Curious George
Veteran Member
If existing entails being an event, and probabilities are not events, then you are saying that probabilities dont exist.And? What does that have to do with what i just said?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If existing entails being an event, and probabilities are not events, then you are saying that probabilities dont exist.And? What does that have to do with what i just said?
One huge problem that still remains to be addressed.
I never claimed that probabilities don't exist. But they aren't events. Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's ALL.
If existing entails being an event, and probabilities are not events, then you are saying that probabilities dont exist.
I addressed this line of thinking we we first started this. Being a measure of the liklihood of an event does not mean it cannot self be an event.
Although a set is a collection of objects, a set may be an object within a set.
Well that would have been an analagy, but i do not think it is bad. A probability may or may not exist. Therefore, a probability may or may not be an event. In the case we are discussing, the probability supposedly exists. Therefore it is an event.I'll admit this. Because i used the word entail wrongly. I actually meant the other way around. There must be existence for there to be any events.
But again, i am not arguing about the existence of things in the first place. Merely your original statement: That probabilities are events.
And i replied: But it also doesn't mean that it can.
A probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's all it ever will be.
May. But it doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Your premise is based on an assumption.
A probability may or may not exist.
Therefore, a probability may or may not be an event.
In the case we are discussing, the probability supposedly exists.
Therefore it is an event.
You have said that my logic is flawed but have yet to point out where.
If something exists it occurs
If something occurs it is an event
Therefore if something exists it is an event
Likewise,
If something is an event it occurs
If somthing occurs it exists
Therefore if something is an event it exists.
Where is the flaw? You have said the premise, but what about the premise (and which premise) is flawed?
This would make sense if the only statement i made was if something exists then it then it is an event. And i then tried to say if something was an event it must exist.Right.
Problem: The previous statement doesn't entail this at all... I think you are using "therefore" too often and in the wrong places.
By definition, probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur.
Ok.
You simply cannot arrive to this conclusion based on the premise in the preceding statement. Again, you are misusing "therefore."
You keep arriving to faulty conclusions based on assumed premises. I've told this before as well. You simply didn't understand me or something.
This simply does not hold up to the internal logic of the statement itself. It doesn't prove its conclusion.
I am not making arguments of existence or non-existence. But this statement doesn't actually prove the previous statement true.
You are using appeals to probability funnily enough in the post i was quoting, in addition to affirming the consequent.
/E: Plain and simple: Most of your points are actual logical fallacies.
This would make sense if the only statement i made was if something exists then it then it is an event. And i then tried to say if something was an event it must exist.
That is not what i said though.
The reason i was able to do this is because you had already equated occurrences and events.
No i am saying a and b therefore c.No, that would be circular reasoning.
I never claimed you did though.
I didn't do that. One of the definitions for the word "occurrence" is the word "event." They can be synonymous by definition.
However:
"If something exists it occurs
If something occurs it is an event
Therefore if something exists it is an event"
"If something exists it occurs" doesn't prove the statement "if something occurs it is an event." Which in turn doesn't prove that everything in existence is an event.
You are saying:
If A, then B.
If B, then C(this is already a fallacious argument)
Therefore if A, then C. Which in light of the previous part of the statement already being logically flawed, your conclusion is also flawed.
I see where my notation was flawedNo, that would be circular reasoning.
I never claimed you did though.
I didn't do that. One of the definitions for the word "occurrence" is the word "event." They can be synonymous by definition.
However:
"If something exists it occurs
If something occurs it is an event
Therefore if something exists it is an event"
"If something exists it occurs" doesn't prove the statement "if something occurs it is an event." Which in turn doesn't prove that everything in existence is an event.
You are saying:
If A, then B.
If B, then C(this is already a fallacious argument)
Therefore if A, then C. Which in light of the previous part of the statement already being logically flawed, your conclusion is also flawed.
Thanks for the interesting response.No. It is not odd.
I am not saying that all atheists are knowledgeable about the bible.
Clearly some atheists are more informed than other atheists because some of them were Christians and Jews, but lost their belief for some reasons or others.
Some may have been brought up in their respective religions, but losing their beliefs or faiths, doesn't mean they don't understand the bible. You cannot "unknow" what you have learn.
For instance, you can learn to ride a bike as a kid. Perhaps you don't like riding a bicycle. So you give up riding once you got your car license and a car. So say 10 years later, you meet a girl you like, who like riding a bike. So you take up riding again, even though don't like riding, but on every weekends you go out with her on short trips. You go out because of the company you re with, not because of the bike.
You heard of the saying - "It's like riding a bike", meaning it is a skill that you can pick up quite easily, even if you haven't use it in a long time.
It would be the same with learning and understanding the bible. You cannot unlearn it, you cannot unknow it.
Between the age of 20 and 35, I have not touch the bible. I nearly join two different churches, when I was teenager. The first, was my sister's church at 16. The second was another Protestant church at 19.
My argument with the pastor and my studies and career took the higher priority than joining a church.
My point is that I thought I understood as much as I thought I could about the bible, without becoming a Christian. And I believed in the bible, even though I have never baptised during the 15-year hiatus.
When I started reading the bible again, at 35, my view has changed. I still understand the church interpretations and teaching of the bible, I just no longer agree with church teachings.
As a teenager, I didn't question the bible, nor what the two churches taught me. I took it literally, without challenging.
But as an adult, I gain some experiences, first as civil engineer and later as computer analyst and programmer, to challenge what I see, to double-check, to triple-check my works, so I can iron out any errors, whether it be my design plans or my algorithms and codings. Both of my courses I did, gave me solid grounding in science, especially in physics, where I need to design and develop prototypes and test them. Tests are required and essential part of my works, and that is largely due to learning physics.
But just as I was becoming a computer programmer studying computer science, I have renewed my interests in reading literature on myths, and began developing my website - Timeless Myths - in 1999. I developed some experiences in researching ancient and medieval literature with mythological themes. That and picking up the bible again, changed my view about the bible itself and how the church teach the bible.
At that point of life, I have changed from a believer to being agnostic.
I was hoping to have the hang of this site by now, but I don't. I'm not clear on how to use the quoting function yet and I'm going to butcher my response to your post. I'm just going to go with the way I know.
I think you are correct in that. Most people are brought up with some kind of religious background and come to reject theism from that established knowledge and experience. My parents always told me that if you are rejecting something, then you should know what it is you are rejecting
You are a "Methodist", as one of the Protestant groups?
If no, you methodist mean something else.
If yes, then you are open-minded. You said you believe in god, but cannot demonstrate god is true, as you would have no evidences (in one of your replies to Thief).
You know that you can believe but not prove it, because you know the limitations of what you can demonstrate or test to exist, and what you can't.
That's what I would call "wisdom" and "intelligence".
You know that in order to believe that it would take faith, not evidences.
Thief, on the other hand, is not very well-informed. He is allowing his belief to cloud his judgment. He make outrageous claim after successive outrageous claims, that no one can demonstrably know, including himself.
In it is one of Thief's tactics of deflecting questions.
His other tactics of evasions, include used his often repeated but meaningless mottos "Spirit, first" or "Spirit before substance" or "cause and effect". None of these favourite sayings prove anything about God existence.
I am glad that you have an open mind, Dan.I'm a Methodist as in United Methodist Church. A Protestant church. I'm biased like anyone, but I try to maintain an open mind to other views. Even if I don't end up agreeing, it is important to know the other side. To hear a different view. I might learn something I would otherwise miss and I often do. I don't have any evidence for what I believe that I can share with someone else to allow them to accept what I believe is real. It is purely on faith, and hope too.