POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : should-see for both evolution skeptics and adherents : Re: should-see for both evolution skeptics and adherents Server Time
29 Jul 2024 00:34:53 EDT (-0400)
  Re: should-see for both evolution skeptics and adherents  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 23 Jan 2014 12:05:23
Message: <52e14bd3$1@news.povray.org>
On 1/23/2014 5:20 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 05:03, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 1/21/2014 4:53 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a
>>> wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.
>>>
>> Umm. I think I am with others in that there "is" a wide gap between.
>> Gods exist, or they provisionally don't. There isn't much wiggle room in
>> there. Its literally the difference between, "Did someone eat the last
>> donut, or is it still in the box?" You can have, to some extent, varied
>> opinions on how likely one or the other position may be, or even about
>> which one "is" real, but you kind of have to be fairly well on one side
>> of the line or the other, in terms of "existence".
>
> I'm not talking about the spectrum of /what/ people believe, but how
> /strongly/ they believe in it. There is no gap anywhere between "it's
> undeniable truth" and "it's utter nonsense", just endless shades of grey.
>
> In science there is the same thing going on: A theory either holds or it
> doesn't; but when scientists conduct experiments, the answer is /never/
> actually "yes" or "no", but "yes/no with a /confidence/ of X%". Even if
> the confidence level isn't statet explicitly, it just means that it is
> (by typical convention) 95% or higher.
>
And, I would argue, with good evidence, that its pretty much impossible 
to have a 50% confidence in the "existence" of a god without either 
being a) disingenuous, or b) completely ignorant of the concept. Worse, 
for those not so heavily invested in thinking that, for some purely 
personal reason, that it ***must*** be true, any actual knowledge or 
information on the subject tends to skew the probabilities heavily in 
favor of like 95% chance, or better of there not being one at all. So, 
again.. I am not seeing either a "wide spectrum", or a coherent 
argument, in the case of those proposing that one exists, for placing 
the number anywhere near the middle, never mind opposite end of the 
spectrum. Not without a whole lot of just plain ignorance, or personal 
desire, being involved.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.