What if you examined the equation a little bit, and you found out there was a 99.9999% chance that a is greater than 0 and a .00001% chance that a was less than or equal to zero. Would you still say you are agnostic and hold no belief either way?
Yes, because the probability curve is only useful and accurate for multiple repititions. For any individual instance, all possible outcomes are essentially equally likely. If the odds are a million to one that if I flip a coin it will land on its edge, that tells me nothing about how the coin will land the very next time I flip it, only about the cumulative effect of flipping it a very large number of times.
What if you examined the equation a little bit, and you found out there was a 99.9999% chance that a is greater than 0 and a .00001% chance that a was less than or equal to zero. Would you still say you are agnostic and hold no belief either way?
Yes, because the probability curve is only useful and accurate for multiple repititions. For any individual instance, all possible outcomes are essentially equally likely. If the odds are a million to one that if I flip a coin it will land on its edge, that tells me nothing about how the coin will land the very next time I flip it, only about the cumulative effect of flipping it a very large number of times.
Yes, because the probability curve is only useful and accurate for multiple repititions. For any individual instance, all possible outcomes are essentially equally likely.
No. By that logic, the odds that I'll find a million dollar bill under my desk are equal: I have a 50/50 shot.
The rest of what you said is entirely irrelevant, and was an amazing misapplication and misunderstanding of statistics.
Yes, because the probability curve is only useful and accurate for multiple repititions. For any individual instance, all possible outcomes are essentially equally likely.
No. By that logic, the odds that I'll find a million dollar bill under my desk are equal: I have a 50/50 shot.
The rest of what you said is entirely irrelevant, and was an amazing misapplication and misunderstanding of statistics.
Have you ever found a million dollar bill under your desk? Has anyone ever recorded finding a million dollar bill under their desk? If not, then the odds are currently at 0, the same as if I asked what the odds were of flipping a coin and having it turn into a bird and fly away.
Have you ever found a million dollar bill under your desk? If not, than the odds are currently at 0, the same as if I asked what the odds were of flipping a coin and having it turn into a bird and fly away.
Have you ever found a god? If not, then the odds are currently at 0.
Have you ever found a million dollar bill under your desk? If not, than the odds are currently at 0, the same as if I asked what the odds were of flipping a coin and having it turn into a bird and fly away.
Have you ever found a god? If not, then the odds are currently at 0.
You really don't understand, do you?
Original post was edited to include, "Has anyone ever recorded finding a million dollar bill under their desk?". Happened while you were writing this, so it wasn't included. No attempt at being slippery, you're just a fast poster.
I have never found a God, but many people over the entire course of human history have claimed that they have. The collective evidence would make me comfortable in saying that the odds of this are therefor 1 in some very large number, rather than 0.
I'm not sure I understand... Please elaborate on how what I believe my name is is connected to the difference in how atheists and agnostics view the question of the existence of God.
I have never found a God, but many people over the entire course of human history have claimed that they have. The collective evidence would make me comfortable in saying that the odds of this are therefor 1 in some very large number, rather than 0.
First of all, people making claims is not evidence. Everyone who ever existed could say they saw something, but if they can't produce real evidence, the amount of evidence is still zero.I think we need to do a show on what counts as evidence, and what does not.
You are correct, though, that the odds of god are 1 in some very large number. The odds of your name not being Jonah are also 1 in some very large number. The odds of the sky not being blue are also 1 in some very large number. There is nothing that is 100% certain other than cogito ergo sum. Absolutely nothing.
However, if you were to go through life only believing in cogito ergo sum, and nothing else, that wouldn't be much of a life. You need to make decisions. If all you base decisions on is cogito ergo sum, that's going to lead down a pretty bad road. Even though you aren't 100% sure, you go through life believing your name is Jonah. You believe the sky is blue. And you believe there is no god.
You have to learn to separate the philosophical uncertainty from the practical uncertainty.
Look, when people say they can prove that God exists, they always fail. So why bother? If your faith comforts you, then fine. As far as I'm concerned, you're entitled to that comfort. That's all you need to know. The argument should end there and you can take all the energy you sink into trying to do the impossible and use it for something constructive.
The only problem comes when you try to force your beliefs on others or when you try prove your beliefs to others. Why are you people so eager to do that? Why can't you just say, "I believe in X. I don't care if you believe in X or not. I don't care if you live by X's precepts and laws or not. I know that X is unprovable, so I won't try to prove X to you. In fact, I won't ever speak of X again. I'll just think about X in my own home and in my church of like-minded X-Men."
First of all, people making claims is not evidence. Everyone who ever existed could say they saw something, but if they can't produce real evidence, the amount of evidence is still zero.
If a statitician flipped a coin 100 times and he saw it land on heads 42 times, on tails 57 times, and on its edge 1 time, and recorded that in his logbook, how would this be different?
I think we need to do a show on what counts as evidence, and what does not.
Sounds like a good idea. I'd certainly listen.
You are correct, though, that the odds of god are 1 in some very large number. The odds of your name not being Jonah are also 1 in some very large number. The odds of the sky not being blue are also 1 in some very large number. There is nothing that is 100% certain other than cogito ergo sum. Absolutely nothing.
However, if you were to go through life only believing in cogito ergo sum, and nothing else, that wouldn't be much of a life. You need to make decisions. If all you base decisions on is cogito ergo sum, that's going to lead down a pretty bad road.
Deciding on a name is useful for recordkeeping purposes, and so that your friends can talk about you behind your back. What your real name is is irrelevant. If there were no instances where a name was required for practical purposes (Shipwrecked? Hermit?) there would be no need to even decide on a working name. Besides, I believe the original point was your assertion that an agnostic was simply what an atheist called themselves when they didn't want to get into a fight, as opposed to being distinct. My point was that atheists believe that God doesn't exist, until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence.
On a related vein, what decisions do you make in your day to day life that require you to hold an opinion on the existence of God? I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
If a statitician flipped a coin 100 times and he saw it land on heads 42 times, on tails 57 times, and on its edge 1 time, and recorded that in his logbook, how would this be different?
The logbook/log entry is verifiable and usually witnessed. Furthermore, if I really don't believe it, I can conduct the same experiment, even on the same coin, to prove it to myself.
I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
Nothing is unsolved by that logic. Why not believe in Thor instead? Do you hold "no opinion" as to whether or not Thor exists? What about FSM?
If a statitician flipped a coin 100 times and he saw it land on heads 42 times, on tails 57 times, and on its edge 1 time, and recorded that in his logbook, how would this be different?
The act of flipping a coin and it landing on it's side is not an extraordinary event. It can be reproduced and observed. Name one extraordinary event in the Bible which can be reproduced or observed impractically. Go look at the Pro-ID thread and give me evidence that the claims I pointed out can be physically possible.
If a statitician flipped a coin 100 times and he saw it land on heads 42 times, on tails 57 times, and on its edge 1 time, and recorded that in his logbook, how would this be different?
The logbook/log entry is verifiable and usually witnessed. Furthermore, if I really don't believe it, I can conduct the same experiment, even on the same coin, to prove it to myself.
So you flip the same coin 100 times. It lands on heads 55 times, on tails 45 times, and not at all on its edge. Was the original statitican lying?
I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
Nothing is unsolved by that logic. Why not believe in Thor instead? Do you hold "no opinion" as to whether or not Thor exists? What about FSM?
Solution? I asked a question. If there is no practical reason to hold a belief on Thor or the FSM, and if the problem of their existence is unsolved, why hold a belief on them? If one does hold a practical belief on them, this assumes some practical purpose. So I asked what Scott's (or would you prefer I call you Apreche? I've always been fuzzy on this point of internet etiquette...) practical purpose was for holding a belief on the existence of God or gods in general. Just curious.
The act of flipping a coin and it landing on it's side is not an extraordinary event. It can be reproduced and observed. Name one extraordinary event in the Bible which can be reproduced or observed impractically. Go look at the Pro-ID thread and give me evidence that the claims I pointed out can be physically possible.
Atheism does not mean disbelief in the Christian God in particular, it means disbelief in the existence of godhood.
To that end, I will modify my original claims again.
Agnostics don't hold beliefs on the existence or non-existence of godhood, atheists believe that godhood doesn't exist, until proven otherwise, ignostics still don't care, and solipsists still can't prove it isn't all their imagination.
Solution? I asked a question. If there is no practical reason to hold a belief on Thor or the FSM, and if the problem of their existence is unsolved, why hold a belief on them? If one does hold a practical belief on them, this assumes some practical purpose. So I asked what Scott's practical purpose was for holding a belief on the existence of God or gods in general. Just curious.
Replace 'Thor' with 'God' and 'the FSM' with 'Allah'.
On a related vein, what decisions do you make in your day to day life that require you to hold an opinion on the existence of God? I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
This is exactly the point. Think about it. Pretend we are 100% sure there is a god. He showed up. He's omnipotent. He can make plagues. He can make floods. He can make miracles. He's just like in the bibles. Pretend that was all real. He can see everything you do, and he's always watching.
If that was reality, you would have to constantly think about god every second of every day. If he's always watching, can kill you instantly, can make your life great or terrible with less than a thought. Every step you take you would have to think about if god wanted you to step there or not. Every word you say, every thing you think, you would have to first think about what god wants you to think and say. Heck, does god even want you to think about what god thinks? You would be living life in abject fear, and you would go crazy. Even if we make an assumption that the god is a loving god, and not an evil god, he still has the power to just strike you down or inflict terrible pain on you. If you lived in a universe where a being like that actually existed, it would have an incredible impact on every moment of your life. You couldn't even kill yourself to escape because god might revive you.
This is why I suggest that anyone who isn't thinking about god constantly like this doesn't actually believe. They may say they believe, but they don't really. If you really believed in an all powerful god like this, then that is how you would act. You would act as if some wizard was ruling the world, watching you all the time. So few people actually act in this way. The rest are atheists who don't realize it.
On a related vein, what decisions do you make in your day to day life that require you to hold an opinion on the existence of God? I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
This is exactly the point. Think about it. Pretend we are 100% sure there is a god. He showed up. He's omnipotent. He can make plagues. He can make floods. He can make miracles. He's just like in the bibles. Pretend that was all real. He can see everything you do, and he's always watching.
If that was reality, you would have to constantly think about god every second of every day. If he's always watching, can kill you instantly, can make your life great or terrible with less than a thought. Every step you take you would have to think about if god wanted you to step there or not. Every word you say, every thing you think, you would have to first think about what god wants you to think and say. Heck, does god even want you to think about what god thinks? You would be living life in abject fear, and you would go crazy. Even if we make an assumption that the god is a loving god, and not an evil god, he still has the power to just strike you down or inflict terrible pain on you. If you lived in a universe where a being like that actually existed, it would have an incredible impact on every moment of your life. You couldn't even kill yourself to escape because god might revive you.
This is why I suggest that anyone who isn't thinking about god constantly like this doesn't actually believe. They may say they believe, but they don't really. If you really believed in an all powerful god like this, then that is how you would act. You would act as if some wizard was ruling the world, watching you all the time. So few people actually act in this way. The rest are atheists who don't realize it.
So then you believe in the non-existence of God and gods so you won't be afraid of potential wrath?
I don't believe in the non-existence of Zeus. I have no opinion on the existence of Zeus.
Do you live your life as if Zeus existed?
I live my life with no opinion on the existence or non-existence of Zeus, and to some degree as if the existence or non-existence of Zeus were unimportant. This would make me fall somewhere between agnosticism and ignosticism on the subject. I can't say for certain where I fall on the spectrum, because if a friend called me up on the phone and said, "There's some guy throwing lightning bolts and cursing in ancient Greek outside your window! I think it might be Zeus!" I can't say for certain whether I would take a peek or continue to eat my Rice Krispies and argue some silly point on an internet message board.
I live my life with no opinion on the existence or non-existence of Zeus, and to some degree as if the existence or non-existence of Zeus were unimportant. This would make me fall somewhere between agnosticism and ignosticism on the subject. I can't say for certain where I fall on the spectrum, because if a friend called me up on the phone and said, "There's some guy throwing lightning bolts and cursing in ancient Greek outside your window! I think it might be Zeus!" I can't say for certain whether I would take a peek or continue to eat my Rice Krispies and watch SpongeBob reruns.
The odds of Zeus being real are the same as the odds of the sky not being blue. So you live your life with no opinion of the sky being blue or not, and it's not important? If your friend called you on the phone and said the sky was chartreuse, you would seriously consider them not to be lying?
So you live your life with no opinion of the sky being blue or not, and it's not important? If your friend called you on the phone and said the sky was chartreuse, you would seriously consider them not to be lying?
I already answered this question in the bit talking about what I believe in regards to my name. Same concept, different example, unless I'm missing something.
Besides, it looks like we went off on an interesting tangent conversation.
Are you still holding firm in your claim that agnostic is simply what atheists call themselves when they don't want to fight? Remember I've modified my distinctions to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of godhood until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood.
Comments
The rest of what you said is entirely irrelevant, and was an amazing misapplication and misunderstanding of statistics.
You really don't understand, do you?
I have never found a God, but many people over the entire course of human history have claimed that they have. The collective evidence would make me comfortable in saying that the odds of this are therefor 1 in some very large number, rather than 0.
You are correct, though, that the odds of god are 1 in some very large number. The odds of your name not being Jonah are also 1 in some very large number. The odds of the sky not being blue are also 1 in some very large number. There is nothing that is 100% certain other than cogito ergo sum. Absolutely nothing.
However, if you were to go through life only believing in cogito ergo sum, and nothing else, that wouldn't be much of a life. You need to make decisions. If all you base decisions on is cogito ergo sum, that's going to lead down a pretty bad road. Even though you aren't 100% sure, you go through life believing your name is Jonah. You believe the sky is blue. And you believe there is no god.
You have to learn to separate the philosophical uncertainty from the practical uncertainty.
The only problem comes when you try to force your beliefs on others or when you try prove your beliefs to others. Why are you people so eager to do that? Why can't you just say, "I believe in X. I don't care if you believe in X or not. I don't care if you live by X's precepts and laws or not. I know that X is unprovable, so I won't try to prove X to you. In fact, I won't ever speak of X again. I'll just think about X in my own home and in my church of like-minded X-Men."
Sounds like a good idea.
On a related vein, what decisions do you make in your day to day life that require you to hold an opinion on the existence of God? I assume there must be some, otherwise why not hold no opinion, given that the question is unsolved?
To that end, I will modify my original claims again.
Agnostics don't hold beliefs on the existence or non-existence of godhood, atheists believe that godhood doesn't exist, until proven otherwise, ignostics still don't care, and solipsists still can't prove it isn't all their imagination.
If that was reality, you would have to constantly think about god every second of every day. If he's always watching, can kill you instantly, can make your life great or terrible with less than a thought. Every step you take you would have to think about if god wanted you to step there or not. Every word you say, every thing you think, you would have to first think about what god wants you to think and say. Heck, does god even want you to think about what god thinks? You would be living life in abject fear, and you would go crazy. Even if we make an assumption that the god is a loving god, and not an evil god, he still has the power to just strike you down or inflict terrible pain on you. If you lived in a universe where a being like that actually existed, it would have an incredible impact on every moment of your life. You couldn't even kill yourself to escape because god might revive you.
This is why I suggest that anyone who isn't thinking about god constantly like this doesn't actually believe. They may say they believe, but they don't really. If you really believed in an all powerful god like this, then that is how you would act. You would act as if some wizard was ruling the world, watching you all the time. So few people actually act in this way. The rest are atheists who don't realize it.
Just a question, not an insult.
Besides, it looks like we went off on an interesting tangent conversation.
Are you still holding firm in your claim that agnostic is simply what atheists call themselves when they don't want to fight? Remember I've modified my distinctions to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of godhood until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood.
Also, would you prefer Apreche or Scott?