Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Jenny A]

[polymath257]

Yes, and the probability of the conclusion is the product of the (relative) probabilities for the premises involved in the conclusion.

In your addition of other premises, you are providing alternative ways to get to the conclusion, not additional premises for a deduction of that conclusion.

So, for example, suppose we have

A and B implies Z

and also

C and D implies Z

and also

E and F implies Z.

We first multiply the probabilities of A and B to get the probability of going *that* route to Z. Then we multiply the probabilities of C and D for *that* route to Z. Finally, we multiply the probabilities of E and F for the probability that *that* route to Z works.

Then, to find the *overall* probability of Z, we multiply the probabilities that *all* routes fail and subtract that from 1.

Of course, at each stage we should use relative probabilities.

Yes. So the example of these observations:


1. Mary usually goes to the market only on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary is at the market. 
3. The street cleaners usually run on Wednesday (80%)
4. The street cleaner just went around the corner 
5. The garbage is picked up on Tuesday evening (80%)
6. The garbage cans in the alley are empty
yields the probability that today is Wednesday 1-(5% x 20% x 20%) at 99.8%

OK, you added a bit from previous premises: that Mary usually *only* goes to the market on Wednesday. That is important for the deduction. You should also have the word *only* in 3 and 5 for this to be a correct computation. This is crucial for the computation.

I want to point out that these are NOT the same as your previous premises. And the differences are relevant in the computations.

In particular, the previous ways you stated your premises allowed for Mary to go to the market on a day other than Wednesday with an undermined probability. The same is true of the street washers and the garbage collection.

But, and this is also important. The deduction scheme in each branch of this computed probability are single steps. If the branches had more steps, then along each branch, the probabilities would be multiplied. And *that* is relevant to how this discussion started.

If we have the following:

A implies B (with 70% probability)
A (with 80% probability)

and we want to conclude B, the probability of a correct conclusion (assuming independence of the first and second premises) would be .7*.8=.56, or 56%. This is NOT analogous to the scheme above where several different branches apply.

In particular, you have been dishonest a couple of times:
1. In changing the premises used in the discussion.
2. In suggesting that the *original* scheme is similar to the scheme you just introduced.

[SteveII]

Premise (1) is only true within the universe. 

Is premise (2) true? I'm not sure it is. I think it is the sum or all material things--not another thing at the end of the list of all other material things. The distinction is important.

If that is true, then conclusion (3) is a composition fallacy:


So...not really a demonstration of anything.

You miss the point.  I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.

The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe.  This it shares with all first cuase arguments.  And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail.  That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail. 

This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you. 

Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in  https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655

It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.

To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error. 

It is also error to compare the actual creation of new  material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter.  There is no equivalency.

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made. 

This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.

[Amarok]

It does not matter if if mary does x when . Mary is not the universe nor are her actions how the universe is .

[polymath257]

You miss the point.  I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.

The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe.  This it shares with all first cuase arguments.  And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail.  That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail. 

This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you. 

Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in  https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655

No, that is not the result of reason. That is the result of a variety of assumptions as listed in the post you referred to. In particular, the 'causal principle' is not proven, but is, instead *assumed* without further reason.

In this, I assume you are identifying 'sufficient cause' with 'efficient cause' in the other post. But there is no proof that when something 'begins to exist', that there is necessarily 'things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement'. In fact, that is not even true *within* the universe and there is no reason to assume such is the case *outside* of the universe (whatever that *could* mean).

It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.

To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error. 

It is also error to compare the actual creation of new  material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter.  There is no equivalency.

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made. 

This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc.

Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology.

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

I have had a fair amount of philosophical training. I just think your viewpoints are wrong. They have to be updated to a more modern approach.

[Amarok]

Oh fudge he's asserting math ideals etc exist as separate entities again 

[robvalue]

This is so far away from disproving Odin that I think we can conclude no theists can do it. So hopefully they can at least acknowledge that asking an atheist to disprove “god” is a silly thing to do.

[GrandizerII]

You miss the point.  I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.

The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe.  This it shares with all first cuase arguments.  And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail.  That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail. 

This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you. 

Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in  https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655

It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.

To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error. 

It is also error to compare the actual creation of new  material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter.  There is no equivalency.

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things.

The KCA is an argument about the universe, not about the irrelevant abstract stuff you keep mentioning. There is a reason Aristotle was compelled by the same logic you're relying on to believe that the universe had no beginning. And we all know why you won't agree with Aristotle here.

Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.

And material objects are not made of "nothing".

This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training.

Yeah, the smart "Internet atheists" with PhDs in various important subjects (including philosophy), pointing out the various mistakes you keep making when it comes to mathematics and logic, while you ignore their corrections and continue to hopelessly defend the indefensible. So I wonder which one of them suffers from a "complete lack of philosophical training". Sometimes, Steve, you can be pathetic beyond belief with the way you think so highly of yourself when it's clearly unwarranted.

They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training.

And you clearly have no high-level training in mathematics or much to do with science. And honestly, you aren't that good with the logic either, so I also question the thought of you having sufficient training in philosophy. Just because you may have had some training in Christian apologetics doesn't make you an exemplary philosopher all of a sudden.

Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.

You keep saying that, but you don't even try to point out the specifics that would demonstrate what you're saying is true. Just saying stuff repeatedly, while continually appealing to some vague "consensus", doesn't make what you're saying true.

[Amarok]

This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you. 

Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in  https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655


There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things.

The KCA is an argument about the universe, not about the irrelevant abstract stuff you keep mentioning. There is a reason Aristotle was compelled by the same logic you're relying on to believe that the universe had no beginning. And we all know why you won't agree with Aristotle here.

Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.

And material objects are not made of "nothing".

This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training.

Yeah, the smart "Internet atheists" with PhDs in various important subjects (including philosophy), pointing out the various mistakes you keep making when it comes to mathematics and logic, while you ignore their corrections and continue to hopelessly defend the indefensible. So I wonder which one of them suffers from a "complete lack of philosophical training". Sometimes, Steve, you can be pathetic beyond belief with the way you think so highly of yourself when it's clearly unwarranted.

They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training.

And you clearly have no high-level training in mathematics or much to do with science. And honestly, you aren't that good with the logic either, so I also question the thought of you having sufficient training in philosophy. Just because you may have had some training in Christian apologetics doesn't make you an exemplary philosopher all of a sudden.

Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.

You keep saying that, but you don't even try to point out the specifics that would demonstrate what you're saying is true. Just saying stuff repeatedly, while continually appealing to some vague "consensus", doesn't make what you're saying true.

Fuck yes steve is a living mass of dunning kruger and thinks his "so called" philosophical training " gives him a leg up.

[possibletarian]

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?