Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Izbo's Philosophy Class: G.O.G...

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:48:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
False dichotomies and probabilities and reasonable...

All to often on this board I have learned the hard way that the God of the gaps fallacy and dichotomies, mixed with probability theory is over peoples heads. Lets learn about these things here. Many times over I have presented that a argument for god could lead to many other supernatural explanations. This has been said not to be a valid defense here. That is ignorance at its finest. Lets see what that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...

So, if other answers could be the answer and you are just filling in god you are doing a god of the gaps fallacy. This is true of the cosmological argument and most teological arguments. Once we establish this, we find that there is a whole set of possible supernatural explanations we could fill in, such as maranimacons to use my example since everyone hates that one. Once we see that there is a set of possible answers and no nothing else about the likelihood of any of the answers, it is completely relevant to say that it is unreasonable to just pick one. Why because get this if I put numbers in a hat and said that all numbers from 1 to a 100 is represented, it is not reasonable to believe I will draw a 3, because the odds don't seem to be there. You cannot know that. IT is basic probability. At this point all numbers appear to have even odds, this may not actually be the case, but based on the information you have you only have 1 out of a 100 chance of being right. That is not reasonable to believe you are right. Nor is it reasonable to believe in the christian god when the universe could have been created by maranimacons, thor,zeus, allah, Jew Yahweh, Pinky the IPU, the flying spaghetti monster, trolls, pixies.... the list goes on and on.

Until you present other arguments these are all on even footing, we could use a pixies of the gaps argument to put pixies as the creators of the universe. That reasoning is still not reasonable because other possible beings are on the same footing. Using the list I created you would at best have a 1 in 9 chance of being right, so to be believe you are right by picking a god or pixies for that matter is completely ignorant. You will be wrong 8 out of at least 9 times, probably more, considering my example is not the true dichotomy of possible answers, its is slimmed down for the point of example. If you are reasonable you believe things that are most likely true, and get this something that is probably not true is very relevant to that.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:48:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
False dichotomies and probabilities and reasonable...

All to often on this board I have learned the hard way that the God of the gaps fallacy and dichotomies, mixed with probability theory is over peoples heads. Lets learn about these things here. Many times over I have presented that a argument for god could lead to many other supernatural explanations. This has been said not to be a valid defense here. That is ignorance at its finest. Lets see what that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...


So, if other answers could be the answer and you are just filling in god you are doing a god of the gaps fallacy. This is true of the cosmological argument and most teological arguments. Once we establish this, we find that there is a whole set of possible supernatural explanations we could fill in, such as maranimacons to use my example since everyone hates that one. Once we see that there is a set of possible answers and no nothing else about the likelihood of any of the answers, it is completely relevant to say that it is unreasonable to just pick one. Why because get this if I put numbers in a hat and said that all numbers from 1 to a 100 is represented, it is not reasonable to believe I will draw a 3, because the odds don't seem to be there. You cannot know that. IT is basic probability. At this point all numbers appear to have even odds, this may not actually be the case, but based on the information you have you only have 1 out of a 100 chance of being right. That is not reasonable to believe you are right. Nor is it reasonable to believe in the christian god when the universe could have been created by maranimacons, thor,zeus, allah, Jew Yahweh, Pinky the IPU, the flying spaghetti monster, trolls, pixies.... the list goes on and on.

Until you present other arguments these are all on even footing, we could use a pixies of the gaps argument to put pixies as the creators of the universe. That reasoning is still not reasonable because other possible beings are on the same footing. Using the list I created you would at best have a 1 in 9 chance of being right, so to be believe you are right by picking a god or pixies for that matter is completely ignorant. You will be wrong 8 out of at least 9 times, probably more, considering my example is not the true dichotomy of possible answers, its is slimmed down for the point of example. If you are reasonable you believe things that are most likely true, and get this something that is probably not true is very relevant to that.

The fundamental problem with this argument is that you are assuming that it is equally likely that God and pixies made the universe. This is not necessarily true.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:20:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 2:03:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/10/2011 9:48:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
False dichotomies and probabilities and reasonable...

All to often on this board I have learned the hard way that the God of the gaps fallacy and dichotomies, mixed with probability theory is over peoples heads. Lets learn about these things here. Many times over I have presented that a argument for god could lead to many other supernatural explanations. This has been said not to be a valid defense here. That is ignorance at its finest. Lets see what that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...


So, if other answers could be the answer and you are just filling in god you are doing a god of the gaps fallacy. This is true of the cosmological argument and most teological arguments. Once we establish this, we find that there is a whole set of possible supernatural explanations we could fill in, such as maranimacons to use my example since everyone hates that one. Once we see that there is a set of possible answers and no nothing else about the likelihood of any of the answers, it is completely relevant to say that it is unreasonable to just pick one. Why because get this if I put numbers in a hat and said that all numbers from 1 to a 100 is represented, it is not reasonable to believe I will draw a 3, because the odds don't seem to be there. You cannot know that. IT is basic probability. At this point all numbers appear to have even odds, this may not actually be the case, but based on the information you have you only have 1 out of a 100 chance of being right. That is not reasonable to believe you are right. Nor is it reasonable to believe in the christian god when the universe could have been created by maranimacons, thor,zeus, allah, Jew Yahweh, Pinky the IPU, the flying spaghetti monster, trolls, pixies.... the list goes on and on.

Until you present other arguments these are all on even footing, we could use a pixies of the gaps argument to put pixies as the creators of the universe. That reasoning is still not reasonable because other possible beings are on the same footing. Using the list I created you would at best have a 1 in 9 chance of being right, so to be believe you are right by picking a god or pixies for that matter is completely ignorant. You will be wrong 8 out of at least 9 times, probably more, considering my example is not the true dichotomy of possible answers, its is slimmed down for the point of example. If you are reasonable you believe things that are most likely true, and get this something that is probably not true is very relevant to that.

The fundamental problem with this argument is that you are assuming that it is equally likely that God and pixies made the universe. This is not necessarily true.

It is equally probable based on the 2 arguments, further information would be needed to make one more probable then the other, for instance pixies are more likely because the more complex something is, the more likely it comes from multiple causes and pixies would be multiple causes. Inductive reasoning rules the day. The god excuse is not only a argument from ignorance/god of the gaps it is a appeal to a singular cause fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:48:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
False dichotomies and probabilities and reasonable...

All to often on this board I have learned the hard way that the God of the gaps fallacy and dichotomies, mixed with probability theory is over peoples heads. Lets learn about these things here. Many times over I have presented that a argument for god could lead to many other supernatural explanations. This has been said not to be a valid defense here. That is ignorance at its finest. Lets see what that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...


So, if other answers could be the answer and you are just filling in god you are doing a god of the gaps fallacy. This is true of the cosmological argument and most teological arguments. Once we establish this, we find that there is a whole set of possible supernatural explanations we could fill in, such as maranimacons to use my example since everyone hates that one. Once we see that there is a set of possible answers and no nothing else about the likelihood of any of the answers, it is completely relevant to say that it is unreasonable to just pick one. Why because get this if I put numbers in a hat and said that all numbers from 1 to a 100 is represented, it is not reasonable to believe I will draw a 3, because the odds don't seem to be there. You cannot know that. IT is basic probability. At this point all numbers appear to have even odds, this may not actually be the case, but based on the information you have you only have 1 out of a 100 chance of being right. That is not reasonable to believe you are right. Nor is it reasonable to believe in the christian god when the universe could have been created by maranimacons, thor,zeus, allah, Jew Yahweh, Pinky the IPU, the flying spaghetti monster, trolls, pixies.... the list goes on and on.

Until you present other arguments these are all on even footing, we could use a pixies of the gaps argument to put pixies as the creators of the universe. That reasoning is still not reasonable because other possible beings are on the same footing. Using the list I created you would at best have a 1 in 9 chance of being right, so to be believe you are right by picking a god or pixies for that matter is completely ignorant. You will be wrong 8 out of at least 9 times, probably more, considering my example is not the true dichotomy of possible answers, its is slimmed down for the point of example. If you are reasonable you believe things that are most likely true, and get this something that is probably not true is very relevant to that.

These posts make me LOL
Thank you for voting!