Sadly I am not pulling your leg.
Damn it, CB!
Sadly I am not pulling your leg.
It's like saying The Lord of the Rings is not evidence that the War of the Ring occurred.
Not to veer too much off topic, but how does one not know the contents of The Odyssey, is it not required reading? There seems to be more and more people who have no clue about Greek stories and myth, has education really gotten this bad?
/minirant
Damn it, CB!
I claim dragons exist therefore my word is (weak) evidence that dragons exist.Again, you are mistaking weak evidence for not-evidence.
I claim dragons exist therefore my word is (weak) evidence that dragons exist.
I spend most of my time reading astrophysics journal articles, philosophy of science articles, and doing homework.
Ya, sorry I forget reading a couple of paragraphs of Homer's work. It is unlikely to have interested me.
Sadly I am not pulling your leg.
Classics are not generally standard in education curricula in the US, either in high school or university.
If you said you saw one, yes it would be.
I saw 50.
It always confuses me when people use Roman accounts that describe Christians as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.That is, the Bible is only evidence that the Bible exists. Claims about Jesus in the Bible are only evidence that there are claims about Jesus in the Bible. Reports of miracles are only evidence that there are reports of miracles.
It always confuses me when people use Roman accounts that describe Christians as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
It's a good story, pretty much anyone that could read and write (using an alphabet) for the past 2500 years has learned it (up until recent it seems). Much of its character is even imbued in The Gospel of Mark (and Matt, Luke, John by extension) and other writings. Considered by many the quintessential Hero's Quest.
Dude, they are so real. Praise the dragon lord!
You got to be pulling my tail... If so, good work, but if not, you seem to be merging the story of The Odyssey with possibly Oedipus Rex (or any number of dramas).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey
Your loss.
If someone is living in the 21st century and clings to beliefs clearly refuted by logic, reason, and science, I don't really care what work they have done, they aren't an all-around intellectual.I think it's daft to say: You believe in god? no entry to the intelligentsia for you... even if you painted the picture of century, wrote genius code, and commented so well on the failure of the political state in the 21st century.
I suppose most atheists don't think like that, but I find the ones who do very silly.
I claim dragons exist therefore my word is (weak) evidence that dragons exist.
Well yeah. Very very weak. So weak that for the sake of sanity it falls below the resolution of evidence we have to take seriously. There is a non-zero chance that at any moment all of the particles in my body will suddenly be on Mars, but its so small of a chance that I don't think about it, or any of the infinite number of other very low probability possibilities.
Well yeah. Very very weak. So weak that for the sake of sanity it falls below the resolution of evidence we have to take seriously. There is a non-zero chance that at any moment all of the particles in my body will suddenly be on Mars, but its so small of a chance that I don't think about it, or any of the infinite number of other very low probability possibilities.
But there comes a point where it is safe to say none.
To claim otherwise would be like claiming you will win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row. This is not an impossibility, but it doesn't somehow make it a non ridiculous claim.
Even many intelligent people are bad at dealing with this sneakiness (Dawkins is straight awful at it), but I think Sam Harris is pretty sharp about it. I'd like to see them have a go at each other.
To claim that I will win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row is a ridiculous claim.
To claim that it is impossible to win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row is an equally ridiculous claim. Possibly more ridiculous, as though the chance is vanishingly small that I will win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row, it might happen. It will never be the case that it is impossible to win five times in a row.
Yeah. To put it another way: If you played baseball with someone and threw a pitch only for them to watch it the whole way as it flew by them, walk over and pick it up, toss it in the air and hit it out of the park, you would be utterly stupefied as to what just happened. Ravi seems to enjoy doing that to laymen rather than establish credibility among people who know their shit.I would love to see this as well. But I do not think Ravi does debates. =[
Zacharias states that a coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny. He says that while every major religion makes exclusive claims about truth, the Christian faith is unique in its ability to answer all four of these questions.[24] He routinely speaks on the coherency of the Christian worldview,[25] saying that Christianity is capable of withstanding the toughest philosophical attacks.[26] Zacharias believes that the apologist must argue from three levels: the theoretical, to line up the logic of the argument; the arts, to illustrate; and "kitchen table talk", to conclude and apply.[27]
Zacharias's style of apologetic focuses predominantly on Christianity's answers to life's great existential questions,[28] with defense of God. In some discussions, he explores the question of human origin, voicing skepticism over what he believes to be inadequate empirical evidence in the fossil records for an honest endorsement of the theory of evolution. In disagreement with the scientific community, he believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics, saying that the two are inconsistent and irreconcilable.[29]
Zacharias also believes that in Christianity, Sexuality, like Race, is Sacred. Homosexual acts are an "aberration" and "violation" of Divine intent in human sexuality and that though some people may have a homosexual disposition, like any sinful disposition, they are not justified in expressing that disposition.[30]
If someone is living in the 21st century and clings to beliefs clearly refuted by logic, reason, and science, I don't really care what work they have done, they aren't an all-around intellectual.
I have to disagree here. It's incorrect to say that it's impossible, but it's not ridiculous. Technomancer put it well when he said that it essentially falls below the resolution of what we should take seriously. Humans can't hold probabilities that small in their heads. Which means if we try to envision that kind of probability, we end up basically rounding up to the smallest probability we can understand ("You're telling me there's a chance!").
So while saying there's zero chance is incorrect, for practical purposes it might be more accurate than saying that there is a chance, as far as what it'll get rounded off to in our heads.
Absolutely. But my feeling is that, even if someone single-handedly achieved the greatest feat ever known to man, I'd nevertheless be disappointed if that person believed in a God of the traditional sort. I can respect religious folks who accomplish things, but there's a level beyond or apart from that as well. Works backed by a proper understanding and method of attaining knowledge is surely ideal.I honestly think one's overall contributions to society are far, FAR important than want they express privately.
Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana discovered the fascinating world of cells while taking chemistry and biology courses for the premed program at West Virginia State College (now University). As a presidential scholar there, he earned an undergraduate degree in chemistry with highest honors. He completed a PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry at Ohio University, where he twice won the Donald Clippinger Research Award. Postdoctoral studies took him to the Universities of Virginia and Georgia. Fuz then worked seven years as a senior scientist in product development for Procter & Gamble.
I might watch it later, but I found this bit in the transcript amusing:Can I get some opinions on the following 10 minute video:
Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana
and what's interesting to me is that in the scientific literature you sometimes see references to my dick
Sounds like mitrochrondial eve:Can I get some opinions on the following 10 minute video:
Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana
In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve, who is estimated to have lived approximately 190,000200,000 years ago, refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".
In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see "Variable Adam").
Y-chromosomal Adam is allegorically named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] Some of his male contemporaries have descendants alive today through a mixed male and female line, but none produced a direct, unbroken male line to anyone living today.
I have to disagree here. It's incorrect to say that it's impossible, but it's not ridiculous. Technomancer put it well when he said that it essentially falls below the resolution of what we should take seriously. Humans can't hold probabilities that small in their heads. Which means if we try to envision that kind of probability, we end up basically rounding up to the smallest probability we can understand ("You're telling me there's a chance!").
So while saying there's zero chance is incorrect, for practical purposes it might be more accurate than saying that there is a chance, as far as what it'll get rounded off to in our heads.
Can I get some opinions on the following 10 minute video:
Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana
To claim that I will win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row is a ridiculous claim.
To claim that it is impossible to win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row is an equally ridiculous claim. Possibly more ridiculous, as though the chance is vanishingly small that I will win the powerball lottery 5 times in a row, it might happen. It will never be the case that it is impossible to win five times in a row.
And we're back to the point where we're discussing assigning probabilities to things purely on our own preconceptions about whether they're true.
I think we've had a similar conversation before Cyan, in relation to religion A being true, and b to z being false.
The math is devalued because you can have one perfectly true statement, and devalue it, simply, by having an infinite number of fictional statements so that overall it has an infinitesimal small chance of being true by virtue of comparison.
Heck, I can make up a religion right now, and then add that to the pile. On balance it's unreasonable to say such statistics hold integrity when you can 'break it' so easily.
That 99.9% of all religions must be false holds true to a degree [perhaps arrived at by virtue of contradiction [e.g. religion a says one god, religion b says says 2 gods, both cannot be correct], but we need to understand the full scope of what it is that we are suggesting.
That post was more intended as a response to the 5 Powerball wins example. There are other considerations you have to take into account when looking at something like religion, where you can't just do math to easily find the obviously correct answer.
I will say, what you describe above isn't how I'd go about assigning probabilities to religions. There are an infinity of explanations for anything, and if you followed that process you'd never come to any conclusions. I posted a somewhat more thorough explanation a few pages back in this thread.
Yeah, I was harking back to an earlier post too - much earlier on in thread iirc. Are you referring to your more recent post about inductive inference? Are you familiar with the problem of induction?
Of course! I actually wrote a lengthy explanation of my take on the problem of induction a while back, but I don't think I ever posted it. I'll see if I can track it down.
Secondly, if we are going to allow and hold valid infinitesimally small possibilities such as the Earth and Universe only being 6,000 years old because "all of science including biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology could be wrong" and "God and/or Satan has the power to obfuscate the Truth from mankind", then you are effectively saying "any claim is possible because fallible man and magic".
I have to disagree here. It's incorrect to say that it's impossible, but it's not ridiculous. Technomancer put it well when he said that it essentially falls below the resolution of what we should take seriously. Humans can't hold probabilities that small in their heads. Which means if we try to envision that kind of probability, we end up basically rounding up to the smallest probability we can understand ("You're telling me there's a chance!").
Isn't that a bit like arguing that "no, the Earth isn't a sphere!" though? Technically, sure, you'd be correct: it's not a perfect sphere. But surely, you can see why someone would say that, right? And how that person really isn't all that wrong?We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To my mind it's ridiculous, because there demonstrably is a chance.
Oxford Philosopher Ravi Zacharias is going to be at Princeton University tonight for a private event for students and faculty only. For those that are interested, Princeton University will be streaming this lecture live over the net beginning at 5pm PST, followed by questions and answers in an open forum setting.
Stream begins at 5pm PST: Live Stream link: Ravi Zacharias - Why I'm Not An Atheist
It always comes back to that, and I still can't grasp why people think it's a problem. The sane default is to accept that such things are neither proven nor disproven, but that while there's no evidence for them they can be ignored as possibilities. Just because you know that certain expressions of some of these religious beliefs are impossible to disprove isn't a reason to give them credence. Nor is it a reason, however, to give up on logic and claim that this means they can be counted as disproven.
It's a problem because once one side takes the position that "anything is possible" then there is no more meaningful discussion to be had.
If a person were to state they will not win the powerbal lottery 5 times in a row, I would not call their rationale lazy thinking.