Bad Math Used in Apologetics

[Jagella]

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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 178 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

[otseng]

More disingenuousness.

Reading comprehension..failure.

Moderator Warning


Please tone it down with the personal comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

I didn't.

Hence the question, whose eyeballs.

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

But "wrong" is not wrong if it is mislabelled as wrong.

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

Don't worry, I can provide the exact text, requirement for retraction can be found here, bolded for your convenience:

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 here:

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.

Start counting first.

BUZZ, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past, remember? I have always been counting, there is no start with an eternal past. You ready to name me a number I haven't counted yet?

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

Use an dictation app.

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

No, you are not, but you still aren't taking this very seriously.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I didn't.

Hence the question, whose eyeballs.

Hence the answer; both of ours.

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

But "wrong" is not wrong if it is mislabelled as wrong.

But since it ain't mislabeled as wrong, it is a dead issue.

Fulfilment of said requirement, can be found here:

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.

Notice in the first quote of yourself (which I had to delete, but go back and read it, it is there), it states "having never started but always been counting".

And in your second quote (above), there is no mention of the counting aspect of it whatsoever, which was one of the parameters of my original challenge to you.

It is a shame that you left it out of the first quote, because the counting is exactly what I am saying you CAN'T do.

See, this is an example of selective quoting, which can be very deceptive.

Start counting first.

BUZZ, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past, remember? I have always been counting, there is no start with an eternal past. You ready to name me a number I haven't counted yet?

That is my point, if you've counted every integer in the infinite set (for an infinite amount of time), the total amount of integers that you've counted would HAVE to be a finite number...yet you can't tell me what this finite number is.

Now, if you still don't understand this dilemma, I can't help you. I will just take my dub and keep it moving.

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

Use an dictation app.

Still no acceptance to the a/v debate. Gotcha.

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

No, you are not, but you still aren't taking this very seriously.

No, I am not? Did you accept the a/v debate challenge? No, you didn't. So yes, I am.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So it appears that your inability to understand something determines whether it is valid or not.

It may be the way it appears, but it ain't the way it is. The wolf in sheep's clothes appears to be a sheep..but things ain't always what it appears to be.

Wow! I guess fanciful tales of magical happenings written thousands of years ago by ignorant goat herders is

LOL. When God (a magical being) creates life from nonliving material, I guess you can call it "magic". Cool, a magician performed a magic trick. No big deal.

But your theory is that life originated from nonliving material, with NO magician whatsoever. Life just suddenly and/or gradually began to originate in this inanimate matter, and it soon developed speech and thought on top of that.

That is actually worse than magic...that is like some next level super-duper-voodoo stuff that is so wacky and out of the ordinary that a word has yet to be invented to describe it yet.

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.

It is what it is.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 184 by For_The_Kingdom]

brunumb wrote:
So it appears that your inability to understand something determines whether it is valid or not.

It may be the way it appears, but it ain't the way it is. The wolf in sheep's clothes appears to be a sheep..but things ain't always what it appears to be.

If I don't get it, then I will cast "mountain erosion" into the same pile of unscientific junk that I cast evolution in.

I think you put it very well yourself when you said: "It is what it is".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 184 by For_The_Kingdom]

LOL. When God (a magical being) creates life from nonliving material, I guess you can call it "magic". Cool, a magician performed a magic trick. No big deal.

The problem with citing "magic" (whether with quotes or without) as a potential viable explanation for a phenomenon is that it violates every rule about science that we have. If allowed, anyone can quite then literally say anything about any phenomenon and they can't be proven wrong. I could claim the reason you don't see a dragon in your garage is that it's a magical dragon, that it uses magic to be invisible. Since you're okay with using magic in favour of your god concept, you have no leg to stand on when rejecting my dragon in your garage.
With magic, one has removed falsifiability.

But your theory is that life originated from nonliving material, with NO magician whatsoever. Life just suddenly and/or gradually began to originate in this inanimate matter, and it soon developed speech and thought on top of that.

That appears to be what the evidence suggests. I wouldn't say "soon", as it's clear that speech and thought (at least if you're thinking human speech and thought took billions of years to come about).
Notice that people like me aren't positing extra entities using magic. We're sticking with what we can show to be true.

That is actually worse than magic...that is like some next level super-duper-voodoo stuff that is so wacky and out of the ordinary that a word has yet to be invented to describe it yet.

No...it's counter-intuitive to you. At a surface level, it seems to be stupid, so you automatically reject it and then don't investigate further.
It's counter-intuitive for objects to be in more than one place (position), yet quantum mechanics allows for a concept called superposition. There's even a thought experiment called Schrodinger's Cat, ever hear of it?

[Bust Nak]

Hence the answer; both of ours.

But that's the wrong answer, my eyeballs see evolution just fine.

But since it ain't mislabeled as wrong, it is a dead issue.

That's just your opinion.

Notice in the first quote of yourself (which I had to delete, but go back and read it, it is there), it states "having never started but always been counting".

And in your second quote (above), there is no mention of the counting aspect of it whatsoever, which was one of the parameters of my original challenge to you.

Moving the goal post fallacy, the fact is, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past which is mentioned in both post, whether it's counting or walking depends on the scenario you are proposing.

That is my point, if you've counted every integer in the infinite set (for an infinite amount of time), the total amount of integers that you've counted would HAVE to be a finite number...

That doesn't follow, I've counted every integer in the infinite set (for an infinite amount of time), the total amount of integers that I've counted is infinite, which is decidedly not a finite number.

Still no acceptance to the a/v debate. Gotcha.

No, I rejected you the first time round, you didn't get me then?

No, I am not? Did you accept the a/v debate challenge? No, you didn't. So yes, I am.

That's another non-sequitur fallacy. The conclusion that you are taking this seriously, does not follow from the premise that I did not accept a a/v debate challenge.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But that's the wrong answer, my eyeballs see evolution just fine.

Did your eyeballs ever see a reptile evolve into a bird? Yes/no?

But since it ain't mislabeled as wrong, it is a dead issue.

That's just your opinion.

Its a fact.

Moving the goal post fallacy, the fact is, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past which is mentioned in both post, whether it's counting or walking depends on the scenario you are proposing.

Depends on the scenario? That is a quote directly from YOU. I only vaguely remember what was discussed at that time, but even if I am to go by what YOU said, there was a "counting" aspect to the challenge...a challenge that you failed to meet and I am in fact still waiting for you to COUNT all of the integers in the infinite numbers set.

So therefore, you did not meet the challenge.

That doesn't follow, I've counted every integer in the infinite set (for an infinite amount of time), the total amount of integers that I've counted is infinite, which is decidedly not a finite number.

Ok, so what was the highest number counted in the set, at which would have given you "completion", after having successfully counted every integer in the infinite set.

Not to mention the fact that it is impossible for infinity to traversed in a finite proper time. Never mind that fact, though.

Still no acceptance to the a/v debate. Gotcha.

No, I rejected you the first time round, you didn't get me then?

I got you then, which is why the term "Still" was used. You do know what "still" means in this context, right?

Still: up to and including the present or the time mentioned.

Do you understand, now?

No, I am not? Did you accept the a/v debate challenge? No, you didn't. So yes, I am.

That's another non-sequitur fallacy. The conclusion that you are taking this seriously, does not follow from the premise that I did not accept a a/v debate challenge.

Well, we can agree/disagree as to whether or not my direct challenge to you for an a/v debate constitutes as me being serious/not serious (overall).

Either way, you were challenged, and you did not accept the challenge. Moving along..

[Bust Nak]

Did your eyeballs ever see a reptile evolve into a bird? Yes/no?

No.

Its a fact.

That's still your opinion.

Depends on the scenario? That is a quote directly from YOU. I only vaguely remember what was discussed at that time, but even if I am to go by what YOU said, there was a "counting" aspect to the challenge...

There were multiple scenarios, you mentioned an infinitely long road and me walking forever on it and arriving at where you were standing, you also spoke of counting numbers forever and arriving at zero.

a challenge that you failed to meet and I am in fact still waiting for you to COUNT all of the integers in the infinite numbers set.

But I did COUNT all of the (positive) integers in the infinite numbers set.

Either way, whether I have counted all of the integers or not is a separate issue; you said you would retract your statement if I can show you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and I showed you exactly where, yet you would not retract.

Ok, so what was the highest number counted in the set, at which would have given you "completion", after having successfully counted every integer in the infinite set.

I just told you the total amount of integers that I've counted is infinite, that means there is no highest number counted. Come on, this is high school math.

Not to mention the fact that it is impossible for infinity to traversed in a finite proper time. Never mind that fact, though.

Right, never mind that, because we are not talking about finite time, but infinite time.

I got you then, which is why the term "Still" was used. You do know what "still" means in this context, right?

So why the "Gotcha?"

Do you understand, now?

No, please work on your communication.

Well, we can agree/disagree as to whether or not my direct challenge to you for an a/v debate constitutes as me being serious/not serious (overall).

Either way, you were challenged, and you did not accept the challenge. Moving along..

As you wish.