wikipedia talks about rules of inference, is that what you mean by laws of inference?
Yes. Laws and rules are synonyms in this context.
That is a straw man…………I said, in a hypothetical case where you have 2 alternatives and zero evidence for any of these alternatives…………you most assign a 50% probability to each.
In the example that you mentioned, we have evidence that receive genes are less likely to become part of the phenotype. Given that you have evidence in favor of one alterative, you are justified in moving the wager in favor of such alternative.
I gave you a hypothetical with two alternatives and no evidence which was the case involving recessive phenotypes, like cystic fibrosis. Two carriers conceive. According to you, because we don't know whether the conceptus is affected, it's 50/50. But we know that it's 25/75. That's what a rebuttal looks like - a conclusion that is mutually exclusive with regard to the rebutted claim, that is, they can't both be correct. If I'm right, you're wrong. Amirite?
I think there is a lack of sufficient supporting evidence for naturalism
OK. What should we expect to see if there were only nature and no supernatural realm or denizens? I suggest that all we would see are natural objects passively obeying physical laws and no miracles (violations of those laws). That's what we see as best we can decide. That's the evidence for naturalism - it can account for all observations ever made.
What should we expect to see if there were a supernatural realm affecting nature? Certainly something more, yet there is no more as any creationist will tell you when he advises you not to go looking for gods or evidence of gods.
Most scholars agree that John and Pául are independnet (they didnt copied form each other)
When one testimony is copying form another, there are obvious signs that make this evidently true. These signs are absent when you compare Paul and john.
They preach the same religion. Are you suggesting that they each invented it? Every bit of doctrine they have in common was either written by one and learned by the other or else written by a third party and taught to them. That's not independent
Some of the signs are
1 same (or similar) words in the same context with the same purpose.
Same or similar doctrine (words) satisfies that.
Ignoring the comments that you have made within the last 24 hours (because I haven’t read them)……………have I ignored something relevant? Is there anything that you think I should address?
Yes, but I don't care to go back and catalog the arguments I've made that weren't rebutted or even addressed, nor all of the questions I've asked you that went unanswered. But are you doing better now getting to some of it and expressing an interest in cooperating.
Bear with me for a moment here, please. My wife has a longtime girlfriend with whom she chats daily by email. What I want you to see is how the response derives from what preceded it in a 1:1 correspondence more or less. Here's a bit written to her followed by the start of her reply in italics:
Not bad to just be sore in your biceps. You might be in better shape than you think? With all your walking and cleaning I am sure you are. That’s fantastic that you are learning Spanish while doing Yoga. Mind-Body Perfection. I’ve always wanted to learn Spanish and thought when I retired I would take some classes. That didn’t happen. I know, I still could but lost the bug.
Great idea about fixing the cracks. I thought about it but didn’t want to ruin the windshield but heck, like you said, “you have to replace anyway.” I’ll get the kit and we can do it before it gets any bigger.
My soul has been refilled. Got a small little text from Cameron last night. Just saying he was fine and loved me. That was pretty much it but boy does that bring me joy.
Yes, Breck decided he wanted to really clean the solar panels. He was scrubbing them and that makes me very nervous. Said he read how to do it so? There was over spray from the painter that left residue so he wanted to get it off. Now we just need the solar guy to respond. We have both sent hm messages but he hasn’t called us back. Dang it! Hopefully we can get the solar back on the roof soon. Our mid bill just came out and it says we used $100 thus far. What? That is so crazy. Poor people that don’t have solar.
And the reply. Please notice how these two pieces parallel one another, the topics mentioned by one addressed by the other. They do this by writing their replies based in the previous email. I've watched my wife write her replies. She goes back to her girlfriend's note repeatedly when writing:
How nice that Cameron texted you. Made your day!
My thighs ache a bit today but not as much as I thought they would. We did a lot of leg work. This instructor does not do the yoga positions, like warrior, downward dog, sphinx, tree, etc. So far it is mostly floor exercises although we used a chair as a prop yesterday. A lot of isometrics and stretching beyond your limit. She likes to use the belts and has ropes on the wall. Very different from what I have been used to. I don't think she advertises but that is good because her place is tiny and would maybe only hold 8 people max. I have conflicts next week, so no yoga, darn it. I told her that too.
I need to watch what she does in order to understand her, but I am picking up some words. She talks a lot and fast, but that is what I need. I have to get the Ear to understand Spanish. She is young and pretty. My previous classes had old instructors, 65 and up, makes a difference, but of course, us students are old and gringos, lol.
Our panels get dirty but we cannot even get on the roof to wash them and if we hosed them off, the water is so hard, it would leave deposits, so we wait for the rain to clean them, which is only in the summer.
We can do the same here. You can do the same. Use the previous post when replying to be certain you addressed all significant claims and answered all non-rhetorical questions.
it seems to me that she/(and you) are saying that given there is no sufficient evidence for the supernatural, one should always prefer naturalistic explanations.
That's close. We should always prefer the simplest explanation that accounts for observation (Occam's parsimony principle). Because we have no evidence that requires a supernatural explanation, we shouldn't add one before we do. In this context, it means that any naturalistic explanation is more parsimonious than any explanation which includes gratuitous supernaturalism.
You (plural) seem to be more interested in creative strategies to avoid the burden proof, than in actually supporting your view. Specifically, why didnt you simply attend to the requests from the OP and provide an alternative hypothesis for the “3 bed rock facts” and explain why that hypothesis is better?.,…. Answers such as “any naturalistic explanation is better because I say so” are not accepted.
I think I did. Several alternate hypotheses, all naturalistic. Regarding the bedrock "facts," 1. and 3. are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what caused Jesus' death, only whether its resurrection occurred, Paul's claims are not evidence of supernaturalism, and 2. is just an unevidenced claim in scripture that I don't believe is a fact at all.
- 1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
- 2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
- 3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity
Here is a good chance to practice your new skill of being rigorous and comprehensive in your replies. Can you give me a reply to this piece of my reply in the form, "It does matter how Jesus died because ..., Paul's claims are good evidence of supernaturalism (resurrection) because ..., and the reason the claim of witnesses should be believed is..."
You don't need to accept my claim about naturalistic explanations being preferred. I do and so does the academic community. Try proposing supernaturalism in a science journal or a courtroom to account for anything at all and you will see that it's not just me that says so.
And I don't know what burden of proof you think I have or am avoiding. Were you including me when you wrote "You (plural)"
If I see that the evidence points to a certain conclusion, then I might believe that conclusion to be true without it having been proven to be true.
If your degree of belief is more than is justified by that evidence, then there is an element of faith involved. That's fine for you, but my standard for belief is different.
I don't say that God is causally disconnected from reality, I just say that science does not know what God's cause is, how God does things.
Anybody who says that their deity can't be detected is describing a nonexistent or a causally disconnected entity. Claims that gods are real but can't be detected are nonstarters. Can't be detected means claims about such a thing are unfalsifiable which is to say they are neither correct nor incorrect and they refer to things that would be indistinguishable from nonexistent and thus properly ignored.
this God could begin doing a particular thing a week before the event, and the cause/effect sequences flow on to cause the event. This would certainly make it hard to detect the God who caused the event.
Hard or impossible? Most theists tell me that their god is impossible to detect, not just difficult. Of course, many claim that they have detected it anyway and even have a personal relationship with it.
