Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Before the winning lottery numbers were announced how could you possibly state that a ticket was justifiably not a winner??

Would you conclude the opposite, i.e., would you state that a ticket was justifiably a winner?

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

Would you conclude the opposite, i.e., would you state that a ticket was justifiably a winner?

I would conclude neither. I would conclude that the lottery ticket gives me a small (how small depends on the size of this lottery) chance of victory. Until the winning number is found, it is neither a winning ticket nor a losing ticket. Just a ticket. How can I then "justifiably" state anything about it other than the odds it grants me?

[loinburger]

'Cause the odds are more in favor of it being a losing ticket than it being a winning ticket. So if somebody asked you, "is my lottery ticket a winning ticket," you would respond, "probably not." And the person asking you would then say "'probably' not??? how can you possibly justify such a non-boolean response to my query???" and then you'd punch him in the mouth for being such a douchebag.

Alternatively, you could say "even though there is a one in a billion chance of your ticket being a winner, I cannot justifiably conclude anything regarding whether or not your ticket is a winning ticket, because I have some sort of mental disorder that makes me incapable of understanding probabilities."

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
'Cause the odds are more in favor of it being a losing ticket than it being a winning ticket.

The probability of it being a winning ticket is low. That doesn't mean **** until the actual outcome is determined.

And that person better win the lottery, because they will be hearing from my lawyer

[Nubclear]

lol You have a 50% chance - you will either win or lose LOL

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
The probability of it being a winning ticket is low. That doesn't mean **** until the actual outcome is determined.

It means the expected value of a lottery ticket is less than the cost of a lotter ticket, so a lottery ticket is a bad investment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

It means the expected value of a lottery ticket is less than the cost of a lotter ticket, so a lottery ticket is a bad investment.

I agree, and its not an investment I make. That doesn't change the reality that every once in a while there is a winner, and that winner has returns you will never see in any other kind of investment.

Still, I stand by the fact that I could never "justify" saying that any one ticket is a losing lottery ticket until the actual numbers have been played. After all, until the numbers are played, no ticket can be called a winning or losing ticket.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Still, I stand by the fact that I could never "justify" saying that any one ticket is a losing lottery ticket until the actual numbers have been played. After all, until the numbers are played, no ticket can be called a winning or losing ticket.

I can never "justify" that an object within earth's gravitational field falls towards earth's center of gravity no matter how many times an apple falls "down" instead of "up", but any given object might be the one that disproves my assertion that objects fall down, and so I cannot justifiably conclude that, upon releasing an object, it will "fall down."

When asked by somebody who plays the lottery,
"will my lottery ticket win, and will it fall up instead of down if I release it from my grasp?"
then my conclusion would be
"your lottery ticket will lose, and will adhere to the forces of gravity,"
and I would not find any reason why I should not justifiably make these statements.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

I can never "justify" that an object within earth's gravitational field falls towards earth's center of gravity no matter how many times an apple falls "down" instead of "up", but any given object might be the one that disproves my assertion that objects fall down, and so I cannot justifiably conclude that, upon releasing an object, it will "fall down."

I don't buy that comparison. I know how a lottery works. I can know how probable an outcome if I do the math. Each lottery has winning tickets and losing tickets. I know that people win and lose.

That is to me fundamentally different from something in the material world. Never has an apple fallen up. I can assert that there MIGHT be a probability of it happening, but that assertion is not based on anything sensual, or any evidence from the material world. It is an assertion born of mathematical grandiosity.

When asked by somebody who plays the lottery,
"will my lottery ticket win, and will it fall up instead of down if I release it from my grasp?"
then my conclusion would be
"your lottery ticket will lose, and will adhere to the forces of gravity,"
and I would not find any reason why I should not justifiably make these statements.

That I guess is a basic difference we can;t overcome. I find making an assertion about what will or won't be about the lottery ticket nonsensical, since the ticket has no outcome until the game is done. I do not believe for an instant that you can "justify" making a claim about its outcome, simply based on a knowldge of what probability is.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I would say the correct answer to this question is to think of omnipotence in terms of actuality rather than possibility. God is not omnipotent because he can do whatever he wants, he's omnipotent because he caused everything that happened.
Then comes another problem: if omnipotence precludes will, how can you call God benevolent? This is where Spinoza would argue that benevolence is a trait of the revealed divine, but not something you can infer from reason. And since the Revelation, according to him, is a positive moral system (and not an ontological treatise), it should not be an object of rational knowledge, but merely an educative tool.

Maybe, I don't know. I admit, over time, I lost all my theological anxieties.

Ah! Spinoza! Now there's a philosopher who had balls!

It will be said that, although God's law is inscribed in our hearts, Scripture is nevertheless the Word of God, and it is no more permissable to say of Scripture that it is mutilated and contaminated than to say this of God's Word. In reply, I have to say that such objectors are carrying their piety too far, and are turning religion into superstition; indeed, instead of God's Word they are beginning to worship likenesses and images, that is, paper and ink.

Scripture speaks in a language suited to affect the imagination of ordinary people and compel their obedience. Rather than appealing to the natural and real causes of all events, its authors sometimes narrate things in a way calculated to move people — particularly uneducated people — to devotion. "If Scripture were to describe the downfall of an empire in the style adopted by political historians, the common people would not be stirred …" Strictly speaking, however, miracles — understood as divinely caused departures from the ordinary course of nature — are impossible. Every event, no matter how extraordinary, has a natural cause and explanation. "Nothing happens in nature that does not follow from her laws"

When properly interpreted, the universal message conveyed by Scripture is a simple moral one: "To know and love God, and to love one's neighbor as oneself". This is the real word of God and the foundation of true piety, and it lies uncorrupted in a faulty, tampered and corrupt text. The lesson involves no metaphysical doctrines about God or nature, and requires no sophisticated training in philosophy. The object of Scripture is not to impart knowledge, but to compel obedience and regulate our conduct. "Scriptural doctrine contains not abstruse speculation or philosophic reasoning, but very simple matters able to be understood by the most sluggish mind" (TTP, chap. 13, G III.167/S 153).

[GePap]

In NY State the chance of winning the lottery based on buying a single lottery ticket is 1:22,528,737.

NOw, I know we had a thread before were it was shown that .99 infinately repeating = 1. That is true.

But .9999999999999999999999999999, no longer repeating, is NOT 1.

A chance of winning the lottery is slight, but it exists just as much as a chance of losing. I find it impossible to justify stating that there is no chance for any one ticket to win when that is false. For example, on November 8, 2006 a single person in NY State bought a ticket that won $22 Million. Had that person asked you and you told them: your is a losing ticket, well, you would have been wrong.

Not that this is bringing us closer to god or anything.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I would like to point out the whole lottery ticket thing is realy a poor analogy for reflection on the hypothesis of god, I atempted to improve the analogy by comparing it to a lottery in which the ticket can never be redeamed for the prize money (see earlier post). This better reflects concept of an untestable hypothesis being by default false. A hypothesis that has the desency to be testable can at least be entertained even if we admit it has an infintesimal probability of being true, by testing we can grow that tiny chance of being right by verifying experimental prediction untill the theory is a strong as special relitivity. The untestable theory is just rubbish to be discarded as less then wrong. Do you agree/disagree with that principle?

[Jon Miller]

You know, a few hundred years ago you would have said that most of current knowledge (of physics) was false, since we had no way to test (what is know thought to be) the best hypothesis.

Just because a statement is untestable doesn't mean it is false.

JM

[Nubclear]

And indeed, if you had no reason to believe in some specific theory of physics, you probably shouldn't live your life like its true

Absence of evidence also does not equal evidence of existence.

[Jon Miller]

No, whoever said it did?

This is not a discussion about why God is true. This is a discussion about why stupid atheist statements are stupid.

JM