On the Necessity of Proving Things

[Image_of_God]

Ok, math course is coming up. Since the people are randomly selected, the probability that any specific person was born on any specific day of the year is 1 in 366. We suppose an equal distribution, which is not exactly correct, because more people are born in the summer, than in winter. But this discrepancy is not relevant, it actually raises the chance of a “duplicate birthday” a little bit.

We talked about 30, randomly selected people. We can generalize and talk about “n”, randomly selected people, and then look at the special case, where n = 30.

Now with any selected group, there are two possibilities: 1) all people were born on different days, and 2) at least two people were born on the same day. Let “p” be the probability of case 1). Obviously “1 - p” will be the probability of case 2).

It is much simpler to calculate the value of “p”, and then subtract the value from 1. We shall call it a “good” day if it is separate from all the previously “selected” days.

Now, for the “meat”. The first person selected could have been born on any day, so his chance of being born a good day is 366/366 (no days have been taken yet). The second person only has now 365 “good” days to choose from (one is already taken), so his chance of selecting a good day is 365/366. For the third person there are only 364 days remaining. For the fourth one, only 363 days remain, and so on. Since the birthdays are independent from each other, the chance that “n” people all were born on a different day of the year is:

p = (366/366)(365/366)(364/366)(363/366)…*((366 - (n-1))/366)

You could use a hand-held calculator to find out the value of “p” for any given “n”. Then subtract this value from 1 to get the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday. For the value of 30 the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday is about 73% - amazingly high. For 40 random people the probabilty is over 90%. For 60 people it is over 99%. It is almost impossible to collect 60 random people and not find at least two of them who were born on the same day of the year.

There is nothing intuitive or self-evident about this.

Mathematical equations for probability are essentially idealistic and theoretical. That is to say, they would work if everything happened according to mathematical laws, but of course they don’t. Probability might be good for gathering statistical information about the future, but it just isn’t reality. There is no certainty.

Which brings me back to the idea that you chose the number you did because of your intuition and reason.

Lots of things are accepted as self-evident - and rightfully so. That is not the problem. The problem is to assume that everything which **looks like **self-evident is supposed to be accepted as self-evident. This is the point when the adage should be: “shut up and calculate” or “shut up and measure” - depending on the topic.
I am by no means saying that everything that *looks *self-evident should be accepted as such. I only state that we use our reason to decide what is true among others. It’s what you have done numerous times on this thread while refusing to admit it.

 

[Image_of_God]

The whole reason Christians want to have Jesus’s existence (and his miracles) accepted as truth is so they can demonstrate the existence of God, correct? But here, you’re saying that accepting the truth of God’s existence (and his truthfulness) demonstrates Jesus’ existence…In other words, the belief in Jesus is dependent on the belief in God and the belief in God is dependent on the belief in Jesus. This is just one huge circular argument.

The post was not direct towards you. I was addressing Ignatius, who is a Catholic and already accepts God’s existence as true. I am certain he understood what I meant.

With regard to yourself, the situation is still similar. You believe what you believe because you believe the person or thing supplying you with the information to be trustworthy. That’s really the bases of any belief no matter how scientific and empirical you happen to be.

 

[AlbertBall]

so how do you “shut up and calculate or measure” any event you didnt witness? you dont, you are still in the position of trusting someone else.

Honestly you really need to stop saying this. **That is the whole POINT of peer review in science. ** So we are NOT just taking someones word for it!

 

[AlbertBall]

And you do NOT KNOW that they did not happen. Which leaves your argument from silence without merit.

But the burden off proof is NOT ON ME!!!

 

[AlbertBall]

sure i do, to the exact same degree that we know any historical event happened, that we didnt witness.

Ok im not going through the evidence for a talking snake is the same as the evidence for the moon landings again. If you really believe that, then best of luck to you, your going to need it!

 

[AlbertBall]

The preponderance of the available information indicates that they did.
By the same argument one could say that we don’t KNOW the Hannibal existed. Although there is very scan evidence for Hannibal, .no educated person with intelligence in the normal range actually denies that he did.

I’m sorry but the two claims are NOTHING like the same. Did a man named jesus that claimed to be a god exist? Maybe. Was this man actually a ‘god’ that created our universe and everything in it? Well I’m going to need a little bit more conclusive evidence before i accept that. For you know jesus could have been Harry Houdini/David Blane type dude.

Imagine this dude walking about 2000 years ago claiming to be a god.

youtube.com/watch?v=AYxu_MQSTTY

Now lets be honest say (for the sake of argument) i give you that a person name jesus did exist 2000 years ago. What is more likely… That he was like David Blaine… or he was a super magical man, that made the universe and everything in it, and when you did your ‘soul’ will exit your body and live with him in the clouds forever?

Sorry but if you want me to believe that, I’m going to need some REALLY GOOD evidence.

 

[Syntax]

Now lets be honest say (for the sake of argument) i give you that a person name jesus did exist 2000 years ago. What is more likely… That he was like David Blaine… or he was a super magical man, that made the universe and everything in it, and when you did your ‘soul’ will exit your body and live with him in the clouds forever?

Your setting up the alleged bi-polar dichotomy, here, is a false dichotomy. It is not so simple as,

“Either Chist was exactly who he said he was or Christ was like David Blaine.”

(I’m just curious, what is the **actual **likelihood in and of itself that a person can be like David Blaine or Harry Houdini? After all, not many people are very good magicians.)

Rather, the actual dichotomy is something on the lines that,

"Either Christ was exactly who he said he was or Christ was like David Blaine…

and it is likely Christ was just like David Blaine or Harry Houdini (which is very unlikely itself)

and Christ never once failed a magic trick the years spent with his followers (which is also very unlikely)

and the apostles were (either liars or massively deluded as a group)

and the Gospels were forgeries

and people are psychologically likely to undergoe persecution, torture, and death for a belief in a fraudulent claim

and people are psychologically likely to impose beliefs on themselves that they continually doubt (Thomas, Peter, the Pharisees).

So when evaluating competing hypotheses, to be fair, you have to consider the full scope of the likelihood of each hypothesis. So rather than being

A or B

The actual dilemma you are faced with is,

A or (B and C and D and E and F and G)

If you deny the former disjunct (which is what you would want to do) you are forced to accept the unlikelihood of the disjunctive conjunct

(B and C and D and E and F and G)

if you want to be logically consistent about the matter. So by accepting the latter disjunct you also accept all its logical consequences in one whole package. And I hate to say it, but the more conjuncts we add to the latter disjunct, the latter hypothesis becomes increasingly more unlikely**.

Just food for thought

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry but the two claims are NOTHING like the same. Did a man named jesus that claimed to be a god exist? Maybe. Was this man actually a ‘god’ that created our universe and everything in it? Well I’m going to need a little bit more conclusive evidence before i accept that. For you know jesus could have been Harry Houdini/David Blane type dude.

In that case you have the problem of explaining:

1. The origin of the finest moral teaching known to mankind.
2. The survival of the Church for over two thousand years.
3. The reason why one third of people in the world are Christians.
4. The prophecies of a Messiah written centuries before the birth of Christ.
5. The accounts of the Resurrection.

Imagine this dude walking about 2000 years ago claiming to be a god.

I can imagine a dude walking around right now claiming to have godlike insight into the nature of reality yet incapable of explaining how and why he or anyone or anything exists…

Now lets be honest say (for the sake of argument) i give you that a person name jesus did exist 2000 years ago. What is more likely… That he was like David Blaine…

Do you really believe one third of the world’s population will ever hear about or remember David Blaine? If so your notion of probability is defective…

… or he was a super magical man, that made the universe and everything in it, and when you did your ‘soul’ will exit your body and live with him in the clouds forever?

No doubt you prefer to believe in the supremely magical power of inanimate particles to conjure up rational beings and to vanish as meaninglessly as you came forever and ever, amen!

Sorry but if you want me to believe that, I’m going to need some REALLY GOOD evidence.

Why don’t you attempt to defend **your **position? Or is it based on thin air?
What exactly can you prove?

 

[Syntax]

In that case you have the problem of explaining:

1. The origin of the finest moral teaching known to mankind.
2. The survival of the Church for over two thousand years.
3. The reason why one third of people in the world are Christians.
4. The prophecies of a Messiah written centuries before the birth of Christ.
5. The accounts of the Resurrection.

I can imagine a dude walking around right now claiming to have godlike insight into the nature of reality yet incapable of explaining how and why he or anyone or anything exists…

Do you really believe one third of the world’s population will ever hear about or remember David Blaine? If so your notion of probability is defective…

No doubt you prefer to believe in the supremely magical power of inanimate particles to conjure up rational beings and to vanish as meaninglessly as you came forever and ever, amen!

Why don’t you attempt to defend **your **position? Or is it based on thin air?
What exactly can you prove?

Nice tonyrey:thumbsup: You just added more unlikely probabilities to the denial that Christ was who he said he was. This is exactly how any statitician would approach the subject at hand. Our posts together work rather well. lol!

 

[AlbertBall]

Your setting up the alleged bi-polar dichotomy, here, is a false dichotomy. It is not so simple as,

“Either Chist was exactly who he said he was or Christ was like David Blaine.”

(I’m just curious, what is the **actual **likelihood in and of itself that a person can be like David Blaine or Harry Houdini? After all, not many people are very good magicians.)

Rather, the actual dichotomy is something on the lines that,

"Either Christ was exactly who he said he was or Christ was like David Blaine…

and it is likely Christ was just like David Blaine or Harry Houdini (which is very unlikely itself)

and Christ never once failed a magic trick the years spent with his followers (which is also very unlikely)

and the apostles were (either liars or massively deluded as a group)

and the Gospels were forgeries

and people are psychologically likely to undergoe persecution, torture, and death for a belief in a fraudulent claim

and people are psychologically likely to impose beliefs on themselves that they continually doubt (Thomas, Peter, the Pharisees).

So when evaluating competing hypotheses, to be fair, you have to consider the full scope of the likelihood of each hypothesis. So rather than being

A or B

The actual dilemma you are faced with is,

A or (B and C and D and E and F and G)

If you deny the former disjunct (which is what you would want to do) you are forced to accept the unlikelihood of the disjunctive conjunct

(B and C and D and E and F and G)

if you want to be logically consistent about the matter. So by accepting the latter disjunct you also accept all its logical consequences in one whole package. And I hate to say it, but the more conjuncts we add to the latter disjunct, the latter hypothesis becomes increasingly more unlikely**.

Just food for thought

Well i have never claimed they were the ONLY two possibilities, i said i would consider it more likely. There are many other possibilities. I.E christ did not exist, or these stories have been made up etc etc. My point was if you want me to accept that a god exists, it created the universe and visited the earth 2000 years ago then it is going to require A LOT more substantial evidence than that which we have for the existence of christ, or the existence of Hannibal.

 

[AlbertBall]

In that case you have the problem of explaining:

1. The origin of the finest moral teaching known to mankind.

I hope you are not referring to the bible? Moral, get a grip. Rape, genocide, homophobia, belief or BURN FOREVER. Moral! Get a grip. That is me being KIND.

1. The survival of the Church for over two thousand years.

No where near the longest religion.

1. The reason why one third of people in the world are Christians.

Indoctrination, though the most intelligent people are the most atheist. Hmm wonder why?

1. The prophecies of a Messiah written centuries before the birth of Christ.

Written by conformists.

1. The accounts of the Resurrection.

Which not ONE of is contemporary, and it is not documented in ANY historical test other then the bible, which we KNOW is full mendacity, like talking snakes.

 

[davidv]

But the burden off proof is NOT ON ME!!!

It is if you claim it didn’t happen.

 

[Syntax]

Well i have never claimed they were the ONLY two possibilities, i said i would consider it more likely. There are many other possibilities. I.E christ did not exist, or these stories have been made up etc etc.

Not exactly. With respect to the existence of Christ himself and his alleged claims, there are actually 4 possibilities. Either

If Christ actually said he was the Son of God, then he was exactly who he said he was.
or
If Christ actually said he was the Son of God, then he was not who he said he was
or
If Christ actually didn’t say he was the Son of God, then he was not who he said he was.
or
It is improbable that Christ existed.

The first claim seems, of course, improbable.

The last hypothesis that the existence of Christ is improbable I thought most historians would disagree with–because of other documents and the great social expansion of Christianity all over the Middle East, Greece, and Rome which could only be attributed to an actual historical figure who had a great psychological impact on everyone around him.

The middle two with respect to what Christ actually said are what have to be evaluated against the motivations, character, and personalities of the Apostles writing the Gospel documents. They also have to evaluated with respect to their martyrdom and their psychological willlingness to go to their own deaths. So they were either total frauds or completely tricked by Christ the Magician and the Liar.

My point was if you want me to accept that a god exists, it created the universe and visited the earth 2000 years ago then it is going to require A LOT more substantial evidence than that which we have for the existence of christ, or the existence of Hannibal.

I understand. But why does the Christian claim require A LOT more evidence than any other historical claim? Is it not because the contents of these claims are miraculaous contents, and hence unlikely claims?

Presumably, that would be the only reason, yes? The more improbable the alleged event taking place, the standard of what counts as sufficient evidence for an improbable claim goes up, right?

 

[AlbertBall]

It is if you claim it didn’t happen.

I’m not, i am saying i reject YOUR claim. It is NOT the same thing.

 

[AlbertBall]

I understand. But why does the Christian claim require A LOT more evidence than any other historical claim? Is it not because the contents of these claims are miraculaous contents, and hence unlikely claims?

Presumably, that would be the only reason, yes? The more improbable the alleged event taking place, the standard of what counts as sufficient evidence for an improbable claim goes up, right?

Not just the christian claim, any claim that contradicts everything we know about the cosmos. However i do agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Syntax]

Not just the christian claim, any claim that contradicts everything we know about the cosmos. However i do agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why do “extraordinary” claims require “extraordinary” evidence?

Can I ask you what you mean by “extraordinary”?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Honestly you really need to stop saying this. **That is the whole POINT of peer review in science. ** So we are NOT just taking someones word for it!

unless you perform the expeirment yourself, you are still in the postiion of trusting someone, whether that be one man or a billion. you are still taking their word for it.

i dont know why your even bothering to deny this.

if you arent present for an event, how do you know it happened? you dont, you have to take someone elses word for it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But the burden off proof is NOT ON ME!!!

it absolutely is, we provided the evidence. if you wish to impugn that evidence then you must offer counter evidence. to support that assertion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok im not going through the evidence for a talking snake is the same as the evidence for the moon landings again. If you really believe that, then best of luck to you, your going to need it!

it wasnt a talking snake it was a satan, appearing as a snake to Eve. we can do the same thing with make up or CGI, so why do you have such a hard time believing something that we can recreate with presently known technology? much less any technology that isnt yet known?

i dont believe in magic. i believe as Arthur C. Clarke said.

"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

as our technology is currently advanced enough to make it seem as though a serpent is speaking (ever seen dr. doolittle?), then i dont see how you feel safe in making such a statement?

 

[tonyrey]

In that case you have the problem of explaining:

1. The origin of the finest moral teaching known to mankind.

Get a grip on your power of discernment! That’s the Old Testament, old chap.

That is me being KIND.

You have an exalted opinion of your own virtue…

2. The survival of the Church for over two thousand years.

No where near the longest religion.

It is not longevity alone that is significant but the universal appeal of the teaching of Christ throughout the centuries to all men and women of good will. The truth shines by its own light…

3. The reason why one third of people in the world are Christians.

Indoctrination, though the most intelligent people are the most atheist. Hmm wonder why?

You can keep wondering why your hypothesis is false! It is merely a convenient evasion of the facts which reveals your own hubris and contempt for the vast majority of mankind who do recognise the spiritual truths shared by all religions. Where is your evidence that the most intelligent people are “the most atheist”? (A senseless phrase because there are no degrees of atheism! You’re either an atheist or not.)

Even if it were true that atheists are the most intelligent who would prefer to live with - a very clever criminal or an ordinary, decent person?

4. The prophecies of a Messiah written centuries before the birth of Christ.

Written by conformists.

Another senseless remark! How could conformists who believed in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth have predicted the coming of a teacher of forgiveness and love? Rather than indulge in vacuous one-liners it would be more to the point to produce a reasoned argument - but that is probably expecting too much of a highly intelligent atheist whose pearls of wisdom should suffice for ordinary people!

5. The accounts of the Resurrection.

Which not ONE of is contemporary, and it is not documented in ANY historical test other then the bible, which we KNOW is full mendacity, like talking snakes.

You are merely exhibiting your ignorance of history and hatred of Christian beliefs and values - although you would be the first to complain if some one treated you like a viper!
You take for granted the moral values bequeathed to you in the teaching of Jesus and accepted by all civilised human beings. If you had been born into a more primitive society you wouldn’t have the luxury of pontificating about the evils of religion. You would be more preoccupied with trying to survive in the jungle of human society… Ingratitude and ignorance clearly know no limits…