Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[Keeler]

Nonsense. You were never a believer … except in your head. If in your heart you would never have stopped believing.

Isn’t it nice that you can make a judgment about what I believed and what I did not? Usual theistic arrogance. And my heart still only pumps blood.

 

[Keeler]

Now your back publicly admitting belief in the validity of a logical contradiction. Even worse, it was already demonstrated for you. logical contradiction, Verification.

Well, I guess I will just leave you to your dumb repetitions and delusions. I explained the difference between a claim and a meta-claim, and you are unable to comprehend that, too. As they say: “don’t wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty and the pig enjoys it”.

 

[Warrenton]

To run given that they have evidence of a long history with earthquakes and tsunamis.

Your response is as I anticipated. The subjective component re-appears in what we choose to define as an extraordinary event. Some say the tsunami was not extraordinary; the newspapers say it is.

Someone says “Bow down to the purple alien. The purple alien is responsible for all that is before our eyes.” What is the proper response to this statement?

As the Missourian said: “Show me.”

 

[Warrenton]

. As they say: “don’t wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty and the pig enjoys it”.

Why should one not give the pig some enjoyment? It seems the least one might do, in view of all of the bacon.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m getting a big hint that everyone knows you have been cornered by my questions of which you cannot answer.

The hint I am getting is that you really, really, really, really want to talk about anything other than
**1. Empiricism - A logical contradiction and therefore impossible.
2. Verification/Falsification - A logical contradiction and therefore impossible.
3. ECREE - Relies on the validity of #1 and #2, and its Equivocally fallacious. **
Without these on what other basis can you be an atheist? Faith? Then you are not truly a rational atheist anymore. It is clear to me that you are desperate to protect your cherished beliefs. The stake I just drove through the vampiric heart of atheism kills it dead. Unless you have another basis for your atheism? No? I didn’t think so. No atheist I have known ever has. **You are in a trap you can’t escape because you either…

1. Admit that the basis of atheism are logical contradictions and therefore invalid. Welcome to Theism!
2. Admit that you accept logical contradictions as valid. Welcome to the insane asylum!**
   Either way atheism as a logically consistent concept is an epic fail. So what are you going to do? Can you change your position when confronted with the logical contradictions at the heart of atheism(as I have seen you claim that evidence can change your mind)? Are you going to cut and run? Ignore me know that you know the score? Or are you going to keep trying to change the subject hoping that we I will let you off the hook? Trust me, I won’t.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You aren’t reading what I wrote.

I posted the premises that comprise the ECREE when you tried to introduce a different argument than ECREE the first time. No one is obligated to attend to a red herring because the other party doesn’t like the outcome of the conversation. Post #100 makes the point, you admit a shift in meaning. You even demonstrate it from premise to conclusion, the fact that you had done so inadvertently doesn’t change the circumstances.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I guess I will just leave you to your dumb repetitions and delusions. I explained the difference between a claim and a meta-claim, and you are unable to comprehend that, too. As they say: “don’t wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty and the pig enjoys it”.

In so many words, you can’t support your claim and can’t admit being wrong, so you’re going to call me names, and run away. Typical.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…in view of all of the bacon.

lol

 

[Charlemagne_II]

keeler

*Isn’t it nice that you can make a judgment about what I believed and what I did not? Usual theistic arrogance. And my heart still only pumps blood. *

It isn’t so nice that you can be so cavalier about the fate of your immortal soul, and so full of atheistic arrogance toward God to boot.

 

[JVSantos]

Yes maybe.

 

[danserr]

It is not. it is governed by a set of odds determined by the game.

You are claiming that the number 57854944 being drawn on march 30 2011 is not an improbable event. That is to say, that it is probable than on that day, that number will be drawn?
Honestquestions already admitted that in that case the event is indeed improbable. Please consider the obvious point that I said earlier, if it were probable that that number would be drawn on that day (ie. if that event were probable), then everyone would go out, buy tickets with that number, and win big. Clearly this is not the case.

 

[danserr]

For anyone else…

My Claim To You: I tell you that I have divine knowledge that there are four aliens watching you from another galaxy and you must pray to them or face eternal torment when you die here on earth. There is a book full of testimonials about the legitimacy of these divine four aliens.

What You Probably Agree To: You are agnostic to my claim. You realize that the real truth of my claim is unknown or unknowable.

Question 1: Will you listen to me and pray to these four aliens, or not pray to these four aliens, thereby risking eternal torment after you die?

Questions 2 & 3: How did you come to your conclusion in determining whether or not you would pray to these four aliens? If you deny praying to them, is it because it seemed too incredible to believe, or because I lacked providing you with sufficient evidence to believe such a claim, given the obvious nature that anyone could provide testimonials for an infinite number of claims?

Bonus Question: Why do you believe in your God, but choose not to believe in the four aliens?

I suppose this is supposed to be analogous to the Resurrection of Jesus, but it is not even close.
With the Resurrection, we have not only the disicple’s say-so, but a certain context behind it. We have the historical fact of the empty tomb, the appearances of the risen Christ, and the origin of Christian belief.

I am not agnostic to your claim, I actively deny it. You have given me no context for it like we have for the Resurrection. You have offered no evidence the book is anything but your personal invention, while the Bible exists in many manuscripts certainly by the apsotles or the next generation disciples. You have no evidence for any claim comparable to the Resurrection (nor do you make such a claim) to verify those aliens existence. Nor do you offer any evidence of this claim. You have not shown that you are not lying (the disciples were certainly not, since they died for their beliefs.
Finally, I conclude that it is probable that you are simply mocking Christianity with an imagined parody of the Resurrection, that I suppose you think is very clever.

I agree their must be good evidence, I simple insist that it is not only a question of the improbability of the event we must consider, but that probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. So:
-With the Resurrection: It is improbable that we should have the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the origin of Christian belief unless Jesus rose from the dead.

• With your 4 aliens: It is highly probable that that evidence should be what it is even if you claim is not true. You are clearly mocking Christianity, you offer no evidence besides your claim (unlike the empty tomb), and no context by which I may consider your reliablity as a witness, the genuineness of your claim, and the origin of your belief.

I am therefore justified in believing the Resurrection, but not your claim.

Your absurd parody then, does nothing to show that we may not believe the Resurrection on the basis of the evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

Or, more to the point, Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

If that is so, why doesn’t the extraordinary claim that there is no God require just as much extraordinary evidence as the extraordinary claim that there is a God?

If a policeman discovers evidence of a crime (blood on the sidewalk, a spent bullet nearby, an empty wallet in a trash bin), he might infer that there is a person either dead or in harm’s way. Another policeman may say, “But there is no body. Show me the body … I need extraordinary evidence that a crime has been committed.”

Yet the second policeman can offer no extraordinary evidence that a crime has not been committed, that there is no body anywhere or anybody in harm’s way.

Who is closer to a claim on the truth? The first policeman or the second policeman?

 

[danserr]

Correct, even if you were honest person not given to lying. Past evidence shows that it is much more likely for even the most honest friend to be willing to pull a funny, harmless prank than to actually win the lottery.

I told you to take the “me winning” out of the equation since it is confusing you. Just imagine number 4564986786 being drawn on a certain day and reported on the news as the winning number. This is an incredibly improbable event that that number should be drawn. Even if the media is 99.99 percent reliable, it is more probable that they are mistaken, than that the number is really the winning number. So this means that if you accept the claim EEREE, then you should disbelieve any news report that reports a lottery number as the winning number. But this is clearly absurd, people believe news reports that report the winning lotto number every day. and rightly so. Why? Because, they do not only consider the probability of the event vs the reliability of the witnesses; rather they also consider the *probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. *

No, I wouldn’t believe it

Your very radical determined skepticism would never be accepted by any probability theorist. Every day people believe that a certain number is the winning lotto number (an incredibly improbable event) only on the basis of the media say-so.

Your last remark in this post is the closest you have come to accepting my point. A claim may be so extraordinarily improbable, but when you consider also the evidence, and the probability that the evidence should be what it is if the event did not occur, you may rationally accept an improbable claim. So the question will be, how probable is it that we should have things like the empty tomb, the appearances of the risen Christ, and the origin of Christian belief, if the Resurrection did not actually happen?

 

[ManOnFire]

No, I seriously do understand what you are saying. Good point.

Now that we know time travel is illogical and impossible, it’s good to know that we can move forward.

 

[Keeler]

It isn’t so nice that you can be so cavalier about the fate of your immortal soul, and so full of atheistic arrogance toward God to boot.

My attitude is not relevant to the topic at hand and thus it is none of your business. Show me some evidence that my “immortal soul” is more than just a figment of your imagination. You said that the “supernatural” cannot be subject to empirical verification. I explained your error, and gave you the method of how to do it. (God can be influenced by prayer, and God can perform the requested miracles - according to the believers. Both the prayers and their fulfillment occur in this physical reality, so they are subject to verification.) Go and perform the test. You have no excuse not to do it.

 

[jonfawkes]

You are claiming that the number 57854944 being drawn on march 30 2011 is not an improbable event. That is to say, that it is probable than on that day, that number will be drawn?
Honestquestions already admitted that in that case the event is indeed improbable. Please consider the obvious point that I said earlier, if it were probable that that number would be drawn on that day (ie. if that event were probable), then everyone would go out, buy tickets with that number, and win big. Clearly this is not the case.

It is no more improbable than any other number that can be played for that game. The game has finite parameters. One number winning is no more miraculous than another. You play hoping you will win knowing the odds are not in your favor but you also know it is possible.

 

[danserr]

It is no more improbable than any other number that can be played for that game. The game has finite parameters. One number winning is no more miraculous than another. You play hoping you will win knowing the odds are not in your favor but you also know it is possible.

I agree “it is not more probable than any other number.” but that hardly makes it probable that that number would be drawn! It remains true that that number being drawn is an extraordinarily improbable event, but that we believe it without extraordinary evidence.

 

[Keeler]

I agree “it is not more probable than any other number.” but that hardly makes it probable that that number would be drawn! It remains true that that number being drawn is an extraordinarily improbable event, but that we believe it without extraordinary evidence.

It is time to explain something. All the numbers are equally probable. Having a specific number to have drawn in not extraordinary. What would be extraordinary is to PREDICT the result. In probability theory there is a differentiation between a-priori and a-posteriory probabilities. If you wish to talk about probabilities, at least you should learn the basic terminology and the classical theory. You don’t need to worry about Kolmogorov-space and all that good jazz, though they would be helpful.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I explained your error, and gave you the method of how to do it. (God can be influenced by prayer, and God can perform the requested miracles - according to the believers. Both the prayers and their fulfillment occur in this physical reality, so they are subject to verification.) Go and perform the test. You have no excuse not to do it.

1. You are stating your belief in the validity of a logical contradiction, as verification schemes are. Which I already demonstrated. You may as well be telling us you believe in Santa Claus.
2. Testing for the efficacy of prayer has never been and never will be scientifically falsifiable. You cannot control for the metaphysical variables that prayer is subject to.This is a common claim from atheists who do not understand the scientific method. Please see Post #97,#99,#101, #102. Here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543257&page=7

I wonder, do you care to explain how one can be intellectually honest and still hold that a demonstrated logical contradiction is valid?