Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Science / Re: Physics and t=0
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 03:01:16 PM »
Right, but what outputs those random fluctuations in the first place?

I mean, what you're saying stands to reason - it's as evidently true as saying that Earth's magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from ablating away with the solar wind - but I don't think we can stop there and say, "that's all there is to it".

There is no cause. Quantum events don't have causes.

It is like radioactive decay. No cause is involved.
62
Science / Re: Physics and t=0
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 02:44:14 PM »
Right, but what outputs those random fluctuations in the first place?

I mean, what you're saying stands to reason - it's as evidently true as saying that Earth's magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from ablating away with the solar wind - but I don't think we can stop there and say, "that's all there is to it".
63
Science / Re: Physics and t=0
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 02:33:49 PM »
The curvature of space depends on its contents like the way a black hole bends the space around it.

Random fluctuations produce random energies with their different curvatures.

Curvature G is related to mass and energy by Einstein's equation

64
You have misunderstood what I said anyway. Remember, this thread is about "Does God Exist? And Was Jesus Resurrected." I am not contending that the phrase ECREE cannot be supported by Bayes Theorem. I never even suggested that. Rather, a closer reading of my posts will reveal that my contention with ECREE is that it is subjective when engaging in discussions about the topic of this thread....even if you employ Bayes to establish if God exists. In other words, Bayes can support the phrase ECREE but it does not guarantee that the inputs will always be indisputable or conclusively objective. That's the key.

I guess for some clarity here, because I'm not sure I really understand your position here BibleStudent:
To you, is the resurrection of the dead considered an ordinary event or an extraordinary event?
To you, is the translation of the word of god on golden plates in reformed Egyptian considered an ordinary event or an extraordinary event?
To you, is the return of advanced aliens on a comet considered an ordinary event or an extraordinary event?

Basically, I think what you're saying here is that the assessment of ordinary vs. extraordinary is subjective.  I think I would agree, frankly, and if that's the case, I'd like to have a discussion with on on whether or not one should consider the resurrection of the dead to be ordinary or extraordinary.  'cause if you contend that's ordinary, I would like to dispute that, unless you want to take the position that the ordinariness of the resurrection of the dead is indisputable on the grounds of it being subjective.

Using the online Merriam Webster dictionary to define the word “resurrection:”

1. the rising of Christ from the dead
2. the state of one risen from the dead

I do not consider resurrection according to definition 1. to be an extraordinary claim. I do consider it an extraordinary claim if God's divinity is clearly not involved as is implied by definition 2.

65
Thank you.

You are asking me to provide evidence for something I do not hold to be the case. I have never indicated nor even implied that Bayes does not support ECREE. I think this is the problem we are encountering. Someone is trying to pin something on me that is simply inaccurate. Any reference or mention on my part to Bayes and ECREE was in direction relation to the topic of this thread.

So, if it is satisfactory, I will state my position more clearly: I do not deny that Bayes Theorem is capable of supporting the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Are we good?
It depends on whether you still hold that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a highly subjective claim or not.  Based on reading your post, I cannot tell if you do or do not.
66
Science / Re: Physics and t=0
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 12:59:17 PM »
Sorry for the delay, Foxy, but you know how things go sometimes.

I did watch that interview you posted (at least the first half, which included the part relevant to this discussion).  So I understand where you're coming from.  I'll go even further and say I agree that it's plausible and supported by the math.

However, I noticed something while listening to Krauss explain the subject.  It's a little hard to put it into words, though.  But if Krauss is right and the physical laws which govern the way things interact in the universe only came into being when the universe did...then how does that explain the framework which allows 'closed', 'flat' and 'open' virtual systems to come into being?
67
I would like to pursue your line of questioning here because I think it may shed some light. Before I do, though, could you please just briefly provide a definition of the word "resurrection" as you mean it in your post? I want to make sure we are on the same page. If it is the dictionary definition then no need to articulate something different....just let me know.

I'll accept whatever definition of resurrection you have.  I take it to mean 'coming back to life from a state of being dead' or somesuch but I'm not married to that.
68
Certainly.  Given that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is supported by Bayes' Theorem, and in fact is an English restatement of a form of that theorem, evidence or proof showing that Bayes' theorem is flawed would be one way to support your argument.  Another way would be to show that the theorem itself is subjective, which is to say that putting the same inputs in will output different results.  Please note that this is different than the inputs being variables which can change depending on what the theorem is used for.


Thank you.

You are asking me to provide evidence for something I do not hold to be the case. I have never indicated nor even implied that Bayes does not support ECREE. I think this is the problem we are encountering. Someone is trying to pin something on me that is simply inaccurate. Any reference or mention on my part to Bayes and ECREE was in direction relation to the topic of this thread.

So, if it is satisfactory, I will state my position more clearly: I do not deny that Bayes Theorem is capable of supporting the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Are we good?
69
Certainly.  Given that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is supported by Bayes' Theorem, and in fact is an English restatement of a form of that theorem, evidence or proof showing that Bayes' theorem is flawed would be one way to support your argument.  Another way would be to show that the theorem itself is subjective, which is to say that putting the same inputs in will output different results.  Please note that this is different than the inputs being variables which can change depending on what the theorem is used for.

Alternately, you can acknowledge that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is neither subjective nor a claim since it is a restatement of a commonly-accepted mathematical theorem.  Given that this is not especially common knowledge, it would be understandable if you had not known that in advance, and would explain why you treated it as a rhetorical statement instead.
70
You have misunderstood what I said anyway. Remember, this thread is about "Does God Exist? And Was Jesus Resurrected." I am not contending that the phrase ECREE cannot be supported by Bayes Theorem. I never even suggested that. Rather, a closer reading of my posts will reveal that my contention with ECREE is that it is subjective when engaging in discussions about the topic of this thread....even if you employ Bayes to establish if God exists. In other words, Bayes can support the phrase ECREE but it does not guarantee that the inputs will always be indisputable or conclusively objective. That's the key.

This is called in the trade "special pleading". You are rationalizing exceptions to suit yourself !

As jaimehlers reminded me in an earlier post, it is not sufficient to claim a logical fallacy without explaining why you label it as such. Please explain how this is special pleading because I think you have erred.

Quote
If the inputs are not indisputable, they are not extraordinary evidence, whatever the subject. It is not because Bayes Theorem does not work, it is because the claim has failed.

You just stated that the inputs are disputable by stating that they are "not indisputable." Regardless, I think I know what you were intending to say and, if so, I do not disagree. So, now I have a question" How likely do you think it would be that you and I could agree on the inputs for a Bayes probability calculation to address whether God exists or not? This is a VERY important question so please provide an answer.


Quote
Quote
Also, in response to one of your requests, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a claim because it represents an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. And, just as a side note, since this claim is often used in an effort to establish the validity of other claims, it seems more than reasonable that ECREE itself be deemed an “extraordinary claim” for which there is NO evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) that could ever be used to support it. I don't think you can even use Bayes for that one.

So you are claiming that Bayes Theorem is invalid in an attempt to protect your irrational beliefs ! ! !

Huh? Where in my post does it say anything to that effect?

Quote
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a form of Bayes Theorem in ordinary English words. There is nothing extraordinary about the phrase or its claims, it is the inevitable consequence of the sequence of probabilities and conditional probabilities in Bayes Theorem. It is impossible to escape the consequence that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" from Bayes Theorem.

So, is it your position that regardless of the nature of the "extraordinary claim," Bayes will always produce an equally reliable probability? In other words, are you claiming that a Bayes probability calculation for 100 coin flips is on par with a probability calculation for determining if God exists? If so, you obviously do not understand Bayes well enough to know that prior probability often relies on an ignorance measure for which there is no bullet-proof method.


Quote
I also want you to see that you are trying to rationalize irrational beliefs by making contradictory statements such as these two sentences above.

Quote
I am not contending that the phrase ECREE cannot be supported by Bayes Theorem.
Quote
there is NO evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) that could ever be used to support it (ECREE).

Is it supported or not?

You are introducing two quotes with distinctly different subjects. If you had been more careful in your reading, you would have understood that the second quote refers to ECREE being an "extraordinary claim" in itself. That was rather clear. If you believe that the extraordinary claim inherent in ECREE can be supported by Bayes, I would be substantially impressed if you could demonstrate that.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10