tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post3653984483044989374..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: David Hume and Lawrence Shapiro get it wrong on miraclesmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8485508939585957802014-04-14T21:48:38.043-04:002014-04-14T21:48:38.043-04:00Bach,
It's also worth noting that Shapiro isn...Bach,<br /><br />It's also worth noting that Shapiro isn't arguing just for belief in the Resurrection being unjustified... but rather <i>all miracles</i>. This James Savage character correctly points out that an argument for the former is not a valid argument for the latter. <br /><br />I agree with Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... however we would all be wise to see if our presuppositions affect our priors. And the most dangerous presuppositions are the ones we don't even know we hold.<br /><br />CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41866219762497358912014-04-14T21:42:53.801-04:002014-04-14T21:42:53.801-04:00Bachfiend,
I know the syllogism I gave isn't ...Bachfiend,<br /><br />I know the syllogism I gave isn't Bayesian. Shapiro himself admits the entire argument is unoriginal - taken from Hume's famous treatise on miracles. The only original component is that it's restated in Bayesian terms. <br /><br />There's an extended reply in the comments section by user James Savage. It's worth reading. I'll block quote a relevant section from his exchange with another commenter on the utility of priors in this debate<br /><br /><i> "Let me explore the deeper issue with your claim. If the base rate is zero - then no finite amount of evidence can ever change your posterior (I'll set aside the mathematical issues of infinite evidence with a degenerate prior). That is, you have ruled out the possibility of justified belief in miracles from the start. That is a perfectly fine position to take, but that cannot then be the basis for arguing that justified belief in miracles is impossible. You would then need to argue WHY the prior should be zero. You're almost making a definitional claim at that point ("there can be no married bachelors") if the prior is actually a hard zero.<br /><br />Either way, if the prior is extremely small, that is what is doing all the work in the argument. You've simply buried the debate." </i><br /><br />CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37350453830916807342014-04-14T21:35:18.769-04:002014-04-14T21:35:18.769-04:00Stan,
Bayes theorem just offers a way of assessin...Stan,<br /><br />Bayes theorem just offers a way of assessing whether new observations increase or decrease prior probalities. Curio characterised it without the new observation. You can add more than 1 new observation sequentially.<br /><br />For example, you could add the observation that people often lie and or are honestly mistaken, reducing the probability, and then add the observation that the Bible is reliable on many things, and hence is reliable on the Resurrection to some degree, increasing the probability.<br /><br />I know people lie or are honestly mistaken. You have to justify that the Bible is reliable.<br /><br />Bayes' theorem doesn't disprove anything - just makes them more or less likely. Miracles could still happen.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51258562614455029902014-04-14T20:52:32.267-04:002014-04-14T20:52:32.267-04:00That's the logical problem with using Bayes...That's the logical problem with using Bayes' Theorem for historical probabilities. If you don't "like" the history, you just say, <i>"...people do lie. Eyewitnesses often are wrong."</i> Then you get to calculate the very low probability which allows you to deny that it ever happened. Pure prejudice, without any actual knowledge or truth or fact involved.Stanhttp://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5930294858421007712014-04-14T18:06:02.073-04:002014-04-14T18:06:02.073-04:00Curio,
That's not Bayesian. You need to make...Curio,<br /><br />That's not Bayesian. You need to make an estimate of the probability of miracles occurring, add an observation and assess how this observation affects the probability of miracles occurring - whether it increases or decreases the probability.<br /><br />With miracles:<br /><br />Suppose the probability of a miracle occurring is 1 in a million (say the Resurrection - we've never seen someone come back from the dead to the extent of walking around on the 3rd day)<br /><br />Then we assess the probability of people lying or just getting what they observe wrong. Christians think that the Gospels are 100% true. Atheists just note that people do lie. Eyewitnesses often are wrong.<br /><br />Christians therefore increase the probability of the Resurrection. Atheists decrease it.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73092513540803696052014-04-14T12:42:40.450-04:002014-04-14T12:42:40.450-04:00I'm wondering if the Bayesian angle is just fl...I'm wondering if the Bayesian angle is just fluff. Someone tell me if this isn't Shapiro's argument, reduced to its simplest form...<br /><br />M: Miracles are highly unlikely<br />m: We shouldn't believe in things that are highly unlikely<br />c: We shouldn't believe in miracles<br /><br />CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51549667834609514082014-04-14T09:27:07.290-04:002014-04-14T09:27:07.290-04:00Awstar,
I didn't have evolution as my startin...Awstar,<br /><br />I didn't have evolution as my starting axiom. I came to accept evolution as being true (to the limits of science, which always is provisional subject to revision) based on the evidence.<br /><br />If I accepted scripture as being inspired by God instead of being the obvious product of fallible albeit understandable humans, I wouldn't be an atheist.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51359128789952293672014-04-14T07:53:37.824-04:002014-04-14T07:53:37.824-04:00troy, how do you know that many of the inmates are...troy, how do you know that many of the inmates aren't really atheists calling themselves Christians? You don't know. In order to <i>be</i> a Christian requires obedience to God's law, not merely calling oneself Christian. (That all being said, God's Mercy is open to all.)Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91603684768390708292014-04-14T07:29:52.674-04:002014-04-14T07:29:52.674-04:00bachfiend,
I'm not trying to prove scripture....bachfiend,<br /><br />I'm not trying to prove scripture. believing scripture as the inspired Word of God is my starting axiom. Just as yours is that evolution is true. Neither of us needs to prove our respective starting axiom. We just need to live out the consequences of trusting in it.awstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13442617812001833866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72263482546441170232014-04-14T05:00:40.015-04:002014-04-14T05:00:40.015-04:00Awstar,
'John' was written by someone who...Awstar,<br /><br />'John' was written by someone who was later ascribed to be a John, not by God. We don't know if Jesus said what he's supposed to have said, and even if he did, was inspired by God.<br /><br />It's a circular argument to quote scripture to 'prove' scripture.<br /><br />We didn't evolve from apes. We are apes. Even the creationist Carl Linnaeus recognised that in his classification.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64831888317550867012014-04-14T03:22:50.957-04:002014-04-14T03:22:50.957-04:00God is speaking to us through Paul's writings....God is speaking to us through Paul's writings. But if you rather hear it from a more direct source:<br /><br />"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." -- John 5:24<br /><br />For someone who believes we have evolved from apes through genetic typo's, you're rather picky.awstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13442617812001833866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28611894746514490732014-04-14T01:05:34.716-04:002014-04-14T01:05:34.716-04:00Awstar,
Personally I prefer to believe someone wh...Awstar,<br /><br />Personally I prefer to believe someone who can actually spell 'atheist' correctly instead of 'athiest'.<br /><br />Anyway. Romans was written by Paul. Not God.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48810836010397096402014-04-14T00:57:39.672-04:002014-04-14T00:57:39.672-04:00Lawrence: "No one is justified in believing i...Lawrence: "No one is justified in believing in Jesus’s resurrection"<br /><br />Isn't it ironic that the word "justified" is being used in this debate?<br /><br />Justification really is the heart of the matter. God says we are "justified" when we believe in the resurrection. Who are you going to believe? God or some athiest?<br /><br /><br />Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."<br />awstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13442617812001833866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66515034207875883682014-04-13T18:51:52.742-04:002014-04-13T18:51:52.742-04:00Egnor,
Your analogy of a husband recognising his ...Egnor,<br /><br />Your analogy of a husband recognising his wife in a crowded airport because he 'knows' her isn't a very good one. Humans are very good at recognising individuals - at least from populations with which they're familiar (more later).<br /><br />I regularly recognise casual acquaintances whom I haven't seen for years at concerts (and attach the correct name - despite my poor memory of names). And once I identified immediately a person I knew just working at the same hospital - in a gift shop at the so-called Nottingham Castle on the other side of the world. Completely unexpectedly.<br /><br />People aren't good identifying individuals from populations they're not familiar. Matt Taibbi in his latest book 'Divide' (strongly recommended) gives an example. A Vietnamese man was on trial for murder in a town in America, and for 2 days he protested in broken English that he didn't do it whenever a witness identified him as the murderer. Eventually, it turned out that the bailiffs had brought the wrong Vietnamese from the holding cells (he actually was there accused of robbery) and he was protesting that he was the wrong person. In the retrial, the accused was convicted despite the witnesses being just as certain that the Vietnamese in the mistrial was just as guilty...<br /><br />You're in the analogous position as the witnesses in the mistrial of the wrong Vietnamese defendant. You think you know Jesus and you think you recognise him in your thoughts, but it's all just wishful thinking.<br />bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13167884321139812212014-04-13T17:55:24.505-04:002014-04-13T17:55:24.505-04:00Sturmbahnfueher Boggs:
Anyway, for those inclined...Sturmbahnfueher Boggs:<br /><br /><i>Anyway, for those inclined to read troi's trolls, allow me to clarify his Daily Stoopid... those numbers reflect the religious affiliation claimed by federal inmates in 1997. In other words, it's one of those Spinning Internet Facts.</i><br /><br />In other words, facts you don't like. I dunno, perhaps an atheist is much, much less likely to become a federal inmate than a Catholic because atheists tend to be better educated and wealthier. Personally, I think the Christian theory that sins will be forgiven has been a huge impediment to ethical behavior. <br /><br /><i>Far from being a reflection what faith or a lack thereof might cause a "random Catholic" or a "random atheist" to do vis-a-vis the law, those numbers reflect the fact that a large part of the American prison population are black and Latino, hence Protestant and Catholic respectively. It's well-known that blacks and Latinos tend to live in Progressive Policy Paradises like Detroit, South Chicago, and South Los Angeles where crime is rampant, the family has been destroyed, and drugs are widely available.</i><br /><br />Yes, the poor are more criminal. And of course the poor are more likely to vote Democrat, because the Democrats are more likely to assist the poor than the Republicans are. You seem to turn it upside down and suggest that Democrat policies encourage crime. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54990125589262719892014-04-13T15:34:48.940-04:002014-04-13T15:34:48.940-04:00I must admit, it's amusing watching the moral ...I must admit, it's amusing watching the moral relativists pretend to hold the moral high ground and talk down on the rest of society.<br /><br />You've got to appreciate their stunted logic that states that those of us who hold to traditional morals and values, as were held by every civilization of prosperity for thousands of years, are now classified by the self-imbued "moral authority" PC thought police as haters and bigots.<br /><br />Liberal *logic* 101<br />---------------------------<br />Don't believe that sodomy is on par with male-female sexual relations? HATER!!!<br />Don't believe that the universe was self-caused and that life was the result of random events? BIBLE-THUMPING IDIOT!!!<br />Don't agree with Obama, Holder or anyone else who's not white? RACIST!!!<br /><br />The progressives are always right <i>because they decided</i> that they're always right, don't ya know? Pay no attention to their deceptive word games, creative tinkering with morals and social norms, penchant for double-speak, suppression of speech they deem offensive, overruling popular referendum when it suits their interests, and purging of heretics who commit thought. Their insane ideology must take precedence at all costs.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68229559262928189422014-04-13T12:01:21.950-04:002014-04-13T12:01:21.950-04:00Thanks for the compliment Egnor. To all those who ...Thanks for the compliment Egnor. To all those who value their liberties, I would strongly suggest they read the humanist manifestos and other relevant material with regards to what these people desire to impose upon greater civilization, preferably with someone to cut through all the deceptive language and get right to the heart of the matter.<br /><br />Recommended reading:<br />http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/Humanism<br /><br />All the double-speak about diversity, tolerance and equal rights is a convenient false front to wage war upon our liberties and moral values. One only need look at the gross human rights violations, the genocidal campaigns committed in any of their <i>communist utopias</i> for an accurate representation of the "tolerant and equal" society they wish to impose upon western civilization. Indisputable fact: every single communist-atheist state has persecuted Christians, without exception. Is this what we really want, for America to fall into despotism a-la USSR, North Korea or Cuba?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71517473192011609532014-04-13T10:31:10.273-04:002014-04-13T10:31:10.273-04:00Popster, you have your little neutrons at work tod...Popster, you have your little neutrons at work today! Your insites are unparalyzed in the history of this blog.<br /><br />I love ya, Pops. I really do.Citizen Boggs, Committee of General Securitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58088126642790373632014-04-13T10:25:44.535-04:002014-04-13T10:25:44.535-04:00No Curio, To make Shapiro's argument match Egn...No Curio, To make Shapiro's argument match Egnor's analogy Shapiro would have to have left out the fact that the diagnosed person didn't get the disease randomly, but where instead exposed to circumstances that made it almost certain that they get the disease. Either Egnor isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is, or he's intentionally being deceptive.<br /><br />Here's a case where his reasoning is obviously wrong. I would be pleasantly surprised if he admits his error in logic, but because I suspect he's being intentionally deceptive I won't hold my breath.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4492470810946699902014-04-13T10:21:57.278-04:002014-04-13T10:21:57.278-04:00Lairs?
:-D
I think you got readiated by them noo...Lairs?<br /><br />:-D<br /><br />I think you got readiated by them nookalar reactionaries.Citizen Boggs, Committee of General Securitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30723133648051613882014-04-13T10:15:12.562-04:002014-04-13T10:15:12.562-04:00No, I refuted your dishonest analogy to Shapiro...No, I refuted your dishonest analogy to Shapiro's argument. That you continue to be dishonest by somehow claiming that I'm actually making your argument for you is no surprise. Since you are so obviously willing to lie in defense of your beliefs, why should anyone believe your extraordinary claim that you have met Jesus?<br /><br />You are exhibit A of how strong religious faith turns people into delusional lairs.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63468524392528536932014-04-13T10:01:10.316-04:002014-04-13T10:01:10.316-04:00troi: "How come a random Catholic..."
Y...troi: "How come a random Catholic..."<br /><br />You must be one hell of a scientist, troi. Are you at the University of Trollistan too? I always enjoy your statistical pseudopodia.<br /><br />Anyway, for those inclined to read troi's trolls, allow me to clarify his Daily Stoopid... those numbers reflect the <a href="http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do" rel="nofollow">religious affiliation claimed by federal inmates in 1997</a>. In other words, it's one of those Spinning Internet Facts.<br /><br />Far from being a reflection what faith or a lack thereof might cause a "random Catholic" or a "random atheist" to do vis-a-vis the law, those numbers reflect the fact that a large part of the American prison population are black and Latino, hence Protestant and Catholic respectively. It's well-known that blacks and Latinos tend to live in Progressive Policy Paradises like Detroit, South Chicago, and South Los Angeles where crime is rampant, the family has been destroyed, and drugs are widely available.<br /><br />Also, in my opinion, the real reason for atheism was best expressed by the patron saint of atheists...<br /><br /><i>If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god?</i> <br />--- Nietzsche<br /><br />As it happens, Nietzsche's view coincides perfectly with Genesis 3:5, a fact I'm sure was not lost on Nietzsche.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Commissar Boggs, Ministry of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80034493829252435042014-04-13T09:59:37.347-04:002014-04-13T09:59:37.347-04:00"The husband is only at the airport because h...<i>"The husband is only at the airport because he knows his wife bought one of the limited number of tickets for that flight."</i><br /><br />Isn't that Egnor's point? Ignoring the context of the wife's return trip is like Shapiro ignoring the context of Christian belief.<br /><br />CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36281221054914453372014-04-13T09:51:40.624-04:002014-04-13T09:51:40.624-04:00You make my argument for me, KW. The man knows his...You make my argument for me, KW. The man knows his wife at the airport because of the totality of his knowledge-- he knows her, he knows what she does, where to find her, etc. <br /><br />We Christians know Christ. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75153559342742182652014-04-13T09:43:55.885-04:002014-04-13T09:43:55.885-04:00Egnor's argument rests on his extraordinary cl...Egnor's argument rests on his extraordinary claim to have met Jesus and doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry. <br /><br />Egnor's man at the airport analogy for Shapiro's argument is so obviously wrong that I suspect that it was designed for dumb Christians eager to accept any argument that supports their belief. For the dumber among you let me point out that the 7 billion people of the world don't appear on airplanes at random. The husband is only at the airport because he knows his wife bought one of the limited number of tickets for that flight.<br /><br />Oh, and Egnor, you should be addressing Troy above, not me.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com