| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2005 02:49:32 PM |
| Object: |
A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs. To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith. So
what are the odds of each? 50/50?
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the our
eyes?
Let's take a look at it from the perspective of theoretical physics.
The first question is whether we live in an indeterministic or
deterministic universe.
Is the probability 50/50? This is where the weight of scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that the randomness in our models is
down to human ignorance. It points to a deterministic universe. So,
what are the odds we should give? You can make up your own odds here,
but I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50.
Let's say it was the indeterministic universe. You can either have a
spiritual plane influencing the randomness (dualistic) or simply plain
randomness itself (monolistic). What is the probability of each? By
virtue of selecting the indeterminate universe you have gone the
opposite direction from the weight any scientific evidence, it's purely
spiritual plane vs randomness (dualistic vs monolistic). So let's call
it 50/50 again.
If it is the determinate universe, is it all preordained, or
preordained up until choice is demonstrated? What are the odds for
this? Well there is simply no physical theory that explains choice, and
if you did a survey, I'm sure that most people would agree that they
have choice. Still, I'm going to call it 50/50.
If it was the deterministic universe where there is no choice and
everything is preordained, it does not mean the issue of whether there
is a spiritual plane or not disappears, it just reduces the interest
that our universe could possibly hold. As something preordained would
be relatively boring. Still if it went backwards and forwards through a
singularity forever as has been suggested, you could believe our
universe is simply an "executive toy on the desk of God". So we have a
preordained universe, but was it created from the spiritual plane or
not, what are the odds? I'd have to say 50/50 again, as there is no
evidence (which you (atheists) would accept, e.g. ancient texts) which
points to one outcome over the other.
Otherwise it is a deterministic universe up until choice is
demonstrated. With 'I' that chooses being above the physical law, the
only option here is the dualistic version.
So what seem to be the odds of the dualistic view of existence? There
are three outcomes which lead to a dualistic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.5) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe at 62.5%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 37.5%.
You may notice that that the odds between a deterministic universe and
a indeterministic universe was 50/50, yet the history of science shows
that what we had previously needed randomness or a spiritual plane to
explain, can through science now be shown to be governed by
deterministic laws. The higher you weight the evidence of scientific
history, the higher you'll make the odds on it being a deterministic
universe. If you do this you'll see that the odds of it being a
dualistic view of the universe increase. In the example below, I favour
the evidence of scientific history, and make the percentage 60/40 in
favour of a deterministic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.15
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 = 0.3
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe now at 65%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 35%. So we can see that the more weight you
place on the history of scientific evidence, the more likely there is a
spiritual plane.
The other variable that comes in is whether you believe you have a
choice. The higher you rate your belief that you have a choice, that
there is the 'I' that seems above physical laws, you'll notice that the
odds of it being a dualistic view of the universe it becomes. Let's say
the odds of us having choice over no choice is 60/40, though you can
make up your own odds here.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.4)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.4 * 0.5 = 0.12
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.6) = 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36
Adding these odds together we see that the odds of a dualistic universe
rising again to 68%, leaving the odds of a monolistic universe at 32%.
I'd be interested to see where the atheists think I've been unobjective
here.
[This is an edited version of something I wrote on alt.religion called
'I believe',
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_frm/thread/17f29f4588cfab86/997775f94cbbaa44?q=I+believe#997775f94cbbaa44
(It was a shame more atheists didn't join in to break my argument,
probably my fault for not posting it to alt.atheism) ]
.
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 05:30:47 PM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2005 12:49:32 -0800, wrote:
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
Monistic would be the word, I guess. More commonly we talk of
substance monism vs. substance dualism. (I'm a monist FYI)
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs. To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith. So
what are the odds of each? 50/50?
Applying probabilities without knowing the parameters is a leap of
faith itself.
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
The scientific discoveries deal with the physical. Not one
demonstrates the existence of a "spiritual plane" AFAIK. As such, we
have a great ability to explain the phenomena in our universe in
congruence with physicalism, and the scope for spiritual explanations
of these phenomena decreases.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the our
eyes?
Let's take a look at it from the perspective of theoretical physics.
The first question is whether we live in an indeterministic or
deterministic universe.
When you apply human concepts to determine the ultimate nature of the
universe, take a step back. Is it meaningful at all to talk about the
universe as deterministic or indeterministic?
The idea of the universe as a clockwork has long been given up,
currently there is the more fuzzy view where there is causality, but
at the atomic level weird things start to happen.
My understanding of physics is not very great, so I can't tell whether
the scientific evidence would come in favour of a deterministic or an
indeterministic universe. My guess is that there are some processes in
the universe that are deterministic, and some that may be random.
Characterising the entire universe as either is a step too far.
(snip more speculation)
Adding these odds together we see that the odds of a dualistic universe
rising again to 68%, leaving the odds of a monolistic universe at 32%.
I'd be interested to see where the atheists think I've been unobjective
here.
You have been mostly impartial in your judgment upon the nature of our
universe, but extremely presumptuous in assuming that you should
render it.
(snip)
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:39:19 PM |
|
|
As such, we have a great ability to explain the phenomena in our
universe
in congruence with physicalism, and the scope for spiritual
explanations
of these phenomena decreases.
Why is that?
My guess is that there are some processes in
the universe that are deterministic, and some that may be random.
In that case you are saying the physical universe is indeterministic,
though the history of scientific evidence shows that what we thought of
as randomness, turned out to be governed by deterministic laws.
Randomness is events with no cause. Is that what you believe in?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 12:51:31 PM |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2005 15:39:19 -0800, wrote:
As such, we have a great ability to explain the phenomena in our
universe
in congruence with physicalism, and the scope for spiritual
explanations
of these phenomena decreases.
Why is that?
Because with a scientific explanation for a given phenomenon the
spiritualist explanations become superfluous, as they point to an
unevidenced reality and we have an alternative explanation without
that flaw.
My guess is that there are some processes in
the universe that are deterministic, and some that may be random.
In that case you are saying the physical universe is indeterministic,
though the history of scientific evidence shows that what we thought of
as randomness, turned out to be governed by deterministic laws.
Your conception of the scientific development in physics and the
accompanying picture of the universe is flawed. In general the move is
away from a mechanistic (clockwork) universe where everything is
strictly determined by previously existing states to a more
probabilistic view.
To the extent that determinism remains, it works equally in all time
directions, meaning that the future influences the present and past
the same way as the past influences present and future.
Randomness is events with no cause. Is that what you believe in?
The substance of my previous post contained a disagreement with your
model for casting the universe. Both with regard to its specifics and
with regard to your grandiose presumption that you should cast this
model and use it to argue a dialectic on the nature of reality in the
first place. Instead of trying to think about this disagreement, you
have snipped most of it and now seek to find out where I fit in this
model of yours. But you can forget about that.
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 02:55:20 PM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2005 12:49:32 -0800, wrote:
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
The only argument is religionists who inagine their doctrines apply to
everybody, vs the rest of us.
It's all about people like you either putting up or shutting up.
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs. To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith. So
what are the odds of each? 50/50?
Nobody "believes in atheism".
[rest of this drivel snipped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:01:52 PM |
|
|
You believe there is only a physical plane right? You have no objective
proof that there is no spiritual plane. It is only your belief.
Have you ever considered the irony that you deny your own soul for fear
of looking stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 07:34:02 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111183312.940990.31970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You believe there is only a physical plane right? You have no objective
proof that there is no spiritual plane. It is only your belief.
WRONG - grow a brain
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:03:33 PM |
|
|
Explaining why I am wrong might be useful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 06:48:40 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111183312.940990.31970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You believe there is only a physical plane right? You have no objective
proof that there is no spiritual plane. It is only your belief.
Have you ever considered the irony that you deny your own soul for fear
of looking stupid?
This "soul" you speak of, could you tell me just exactly where it resides?
Is it some part of each and every cell? If so it would need to be
incorporated as part of the genetic code, so that it could be passed to
other cells, as they divide and multiply. What part of the genetic code,
codes for the soul? On what chromosome would these codes be located? Is it
some type of protein? What cells produce and secrete it? If not part of the
intimate structure of the cells based in the genetic code, then where is it
located. Is it some attachment to the external physical structure of the
zygote? If so could you provide some indication of its size and location?
How and where it attaches to the physical structure of the zygote? I assume
that we have this soul you speak of from the instant the sperm and egg
unite, or does it happen at some other time? If so when would that be?
What physical form does this soul take? Is it a chemical or protein of some
sort? What is its structure, atomic weight,ect? Is it a energy field of some
sort? What are its characteristics, wavelength, frequency, ect?
Any help along these lines would be greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately for you it is you who appears stupid, for believing in
something that can not be found or seen or be detected by any means known.
If it can't be detected how do you know that it exists in the first place,
someone told you so? Another fairy tail. Like the some other place someone
told you about but, you can't seem to find any means to provide physical
documentation of this place's existence, more fairly tails.
You seem to be living in a world devoted to and controlled by fairly tails,
you live in a dream land in a dream state. Sometimes people that live their
lives in these dream states are give a technical name, they are usually
called psychotics, they have grave difficulties in distinguishing the real
from unreal. You seem to be having some difficulties along these lines,
maybe you should seek some professional help, they have some really good
drugs now days that help greatly with maintaining ones sense of connection
with the real physical world.
Later Larry
aa# 2216
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:03:01 PM |
|
|
Ok Larry, can I presume you believe you don't have a choice, and that
free will is an illusion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
21 Mar 2005 07:07:05 AM |
|
|
astounded us with: news:1111183312.940990.31970
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
You believe there is only a physical plane right? You have no objective
proof that there is no spiritual plane. It is only your belief.
And neither do you have proof, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. You have none, will NEVER have any. Want James Randii's phone
number?
Have you ever considered the irony that you deny your own soul for fear
of looking stupid?
This question beggars belief. Basically an accusation that people denying
souls exist are stupid.
Theists wrote the book on "stupid"
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 07:58:34 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1111183312.940990.31970
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
You believe there is only a physical plane right? You have no objective
proof that there is no spiritual plane. It is only your belief.
You have no objective proof that there is no magical plane. You have no
objective proof that there is no plane dominated by superintelligent shades
of the color blue. Shall we calculate the probability of such things
existing?
Have you ever considered the irony that you deny your own soul for fear
of looking stupid?
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an afterlife for
fear of death?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:09:23 PM |
|
|
You have no objective proof that there is no magical plane. You have
no
objective proof that there is no plane dominated by superintelligent
shades
of the color blue. Shall we calculate the probability of such things
existing?
No, if we used that type of logic, then we would go down the path of
there are infinite stories (such as planes being dominated by
superintelligent shades of the colour blue), and only one story where
there is only the physical plane governed by the laws of science.
Therefore the odds of there only being a physical plane is 1 to
infinity against, which I'm sure we both agree is nonsense. So I have
grouped all the stories into the one possibility of a spiritual plane,
and make no assumptions about its form.
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an
afterlife for
fear of death?
Yes, which is why there is the possibility of there just being a
physical plane, it assumes all the religions from around the world were
made up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 06:08:33 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111273763.439788.239200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You have no objective proof that there is no magical plane. You have
no
objective proof that there is no plane dominated by superintelligent
shades
of the color blue. Shall we calculate the probability of such things
existing?
No, if we used that type of logic, then we would go down the path of
there are infinite stories (such as planes being dominated by
superintelligent shades of the colour blue), and only one story where
there is only the physical plane governed by the laws of science.
Therefore the odds of there only being a physical plane is 1 to
infinity against, which I'm sure we both agree is nonsense. So I have
grouped all the stories into the one possibility of a spiritual plane,
and make no assumptions about its form.
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an
afterlife for
fear of death?
Yes, which is why there is the possibility of there just being a
physical plane, it assumes all the religions from around the world were
made up.
There you go, now see how easy that was. Now just hold on to that thought,
and look at all the evidence that indicates that this is by far and away the
most probable case, and how vastly unlikely the case is for fairy tail gods.
Later Larry
aa# 2216
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 06:24:32 PM |
|
|
There you go, now see how easy that was. Now just hold on to that
thought,
and look at all the evidence that indicates that this is by far and
away the
most probable case, and how vastly unlikely the case is for fairy
tail gods.
Why is this the most probable case? Please see a post I have sent to
Steve, and see if this helps resolve the different directions we are
both coming from.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 07:31:59 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1111273763.439788.239200
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
You have no objective proof that there is no magical plane. You have
no
objective proof that there is no plane dominated by superintelligent
shades
of the color blue. Shall we calculate the probability of such things
existing?
No, if we used that type of logic, then we would go down the path of
there are infinite stories (such as planes being dominated by
superintelligent shades of the colour blue), and only one story where
there is only the physical plane governed by the laws of science.
Therefore the odds of there only being a physical plane is 1 to
infinity against, which I'm sure we both agree is nonsense. So I have
grouped all the stories into the one possibility of a spiritual plane,
and make no assumptions about its form.
Why should a magical plane, or a plane dominated by a superintelligent
shade of the color blue, and all such "planes" be grouped under the heading
"spiritual?" Perhaps it would help if you were to define "spiritual" and
"plane," since both are abstract concepts to which you are ascribing
strange properties. What is a "plane of existence," and what does
"spiritual" mean?
Incidentally, your whole "proof" fails for at least the following reasons
(among many others, I'm sure):
1) It depends on probabilities you made up, based on nothing more than your
professed desire to be "neutral." By these odds, one can prove that
there's a 50% probability that ***** Clark can levitate by mind-power. To
paraphrase you: "Can he levitate? This is where the weight of scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that no humans can levitate by mind-power.
I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50."
2) You arbitrarily inflated your "probability" of a "spiritual plane"
existing by lumping in with it several other probabilities: that we live in
a nondeterministic universe, or that we have a choice.
When you repeat this process several times, arbitrarily inventing 50/50
odds (or close to it) for many unknowable binary probabilities, despite
that in some cases all evidence points to one side of the binary
proposition (by your own admission), and despite your admission in other
areas that any set of probabilities would do, there is no way you can
calculate a defensible probability depending on all your foregoing
arbitrary ones.
That you did is as absurd as anything I've read this past month.
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an
afterlife for
fear of death?
Yes, which is why there is the possibility of there just being a
physical plane, it assumes all the religions from around the world were
made up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 07:57:16 AM |
|
|
Why should a magical plane, or a plane dominated by a superintelligent
shade of the color blue, and all such "planes" be grouped under the
heading
"spiritual?" Perhaps it would help if you were to define "spiritual"
and
"plane," since both are abstract concepts to which you are ascribing
strange properties. What is a "plane of existence," and what does
"spiritual" mean?
They are all lumped together to reduce the odds of it being true. You
can change the phrase "spiritual plane" for "something outside of
physical laws" if it makes you more comfortable.
Incidentally, your whole "proof" fails for at least the following
reasons
(among many others, I'm sure):
1) It depends on probabilities you made up, based on nothing more
than your
professed desire to be "neutral." By these odds, one can prove that
there's a 50% probability that ***** Clark can levitate by mind-power.
To
paraphrase you: "Can he levitate? This is where the weight of
scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that no humans can levitate by
mind-power.
I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50."
Slightly misleading, I lump all such things together as "something
outside of physical laws" , to reduce the odds of there being such a
thing. If the weight of scientific evidence suggested that no humans
can levitate by mind-power (and I believe it does), it wouldn't be
neutral to call it 50/50. It should be 99.99999/0.00001, or something
of that order, against people being able to levitate with their minds.
In the probability tree I proposed the weight of scientific evidence
points to a deterministic universe. The higher you weight it, the
higher the probability to there being "something outside of science".
So I made it 50/50 to keep the probability of "something outside of
science" as lower.
2) You arbitrarily inflated your "probability" of a "spiritual plane"
existing by lumping in with it several other probabilities: that we
live in
a nondeterministic universe, or that we have a choice.
Well the point is, that if we exist in a universe that is governed by
deterministic laws, then you wouldn't have a choice.
Though many people believe that they do, so there is also the
possibility that we live in a deterministic universe, up until choice
is demonstrated. The only option here would be the existence of
"something outside of science". If I did a survey I am sure that most
people would think they have a choice. Though to keep the odds of
"something outside of science" down, I have, I think fairly, and given
them only a 50/50 chance of having choice.
To understand where I am coming from more fully, please read my
response to Steve (Mar 18), it might help explain why I made the tree
in the way that I did.
Feel free to change the odds in the tree, though it would be
interesting to know your logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 08:34:18 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1111327036.148083.20970
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Why should a magical plane, or a plane dominated by a superintelligent
shade of the color blue, and all such "planes" be grouped under the
heading
"spiritual?" Perhaps it would help if you were to define "spiritual"
and
"plane," since both are abstract concepts to which you are ascribing
strange properties. What is a "plane of existence," and what does
"spiritual" mean?
They are all lumped together to reduce the odds of it being true.
Since when does grouping probabilities REDUCE the aggregate
probability??!!
You
can change the phrase "spiritual plane" for "something outside of
physical laws" if it makes you more comfortable.
If "spiritual plane" means "something outside of physical laws," then the
title of your thread is rather misleading, since "spiritual plane" in
common parlance refers to the abode of deities. It seems you're
attempting a bait-and-switch.
Incidentally, your whole "proof" fails for at least the following
reasons
(among many others, I'm sure):
1) It depends on probabilities you made up, based on nothing more
than your
professed desire to be "neutral." By these odds, one can prove that
there's a 50% probability that ***** Clark can levitate by mind-power.
To
paraphrase you: "Can he levitate? This is where the weight of
scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that no humans can levitate by
mind-power.
I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50."
Slightly misleading, I lump all such things together as "something
outside of physical laws" , to reduce the odds of there being such a
thing.
And this is, to put it kindly, a kindergarten error of which an adult
should be ashamed.
If the weight of scientific evidence suggested that no humans
can levitate by mind-power (and I believe it does), it wouldn't be
neutral to call it 50/50. It should be 99.99999/0.00001, or something
of that order, against people being able to levitate with their minds.
In the probability tree I proposed the weight of scientific evidence
points to a deterministic universe.
....so you shouldn't have given the "probability" of it at 50/50.
The higher you weight it, the
higher the probability to there being "something outside of science".
So I made it 50/50 to keep the probability of "something outside of
science" as lower.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand what is meant by the terms
"higher" and "lower" and "reduce."
2) You arbitrarily inflated your "probability" of a "spiritual plane"
existing by lumping in with it several other probabilities: that we
live in
a nondeterministic universe, or that we have a choice.
Well the point is, that if we exist in a universe that is governed by
deterministic laws, then you wouldn't have a choice.
Non sequitur. This has no bearing on the fact that you used these
irrelevant "probabilities" to bolstor your arbitrary probability of an
arbitrarily-redefined "spiritual plane" existing.
Though many people believe that they do, so there is also the
possibility that we live in a deterministic universe, up until choice
is demonstrated. The only option here would be the existence of
"something outside of science". If I did a survey I am sure that most
people would think they have a choice.
Is that supposed to constitute evidence of anything?
Though to keep the odds of
"something outside of science" down, I have, I think fairly, and given
them only a 50/50 chance of having choice.
Since when can a survey of popular opinion help determine the odds of
things that popular opinion by definition cannot know?
To understand where I am coming from more fully, please read my
response to Steve (Mar 18), it might help explain why I made the tree
in the way that I did.
If you can't defend it here, I'm not going to chase a chimaerical defense
of your odds elsewhere.
Feel free to change the odds in the tree, though it would be
interesting to know your logic.
Okay.
Let p1 be the probability that the universe is governed solely according
to physical laws.
Let p2 be the probability that the universe is not governed solely
according to physical laws.
p1 + p2 = 1.
All empirical evidence suggests that the only repeatable, explanatory,
predictive understandings of the universe are predicated on the universe
being governed according to physical laws. This suggests that p1 > p2.
By substitution:
(1 - p2) > p2 => p2 < .5
Thus, a "spiritual plane" is objectively improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 09:31:16 AM |
|
|
Since when does grouping probabilities REDUCE the aggregate
probability??!!
It doesn't. What I meant was, if you were to weight each probability
equally, given no evidence of the likelyhood of one outcome over the
other, then you would look at the number of possible outcomes? There
are infinite scenarios I could make up about multi dimensional goats,
or whatever creating the universe, whereas there would only be one
where there was purely the physical plane governed by physical laws.
Weighting all equally, the probability of the physical plane reduces to
1 to infinity against. Though this would be a nonsense. So I reduced
the argument to whether there was anything outside the physical laws
that we see operating in this universe.
In the probability tree I proposed the weight of scientific evidence
points to a deterministic universe.
...so you shouldn't have given the "probability" of it at 50/50.
Make it higher if you like, I show in the example, that the higher you
make the probability of the deterministic universe, the higher the
eventual outcome of "something outside of the physical laws" that
govern this universe (I called the something outside of the physical
laws a spiritual plane, but you can call it something more than science
if you like).
To understand where I am coming from more fully, please read my
response to Steve (Mar 18), it might help explain why I made the
tree
in the way that I did.
If you can't defend it here, I'm not going to chase a chimaerical
defense
of your odds elsewhere.
If you read the post (which isn't really about the odds), you would not
have written:
All empirical evidence suggests that the only repeatable, explanatory,
predictive understandings of the universe are predicated on the
universe
being governed according to physical laws. This suggests that p1 >
p2.
Because it is that very assumption that the post was about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 03:31:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You have no objective proof that there is no magical plane. You have
no
objective proof that there is no plane dominated by superintelligent
shades
of the color blue. Shall we calculate the probability of such things
existing?
No, if we used that type of logic, then we would go down the path of
there are infinite stories (such as planes being dominated by
superintelligent shades of the colour blue), and only one story where
there is only the physical plane governed by the laws of science.
Therefore the odds of there only being a physical plane is 1 to
infinity against, which I'm sure we both agree is nonsense. So I have
grouped all the stories into the one possibility of a spiritual plane,
and make no assumptions about its form.
So, probability of a deterministic universe = 0.5, non deterministic = 0.5
By that logic
Probablility of a spirital plane=0.5, probability of no spirital plane = 0.5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:51:02 PM |
|
|
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an afterlife for
fear of death?
glenn.spigel@btinternet.com wrote:
Yes, which is why there is the possibility of there just being a physical
plane, it assumes all the religions from around the world were made up.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
That's still only a "possibility" in your own view. The fact that there is
a physical plane, however, requires a 1st and second dimension underlying
the 3rd dimension. Living in a 3 dimensional plane requires the ongoing
presence of the first and second dimensions - neither of which are
detectable to any three dimensional being.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 06:22:26 PM |
|
|
That's still only a "possibility" in your own view. The fact that
there is
a physical plane, however, requires a 1st and second dimension
underlying
the 3rd dimension. Living in a 3 dimensional plane requires the
ongoing
presence of the first and second dimensions - neither of which are
detectable to any three dimensional being
I don't understand what you are saying (my stupidity I'm sure). The
physical plane to a layman is made of three spacial dimensions, and a
fourth dimension of time, I would have thought. Though I'm not sure of
the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 07:16:38 PM |
|
|
That's still only a "possibility" in your own view. The fact that there is a
physical plane, however, requires a 1st and second dimension underlying the
3rd dimension. Living in a 3 dimensional plane requires the ongoing presence
of the first and second dimensions - neither of which are detectable to any
three dimensional being
glenn.spigel@btinternet.com wrote:
I don't understand what you are saying (my stupidity I'm sure). The physical
plane to a layman is made of three spacial dimensions, and a fourth dimension
of time, I would have thought. Though I'm not sure of the point.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I'll go at it again. If we leave TIME out of the discussion for the moment
for convenience sake, we (as humans) are only faced with addressing the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd dimensions in any discussion of what is "real" to us. And as
humans living on planet earth we are only familiar with a three dimensional
reality. The first and second dimensions are always present (or clearly we
wouldn't be here) but we are incapable of detecting or analyzing anything
beneath the third dimension. God the creator of everything is like the
first dimension - underlying everything that exists, but imperceptible to
those of us born into a three dimensional plane.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
22 Mar 2005 06:15:52 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
I'll go at it again. If we leave TIME out of the discussion for the moment
for convenience sake, we (as humans) are only faced with addressing the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd dimensions in any discussion of what is "real" to us.
There go the reservations for my rental car next thursday, which is
based on time...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 10:59:28 PM |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2005, georgann dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Have you considered the pathos of man inventing a soul and an
afterlife for fear of death?
glenn.spigel@btinternet.com wrote:
Yes, which is why there is the possibility of there just being a
physical plane, it assumes all the religions from around the world
were made up.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
That's still only a "possibility" in your own view. The fact that
there is a physical plane, however, requires a 1st and second
dimension underlying the 3rd dimension. Living in a 3 dimensional
plane requires the ongoing presence of the first and second dimensions
- neither of which are detectable to any three dimensional being.
Anyone with a sense of vision can detect a line (1st dimension) as part
of a three-dimensional object, or a surface (second dimension). Driving
a car is two dimensional, as opposed to flying a plane.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 06:33:54 AM |
|
|
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
That's still only a "possibility" in your own view. The fact that there is a
physical plane, however, requires a 1st and second dimension underlying the
3rd dimension. Living in a 3 dimensional plane requires the ongoing presence
of the first and second dimensions - neither of which are detectable to any
three dimensional being.
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Anyone with a sense of vision can detect a line (1st dimension) as part of a
three-dimensional object, or a surface (second dimension). Driving a car is
two dimensional, as opposed to flying a plane.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
The "line" to which you're referring is not one dimensional or even two
since it is being perceived as part of a three dimensional object.
As to driving a car being two dimensional, I'm glad I don't reside in your
universe. Flatter than a pancake is not my idea of living.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 12:46:18 PM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2005, georgann dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
The "line" to which you're referring is not one dimensional or even
two since it is being perceived as part of a three dimensional object.'
If we can't perceive the first dimension, can we leave it out?
As to driving a car being two dimensional, I'm glad I don't reside in
your universe. Flatter than a pancake is not my idea of living.
Another christer decided to pray in geometry class I see.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 04:11:41 PM |
|
|
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
The "line" to which you're referring is not one dimensional or even two since
it is being perceived as part of a three dimensional object.'
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If we can't perceive the first dimension, can we leave it out?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But neither can you perceive it as you can the full three dimensional
object. The same is true of God. He is the basis for everything that is,
even if you cannot (yet) perceive Him.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 04:55:36 PM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2005, georgann dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
The "line" to which you're referring is not one dimensional or even
two since it is being perceived as part of a three dimensional
object.'
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If we can't perceive the first dimension, can we leave it out?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But neither can you perceive it as you can the full three
dimensional object.
I'm looking at the edge of my desk. It is a corner, a one-dimensional
line defined both by the intersection of two two-dimensional planes (the
top and right side of my desk), also by two points which are the two top-
right corners of my desk. That is perception by definition.
The same is true of God. He is the basis for
everything that is, even if you cannot (yet) perceive Him.
Non-sequitur. God is imaginary. It cannot be perceived or defined in
relation to reality.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 07:12:08 PM |
|
|
The "line" to which you're referring is not one dimensional or even two
since it is being perceived as part of a three dimensional object.'
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If we can't perceive the first dimension, can we leave it out?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But neither can you perceive it as you can the full three dimensional
object.
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
I'm looking at the edge of my desk. It is a corner, a one-dimensional line
defined both by the intersection of two two-dimensional planes (the top and
right side of my desk), also by two points which are the two top- right
corners of my desk. That is perception by definition.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You are admitting that you don't comprehend the first and second dimensions
I take it.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 09:08:21 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE638998.556FA%chenault@mindspring.com...
snip
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You are admitting that you don't comprehend the first and second
dimensions
I take it.
Are those featured on your diagram?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
