Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Intuition and belief in God.

 Posts: 3,801 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PMPosted: 1 year agoStudies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?
 Posts: 51 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 7:11:22 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?I've already replied to this - so I have to re-reply :).I hated how the math was explained (Sorry I majored in math). But it's correct. A better explanation would be:Let x be the cost of a ballLet y be the cost of a batA ball and a bat cost \$1.1. Mathematically: x + y = 1.1 (equation 1)The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. Mathematically: y = x + 1 (eq2)Combining the 2 equations, we get:x + y = 1.1x + (x + 1) = 1.1 --> 2x + 1 = 1.1x = 0.05 (50 cents)y = x + 1 = 0.05 + 1 = 1.05Sorry - I just wanted a better explanation.I believe in God. But I don't believe that just because there's strong intuition that we think that God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that God actually exists.
 Posts: 7,891 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 7:14:11 PMPosted: 1 year agoI have a very strong intuition that an external world of material objects exists. It doesn't follow that it does exist because that intuition but it's going to take a damn good arguments to dissuade me (one that I haven't encountered).At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote: BLACK LIVES MATTER!
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 7:33:14 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:What if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?Ben, my compliments on taking a different line to your usual approach.I think our intuitions aren't as simple as just our feelings. I say this having worked in both the sciences and the arts, and therefore having had the chance to work with both technical and emotional creativity.Scientific intuitions require a scientific education and a lot of scientific experience. So the more good science you do, the better your intuitions get. And those intuitions may be perceived in part emotionally -- scientists often report nagging worries, curiosity and excitement just before they get some sort of insight.But the same is also true in the arts. For many years I participated in fiction-writing workshops, and discovered that (for example) you could learn what makes a sound idea for a story dramatically, and what makes an idea weak. So the better you could discriminate between a good story idea and a weak one, and the more examples you saw of each, the faster and more reliably you'd know whether a story idea would fly or not, before you actually developed it.So good intuitions are learnable -- and to some extent, even teachable -- in both the arts and the sciences.But our intuitions about cosmology and reality are based on what? Not so much extensive lived experience (we live for a double handful of decades at best, then die), but ideas, hopes and anxieties drawn from other experiences of life.There's no reason to trust intuitions that have never been trained to work reliably. And as numerous psychological studies show, intuitions based on ignorance are often less accurate than random guesses -- and we're likely to ignore this fact and trust them anyway. [Links available on request.]
 Posts: 4,886 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 8:34:40 PMPosted: 1 year agoIf intuitive belief in God is wrong then it is wrong. The question is how do we figure out whether it is right or wrong, and the answer is with evidence and rational scrutiny. That's probably the biggest point of debate, it's about digging deep within ourselves to understand what is driving our intuitions. And as we figure them out and scrutinize them our intuitions will adjust.
 Posts: 3,801 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/14/2015 9:34:23 PMPosted: 1 year agoI have a lot of intuitive reasons to believe in God. Can I prove them? No. They make sense to me though...(1) The natural world expresses an incomprehensible amount of information.Information: "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."The properties of an object is an expression of information. The color, weight, texture, density, boiling point, smell, taste, atomic structure, etc., etc., of an object is intrinsically informative. At the cellular level, DNA expresses information depending on very specific sequences of A,T,C, and G in a very complex framework.So, how come all of this information? Why not a simpler universe? Say, one that's only black and white? Why not a universe of just rocks? Why such rich, creative diversity in our universe? Why anything at all? It seems that if the universe had a mindless origin it should be very simplistic, uninformative, chaotic, and nonsensical.(2) How could *the idea* of God even exist if our imagination is limited to empirical experience? If we've never seen the color red, for example, we *can't possibly* imagine a red object. If we there is *no such thing* as something transcendent of the physical realm, how could we possibly even have an idea of something that transcends the physical realm? It seems that an idea of something "metaphysical" like God is like having the knowledge of red without ever seeing red.(3) How could we possibly make claims about the nature of reality if the universe had non-mental origins? The process of perceiving or conceiving reality is mental. A mental reality must've emerged from a non-mental state of affairs if God doesn't exist. If that's the case, a reality of the mind is illusory and a non-mental reality is fundamental. It seems that in order to make claims about reality, or at least a fundamental one, we must posit that it's mental.(4) Whatever caused the Big Bang seems to be a mathematical impossibility if God doesn't exist under both the A and B theory of time. Here's my reasoning:(A) The only means to action is inherent randomness, nothingness, or forces of natural law if we exclude an intelligent cause.(B) Inherent randomness, absolute nothingness, or forces of natural law all could only use a trial system of probability for any action to occur.(C) Given an infinite amount of trials, any probability above 0 for any action will inevitably occur.(D) Remember that the Big Bang is an action and that any number less than infinity is quantifiable.(E) Since the Big Bang occurred, the number of trials that preceded that action are quantifiable.(F) If something is quantifiable, it must have a BEGINNING (by counting the the amount of preceding trials that led up to that action) and thus, cannot be eternal. It's metaphysically impossible for something to BEGIN without a cause (because either it was caused *by* NOTHING or by a THING). So existence itself violates mathematical and logical possibility if God doesn't exist. How could does God avoid this problem? The means for action by an intelligent cause is by will, not inherent probability. So the only logically and mathematically possible thing that can explain existence is something that caused an action (like the Big Bang) by will.(5) It seems like ethical propositions like "burning someone alive is wrong" or "child abuse is wrong" is true. If something is true it means that it corresponds with reality. If it is actually true, in reality, that burning someone alive or child abuse is wrong then moral realism is affirmed. If moral realism is affirmed, then human beings have intrinsic ends. If human beings have intrinsic ends, it can't be true that human beings are inherently purposeless. If human beings aren't inherently purposeless, they must have some degree of inherent purpose. The only logically possible way for something to have any degree of *inherent* purpose is if the purpose of that person exists external to the human mind. Purpose can only be given by a mind. So a mind that exists externally to the human mind must exist if moral realism is affirmed.(6) If God does not exist, natural processes are intelligent in themselves. If complex forms of life, such as human beings, originated from a primordial soup of simple life forms without guidance from any intelligent cause, non-intelligent natural processes produce increasingly intelligent forms of life. It seems oxymoronic to call natural processes that produce increasingly intelligent forms of life "non-intelligent". If we created an automated manufacturing processes that produced increasingly sophisticated computer systems this would be the epitome of intelligent design.(7) If there is absolutely no inherent reason for anything that exists, evolution can't be cited as a process that explains vital organ function. A heart, for example, doesn't exist as a means for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body. It exists for absolutely no reason. Evolution, an unembodied processes, can explain HOW things came to be, but not WHY. If one asks, "what is the purpose, reason, or function of the heart?" we can only respond that the heart is a means for action. The heart is the means for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body, but it's also the means for thumping against the chest cavity and making "lub-dub" sounds. Objectively, there's no superior explanation for the function of the heart (like circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body) as there is for any action that the heart creates (like beating against the chest cavity or making noise). It seems incredibly implausible that the heart is just a means for action rather than acting as a means towards an end (sustaining the organism by circulating oxygenated blood). If the heart is a means towards an end, it must exist FOR a reason. Something can only be a means towards an end if it's given by an intelligent cause.(8) If God does not exist, the only means for action are deterministic processes. This means that "free will" is illusory. If so, why do we have such a strong illusion of it?(9) If consciousness derives from the brain, why does a dying brain tend to result in more vivid conscious experiences? It seems logical that not only can consciousness exist independent of the brain, but the conscious experience itself is more vivid.http://www.cnn.com...
 Posts: 161 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 1:43:15 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?You're wrong.Let x = the cost of the ball\$1.00 +x = \$1.10Subtract \$1.00 from each side (addition property of equality)x= \$.10
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:12:17 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 1:43:15 AM, Keltron wrote:At 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?You're wrong.Let x = the cost of the ball\$1.00 +x = \$1.10Subtract \$1.00 from each side (addition property of equality)x= \$.10Yeah. I agree with Keltron here. I don't understand either math or the logic the Blaze article is using.At first I thought it was a semantic issue, but now I realize it's not so . . . *throws hands in the air*
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:13:45 AMPosted: 1 year agoIt's also possible that the Blaze article is posting the argument all wrong. You'd have to go the university source to see if that's the case.
 Posts: 10,596 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:20:08 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 9:34:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:I have a lot of intuitive reasons to believe in God. Can I prove them? No. They make sense to me though...(1) The natural world expresses an incomprehensible amount of information.Information: "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."The properties of an object is an expression of information. The color, weight, texture, density, boiling point, smell, taste, atomic structure, etc., etc., of an object is intrinsically informative. At the cellular level, DNA expresses information depending on very specific sequences of A,T,C, and G in a very complex framework.So, how come all of this information? Why not a simpler universe? Say, one that's only black and white? Why not a universe of just rocks? Why such rich, creative diversity in our universe? Why anything at all? It seems that if the universe had a mindless origin it should be very simplistic, uninformative, chaotic, and nonsensical.(2) How could *the idea* of God even exist if our imagination is limited to empirical experience? If we've never seen the color red, for example, we *can't possibly* imagine a red object. If we there is *no such thing* as something transcendent of the physical realm, how could we possibly even have an idea of something that transcends the physical realm? It seems that an idea of something "metaphysical" like God is like having the knowledge of red without ever seeing red.(3) How could we possibly make claims about the nature of reality if the universe had non-mental origins? The process of perceiving or conceiving reality is mental. A mental reality must've emerged from a non-mental state of affairs if God doesn't exist. If that's the case, a reality of the mind is illusory and a non-mental reality is fundamental. It seems that in order to make claims about reality, or at least a fundamental one, we must posit that it's mental.(4) Whatever caused the Big Bang seems to be a mathematical impossibility if God doesn't exist under both the A and B theory of time. Here's my reasoning:(A) The only means to action is inherent randomness, nothingness, or forces of natural law if we exclude an intelligent cause.(B) Inherent randomness, absolute nothingness, or forces of natural law all could only use a trial system of probability for any action to occur.(C) Given an infinite amount of trials, any probability above 0 for any action will inevitably occur.(D) Remember that the Big Bang is an action and that any number less than infinity is quantifiable.(E) Since the Big Bang occurred, the number of trials that preceded that action are quantifiable.(F) If something is quantifiable, it must have a BEGINNING (by counting the the amount of preceding trials that led up to that action) and thus, cannot be eternal. It's metaphysically impossible for something to BEGIN without a cause (because either it was caused *by* NOTHING or by a THING). So existence itself violates mathematical and logical possibility if God doesn't exist. How could does God avoid this problem? The means for action by an intelligent cause is by will, not inherent probability. So the only logically and mathematically possible thing that can explain existence is something that caused an action (like the Big Bang) by will.(5) It seems like ethical propositions like "burning someone alive is wrong" or "child abuse is wrong" is true. If something is true it means that it corresponds with reality. If it is actually true, in reality, that burning someone alive or child abuse is wrong then moral realism is affirmed. If moral realism is affirmed, then human beings have intrinsic ends. If human beings have intrinsic ends, it can't be true that human beings are inherently purposeless. If human beings aren't inherently purposeless, they must have some degree of inherent purpose. The only logically possible way for something to have any degree of *inherent* purpose is if the purpose of that person exists external to the human mind. Purpose can only be given by a mind. So a mind that exists externally to the human mind must exist if moral realism is affirmed.(6) If God does not exist, natural processes are intelligent in themselves. If complex forms of life, such as human beings, originated from a primordial soup of simple life forms without guidance from any intelligent cause, non-intelligent natural processes produce increasingly intelligent forms of life. It seems oxymoronic to call natural processes that produce increasingly intelligent forms of life "non-intelligent". If we created an automated manufacturing processes that produced increasingly sophisticated computer systems this would be the epitome of intelligent design.(7) If there is absolutely no inherent reason for anything that exists, evolution can't be cited as a process that explains vital organ function. A heart, for example, doesn't exist as a means for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body. It exists for absolutely no reason. Evolution, an unembodied processes, can explain HOW things came to be, but not WHY. If one asks, "what is the purpose, reason, or function of the heart?" we can only respond that the heart is a means for action. The heart is the means for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body, but it's also the means for thumping against the chest cavity and making "lub-dub" sounds. Objectively, there's no superior explanation for the function of the heart (like circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body) as there is for any action that the heart creates (like beating against the chest cavity or making noise). It seems incredibly implausible that the heart is just a means for action rather than acting as a means towards an end (sustaining the organism by circulating oxygenated blood). If the heart is a means towards an end, it must exist FOR a reason. Something can only be a means towards an end if it's given by an intelligent cause.(8) If God does not exist, the only means for action are deterministic processes. This means that "free will" is illusory. If so, why do we have such a strong illusion of it?(9) If consciousness derives from the brain, why does a dying brain tend to result in more vivid conscious experiences? It seems logical that not only can consciousness exist independent of the brain, but the conscious experience itself is more vivid.http://www.cnn.com...You provided an overwhelming case for the existence of God. So where is God?Actually you have reduced God to logical axioms. Logically God exists. Now try asking God something, anything like a cure for cancer. No try to explain why you are logically stumped.
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:39:18 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 2:12:17 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:At 6/15/2015 1:43:15 AM, Keltron wrote:At 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?You're wrong.Let x = the cost of the ball\$1.00 +x = \$1.10Subtract \$1.00 from each side (addition property of equality)x= \$.10Yeah. I agree with Keltron here. I don't understand either math or the logic the Blaze article is using.At first I thought it was a semantic issue, but now I realize it's not so . . . *throws hands in the air*Nevermind! I understand the math now in the Blaze article.In order for the bat to be a dollar more than the ball, if the cost of the two combined is \$1.10, that means you would have to use the formulax + ( x + 1)where x is the price of the ball and x + 1 is the price of the bat!Now it makes perfect sense!My mistake!
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:41:06 AMPosted: 1 year agoThe equation is:price of bat + price of ball = \$1.10orx + (x + 1) = \$1.10The Blaze article is totally right! My mistake!
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 2:42:56 AMPosted: 1 year agoWell, at least we now know why Obama's Presidency is such a wreck!
 Posts: 2,144 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 3:15:53 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?My intuition, which has served me quite well up to now, indicates that the Biblical deity is a human creation, as are the deities of all religions!
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 8:36:41 AMPosted: 1 year agoDid anyone read the actual paper?One funny note is that in the first study, "intuition" is measured by how many incorrect answers were given on a particular kind of math test (where there are initially compelling "intuitive" answers, unless you think about the problem first). Number of incorrect answers on the math test correlated strongly with various religious beliefs.A good control measure for that study would be a regular math test (not designed to have initially compelling "intuitive" answers). Do incorrect responses on a regular math test also correlate with religious beliefs? Is that correlation significantly higher for the "intuition math test" versus the "regular math test"? WIth the results from study 2, one might expect the relationship to hold, but this is still an important control condition that you would normally see in an experiment.
 Posts: 4,472 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 8:49:47 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 1:43:15 AM, Keltron wrote:At 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Studies have shown that people with strong intuition are more likely to believe in God. http://www.apa.org...I'm a highly intuitive person myself and find it impossibly difficult to wrap my mind around the possibility that this universe had a mindless origin. Could my intuitions be false? Of course.Take the following problem: A bat and a ball cost \$1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.How much does the ball cost?...If your answer was ten cents, you were wrong. It's five cents. Ten cents is intuitive, but wrong. Here's the solution algebraically:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10\$1.00 + 2x = \$1.102x = \$1.10 - \$1.002x = \$0.10Finally, solve for x:x = \$0.05.http://www.theblaze.com...So what if intuitive belief in God is wrong just like an intuitive answer to this math problem is wrong? On the other hand, don't we have examples of our intuitions being correct? A gut feeling?What're your thoughts on this?You're wrong.Let x = the cost of the ball\$1.00 +x = \$1.10Subtract \$1.00 from each side (addition property of equality)x= \$.10Unfortunately they are right.x = cost of the ballx+1.00 = cost of the batx + x + 1.00 = 1.102x + 1.00 = 1.102x= 1.10 - 1.002x = .10x = .10/2x = .051.10 - .05 = .05Intuition can and often does fail. There's another little story problem that show this as well if you're interested.
 Posts: 161 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 9:07:37 AMPosted: 1 year agox + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10Where do you get two x's? There is only one ball, so there is only one x. x (the price of the ball) + \$1.00= \$1.10. Not x + x + \$1.00. Again, one x, one ball.
 Posts: 161 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 9:10:47 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 2:41:06 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:The equation is:price of bat + price of ball = \$1.10orx + (x + 1) = \$1.10The Blaze article is totally right! My mistake!You need to check your math. See my post above this one.
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 9:22:51 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 9:07:37 AM, Keltron wrote:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10Where do you get two x's? There is only one ball, so there is only one x. x (the price of the ball) + \$1.00= \$1.10. Not x + x + \$1.00. Again, one x, one ball.Review some of the other posts. You're incorrect on this one.The sum of the costs of the ball and the bat are 1.10, and the bat is 1 dollar more than the ball.If the ball was 0.10, then the bat must be 1.10, and the sum cost is 1.20. So your solution doesn't work.The correct way to model it is as follows:x := price of bally := price of baty = x + 1.00x + y = 1.10x + (x + 1.00) = 1.102x + 1 = 1.102x = 0.10x = 0.05ORx = y - 1.00x + y = 1.10(y--1) + y = 1.102y = 2.10y = 1.05The price of the ball is 0.05, the price of the bat is 1.05.
 Posts: 4,472 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 9:34:29 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 9:07:37 AM, Keltron wrote:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10Where do you get two x's? There is only one ball, so there is only one x. x (the price of the ball) + \$1.00= \$1.10. Not x + x + \$1.00. Again, one x, one ball.Dude, x is the price of the ball. The problem states that the bat costs \$1.00 more than the ball. That would be x+1.00 Together they equal \$1.10. So.The price of the ball and the price of the bat total \$1. 10.x + x+\$1.00 = \$1.10x+x+\$1.00 = \$1.10x+x = \$1.10-\$100x+x = \$0.102x = \$0.10x = \$0.10/2x = \$0.05so the cost of the ball is \$0.05. Add \$1.00 to that as stated in the original problem and you get the price of the bat at \$1.05. Add the two prices together and you will get \$1.10.If the ball cost \$0.10 and you add a dollar to that, it would be \$1.10 and the total would be \$1.20.Hope that clears it up.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 9:40:19 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:What're your thoughts on this?My intuition is when someone ask me a basic math problem like that there must be a trick to it so whatever leaps to mind immediately is wrong and needs to be double checked.
 Posts: 2,140 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 11:20:45 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 9:40:19 AM, Floid wrote:At 6/14/2015 6:34:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:What're your thoughts on this?My intuition is when someone ask me a basic math problem like that there must be a trick to it so whatever leaps to mind immediately is wrong and needs to be double checked.^this.: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote: : : space contradicts logic
 Posts: 4,472 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 12:17:33 PMPosted: 1 year agoOK, so now we've solved the problem of the cost of the ball and bat. What does this have to do with belief in your god?
 Posts: 2,589 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 12:47:33 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 12:17:33 PM, dhardage wrote:OK, so now we've solved the problem of the cost of the ball and bat. What does this have to do with belief in your god?Probably that human mind is quick to grab an answer that appears reasonable subconsciously, which makes us "feel" like it's the right answer. Our brains are pattern-seeking, and are developed to quickly absorb information that could readily aid in the prediction of future events, because patterns help us predict it. (http://www.patterns.psychologytribe.com...)40254912475616263610The above string of numbers was typed and then I deleted every other number to promote randomness. Looking at these numbers, I would guess that the three evenly spaced 4's or the four evenly spaced 6's should have attracted the most attention from your brain.Anyway, this necessary drive to find useful information creates the need for cognitive closure in which the mind does not sit well with not having an answer. This leads our minds to grasp at ideas that appear plausible on a glance without the need to look at it logically. (http://www.newyorker.com...)Furthermore, once a belief is acquired and accepted, it is often difficult to change it, even when it is shown to be wrong. This stubbornness of our minds is referred to as belief perseverance. (http://psychologydictionary.org...)
 Posts: 400 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 1:08:53 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 9:07:37 AM, Keltron wrote:x + (\$1.00 + x) = \$1.10Where do you get two x's? There is only one ball, so there is only one x. x (the price of the ball) + \$1.00= \$1.10. Not x + x + \$1.00. Again, one x, one ball.x + y = 1.10, x being the bat, y being the bally = x + 1.00Substitute 'y' in the first equation for its equivalent in the second, and you get:x + x + 1.00 = 1.10To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 1:26:39 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 12:17:33 PM, dhardage wrote:OK, so now we've solved the problem of the cost of the ball and bat. What does this have to do with belief in your god?In the original paper, study 1 showed a strong positive correlation between getting these basic math problems wrong (jumping to what seems like the immediate intuitive answer) and belief in a god.Also what Chaosism wrote was useful.
 Posts: 4,472 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 1:52:09 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 1:26:39 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:At 6/15/2015 12:17:33 PM, dhardage wrote:OK, so now we've solved the problem of the cost of the ball and bat. What does this have to do with belief in your god?In the original paper, study 1 showed a strong positive correlation between getting these basic math problems wrong (jumping to what seems like the immediate intuitive answer) and belief in a god.Also what Chaosism wrote was useful.Thanks.
 Posts: 2,396 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 4:14:01 PMPosted: 1 year agoThread about intuition turns into a thread about mathematics. Good ol religion forum.#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica #WarOnDDO
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/15/2015 4:33:59 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/15/2015 4:14:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:Thread about intuition turns into a thread about mathematics. Good ol religion forum.It's like grade 3 mathematics, so no worries.