IN YOUR MIND. There is no universal standard for it. Some men like large buttocks on women, some like atheletic figures. Some women prefer "Teddy bear" bodies on men, while others prefer the boney, skinny look. To say that BEAUTY is proof of God is to beg the question "What is beauty" -- which would open up a can of worms, ebcause everyone has a different opinion of beauty. ou have proven nothing, Bob.

I can agree on much what you say.

But there are known science facts that make the concept of beauty more objective as you would have thought.

Scientists have explored the beauty of human faces. And it comes down to the fact that what people in a majority find beautifull in a human face, can be formulated in some rules, that work for every human face. The shape of the face, the place of eyes, nose and mouth must be in certain proportions to each other, in order for us to consider it beautifull. Also symmetry is part of what is judged as beautifull.

This does not make sense, if beauty were just in the eyes of the beholder, or it would have to be that for genetic reasons, we all judge beauty of human faces in the same way.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave
When I get a straight-flush in poker, the probability against it is enormous -- (52^52^5, in the millions).

Here is the correct calculation for a single player to draw five cards from a deck and wind up with a Royal Flush (assuming no draws):

For the first card, a player may draw a 10, a jack, a queen, a king, or an ace of any suit. That’s 5 possible faces time 4 suits (for a total of 20 good cards) out of the deck of 52. (20/52)

For the second card, the player must draw one of the remaining cards that will work to complete the Royal Flush. (This card must be of the same suit as the first card drawn.) There are 4 of these cards among the remaining 51 cards. (4/51)

For the third card, there are 3 good cards out of the 50 remaining. (3/50)

For the fourth card, there are 2 good cards out of the 49 remaining. (2/49)

For the fifth card, there is 1 good cards out of the 48 remaining. (1/48)

Multiply the fractions: (20/52)*(4/51)*(3/50)*(2/49)*(1/48) = 1/649740 or 1.54 per million

-----------------------------------------

So while you are correct that when there are millions of hands of poker being dealt, on can expect a handful royal flushes to occur.

But Psycho Dave, what if you were going to play only 100 hands of poker? Would you expect get a royal flush? How about 2 royal flushes? How about 2 in a row?


If your best friend told you he was playing poker last night and was dealt a royal flush on two different hand, would you believe him? Or would you think he was either lying to you, or cheating last night?

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Turbo
If your best friend told you he was playing poker last night and was dealt a royal flush on two different hand, would you believe him? Or would you think he was either lying to you, or cheating last night?

Unless I had reason to not believe him, I would not NOT believe him simply because the probability is low (ie: I would believe him). Practically impossible things happen EVERY DAY -- EVERY MINUTE EVEN (as already stated, everything that happens, depending on how that "event" is defined, is practically impossible). [Given the question said the person stating what happened was my "best friend", I would be inclined to believe him. My "best friends" don't lie to me, and don't cheat --- unless they are are playing a prank or joking with me... in which case they would reveal the truth after I was shocked at their spurt of good luck.]

--ZK

 

[PureX]

Re: Probability Misuse

Re: Probability Misuse

Originally posted by ex_fundy Let’s look at a few characteristics about my life, and assign the probability of each one individually.

1) I’m of relatively modern European descent. For every human alive today there’s approximately a 1 in 5 chance of that being true (0.20)
2) I’m a male. There’s about a 1 in 2 chance of that (0.50)
3) I was born a particular year. There’s about a 1 in 50 chance of anyone currently alive being born on that year (0.02)
4) I am a computer engineer. Worldwide, there’s about a 1 in 10000 chance of a person being a computer engineer (0.0001)
5) I have blue eyes. There’s about a 1 in 4 chance of that (0.25)
6) I drive a Ford. There’s about a 1 in 10 chance of that (0.1)
7) I was born in a particular small town. There’s about a 1 in 1 million chance of that (0.000001)
8) I am reading this current debate. There’s only about a 1 in million chance of that (0.000001)

Given only these unique 8 aspects (with roughly estimated probabilities) of who I am, the probability (using Bob’s logic) of my existing is about 5.0 x 10-21. Given that less than 20 billion homo-sapiens have ever lived on this planet, I (according to Bob) am a statistical impossibility.

This is an excellent analogy. There is a reason that people spend years studying the discipline of statistical analysis - and the reason is that it isn't as simple as one might think. One the one hand we might think that because we are dealing with numbers and equasions that the conclusions we reach must be absolute. But no statistical conclusion is absolute. And on the other and, each succeeding variable multiplies the range of possibilities while also limiting them. The question becomes how much does it do each one. It's a complicated endeavor, that's for sure.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by Turbo
So while you are correct that when there are millions of hands of poker being dealt, on can expect a handful royal flushes to occur.

But Psycho Dave, what if you were going to play only 100 hands of poker? Would you expect get a royal flush? How about 2 royal flushes? How about 2 in a row?

Would I expect a royal flush? Well, I never "expect" any particular hand. But I would not be amazed at any "magic" or "supernatural help from above" if I did get one. Just because the odds against it are great does not mean I should only expect one in a million.

As for 2 in a row -- IT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO HAPPEN! But it's still not magic. Probability is merely an approximation.

If your best friend told you he was playing poker last night and was dealt a royal flush on two different hand, would you believe him? Or would you think he was either lying to you, or cheating last night?

Getting a royal flush twice in a game is not so amazing that it warants any kind of supernatural explanation. If someone told me that they got one, I'd accept it at face value -- BUT I'D STILL QUESTION THE OTHERS WHO WERE AT THE GAME JUST IN CASE!


Again -- It's not unusual to get a royal flush. It's unusual to get two in a game, but not impossible.

 

[ex_fundy]

Attention:

You are correct in your assumption that I have not read the entire grandstand thread. I just started reading the debate a couple days ago and was so incensed with Bob's misuse of probability that I posted after only skimming the grandstand thread.

You are also correct in stating that I do not exist. But then, neither does Bob or anyone else. It's simply a statistical impossibility.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by attention
I can agree on much what you say.

But there are known science facts that make the concept of beauty more objective as you would have thought.

Scientists have explored the beauty of human faces. And it comes down to the fact that what people in a majority find beautifull in a human face, can be formulated in some rules, that work for every human face. The shape of the face, the place of eyes, nose and mouth must be in certain proportions to each other, in order for us to consider it beautifull. Also symmetry is part of what is judged as beautifull.

Yes, but the whole equation of "beauty" involves cultural programming. I agree that animals, as well as people, value the look of symmetry, as well as health. But "what is beauty" involves far more than mere universal standards of symetry. Once symmetry is detected in a strange face, cultural programming takes over -- the shape of a nose, lips, and eyes are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. For example, I think that Anjelina Jolie is a SCARY LOOKING woman. Her lips are too big, and her eyes are creepy looking to me.

That's just me. I know lots of people who think she's the prettiest woman in Hollywood.

This does not make sense, if beauty were just in the eyes of the beholder, or it would have to be that for genetic reasons, we all judge beauty of human faces in the same way.

And the fact that we don't proves that not only Bob is wrong, but beauty itself is determined mostly by people, not supernatural beings. That we can judge anything to be beautiful or ugly only proves one thing -- that we are highly opinionated beings.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave
Yes, but the whole equation of "beauty" involves cultural programming. I agree that animals, as well as people, value the look of symmetry, as well as health. But "what is beauty" involves far more than mere universal standards of symetry. Once symmetry is detected in a strange face, cultural programming takes over -- the shape of a nose, lips, and eyes are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. For example, I think that Anjelina Jolie is a SCARY LOOKING woman. Her lips are too big, and her eyes are creepy looking to me.

That's just me. I know lots of people who think she's the prettiest woman in Hollywood.

I was referring only to that part which seems to be OBJECTIVE and not dependend on cultural standards, but which are universal throughout all of humanity.

And the fact that we don't proves that not only Bob is wrong, but beauty itself is determined mostly by people, not supernatural beings. That we can judge anything to be beautiful or ugly only proves one thing -- that we are highly opinionated beings.

I was not referring to anything 'supernatural' since that is not my point of view, but to the fact that our genetic and bilogical properties could very well be the source of that objective appeal for symmetric and proportional shapes of faces, which makes the attactive to us in an objective way.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Attention:

You are correct in your assumption that I have not read the entire grandstand thread. I just started reading the debate a couple days ago and was so incensed with Bob's misuse of probability that I posted after only skimming the grandstand thread.

You are also correct in stating that I do not exist. But then, neither does Bob or anyone else. It's simply a statistical impossibility.

Well THAT would be an amazing outcome of the debate.

Not only does God not exist, but in fact nothing would exist.

Hmmmm....

:think:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave
Again -- It's not unusual to get a royal flush. It's unusual to get two in a game, but not impossible.

1.5 out of a million is "usual?"

At least you're consistently faithful.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by attention
I was referring only to that part which seems to be OBJECTIVE and not dependend on cultural standards, but which are universal throughout all of humanity.

OKay, I get it. But those standards -- symmetry and the appearance of health -- are not just human. They are cross-species, too. Experiments in animal psychology have probed how animals select mates. They are often even more choosey than we are, but the appearance of health and symmetry are common to most mammals as standards for judging mates.

I was not referring to anything 'supernatural' since that is not my point of view, but to the fact that our genetic and bilogical properties could very well be the source of that objective appeal for symmetric and proportional shapes of faces, which makes the attactive to us in an objective way.

I agree. Virtually everything that is innate to us is biological and thus, genetic in nature. Indeed, evolution accounts for these things quite eloquently. Our standards of beuty for mates is very much involved with our reproductive urges.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by Turbo
1.5 out of a million is "usual?"

It's not "usual". It's just not "unbelievable" or "too fantastic a coincidence that it cannot be believed".

Haven't you ever played a game of poker where someone got a royal flush? Also -- be aware that while playing poker, a deliberate selection process goes on where the players discard unwanted cards and keep cards that they want. In essence, this is very much like what happens with evolution, allegorically.

At least you're consistently faithful.

I don't have faith in people getting royal flushes. It is reported to happen, and is not the result of a random process. A low probability does not mean "impossible".

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by attention
1. The Big Bang does not denote the "begin of time"

2. The observable universe is not the whole universe

3. The observable universe can at the moment of the Big Bang be brought back to a small patch of "false" vacuum about the size of 10 to-the-power minus 33 meters or so.

4. Again, that says nothing about the size of the whole universe, it could have been infinite in size even at that moment

Actually, it is not thought to be the case that the "big bang" was simply matter expanding into an existing space/time that was infinite in extent; the expansion that occured (and continues to occur) is of space/time itself. And as "time" is used here - admittedly a somewhat more simplistic perspective than the complex time system ("complex" in the sense of utilizing both real and imaginary time axes) - time for us most certainly began then, as we have no possible means of observing anything "before" that point.

The second law is based on laboratory sized thermodynamic systems. You can not transpose the notion of what a closed system is to the whole universe without running into problem.

In fact, you raise the contradiction that, when following that line of thought, we would need to state that the universe as a closed system should have already run out of useuable energy.
Which it appearently hasn't.

How would you want to repair that contradiction?

Tell you what; this is old ground, and we've been over it already. Further, I think we're getting very far from the original subject of the thread, and into areas that can't possibly be of interest to very many other people. So I'm going to simply end this particular line of discussion at this point, as it is no longer relevant. We seem to be coming from very much the same perspective, anyway, and are quibbling over details.

Physics does not resolve the issue of God, and is not intended or appropriate even for that.

With this, I wholeheartedly agree. And attempts to use it otherwise are simply silly, and in particular Bob Enyart's very odd attempts to show contradiction where none truly exists - except in his own misunderstandings of what he's trying to talk about.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by bmyers
Actually, it is not thought to be the case that the "big bang" was simply matter expanding into an existing space/time that was infinite in extent; the expansion that occured (and continues to occur) is of space/time itself. And as "time" is used here - admittedly a somewhat more simplistic perspective than the complex time system ("complex" in the sense of utilizing both real and imaginary time axes) - time for us most certainly began then, as we have no possible means of observing anything "before" that point.

You don't need to point that out, since I happen to know that the BB event is not anything like an explosion occuring in pre-existing spacetime. Neither it is the case though that all science or physical/cosmological theory readily admits to this creation of spacetime thing, since there are other cosmological theories then the Hawking-Hartle or Hawking-Turok thesis of an Instanton "pea".

In cosmic inflation theory, the observable universe derives out of a small (magnitudes smaller then the size of a proton) patch of "false" vacuum, which due to negative pressure state of vacuum causes a negative gravity force, and cause a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

Spacetime however already existed, only expanded very rapidly.
Presumably spacetime itself is infinite, although that what formed the visible universe, was a very tiny patch that inflated.

Cosmic inflation solves a number of problems in the Big Bang theory, and is reasonably well falsifiable in that it predicts certain characteristics of the universe which can be observed.
Cosmic inflation theory can be proven false, but thus far is not proven false. It correctly predicted the right type of rimples in the CMBR that were the seeds for galaxy formation. Also cosmic inflation explains why the universe is so flat and so homogeneous.

Tell you what; this is old ground, and we've been over it already. Further, I think we're getting very far from the original subject of the thread, and into areas that can't possibly be of interest to very many other people. So I'm going to simply end this particular line of discussion at this point, as it is no longer relevant. We seem to be coming from very much the same perspective, anyway, and are quibbling over details.

Ok.

With this, I wholeheartedly agree. And attempts to use it otherwise are simply silly, and in particular Bob Enyart's very odd attempts to show contradiction where none truly exists - except in his own misunderstandings of what he's trying to talk about.

Ok.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Zakath minions,

What has happened to Zakath ... did he find a way to bow out gracefully?

 

[NoLies]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Zakath was dead and now is standing before the God he was argueing didn't exsist:bannana: I think that would fit right in with God's sense of humor....

 

[attention]

Originally posted by NoLies
Wouldn't it be ironic if Zakath was dead and now is standing before the God he was argueing didn't exsist:bannana: I think that would fit right in with God's sense of humor....

Speculation is the mother of unprofound beliefs.

Wait till we get to hear that, or ask the forum operator to ask Zakath what happened, before raising unprofound thoughts.

 

[taoist]

What a wonderful testament to the absurdities of thought. I've enjoyed going through the arguments of Zakath and the Pastor, watching the incredible play of misconceptions.

Some simple observations in return for the last few hours reading, and no, I don't mean the 100 plus pages of responses here.

The pastor was badly wounded on the absolute right or wrong argument, conceding early on that "You criticized my examples of child rape for entertainment and racist murder because they “both appear to be conditional." What isn’t?" Ah, pastor Bob, that was a concession.

Zakath, while obviously well read on standard atheistic argument, does not seem capable of addressing issues which have not been addressed by other scholars. Pastor Bob has repeatedly made the argument that it may be possible to show observable physical processes can have no natural explanation, that there may be actual limits to the capabilities of natural processes. He is quite correct that such would be beyond the capability of scientists to discover, for philosophical reasons.

Pastor Bob complains of misrepresentations, yet is himself the hands down winner of the Willful Plank in the Eye award. In the space of a single paragraph, the good pastor changes Zakath's characterizaion of "horrible" into "just different" and then proceeds without basis to reassign it as "comical." Let me say that again. Zakath claims an atrocious act is "horrible," Pastor Bob then changes Zakath's claim to "comical." A clear foul. Worse, he then uses this mischaracterization to infer that atheists are immoral.

As a pure mathematician, I'm amused by the standard attempts to misuse statistics in order to show evidence for creationism. This is fundamentally wrong. Given that myriad biological life forms exist, the probability that life will arise is the mathematical 1. It is an egregious error to reverse this and, looking backwards, note the unlikeliness of any particular outcome. Given 20 billion years, hundreds of billions of solar systems, hundreds of billions of galaxies, any resulting state is, literally, astronomically unlikely. Yet, some outcome must occur. It includes us, on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, at this time. Deal with it.

On a last note, I would like to answer definitively the question posed by the good pastor to begin this debate. "Does truth exist?"

No.

In 1931, delivering a body blow to mathematics, Kurt Godel showed once and for all that given any axiomatic system of thought, it is possible to create undecidable propositions. This result, known as Godel's incompleteness theorem, caused a radical reformation of the entire field. The standard examples are generally recursive propositions, of which, the most universally known, echoes Pastor Bob's initial foray.

"If you say that nothing can be true, then you would have admitted your belief that nothing you write is true, and you would have thereby divulged your belief that you could not win the debate with any truthful arguments. Thus, if you claim that “truth does not exist,” that nothing can be true, then if you actually believe that claim to be true (which itself shows the inanity of holding that position), you should immediately forfeit the debate"

This is merely a restatement of the Epimenides Paradox, himself a Cretan, who declared "All Cretans are liars." Indeed, until Godel's seminal work this paradox dating to the 6th century B.C., was unresolved.

Indeed, any proof of the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being would require a supernatural reference point, making this entire debate absurd. Until then, I'm off to ride a pink unicorn.