(April 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 3:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: Even if the logic worked (it doesn't) it is still speculation without any evidence to confirm it.

It relies entirely on the premises being absolutely 100% accurate and exhaustive. "Close enough" and "from what we observe" aren't anywhere near sufficient. Since no method of checking this is built in at any point, we're left with no idea whether the conclusion has any relation to reality or not. WLC is exploring a heavily simplified version of reality in his imagination. That's why stuff like this never returns anything at all useful, ever.

It is nothing but a pat on the back to make believers feel better about what they already believe.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

Sufficient for what? These arguments for the existence of God do not return a 100%, ever. That is setting the bar way too high. Arguments where more evidence may not be possible are more appropriately measured "more plausible than its negation".

If he/she/it would heal 1,000 adult amputees, I would believe; I'll even let god pick which ones to heal.  She has a week from today to get it done.  Deal?

No you wouldn't. You'd say advanced aliens from outer space did it then raise the bar. Personally if that happened I would probably stop believing.

(April 11, 2016 at 7:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: No you wouldn't. You'd say advanced aliens from outer space did it then raise the bar. Personally if that happened I would probably stop believing.

I don't believe that aliens, no matter how advanced they are, are capable of violating the Conservation Laws of Nature (energy, mass, momentum, angular momentum, etc.)  This is also why I believe interstellar space travel to be a physical impossibility, not only for us but for them, also.  If we ever encounter ET, it will be on the radio, and even then, such communications are very problematic.

The instantaneous healing of an adult amputee is a physical impossibility, and if the Conservation Laws are violated by some miracle, then god exists.  Of course, which god is another matter entirely.

The whole truth of the conclusion rests entirely on the premises being entirely accurate, because that's all it's built on. If one of the premises is wrong for just one tiny area of reality, or if they don't apply to reality itself, or if there are any other premises which may in any way alter the conclusion, the whole thing is completely flawed. There is no way to assess just how off-course this takes it. It's not a case of "how close" they might be, it rests on complete accuracy. Unlike science, where the suitability of the premises can be tested by making predictions. These arguments without evidence produce a blind, useless result.

How exactly do you calculate the probability that the premises are totally accurate, for all of our reality and beyond, and that no relevant premises have been excluded? I'd estimate it at 0%. Can you produce a calculation that says otherwise?

(April 11, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm)SteveII Wrote: Sufficient for what? These arguments for the existence of God do not return a 100%, ever. That is setting the bar way too high. Arguments where more evidence may not be possible are more appropriately measured "more plausible than its negation".

If he/she/it would heal 1,000 adult amputees, I would believe; I'll even let god pick which ones to heal.  She has a week from today to get it done.  Deal?

God only does things that could happen anyway. Also he hates amputees.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:25 am)robvalue Wrote: The whole truth of the conclusion rests entirely on the premises being entirely accurate, because that's all it's built on. If one of the premises is wrong for just one tiny area of reality, or if they don't apply to reality itself, or if there are any other premises which may in any way alter the conclusion, the whole thing is completely flawed. There is no way to assess just how off-course this takes it. It's not a case of "how close" they might be, it rests on complete accuracy. Unlike science, where the suitability of the premises can be tested by making predictions. These arguments without evidence produce a blind, useless result.

How exactly do you calculate the probability that the premises are totally accurate, for all of our reality and beyond, and that no relevant premises have been excluded? I'd estimate it at 0%. Can you produce a calculation that says otherwise?

That does not make the argument invalid. 

My understanding of assigning probability to an inductive argument is looking at the relationship of the probability of the premises and the conclusion. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)

Assign a probability to each premise and the conclusion's probability cannot be lower than the lowest of the premises. It can be higher. There are only two of them so it is not all that complex. Since each premise is reasoned out and defeaters for them seem to be at least less plausible, the conclusion that the universe has a timeless, powerful, transcendent cause seems to also be > 50%. 

I am not saying this is 100% proof for God. Only saying that it supports the concept of the God of the Bible.

How are you assigning probabilities to the premises? Where are you getting these numbers from?

The fact that they are simple does not imply they are true. In fact, it's a high risk that they are too simple.

No, it's not a proof of God. It's not proof, or evidence, of anything. It's worthless rhetoric with no bearing on reality.

If you want to make up numbers to make yourself feel better, fine. I shall give up now.

(April 12, 2016 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote: That does not make the argument invalid. 

My understanding of assigning probability to an inductive argument is looking at the relationship of the probability of the premises and the conclusion. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)

Assign a probability to each premise and the conclusion's probability cannot be lower than the lowest of the premises. It can be higher. There are only two of them so it is not all that complex. Since each premise is reasoned out and defeaters for them seem to be at least less plausible, the conclusion that the universe has a timeless, powerful, transcendent cause seems to also be > 50%. 

I am not saying this is 100% proof for God. Only saying that it supports the concept of the God of the Bible.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)
4. The multiverse has always existed and is the cause of the universe. (Description assigned.)

The conclusion that the universe came from a multiverse seems to be > 50%.

I am not saying this is 100% proof of the multiverse. Only saying that it supports many scientific models which theorize a Multiverse.

Syllogisms work for scientific theories too. The difference is, scientists work to test their theories empirically, theists don't.

(April 12, 2016 at 9:15 am)robvalue Wrote: How are you assigning probabilities to the premises? Where are you getting these numbers from?

The fact that they are simple does not imply they are true. In fact, it's a high risk that they are too simple.

No, it's not a proof of God. It's not proof, or evidence, of anything. It's worthless rhetoric with no bearing on reality.

If you want to make up numbers to make yourself feel better, fine. I shall give up now.

Since, the information we have available to us indicates the premise is more likely true that its negation, it is at least 51%. You throw the word "proof" in there to strengthen your objection. It is inductive reasoning--not proof. It is only your opinion that the discussion on a cause of the universe has any bearing on reality. We are made to ask these questions and it has great bearing on our belief system, our desire for purpose, etc.

It's more likely true than its negation?

You're just making things up. This is pointless. You can't possibly know that it's more likely true than not with regard to all unobserved reality, and to the fabric of reality itself.

This is a waste of time.