When Does Religion Become Just Silly? - Page 4

ynot · 8th January 2020, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

To concede that something may be possible is essentially the same as saying something may be impossible ~~you don't know if it is impossible.~~

ftfy

“May be” isn’t equivalent to “Don’t know”. If you don’t know then you don’t know that it may be.

“May be possible” is equivalent to “May be impossible”.
“Don’t know if possible’ is equivalent to “Don’t know if impossible”

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I don't need to say it at all. This thread is just an amusing look at some silly religious ideas that I find interesting.

Let's not get too serious about it.

The reason I’m “serious about it” is because truth is important to me and I respect and value your intellectual honesty and critical thinking (you’re worth the effort). You may be in holiday mode and rather have a beer

.

Unless you or anyone wants to continue I will leave it at this . . .

Does a jar contain an odd or even number of jellybeans?
If the number IS odd, then it CAN’T be even, and vise versa.
Not knowing which IS the case doesn’t change the fact of what the case IS.
If it IS odd, then saying “It possibly could/may be even” IS wrong.
“I don’t know” IS the only intellectually honest and correct answer.

At least we know jars and jellybeans actually exist, we can’t even say that about gods

.

DuvalHMFIC · 8th January 2020, 06:23 PM

Speak for yourself, I counted 393 Zeuses in my jar of peanut butter.

It's odd.

arthwollipot · 8th January 2020, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

“May be possible” is equivalent to “May be impossible”.
“Don’t know if possible’ is equivalent to “Don’t know if impossible”

What? No it isn't.

If the initial assumption is that it is possible, then you say "well, it may be impossible." If the initial assumption is that it is impossible, then you say "well, it may be possible." The emphasis is completely different. They're not equivalent statements, and are used in different contexts.

Thor2 was speaking under the initial assumption that it is impossible, though you don't know that for certain. Therefore he said that it may be possible.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Speak for yourself, I counted 393 Zeuses in my jar of peanut butter.

It's odd.

Prove "Zeuses" even exist

Besides, if you counted, then you know.

DuvalHMFIC · 8th January 2020, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Prove "Zeuses" even exist

Besides, if you counted, then you know.

I'd like you to talk to my friends Jif and Peter Pan, thank you very much!

ynot · 8th January 2020, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What? No it isn't.

If the initial assumption is that it is possible, then you say "well, it may be impossible." If the initial assumption is that it is impossible, then you say "well, it may be possible." The emphasis is completely different. They're not equivalent statements, and are used in different contexts.

Thor2 was speaking under the initial assumption that it is impossible, though you don't know that for certain. Therefore he said that it may be possible.

That you shouldn't (can't logically) start with any assumption is the very point I'm making.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

I'd like you to talk to my friends Jif and Peter Pan, thank you very much!

Well if you're gonna bring in experts then I give up.

arthwollipot · 8th January 2020, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

That you shouldn't (can't logically) start with any assumption is the very point I'm making.

You can't avoid starting with an assumption. That's what Bayesian probability is all about.

Take the following premise: "Green cats exist". But you don't know for sure whether they do or not. Are you going to say "Green cats might exist" or "Green cats might not exist. The former implies that they probably don't. The latter implies that they probably do.

We're dealing with possibilities, not certainties, which throws a big wrench into formal logic.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You can't avoid starting with an assumption. That's what Bayesian probability is all about.

Oh, here we go . . .

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Take the following premise: "Green cats exist". But you don't know for sure whether they do or not. Are you going to say "Green cats might exist" or "Green cats might not exist. The former implies that they probably don't. The latter implies that they probably do.

I'm simply and intellectually honestly going to say "I don't know if green cats exist naturally, but I do know green cats could exist by dying white cats green".

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

We're dealing with possibilities, not certainties, which throws a big wrench into formal logic.

I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true.

arthwollipot · 8th January 2020, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

I'm simply and intellectually honestly going to say "I don't know if green cats exist naturally, but I do know white cats could be dyed green".

That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something. Most people would tend to come down on one side or another.

Originally Posted by ynot

I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true.

This is also what I am saying. If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence, then rather than saying "green cats exist" you say "green cats probably exist, but I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain."

But we're getting rather off-track here, which was totally unexpected and not at all what always happens.

theprestige · 8th January 2020, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something. Most people would tend to come down on one side or another.

These are things you know to a certainty? If so, how do you know?

If not, do you have the courage to say so?

ynot · 8th January 2020, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something.

I would rather say it takes courage to be intellectually honest. You should try saying "I don't know" sometimes, it's really not scary at all.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Most people would tend to come down on one side or another.

And "most" would be silly and wrong to do so. Theists are an obvious example of such people.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's a different, and equally valid, answer.

It's the ONLY valid answer I know of.

Green cats either do or don't exist (there's no third option). If they don't exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might exist. If they do exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might not exist.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

This is also what I am saying. If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence, then rather than saying "green cats exist" you say "green cats probably exist, but I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain."

No it's not! There's your problem (bet you can't see it).

psionl0 · 8th January 2020, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Does a jar contain an odd or even number of jellybeans?
If the number IS odd, then it CAN’T be even, and vise versa.
Not knowing which IS the case doesn’t change the fact of what the case IS.
If it IS odd, then saying “It possibly could/may be even” IS wrong.
“I don’t know” IS the only intellectually honest and correct answer.

LOL another professor of logic appears.

If you don't know if a statement is true or false then it is possible that the statement is true and it is possible that the statement is false. I don't understand why anybody would call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by ynot

I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true.

Congratulations. You are the first person to have proven an negative.

arthwollipot · 8th January 2020, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

I would rather say it takes courage to be intellectually honest. You should try saying "I don't know" sometimes, it's really not scary at all.

I say it all the time.

Originally Posted by ynot

And "most" would be silly and wrong to do so. Theists are an obvious example of such people.

Most people don't communicate in formal logic.

Originally Posted by ynot

It's the ONLY valid answer I know of.

There are dozens of valid answers, from simple rephrasings of the basic statement to elaborations, complications, and answers that include unnecessary digressions. This is how humans communicate.

Originally Posted by ynot

Green cats either do or don't exist (there's no third option). If they don't exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might exist. If they do exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might not exist.

That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

LOL another professor of logic appears.

If you don't know if a statement is true or false then it is possible that the statement is true and it is possible that the statement is false. I don't understand why anybody would call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest.

Congratulations. You are the first person to have proven an negative.

I was wondering if the "professor of LOL” would turn up. Well that’s all a fine strawman.

We are debating the validity/correctness of answers to questions, not statements. Are gods real? Are we the product of some kind of celestial intelligence - some kind if experiment in a test tube perhaps? Are cats green? etc. These questions are about what IS true or false, not what might be.

I don’t call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest or invalid in answer to all questions as Mr Strawman suggests. In answer to “Will it rain tomorrow?” there’s nothing intellectually dishonest or invalid in answering “It possibly will (or won’t)”, as the fact of it raining tomorrow or not hasn’t as yet been established as a fact. More intellectually honest and valid of course to simply say “I don’t know”.

Totally different question from “Did it rain yesterday?”. If it did rain yesterday then the fact has been established. If it did rain yesterday then there’s absolutely no possibility that it didn’t.

Things are either true or false regardless of whether we know they are. It was true that dinosaurs once lived long before we gained knowledge it was/is true. Knowledge is the reward of discovering truth, not the creator of it.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I say it all the time.

No you don't!

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Most people don't communicate in formal logic.

I'm not claiming my words are formal logic.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

There are dozens of valid answers, from simple rephrasings of the basic statement to elaborations, complications, and answers that include unnecessary digressions. This is how humans communicate.

Not all humans.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist.

Proof you don't say "I don't know" "all the time"

.

arthwollipot · 8th January 2020, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

No you don't!

Okay, oh expert in my behaviour.

Originally Posted by ynot

I'm not claiming my words are formal logic.

No, but you're acting like it.

Originally Posted by ynot

Not all humans.

You, for example.

Originally Posted by ynot

Proof you don't say "I don't know" "all the time"

.

ynot · 8th January 2020, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist.

Okay, I’ll give you a “proper” answer . . .

If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers. Cognitive dissonance much!

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

Okay, I’ll give you a “proper” answer . . .

If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers. Cognitive dissonance much!

You obviously wouldn't say both at the same time. Either you think they probably don't exist, or you think that they probably do exist.

ynot · 9th January 2020, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You obviously wouldn't say both at the same time. Either you think they probably don't exist, or you think that they probably do exist.

In what way can what you merely think be valid and correct when a person that thinks the opposite can also be equally valid and correct?

You didn't respond to this previous "problem" . . .

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence

How CAN you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence that they do?

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

In what way can what you merely think be valid and correct when a person that thinks the opposite can also be equally valid and correct?

Why are you assuming that they're both talking about the same thing?

ynot · 9th January 2020, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Why are you assuming that they're both talking about the same thing?

You are presenting an argument in which they both could be talking about the same thing, so what's wrong with assuming they are? Are you saying they can't be talking about the same thing?

psionl0 · 9th January 2020, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers.

These are not conflicting answers unless your definition of "probably" means "greater than even chance".

ynot · 9th January 2020, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

These are not conflicting answers unless your definition of "probably" means "greater than even chance".

What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers?

Lithrael · 9th January 2020, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers?

I think it’s just a quirk of English that people don’t say something more like “I guess that’s improbably possible” instead of “I guess that’s probably possible.” Most of the time colloquially ’probably’ used like that indicates you’re not trying to shut down the other guy’s position, out of conversational politics, rather than indicating you think it’s actually more probable than improbable. Like “could be, could be...”

JoeMorgue · 9th January 2020, 08:39 AM

Ahhh yes... the weeds. And now we shall enter them.

The argument will now be a constant, self feeding, snake eating it's own tail cluster of endless hairsplitting over intellectual probably, semantic nonsense of strong and weak beliefs, meaningless "Do you positively believe the thing exists or negatively believe the thing doesn't exist" and other such tripe.

Darat · 9th January 2020, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Ahhh yes... the weeds. And now we shall enter them.

The argument will now be a constant, self feeding, snake eating it's own tail cluster of endless hairsplitting over intellectual probably, semantic nonsense of strong and weak beliefs, meaningless "Do you positively believe the thing exists or negatively believe the thing doesn't exist" and other such tripe.

Not but probably not not it will happen.

ynot · 9th January 2020, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers?

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I think it’s just a quirk of English that people don’t say something more like “I guess that’s improbably possible” instead of “I guess that’s probably possible.” Most of the time colloquially ’probably’ used like that indicates you’re not trying to shut down the other guy’s position, out of conversational politics, rather than indicating you think it’s actually more probable than improbable. Like “could be, could be...”

Is that meant to be a serious attempt at answering the question?

Roger Ramjets · 9th January 2020, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You seem to be off with the fairies yet again.

Just because the topic is about the silliness of religion, doesn't mean you can shoot off in all kinds of silly directions with the subject matter.

On the contrary, it is the heart of the matter. You asserted that religion 'becomes just silly' when it includes the notion of a caring god who takes great interest in our activities (implying that it is not otherwise just silly).

But if many other notions are also silly then why single out religion?

Quote:

The effectiveness of religion as a "force for good", has been argued in other threads.

And it's relevant to this thread too, because you cannot dismiss an activity as 'just silly' if it is beneficial.

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

You are presenting an argument in which they both could be talking about the same thing, so what's wrong with assuming they are? Are you saying they can't be talking about the same thing?

But both talking about the same thing is, as you point out, a contradiction. So while it's possible that they're talking about the same thing, it's more likely that I was simply describing two different ways of saying something. The subject is unspecified. Okay, how about this.

Do green cats exist?

I think that they probably don't exist.

Do deaf tortoiseshell cats exist?

I think that they probably do exist.

The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way.

The second is likely - it certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility. So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the positive, even though you don't have proof either way.

Thus, the statements "it probably exists" and "it probably doesn't exist" are not logically equivalent. QED.

ynot · 9th January 2020, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way.

Oh really? - GREEN CATS! - Mega fail!

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Oh really? - GREEN CATS! - Mega fail!

Yeah. That's almost all the same one I linked to in my own post. Didn't you see it?

The story is actually that the cat was dyed green in an accident with an industrial colouring agent. It's not naturally green. But it's my go-to in discussions about proving a negative so I thought I'd rope it in here.

ynot · 9th January 2020, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah. That's almost all the same one I linked to in my own post. Didn't you see it?

The story is actually that the cat was dyed green in an accident with an industrial colouring agent. It's not naturally green. But it's my go-to in discussions about proving a negative so I thought I'd rope it in here.

There’s no “naturally” in your go-to question “Do green cats exist?“.

You need to be more precise if you want people to take you and your question seriously.

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

There’s no “naturally” in your go-to question “Do green cats exist?“.

You need to be more precise if you want people to take you and your question seriously.

Yes, that's true, I did gloss over that aspect of the argument. I didn't feel it was necessary to specify, but if I wanted to be precise, I should have.

The Atheist · 9th January 2020, 10:39 PM

When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

First three words: "In the beginning".

arthwollipot · 9th January 2020, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

First three words: "In the beginning".

Yes, that's already been established, thanks.

Darat · 10th January 2020, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But both talking about the same thing is, as you point out, a contradiction. So while it's possible that they're talking about the same thing, it's more likely that I was simply describing two different ways of saying something. The subject is unspecified. Okay, how about this.

Do green cats exist?

I think that they probably don't exist.

Do deaf tortoiseshell cats exist?

I think that they probably do exist.

The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way.

The second is likely - it certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility. So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the positive, even though you don't have proof either way.

Thus, the statements "it probably exists" and "it probably doesn't exist" are not logically equivalent. QED.

They do exist.

BBC News - Glowing cats shed light on Aids
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14882008

DuvalHMFIC · 10th January 2020, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

First three words: "In the beginning".

Based on another thread here, you could also say First ten words: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

JoeMorgue · 10th January 2020, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Ahhh yes... the weeds. And now we shall enter them.

The argument will now be a constant, self feeding, snake eating it's own tail cluster of endless hairsplitting over intellectual probably, semantic nonsense of strong and weak beliefs, meaningless "Do you positively believe the thing exists or negatively believe the thing doesn't exist" and other such tripe.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But both talking about the same thing is, as you point out, a contradiction. So while it's possible that they're talking about the same thing, it's more likely that I was simply describing two different ways of saying something. The subject is unspecified. Okay, how about this.

Do green cats exist?

I think that they probably don't exist.

Do deaf tortoiseshell cats exist?

I think that they probably do exist.

The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way.

The second is likely - it certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility. So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the positive, even though you don't have proof either way.

Thus, the statements "it probably exists" and "it probably doesn't exist" are not logically equivalent. QED.

I rest my case.

8th January 2020, 03:12 PM	#121
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by Thor 2 To concede that something may be possible is essentially the same as saying something may be impossible ~~you don't know if it is impossible.~~ ftfy “May be” isn’t equivalent to “Don’t know”. If you don’t know then you don’t know that it may be. “May be possible” is equivalent to “May be impossible”. “Don’t know if possible’ is equivalent to “Don’t know if impossible” Originally Posted by Thor 2 I don't need to say it at all. This thread is just an amusing look at some silly religious ideas that I find interesting. Let's not get too serious about it. The reason I’m “serious about it” is because truth is important to me and I respect and value your intellectual honesty and critical thinking (you’re worth the effort). You may be in holiday mode and rather have a beer . Unless you or anyone wants to continue I will leave it at this . . . Does a jar contain an odd or even number of jellybeans? If the number IS odd, then it CAN’T be even, and vise versa. Not knowing which IS the case doesn’t change the fact of what the case IS. If it IS odd, then saying “It possibly could/may be even” IS wrong. “I don’t know” IS the only intellectually honest and correct answer. At least we know jars and jellybeans actually exist, we can’t even say that about gods .
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2020 at 03:35 PM.

8th January 2020, 06:23 PM	#122
DuvalHMFIC Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,543	Speak for yourself, I counted 393 Zeuses in my jar of peanut butter. It's odd.
	__________________ Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.

8th January 2020, 06:55 PM	#123
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot “May be possible” is equivalent to “May be impossible”. “Don’t know if possible’ is equivalent to “Don’t know if impossible” What? No it isn't. If the initial assumption is that it is possible, then you say "well, it may be impossible." If the initial assumption is that it is impossible, then you say "well, it may be possible." The emphasis is completely different. They're not equivalent statements, and are used in different contexts. Thor2 was speaking under the initial assumption that it is impossible, though you don't know that for certain. Therefore he said that it may be possible.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

8th January 2020, 07:17 PM	#124
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC Speak for yourself, I counted 393 Zeuses in my jar of peanut butter. It's odd. Prove "Zeuses" even exist Besides, if you counted, then you know.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

8th January 2020, 07:20 PM	#125
DuvalHMFIC Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,543	Originally Posted by ynot Prove "Zeuses" even exist Besides, if you counted, then you know. I'd like you to talk to my friends Jif and Peter Pan, thank you very much!
	__________________ Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.

8th January 2020, 07:22 PM	#126
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot What? No it isn't. If the initial assumption is that it is possible, then you say "well, it may be impossible." If the initial assumption is that it is impossible, then you say "well, it may be possible." The emphasis is completely different. They're not equivalent statements, and are used in different contexts. Thor2 was speaking under the initial assumption that it is impossible, though you don't know that for certain. Therefore he said that it may be possible. That you shouldn't (can't logically) start with any assumption is the very point I'm making.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

8th January 2020, 07:23 PM	#127
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC I'd like you to talk to my friends Jif and Peter Pan, thank you very much! Well if you're gonna bring in experts then I give up.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

8th January 2020, 07:33 PM	#128
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot That you shouldn't (can't logically) start with any assumption is the very point I'm making. You can't avoid starting with an assumption. That's what Bayesian probability is all about. Take the following premise: "Green cats exist". But you don't know for sure whether they do or not. Are you going to say "Green cats might exist" or "Green cats might not exist. The former implies that they probably don't. The latter implies that they probably do. We're dealing with possibilities, not certainties, which throws a big wrench into formal logic.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

8th January 2020, 07:44 PM	#129
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot You can't avoid starting with an assumption. That's what Bayesian probability is all about. Oh, here we go . . . Originally Posted by arthwollipot Take the following premise: "Green cats exist". But you don't know for sure whether they do or not. Are you going to say "Green cats might exist" or "Green cats might not exist. The former implies that they probably don't. The latter implies that they probably do. I'm simply and intellectually honestly going to say "I don't know if green cats exist naturally, but I do know green cats could exist by dying white cats green". Originally Posted by arthwollipot We're dealing with possibilities, not certainties, which throws a big wrench into formal logic. I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2020 at 07:52 PM.

8th January 2020, 07:51 PM	#130
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot I'm simply and intellectually honestly going to say "I don't know if green cats exist naturally, but I do know white cats could be dyed green". That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something. Most people would tend to come down on one side or another. Originally Posted by ynot I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true. This is also what I am saying. If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence, then rather than saying "green cats exist" you say "green cats probably exist, but I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain." But we're getting rather off-track here, which was totally unexpected and not at all what always happens.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

8th January 2020, 07:55 PM	#131
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something. Most people would tend to come down on one side or another. These are things you know to a certainty? If so, how do you know? If not, do you have the courage to say so?

8th January 2020, 08:01 PM	#132
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It takes a fair bit of intellectual courage to just say "I don't know" to something. I would rather say it takes courage to be intellectually honest. You should try saying "I don't know" sometimes, it's really not scary at all. Originally Posted by arthwollipot Most people would tend to come down on one side or another. And "most" would be silly and wrong to do so. Theists are an obvious example of such people. Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's a different, and equally valid, answer. It's the ONLY valid answer I know of. Green cats either do or don't exist (there's no third option). If they don't exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might exist. If they do exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might not exist.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2020 at 08:09 PM.

8th January 2020, 08:27 PM	#133
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot This is also what I am saying. If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence, then rather than saying "green cats exist" you say "green cats probably exist, but I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain." No it's not! There's your problem (bet you can't see it).
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

8th January 2020, 08:59 PM	#134
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 16,845	Originally Posted by ynot Does a jar contain an odd or even number of jellybeans? If the number IS odd, then it CAN’T be even, and vise versa. Not knowing which IS the case doesn’t change the fact of what the case IS. If it IS odd, then saying “It possibly could/may be even” IS wrong. “I don’t know” IS the only intellectually honest and correct answer. LOL another professor of logic appears. If you don't know if a statement is true or false then it is possible that the statement is true and it is possible that the statement is false. I don't understand why anybody would call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest. Originally Posted by ynot I'm dealing with what IS true, and more specifically whether you can know it's true without sufficient evidence, not what might possibly be true. Congratulations. You are the first person to have proven an negative.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

8th January 2020, 10:05 PM	#135
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot I would rather say it takes courage to be intellectually honest. You should try saying "I don't know" sometimes, it's really not scary at all. I say it all the time. Originally Posted by ynot And "most" would be silly and wrong to do so. Theists are an obvious example of such people. Most people don't communicate in formal logic. Originally Posted by ynot It's the ONLY valid answer I know of. There are dozens of valid answers, from simple rephrasings of the basic statement to elaborations, complications, and answers that include unnecessary digressions. This is how humans communicate. Originally Posted by ynot Green cats either do or don't exist (there's no third option). If they don't exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might exist. If they do exist then it's not valid or correct to say they probably might not exist. That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

8th January 2020, 11:05 PM	#136
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by psionl0 LOL another professor of logic appears. If you don't know if a statement is true or false then it is possible that the statement is true and it is possible that the statement is false. I don't understand why anybody would call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest. Congratulations. You are the first person to have proven an negative. I was wondering if the "professor of LOL” would turn up. Well that’s all a fine strawman. We are debating the validity/correctness of answers to questions, not statements. Are gods real? Are we the product of some kind of celestial intelligence - some kind if experiment in a test tube perhaps? Are cats green? etc. These questions are about what IS true or false, not what might be. I don’t call the use of "possible" intellectually dishonest or invalid in answer to all questions as Mr Strawman suggests. In answer to “Will it rain tomorrow?” there’s nothing intellectually dishonest or invalid in answering “It possibly will (or won’t)”, as the fact of it raining tomorrow or not hasn’t as yet been established as a fact. More intellectually honest and valid of course to simply say “I don’t know”. Totally different question from “Did it rain yesterday?”. If it did rain yesterday then the fact has been established. If it did rain yesterday then there’s absolutely no possibility that it didn’t. Things are either true or false regardless of whether we know they are. It was true that dinosaurs once lived long before we gained knowledge it was/is true. Knowledge is the reward of discovering truth, not the creator of it.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 9th January 2020 at 12:46 AM.

8th January 2020, 11:11 PM	#137
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot I say it all the time. No you don't! Originally Posted by arthwollipot Most people don't communicate in formal logic. I'm not claiming my words are formal logic. Originally Posted by arthwollipot There are dozens of valid answers, from simple rephrasings of the basic statement to elaborations, complications, and answers that include unnecessary digressions. This is how humans communicate. Not all humans. Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist. Proof you don't say "I don't know" "all the time" .
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

8th January 2020, 11:41 PM	#138
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot No you don't! Okay, oh expert in my behaviour. Originally Posted by ynot I'm not claiming my words are formal logic. No, but you're acting like it. Originally Posted by ynot Not all humans. You, for example. Originally Posted by ynot Proof you don't say "I don't know" "all the time" .
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

8th January 2020, 11:56 PM	#139
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's correct. Those options would be logically inconsistent (and what does "probably might exist" even mean anyway?). But if you're not certain if they exist, then it may be valid or correct to say that they probably don't exist. Okay, I’ll give you a “proper” answer . . . If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers. Cognitive dissonance much!
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

9th January 2020, 12:03 AM	#140
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot Okay, I’ll give you a “proper” answer . . . If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers. Cognitive dissonance much! You obviously wouldn't say both at the same time. Either you think they probably don't exist, or you think that they probably do exist.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

9th January 2020, 12:25 AM	#141
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot You obviously wouldn't say both at the same time. Either you think they probably don't exist, or you think that they probably do exist. In what way can what you merely think be valid and correct when a person that thinks the opposite can also be equally valid and correct? You didn't respond to this previous "problem" . . . Originally Posted by arthwollipot If you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence How CAN you know that green cats exist without sufficient evidence that they do?
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 9th January 2020 at 12:33 AM.

9th January 2020, 12:33 AM	#142
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot In what way can what you merely think be valid and correct when a person that thinks the opposite can also be equally valid and correct? Why are you assuming that they're both talking about the same thing?
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

9th January 2020, 12:41 AM	#143
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Why are you assuming that they're both talking about the same thing? You are presenting an argument in which they both could be talking about the same thing, so what's wrong with assuming they are? Are you saying they can't be talking about the same thing?
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 9th January 2020 at 12:42 AM.

9th January 2020, 12:50 AM	#144
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 16,845	Originally Posted by ynot If you claim it’s valid and correct to say either “They probably don't exist” or “They probably do exist”, then you have two conflicting valid and correct answers. These are not conflicting answers unless your definition of "probably" means "greater than even chance".
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

9th January 2020, 01:13 AM	#145
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by psionl0 These are not conflicting answers unless your definition of "probably" means "greater than even chance". What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers?
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

9th January 2020, 08:36 AM	#146
Lithrael Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,992	Originally Posted by ynot What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers? I think it’s just a quirk of English that people don’t say something more like “I guess that’s improbably possible” instead of “I guess that’s probably possible.” Most of the time colloquially ’probably’ used like that indicates you’re not trying to shut down the other guy’s position, out of conversational politics, rather than indicating you think it’s actually more probable than improbable. Like “could be, could be...”

9th January 2020, 08:39 AM	#147
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,721	Ahhh yes... the weeds. And now we shall enter them. The argument will now be a constant, self feeding, snake eating it's own tail cluster of endless hairsplitting over intellectual probably, semantic nonsense of strong and weak beliefs, meaningless "Do you positively believe the thing exists or negatively believe the thing doesn't exist" and other such tripe.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

9th January 2020, 10:14 AM	#148
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 95,986	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Ahhh yes... the weeds. And now we shall enter them. The argument will now be a constant, self feeding, snake eating it's own tail cluster of endless hairsplitting over intellectual probably, semantic nonsense of strong and weak beliefs, meaningless "Do you positively believe the thing exists or negatively believe the thing doesn't exist" and other such tripe. Not but probably not not it will happen.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

9th January 2020, 11:58 AM	#149
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by ynot What's a definition of "probably" that makes them not conflicting answers? Originally Posted by Lithrael I think it’s just a quirk of English that people don’t say something more like “I guess that’s improbably possible” instead of “I guess that’s probably possible.” Most of the time colloquially ’probably’ used like that indicates you’re not trying to shut down the other guy’s position, out of conversational politics, rather than indicating you think it’s actually more probable than improbable. Like “could be, could be...” Is that meant to be a serious attempt at answering the question?
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

9th January 2020, 12:40 PM	#150
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,268	Originally Posted by Thor 2 You seem to be off with the fairies yet again. Just because the topic is about the silliness of religion, doesn't mean you can shoot off in all kinds of silly directions with the subject matter. On the contrary, it is the heart of the matter. You asserted that religion 'becomes just silly' when it includes the notion of a caring god who takes great interest in our activities (implying that it is not otherwise just silly). But if many other notions are also silly then why single out religion? Quote: The effectiveness of religion as a "force for good", has been argued in other threads. And it's relevant to this thread too, because you cannot dismiss an activity as 'just silly' if it is beneficial.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

9th January 2020, 07:26 PM	#151
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot You are presenting an argument in which they both could be talking about the same thing, so what's wrong with assuming they are? Are you saying they can't be talking about the same thing? But both talking about the same thing is, as you point out, a contradiction. So while it's possible that they're talking about the same thing, it's more likely that I was simply describing two different ways of saying something. The subject is unspecified. Okay, how about this. Do green cats exist? I think that they probably don't exist. Do deaf tortoiseshell cats exist? I think that they probably do exist. The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way. The second is likely - it certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility. So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the positive, even though you don't have proof either way. Thus, the statements "it probably exists" and "it probably doesn't exist" are not logically equivalent. QED.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

9th January 2020, 07:47 PM	#152
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot The first is unlikely - who's ever seen a green cat anyway? (psst) So you frame your statement such that you're affirming the negative, even though you don't have proof either way. Oh really? - GREEN CATS! - Mega fail!
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 9th January 2020 at 07:50 PM.

9th January 2020, 08:13 PM	#153
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot Oh really? - GREEN CATS! - Mega fail! Yeah. That's almost all the same one I linked to in my own post. Didn't you see it? The story is actually that the cat was dyed green in an accident with an industrial colouring agent. It's not naturally green. But it's my go-to in discussions about proving a negative so I thought I'd rope it in here.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

9th January 2020, 09:07 PM	#154
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Yeah. That's almost all the same one I linked to in my own post. Didn't you see it? The story is actually that the cat was dyed green in an accident with an industrial colouring agent. It's not naturally green. But it's my go-to in discussions about proving a negative so I thought I'd rope it in here. There’s no “naturally” in your go-to question “Do green cats exist?“. You need to be more precise if you want people to take you and your question seriously.
ynot Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,852	__________________ Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. Last edited by ynot; 9th January 2020 at 09:12 PM.

9th January 2020, 09:18 PM	#155
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,455	Originally Posted by ynot There’s no “naturally” in your go-to question “Do green cats exist?“. You need to be more precise if you want people to take you and your question seriously. Yes, that's true, I did gloss over that aspect of the argument. I didn't feel it was necessary to specify, but if I wanted to be precise, I should have.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.