On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:03:40 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:46:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Not so much that they're too unlikely, but that they are vague enough
>>>> as to take anything that fits the criteria and say "well, it
>>>> happened, so therefore it wasn't improbable enough".  See the
>>>> difference?
>>> That's what science is for. And statistics. Generally speaking, it's
>>> *possible* quantum particles could randomly come into existence in the
>>> shape of a living, breathing Jesus. Unlikely enough I'd attribute it
>>> to something else, tho.
>> 
>> Exactly; because your belief is that such a thing is unlikely, so there
>> must be a rational (within your frame of reference) explanation for it
>> that you're just not seeing.
> 
> I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. Isn't it *your* belief
> that Jesus will be reincarnated by random fluctuations of the quantum
> foam is rather unlikely?

No, it isn't my belief, because I think that if there was a Jesus (in the 
first place), he was just a guy with some interesting ideas.

> Were it to happen, I'd think it more likely God made it happen than that
> it was just random.

OK.

>> So if something were to occur that you couldn't put a scientific
>> explanation to, you'd accept that your view was wrong that there isn't
>> a god?  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...
> 
> That's basically what I'm saying, yes. And it's not just "we don't know
> how it happened", but "we know it can't possibly happen".

But by definition (using your own statistical definition), if it happens, 
the probability of it happening is 1, therefore it was possible for it to 
happen.

>> For you or me, sure.  But you and I don't have the monopoly on
>> perspectives that make sense to people, either.  Maybe God told them
>> that the perception was right;
> 
> I have no problem with that. Just because it's irrational doesn't mean
> it's *bad*.

Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me 
x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking 
to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.

>> Well, true enough - because the event already happened.  But the
>> statistical likelihood of it happening prior to actually happening is
>> what I was referring to.
> 
> The statistical likelihood of me rolling 3 6 4 5 1 3 4 2 3 on a die is
> identical to me rolling 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 on a die. You can't look at
> the thing after the fact and say "it was unlikely", because you're
> ignoring all the *other* unlikely things that didn't happen. No volcano
> opened up in San Francisco, nor did the Las Vegas strip flood. But you'd
> be laughed at if you tried to use those non-events to prove the
> non-existence of God.

Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.  
Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still 
wouldn't prove the existence of God.

>> Exactly.  Which is why an event or series of events that have happened
>> (as opposed to "if they do happen") is unlikely to prove that God
>> exists to anyone - because if they do happen, then they were
>> statistically likely to happen and all the information necessary to
>> make that determination just wasn't in yet.
> 
> Unless someone predicts it *specifically* in advance.

Nostradamas, anyone?  Some say he was very specific (something I disagree 
with, but it's all a matter of perspective).

>>>> Agreed, because belief isn't logical.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be
>>>> belief, it'd be fact-based.
>>> Well, it isn't (in my experience) logical, but it's also not
>>> scientific. The two are somewhat different.
>> 
>> Somewhat different, but strongly related.
> 
> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.

That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because 
the bible says it is".....

> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
> question doesn't work, we don't use it.

Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)

>>> If you like that sort of stuff, read some Greg Egan works. I'd
>>> recommend Permutation City for a start, or his Axiomatic short-story
>>> collection.
>> 
>> I'll add that to my list as well.  :-)
> 
> "Permutation City" explores the nature of reality and its relationship
> to self. "Quarantine" explores free will. "Disporia" defines
> self-awareness/conciousness in the first dozen pages or so, but I'd have
> to read it again to appreciate it more - read the first chapter or two
> in the bookstore if you like. "Axiomatic" is a collection of short
> stories exploring, well, axiomaticity, if there is such a word.
> "Distress" is about the relationship of love and knowledge and reality,
> sorta.

Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference, 
will definitely have to find a copy.

> I see he has more stuff out that I'll have to buy. Cool.
> 
> (I found Teranesia very disappointing, and Schild's Ladder interesting
> but not amazing, fwiw.)
> 
>> LOL, now *that* made me laugh out loud.
> 
> Yeah, when you've studied and thought about these subjects for a couple
> decades, it's not hard to laugh out loud at the stuff people regurgitate
> because they've been told it by their spiritual leaders.

Yes, agreed.  I have heard some weird stuff over the years....

Jim

Post a reply to this message