You sir, are neither a gentleman, nor a scholar.
Nonsense, there are about 60 million possible numbers that might be drawn. There are 60 million possible combination of numbers that might be drawn rather than the specific number called (56874598342) being drawn. All numbers are equally improbable, therefore number 5659698542) being drawn on a certain day represents an extraordinarily improbable event, because it is extraordinarily improbable that that number should be drawn.
So, honestquestions, how about an honest answer? What do you think?
Actually most Lotteries are draw from a combination of single and double digit numbers. So your number 5659698542 most likely would be rendered 56,59,69,85,42.
I would not dismiss the evidence of testimony. I would not believe the claim rather because a lack of evidence as I have said now for the fifth** time (and you wonder why I thought surely you couldn’t be serious…)** I would just require more evidence should it oppose the everyday happenings and reason of which we can rationally and objectionably live by, and so would you → My friend died three days ago, but he is back alive today! Are you going to believe me simply on the basis of my testimony or ask for more evidence given that anyone can just say what I said?******
How so?
We can never claim with certainty what is possible and impossible, but we can live our lives by what’s reasonable, and the question is how do we determine what’s reasonable?
It’s right and rational to believe it on the media’s report because you lost, every day of your life. The moment you actually match it is when it’s much more likely it is a joke someone is playing on you.
You say that, but then you also say things like this.
The fallacy is in an inability to imagine how something might be true even if it is incredible, not solely in the rejection of it. Because your ability to imagine something in the light of what you already know, doesn’t give us any information about the veracity or probability of an events occurrence. Hence my analogy about Ptolemy. His inability to imagine how an incandescent bulb works in light of what was known in his time gives no information about the veracity of a claim concerning a light bulb.
Plug in any sufficiently disparate historical figure/understood phenomenon…caveman/jet engine. whatever you like that demonstrates the point.
I can tell you its not reasonable to use logical contradictions, fallacious reasoning or subjective standards. The first is intellectually dishonest, the second is irrational, and the third amounts to believing what one wants. You keep trying to get me to provide you with some other epistemological framework to function from because at some level you recognize that yours is broken. I am purposely not giving you one. I am a rationalist for the most part myself. But as long as you’re worldview is based in empiricism, no matter whether its a logical contradiction or not, rationalism won’t work for you. In a sense you want to practice science in a purely philosophical subject. Which is something like using a wooden bat to paint a portrait. Wrong tool for the job so to speak. Even mathematicians, a rationalist school of thought if ever there was one, are only trained in that one tiny area of logic, otherwise they too are educated as empiricists. Its not you personally, its the western education system, it creates scientists, not thinkers. Unfortunately for us.
My words certainly did appear to be conflicting. Let me clarify what I meant to say: We should not simply dismiss evidence because if we did it would fall under the incredulous fallacy. But that evidence should not be all that is required, for the reason of the question that I posed. I showed how under a reasonable test under all of your jargon, it proves useless if it cannot be applied to real-life dilemmas. Perhaps, this is why you keep leaving out my bolded questions.
You do, every time when you misquote what empiricism is. You also show your ignorance in your thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546138 where you explicitly misdefine empiricism. It is easy to create a strawman and burn it to the ground.
God is part of the external reality, therefore the answer is “yes”.
Only according to your delusions. The logical positivists said that “any statement which cannot be verified empirically cannot be considered true”. Which part of “any” (the universal operator) don’t you understand? I already quoted the empiricist’s stance, which is completely different, but you are unable or unwilling to understand it.
How is it “reasonable to believe” that both time and all the matter of the universe was created by extreme gravity or de novo without something else Existing to Create it??? It’s not. That’s where you are willfully ignorant and you refuse to open your mind to be logical and reasonable.
“It happened once, therefore it is guaranteed to happen again” - is that your logic? Seriously? If so, I won’t waste anymore time with you. The intermediate arguments have answers, but the beginning and ending questions don’t. They go on infinitely if there is no G-d. I free willingly choose not to kid myself into thinking otherwise. It would be like believing in fantasies or mystical thinking. Some of history’s geniuses went insane in their attempts to conquer the mystery. I am happy to be humbled by it.
Every reasonable person knows that the LAST question is unanswerable by science if G-d doesn’t exist. It’s a stalemate. Take your pick. Although it’s amazing how many non-theists pursue the Final answer as if G-d created the universe with a beginning. It’s quite hypocritical.
Well, we had to come from somewhere, didn’t we? God is the only thing that makes sense. No GOd does not explain our existence.
If G-d does not exist, then why would any reasonable person continue to believe that we will one day have a final answer? It seems to be an illogical waste of belief. I’d rather believe and then believe that all this struggle for Truth actually means something inthe greater scheme of humanity.
If G-d doesn’t exist, then there is infinity. I didn’t invent infinity, so don’t get mad at me if you refuse to accept it. The ambiguity comes from atheist scientists who choose to cite no proof of G-d, but who willfully ignore the nature of infinity. That’s the hypocrisy. There is a huge paradigm between a non-theist who accepts the definition of infinity and is cool with NEVER knowing the final answer, VS. a non-theist who believes (faith) that we will one day have all the answers while willfully ignoring the definition of infinity. It’s painful to see the latter continue to kid him/her self with illogical and unreasonable beliefs.
But claim X is NOT contradicted by the known laws of nature. The known laws of nature do not preclude the possibility of miracles. Therefore your statement contradicts the known laws of nature.
The reason a Catholic/Muslim/Jew would not pray to your aliens is because of the first commandment.
Aren’t you missing the point that that number’s being drawn is no more improbable than any other number being drawn? (I see others have already made this point.) What would be improbable/extraordinary in an interesting way would be if the number 50 was drawn in a 6/49 draw (where only numbers from 1 through 49 are supposed to be drawn).
Excellent quote. Very apposite.
I am getting the point perfectly, the problem is that is it irrelevant. Of course all numbers are equally improbable. It remains true that any number drawn will be an extraordinarily improbable event, yet I do not require extraordinary evidence to rationally believe it.
Dismissing the claim is merely the result of committing the fallacy as the word “therefore” indicates. The fallacy itself is a lack of imagination. That lack of imagination is not justified because you think you have a really good reason, such as a claim that violates the known physical laws. I can easily imagine how any claim can be true regardless of any physical laws.
You didn’t talk about any test that I saw. I don’t see how you could. We are talking epistemology, the test is logical validity not a correlation to the observable world. That’s how all forms of logic work, mathematics too.
I thought it was obvious that it is fallacious, just a lack of imagination. I keep trying to point this out. You are demanding a system that will meet your accustomed world view where more empirical evidence verifies a belief, but you don’t seem to be getting the implications of relying on those logical contradictions. Since they are logically contradictory, we know they must necessarily be false. So the idea that empirical evidence can verify the truth of a claim is false. It cannot. It only seems obvious to you that it does so, because you already accept the validity of the logical contradictions of empiricism/verificationism. In some sense Begging the Question.
Agreed. Actually, no laws of nature contradict the possibility of miracles because miracles are not natural events; they are supernatural events, or if you prefer “naturally impossible events.” But the fact that nature on her own cannot produce miracles, does not make it improbable that God would or can.But claim X is NOT contradicted by the known laws of nature. The known laws of nature do not preclude the possibility of miracles. Therefore your statement contradicts the known laws of nature.
The preservation of matter/energy/momentum definitely contradicts the miracle of feeding a multitude of people with one loaf of bread and one fish. Also having a human walk on water contradicts the laws of physics. A decay of a three-day old corpse is ensured by the irreversible laws governing entropy. A shattered vase will not magically assemble itself, even though the direction of time could be reversed - theoretically… etc… etc…