“"When you do the math the odds of one man fulfilling those prophecies is infinitely small..."
That's because you are making the assumption that prophecies were indeed fulfilled. Should you want to talk about probabilities in the domain of reality, such as the existence of something or causation, as you are, you would need an actual sample set, not hearsay from theistic or historical texts. You just can't assign meaningful probabilities to your argument. You'd know this from any undergraduate statistics or probability class.”
Richard Neal on Mar 11, 2014 at 15:08:53
“Jon - There were over 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And it isn't an "assumption" or guess work - nor were they vague prophecies like Nostradamus did...He was born in Bethlehem, He came out of Egypt, He was raised in the Galilee, He was a Jew, His birthline was through King David, He healed the sick, the blind, He was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, He was crucified and on and on I could go...So what you have here is a set of over 300 prophecies written by various authors over two millennium detailing certain aspects and events in one man's life - Then you have one man show up and fulfill ALL 300 prophecies in exact detail...And you can easily do the math on the odds of one man fulfilling those prophecies as Jesus Christ did and you end up with odds that are infinitely small...Just as mathematicians have done the odds on the possibility of various amino acids floating around and, over time, becoming DNA - and the odds for that taking place are also infinitely impossible...You see, when I give you real science (mathematics) you still reject it because you live by faith of a man made theory of evolution and, as a consequence, refuse to look at the real science - while choosing, instead, to believe in man made myths....”
“I was talking about his point that the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim. You replied, "...then why is Bill not required to "prove" that God does not exist which is the claim he originally made?" Bill never claimed that a god does not exist, he simply eluded to the fact that the burden of proof for the existence of something supernatural lies with the one making positive claims, and he even used a good analogy such as proving that unicorns don't exist.
On another note though, since you brought it up, this quote, "I gave him the mathematical probability of fulfilled prophecy, which is 1 in near infinity" is specious at best. The idea of assigning probabilities based off of prophecies and historical interpretations to establish the existence of something supernatural is ridiculous.
Your argument that there really is evidence of fulfilled prophecy is entirely unscientific and basically boils down to, "It's true because other theistic texts say so." (I think you referenced the Talmud twice)”
Richard Neal on Mar 10, 2014 at 15:54:06
“If you had read the conversation carefully you would have seen that he made the comment that God did not exist, then asked the I prove he does...I simply asked the same question of him - Prove that He doesn't exist. Then I went on and gave him two examples, fulfilled prophecy and the Shroud of Turin as proofs for God or the supernatural...
You go on to write "The idea of assigning probabilities based off of prophecies and historical interpretations to establish the existence of something supernatural is ridiculous." That simply isn't true...There is no question that the Old Testament was written prior to the life of Christ. Nor can there be any question that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies from the Old Testament concerning His first coming. Now, you may want to argue that some of those prophecies were vague, just as I will argue that some were minutely detailed. Nevertheless, whether the question is 300 prophecies or 200 detailed prophecies the point is the same; When you do the math the odds of one man fulfilling those prophecies is infinitely small...When you take it a step further, and include ALL the fulfilled prophecies from the Old and New Testaments the math gets even crazier...And statistical probabilities is a legitimate form of math that we use every single days in our lives, i.e, insurance, gaming, military, etc...”
“How come you didn't respond to his point about making positive claims? Did you realize he was right?”
Richard Neal on Mar 9, 2014 at 21:35:38
“I answered his "positive" claim earlier, when he asked for evidence for the supernatural - or God...I gave him the mathematical probability of fulfilled prophecy, which is 1 in near infinity, and the science behind the Shroud of Turin. He could answer neither claim successfully. Consequently, he chose to focus on the one questionable carbon 14 test from the shroud, while ignoring the other 300+ scientific tests which were ran on it and never even addressing the prophecy issue at all...Consequently, I assumed I proved my point and have since tried to move on?...”
“First of all, it would seem that you've no authority in philosophical matters at all. Your example is hopelessly confused: I have reasons to disagree with your post, reasons that correspond to any experience of emotion that may occur. Statements about reality need to be backed up by reason and evidence. Experience is not a reliable indicator of reality, and so drawing interpretations from experience should be a careful, methodical process. In the case of my experience with our exchange, you could say that my experience of disagreement is actually incorrect, but this claim doesn't correspond with the fact that I have reasons to disagree with your statement and that you don't have any compelling reasons to offer that I actually do agree with you. Assume that it could be tested, that we could verify whether or not I actually agreed with you; an evidential approach would surely be the best way to get to the bottom of it. The fact is people can have experiences that do not correspond reality, and denigrating the bad reasoning behind such interpretations is not the same as denigrating the experience. And denigrating is surely what many people do, but obviously that wasn't a denigrating post on Brian's behalf; many people can actually spell out disagreement with the reasons people give for their interpretations, or actually provide evidence against them.
You're denial of being insulting right from the get-go kind of amazes me.”
Darr Sandberg on Feb 21, 2014 at 22:02:58
“By the way, Jon, I do know how to recognize people who are taking "Intro to Philosophy" at a junior college. One key clue - they try to present themselves in public as philosophers.”
Darr Sandberg on Feb 21, 2014 at 21:58:15
“"First of all, it would seem that you've no authority in philosophical matters at all. "
From the guy who leads off with the fallacy of ad hominem, as a form of dismissal.
'Your example is hopelessly confused:"
Your dismissal indicates incompetence.
"Statements about reality need to be backed up by reason and evidence."
Now there is a rule you have not followed. So, do you not believe your own rule or is it just a convenient distraction from your failure to address the material presented.
'Experience is not a reliable indicator of reality,"
Therefore, nothing you post from your experience, including your derogatory thoughts about me, is reliable. You've disarmed yourself, not me.
" The fact is people can have experiences that do not correspond reality, "
Like your assertions about me. I understand, you are building a verbose way of declaring people of faith delusional. The problem is, you do so without any evidence or reason to back that up.
'You're denial of being insulting right from the get-go kind of amazes me. '
“Seriously? You make the dubious claim that "people like you" denigrate people's experiences, to a comment that actually had substance that you could have addressed (Brian's). I then asked whether you knew that there is a difference between your claim and the criticism of people's interpretations of experience, and you reply with the claim that there is essentially no difference, along with an insinuation that it is arrogant and prejudicial to see as much: another baseless claim for which I asked you to elaborate, and you instead reply with insult. In case you're just totally oblivious, i'll clue you in on something: When someone makes baseless claims about arrogance and prejudice, whilst making statements of the variety, "people like you", along with using insults instead of simply staking out a position, well that's called irony.”
Darr Sandberg on Feb 21, 2014 at 14:20:00
“I'll give an example that any real philosopher can get.
You've experienced your emotional reaction to my posts. But you only you think you disagree, but you really agree with everything I wrote, you're just interpreting your experience of your emotions incorrectly.
Now what terms would you honestly use to describe this example of being told that you've interpreted your experience incorrectly?”
Darr Sandberg on Feb 21, 2014 at 14:07:06
Since you cannot know someone else's experience, asserting that you understand better than they do the meaning of their experience, is arrogant and prejudicial. But, as such a person, of course you don't recognize that.
" i'll clue you in on something: When someone makes baseless claims about arrogance and prejudice, "
How arrogant and prejudicial of you. I made no baseless claims.
"along with using insults instead of simply staking out a position, well that's called irony."
Since I did no such thing, what you did is called dishonest and ad hominem.”
“Yes, I did mean the word hypothesis. And I was drawing attention to the fact that certain hypotheses are meaningless to science, or have no scientific value, as they cannot be falsified by any natural methods. These types of hypotheses are not parsimonious, much like the first part of Gary's comment in this thread.”
“He's obviously talking about parsimony, and how non-falsifiable hypotheses don't belong in any science. And yeah, churches were somewhat instrumental in keeping science alive and pushing it forward, but so what? It's not like that outshines their anti-science bias. Obviously religious people can use scientific methodology just like anyone else, they just bring a bunch of illogical and metaphysical baggage into their interpretations, which is why Gary's comment is so apt.”
Redgriffin on Feb 20, 2014 at 12:02:11
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sēz′)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
Is this the word that you mean. There are hypothesis that have not been and may never be proven but there are also things that Scientific People have disproven the belief that the world is less then 7000 years old. That the world was crated in 7 days all these hypothesis have been dis proven by men using science that was handed to us by the Religions of the world and some by men who have the title of Bishop and Cardinal before their names. What you are against I think is the fact that there are religious people who don't agree with you and want to force their ideas on others but can't it cut both way they don't want to believe your science and see you as forcing your beliefs on them? The English call them "prigs" and every group has them I would suggest that all groups can get prigs in them the trick is keeping people from becoming one even me.”
“Precisely. It is really obvious how misguided some people conceive of abiogenesis, especially when they jump straight to some sort of incredulity about complex molecules popping out of soup. That type of caricature just implies to me that they haven't a clue about chemistry.”
“Hey, it's all good. Whereas you find a lack of compelling reason, others trained in chemistry could see it differently. Have you been formally educated in organic chemistry?”
mathislaw1 on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:37:34
“Indeed, I have a Masters degree in Physics and have taken many organic and inorganic chemistry classes. Edie seems to imply that life "sprung" into existence from organic soup. I guess it depends on your definition of life. I can certainly see how a molecule could begin the process of self replicating (I would not call that life). Once a molecule can replicate itself, it is easy to see that through natural selection that it slowly grew more complex to make simple cells etc. People forget that life formed about 3.3 Billion years ago and it was not until abut 700 million years ago that the first multi cellular life forms appeared. That is a vast amount of time for colplexity to arise.”
“Thanks for the link. I am familiar with some of the information on the web page but I noted that information on life from non-life lacking. There are indeed polemic articles like this one you sent me on the other side of the topic as well. Again, I have no problem with evolution from life; there is simply no compelling reason to resort to the leap of faith necessary to believe that life sprung to existence from organic soup.”
I've included the last link because I think it cuts straight to your confusion; science can easily make progress in the study of life and consciousness by formulating models with operational definitions that can be measured.”
Jopeli on Dec 18, 2013 at 14:32:01
“I am afraid Wikipedia is not helping much.Maybe you should have read the articles before posting the links.
"Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it."Wikipedia
One could write a book on life and consciousness . After all we experience them everyday . But defining them is a different ballgame altogether.
To quote an expert :
"Or could there be some fundamental organizing principle in the universe that drives matter toward complexity? We don’t know the answer, and the origin of life remains one of the greatest mysteries in all of science." http://www.livescience.com/41923-top-ten-origin-events.html”
“And so you've hit upon the most basic principle of science, that it is provisional; it's always an approximate model based upon the best observation we can muster. You, however, are talking about "life after death or the existence of the soul", and evidence as it pertains to those matters. I can only imagine that the so called 'evidence' for spiritual apprehension that you elude to is based upon personal emotional experience, as there is none that breaches that threshold.”
Jopeli on Dec 17, 2013 at 02:43:41
“Personal emotional experience is all you can you can get, in area where science is still helpless. Now ,if science can ever managed to define life and consciousness,only then will it be able to offer any objective analysis.
It is very frustrating for someone to have had a genuine and intense experience,and then to hear some glorified charlatan calling it an hallucination.”
“"It takes a different kind evidence to apprehend spiritual matters."
No, if it is 'evidence' it pertains to a naturalistic methodology.”
Jopeli on Dec 16, 2013 at 12:13:17
“Can a store clerk identify a rare medical problem? Maybe. Can an illiterate man write a great novel? I don't see how.
When it comes to matters of consciousness ,scientists are illiterate . They cannot differentiate hallucinations from the real deal. Without prior knowledge,the naturalistic methodology is useless.”
“"What would we prefer -- high PISA scores or Silicon Valley?"
Seems to me that low-average test scores reasonably indicate an under-educated workforce, which doesn't help in an advancing world; it also seems to me that Silicone Valley is merely a successful region of the US -- be that by it's geographical location, politics, or available resources -- where a small portion of well educated people innovate, and the profits are largely concentrated into the hands of business aficionados.
I think this type of question represents a deeper problem: People with no technical training now reap the benefits of the technical work done by those with the training(which requires a lot of investment). As a society, the US seems to value less producing an exceptional workforce than it values exceptional items and profits.”