Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Reply to topic
Jagella
First Post
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:29 pm  Bad Math Used in Apologetics Reply with quote

Recently I've noticed that some apologists like William Lane Craig are using mathematics-based arguments to assure us that the Christian god exists. I would like to explain why those arguments use poor logic.

A very broad argument is that mathematics in general seems to explain the cosmos in a way that seems to work unreasonably well. An intelligent designer like Yahweh is then required to explain this apparent mathematical basis for the universe. He is "the great mathematician in the sky."

Not really. The reason math works so well to explain the world--in at least some cases--is because we humans created math to describe the cosmos. There is no mystery here. We are the mathematicians describing the universe.

Also, many apologists like to wow us with enormously improbable events that they say cannot be attributed to chance. Since chance is ruled out, "God musta done it."

Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero. Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Also, to state how improbable a natural event might be doesn't say much if you don't know the probability of an alternate event. So if apologists wish to argue that an event like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe by chance is only one out a a gazillion, they must compare that probability to the probability that "God musta done it." If they cannot say that the probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance, then they haven't proved anything.

Finally, a really laughable argument is that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was infinitely we could never have reached the present! Such apologists must have slept through their high-school algebra. Consider the number line with numbers increasing infinitely with positive numbers to the right and negative numbers to the left. All you need to do is have any point on that line represent a moment in time with zero being the present, points on the positive direction are the future, and points on the negative direction are the past. See that? You're at 0 (the present), but the past is infinite. You can go back as far as you want to with no limit.

I can go on, but for now let me ask the...

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 171: Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:10 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

Which ironically, backs up evolution nicely.


Macroevolution fails the "eye ball" test.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Makes sense to me.

But that doesn't say much, coming form someone who couldn't make sense of the fact that there is always a finite gap between each pair of integers, in an infinite set of integers.


Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

Bust Nak wrote:

Nah, that's just plain old fact. But I take heart in seeing that you at least acknowledge even as an opinion, it's based upon facts and knowledge; which is quite the step up as presenting opinion as facts and knowledge like you were doing.


Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

Quote:
The requirements weren't met, neither for my retraction or for your moolah.

Incorrect. The record says otherwise, the requirements for your retraction has absolutely been met. The requirements were, and I quote:

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Bust Nak wrote:
I finished last week, after you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past - having never started but always been counting.

If you can show me where I granted you this, I will retract my statement.


Fulfilment of said requirement, can be found right here:

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:
Are you going to grant me that I've always been walking, having never started to walk, like an eternal past?

If I understand you correctly, YEPPP.


The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

Bust Nak wrote:

As for the requirements for my moolah, well, that's less clear cut so I'll give you another chance to falsify my claim, that given the same condition as an eternal past, I can and have counted down, through all the positive integers and arrived at zero, you can do that simply by naming a number that I haven't counted. If you can't then it's time to pay up.


We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
The sweet spot will be somewhere in between slow and fast.

Like the speed we are going at right now?


I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Did I say/imply that verbally articulating my points would improve my arguments?

Well you tell me


No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

Bust Nak wrote:

, because that's what I asked you about and that was the answer you gave me. So, again, why would that improve your arguments? And if it won't improvement arguments, why did you bring it up as a feature that would put live debate above and over an text based one?


Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 172: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:59 am
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Macroevolution fails the "eye ball" test.

Whose eye ball? You think your opinion can settle the matter?

Quote:
Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

I've already finished.

Quote:
Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

Yes one is a regular fact, the other is a science labelled as opinion.

Quote:
The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

But it does have something to do with the fact that the requirements for your retraction has been met?

Quote:
We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

Or we can discuss this right here?

Quote:
I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Not really, no. What's so good about verbal aspect? It just make things all the more difficult to track. I can't just scroll up and have the post history right in front of me.

Quote:
No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

I am going with no then, given your response here.

Quote:
Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

Well you do selective read things a lot.

Quote:
And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

You don't need a/v for that, just share the link to this thread.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 173: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:39 am
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

Whose eye ball? You think your opinion can settle the matter?


Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird? Did your eyeballs witness this alleged natural phenomena? Nope. Neither have mines. So to answer your question: Both of ours.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

I've already finished.


Disingenuous.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

Yes one is a regular fact, the other is a science labelled as opinion.


Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion. Gotcha.

Makes my job a whole lot easier.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

But it does have something to do with the fact that the requirements for your retraction has been met?


I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

Or we can discuss this right here?


Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Not really, no. What's so good about verbal aspect? It just make things all the more difficult to track. I can't just scroll up and have the post history right in front of me.


You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

I am going with no then, given your response here.

Quote:
Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

Well you do selective read things a lot.


Its all gravy baby.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

You don't need a/v for that, just share the link to this thread.


Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 174: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:45 am
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

No, but I saw empirical evidence for it.

Quote:
Disingenuous.

So says the guy would not pay up after losing a bet.

Quote:
Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion.

No, just labelled as one.

Quote:
I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

That's where the post history comes in. Your agreement or lack there of is irrelevant.

Quote:
Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

Right you are, and in particular, naming me a number I haven't counted.

Quote:
You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

But that's harder than scrolling up.

Quote:
Its all gravy baby.

That's because you aren't taking this very seriously.

Quote:
Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

Verbal is better because it is verbal was the whole idea? Well it's not a very well justified idea.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 175: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:33 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
[Replying to post 106 by marco]

Quote:
I suppose that means for the purposes of this argument we're not allowed to have an infinite regression because we need God to have started things somewhere (as seen primitively).



Quote:
ALL ideas about beginnings are speculation. The unscientific one is the theory that a big intelligent being made it all, and we don't know who made him. He always was. This is the "build your own god" theory, favoured by our primitive ancestors who heard thunder as the voice of God.


The problem I see in the 'problem of IR' is that those who argue for IR, do so in an attempt to show that GOD has to fit in with their belief in this argument.

The argument of IR goes "If a GOD is required to create beginnings, then what created that GODs beginning...another GOD? - And what created that GODs beginning? Another GOD ...thus 'the problem of IR'.

The argument is faulty, and that is the only reason why it is 'a problem' for those who argue it.

The solution to the IR 'problem' is plainly that GOD never had a beginning. The existence of beginnings do not create the so-called - 'problem of IR'.

That the solution is so simply 'primitive cavemen' invented it, even before it was fashioned into a 'problem' with those who have a problem with comprehending the idea that GOD is not created but has always existed (and that creation naturally requires a beginning) the argument for IR simply stems from the idea/belief that 'everything has to have a beginning but not necessarily a cause', especially when the cause is 'A being who has always existed.'

Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 176: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:03 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds. Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 177: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:24 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

No, but I saw empirical evidence for it.


I didn't.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Disingenuous.

So says the guy would not pay up after losing a bet.


More disingenuousness.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion.

No, just labelled as one.


Wrong is wrong...whether label, unlabeled, mislabeled, etc.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

That's where the post history comes in. Your agreement or lack there of is irrelevant.


Post history? Rule #1 when debating with Bust Nak..

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

Right you are, and in particular, naming me a number I haven't counted.


Start counting first.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

But that's harder than scrolling up.


And typing word after word on a keyboard is harder than verbally speaking my points.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Its all gravy baby.

That's because you aren't taking this very seriously.


Yet, I am the one with the unaccepted challenge of the A/V debate.

Bust Nak wrote:

Quote:
Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

Verbal is better because it is verbal was the whole idea? Well it's not a very well justified idea.


Reading comprehension..failure.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 178: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:29 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
brunumb wrote:

[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds.


"Over millions of generations" <---you've just left science right there.

brunumb wrote:

Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?


I haven't looked into all of that. But if I do, I would expect actual SCIENTIFIC evidence to support whatever claim is being made. If I don't get it, then I will cast "mountain erosion" into the same pile of unscientific junk that I cast evolution in.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 179: Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:08 pm
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post
brunumb wrote:

[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds. Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?

This has been explained ad naseum to FTK in the past. Apparently if FTK hasn't seen it, it didn't happen. Well, until FTK's favorite Bible stories get mentioned. Then apparently it only takes faith.

FTK has already been told that ancient reptiles evolved into today's birds and today's birds are technically whatever species these ancient reptiles were with some brand new labels.

This is the usual misunderstandings of taxonomy and evolution. I imagine origins of life will soon be brought up and then a request for a live chat as this will somehow clear things up.

As usual, many straw men were harmed in the process.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 180: Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:22 am
Reply
Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Like this post (2): Zzyzx, benchwarmer
[Replying to post 178 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
I haven't looked into all of that. But if I do, I would expect actual SCIENTIFIC evidence to support whatever claim is being made. If I don't get it, then I will cast "mountain erosion" into the same pile of unscientific junk that I cast evolution in.

So it appears that your inability to understand something determines whether it is valid or not. Wow! I guess fanciful tales of magical happenings written thousands of years ago by ignorant goat herders is far more compelling for some than the hard won genuine knowledge accumulated by the scientific method. Add the promise of an imaginary paradise versus an infinity of torture and the deal is sealed.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version