• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Law of Cause and Effect.

Curious George

Veteran Member
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.

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.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
If existing entails being an event, and probabilities are not events, then you are saying that probabilities dont exist.

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.

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.

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.

Although a set is a collection of objects, a set may be an object within a set.

May. But it doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Your premise is based on an assumption.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
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.
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.

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?
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
A probability may or may not exist.

Right.

Therefore, a probability may or may not be an event.

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.

In the case we are discussing, the probability supposedly exists.

Ok.

Therefore it is an event.

You simply cannot arrive to this conclusion based on the premise in the preceding statement. Again, you are misusing "therefore."

You have said that my logic is flawed but have yet to point out where.

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.

If something exists it occurs
If something occurs it is an event
Therefore if something exists it is an event

This simply does not hold up to the internal logic of the statement itself. It doesn't prove its conclusion.

Likewise,

If something is an event it occurs
If somthing occurs it exists
Therefore if something is an event it exists.

I am not making arguments of existence or non-existence. But this statement doesn't actually prove the previous statement true.

Where is the flaw? You have said the premise, but what about the premise (and which premise) is flawed?

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.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
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.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
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.

No, that would be circular reasoning.

That is not what i said though.

I never claimed you did though.

The reason i was able to do this is because you had already equated occurrences and events.

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.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
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.
No i am saying a and b therefore c.

Or if a and if b then c.

Then we have the reverse.... which is explained by my previous elaboration on premise 1.

I explained that if something exists then it occurs somewhere and at sometime. Therefore it can be said to exist in that place at that time.


Think of it with the common taught
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This does not work backwards because all mortals need not be men. That would be affirming the consequence.

In my statement

If something exists then it occurs

If something occurs it is an event

Therefore if something exists it is an event.

Now, separate argument to illustrate this goes both ways

If something is an event then it occurs
If something occurs then it exists
Therefore if something is an event then it exists.

We can say this by definition because events = occurences

And the explanation that if something occurs somewhere at sometime it exists.

In effect we have said

If something is an event <-> it occurs<-> it exists somewhere at sometime.

To say that 4/2 = 2 = 1+1 and 1+1=2=4/2 is not affirming the consequent.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
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 flawed

Something exists, IFF it occurs
Something occurs, IFF it is an event
Therefore something exists, IFF it is an event.

thank you for pointing out my mistake. Now can you please tell me how the logic is flawed.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Thanks for the interesting response.


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. You should have seen the mess I created just blindly trying to respond to your post. I'm just going to go with the way I know.


I think you are correct in that assessment of atheism. It agrees with my thoughts. 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. If you are against communism, you should know what it is. If you are for it, you should know what it is. I have seen people incredibly enthusiastic about the causes they are for or against and know surprisingly little about them. That is a religious enthusiasm in my view and not from a position of knowledge and thought. The enthusiasm is supposed to lead you to enlightenment and not be a destination. If that makes any sense.


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.


I'm a scientist, an entomologist, so I have been trained like you to observe, compare, contrast, explain...all based on previous knowledge, understanding and physical, natural causes for what we observe. I try to keep my religious views in perspective and recognize that they are based on belief and not on any facts I can share. I suppose it could be seen as teetering on the agnostic in a sense.


My claims about my beliefs are very limited. I have seen no miracles. I have a feeling that can't be expressed easily. Maybe not at all. A sense. How does one share that outside of personal testimony that is ultimately just witness testimony with all the attendant flaws. I hope it is wisdom. I don't reject a person just because they don't believe the way I do. I'm not going to join the "I know and you don't" crowd. I don't know.


In writing this response, I find that I'm on the same path I always end up on in trying to articulate my views. There is a circularity and contradiction to my own words. The enthusiasm that I consider to be part of the path is also part of the destination because I ultimately don't know.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.
I am glad that you have an open mind, Dan.

I have never being baptised, but I nearly did join my sister's church. I was even standing in front of the water they had prepared for me, when I changed my mind.

From 20 to 34, I stopped reading the bible and stopped seeking church to join, mainly because I was in college (hen I was 20) and my highest priorities weren't religion.

During this hiatus, I did think of myself as a believer, until I picked up the bible again. I was working on my personal website in late 1999 or early 2000 - Timeless Myths - researching on the grail and Joseph of Arimathea for my King Arthur's section, when I picked up the bible again.

That's when view has changed (not about the Joseph of Arimathea), when I re-read other parts of OT & NT. I discovered that some of the church teachings were wrong.

For instances, some of the passages quoted in the gospels, from the OT books, on prophecies of Jesus, were taken out of contexts by the authors.

A couple of years later, I changed from being believer to being "agnostic".

Even though I am no longer agree with some of church teachings and their interpretations of the bible, it doesn't mean I dislike the bible, as a work of literature.

In fact, I read many things that I disagree with, mainly because I am not seeking to believe in the scriptures or follow religions.

I read the bible, because I actually enjoyed the stories, just as I loved reading the Greek Iliad, Odyssey or one of the tragedies, or the Norse Edda or the Volsungssaga, or the Irish Tain, or the Old English Beowulf, or the Sumerian poems or Babylonian Gilgamesh, etc.

I have read the rabbinic Midrash and Aggadah, the Pseudepigrapha Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, and the Gnostic Apocryphron of John (see Dark Mirrors of Heaven, another website I had created; you will my links at the bottom of reply). I have even read one translation of the Qur'an.

That my friend, is keeping an open mind, even I though I don't agree or believe in these stories.

I loved myth, legends and folklore so much that I had created a couple of websites devoted to storytelling.
 
Top