Math Unites Atheists and Believers

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there is nothing beyond the Universe or that I know how it started. But that does not mean I must somehow leave room for the fact that a 'higher being' may have started it. I just don't see the connection. And it is pointless to try. I do indeed reject that possibility do to lack of evidence (and logic). Your original post was about assigning a number to one's level of belief or lack of. I simply want it known that on that scale I am a Zero -period.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I was not the OP.

2. You stated: "NO CHANCE THE UNIVERSE WAS INFLUENCED BY A HIGHER BEING - PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!" This implies that you are the one making the claim, not the one rejecting a claim. You cannot logically make a claim for which you cannot support.

3. The fact that you fail to see any difference between "I believe there is no god..." and "I do not believe there is a god..." suggests that further discussion of this topic with you is futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Sorry about that.

2. Never really stated that this was a claim - just my answer to a question the OP had asked me. An order for something to be considered scientifically it must be refutable. The existence of god is not so it is not an issue that can be considered scientifically. But that does not mean one can't have an opinion on the issue one way or the other. Nor does it mean you can't be 100% certain in your opinion.

3. You are right - I don't understand the semantic difference and I graduated 2nd in my class.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
For me, the probability that God of the bible exists is 0. Absolute 0. The probability of a personal God who interacts with world or people in any way, is absolute 0. The probability that Jesus was some messenger of God is absolute 0. The probability that a higher, universal power of some kind exists is about 10% for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this universal power have an intelligence?

[ QUOTE ]
3. You are right - I don't understand the semantic difference and I graduated 2nd in my class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant difference between claiming "I believe there is no God based on the evidence" versus rejecting a claim with "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence."

Why?

If you say "I believe there is no god", then the burden of proof is on you to support such a claim. If you say "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence" then you are rejecting a claim based on the evidence rather than making your own claim. Like I said before, you cannot make a claim which you can't support with data, but you can certainly reject a claim which is not supported by data.

This is like a statistics hypothesis test.

Hypothesis: P(creator beyond the universe) > X
(i.e., probability of a creator is greater than some number X, where X is greater than 0)

You may be able to reject this hypothesis due to lack of data, no matter what number for X you choose.

But this is not the same as proving the hypothesis: P(creator beyond the universe) = 0.

I know it's easy to say "what's the difference", but it is a real difference! Confusing [rejecting a hypothesis] with [proving its alternative] is a misapplication of the scientific method and logical deduction, and is at the root of much junk science that gets bantered about.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
If you say "I believe there is no god", then the burden of proof is on you to support such a claim. If you say "I do not believe there is a god based on the evidence" then you are rejecting a claim based on the evidence rather than making your own claim. Like I said before, you cannot make a claim which you can't support with data, but you can certainly reject a claim which is not supported by data.


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept this difference and thank you for the explanation - it has been 'fun' talking to you. Have a good weekend.

[RJT]

This is wrong:

[ QUOTE ]
My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


You cannot say “...there is no chance of a god...” and then qualify it with “in my opinion”.

You can say “...there is absolutely no chance of a god.”; but then you have to be able to back up that statement with a logical proof.

You can also say “I believe there is no chance of a god.” That is akin to saying I believe in any particular theory, for example “ I believe that the theory of evolution is correct.”

You can say even this, if you wanted to, “I am 100% certain that there is no god.” But, then, quoting John Lennon, “…you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.” That is to say your credibility would be shot. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in a belief.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong:

[ QUOTE ]
My number would be exactly zero - there is absolutely no chance of a god in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


You cannot say “...there is no chance of a god...” and then qualify it with “in my opinion”.

You can say “...there is absolutely no chance of a god.”; but then you have to be able to back up that statement with a logical proof.

You can also say “I believe there is no chance of a god.” That is akin to saying I believe in any particular theory, for example “ I believe that the theory of evolution is correct.”

You can say even this, if you wanted to, “I am 100% certain that there is no god.” But, then, quoting John Lennon, “…you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.” That is to say your credibility would be shot. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. I always laugh at people who say you can't be 100% certain of something. Why, because you say so. You can be 100% certain about something and yet be totally wrong. It is how you feel about something not whether it is true or not. To imply that I can't be certain implies that I have some doubt no matter how small. But I do not. Do you need to do a mind meld with me to prove it?

As for the John Lennon song - what are you saying? Every one of my friends (and I have quite a few) know how I feel about God. That has not hurt me in the least. It has never hurt me in my love life or at work. I make more than 95% of all engineers in the country (according to the latest EE times poll). And everyone knows what an avid atheist I am.
Who is my credibility shot with - you???

This is why I need David for my running mate in 2008! Everyone believes in math.

[David Sklansky]

The amazing thing about this thread is that I would have laid 100-1 that the disputer would be someone who said the probability was exactly one in his mind rather than exactly zero.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. I always laugh at people who say you can't be 100% certain of something. Why, because you say so. You can be 100% certain about something and yet be totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t really want to make a big issue about it.

In hindsight, I think my tone might have come across as terse. I didn’t mean it how it might if sounded, so I apologize if I can across as terse.

But, I am 99.99 ad infinitum % certain that I am correct.

I did not say that someone can’t be 100% certain of something.

One can be 100% certain of facts, proven math formulas and the like.

One cannot be certain of anything subjective. One can have an almost certainty about just about any opinion one chooses.

One can have an opinion he is 99.99..ad infinitum % confident in. So, long as the words ad infinitum are not omitted.

But to say one is 100% certain in something that is not proven or verifiable is improper use of the English language.

If you insist on saying that you are 100% certain in anything that is a subjective opinion literally makes no sense is all.

Are you so sure I am incorrect? I have already admitted that I am only 99.99 ad infinitum % confident in what I said. And this isn’t even an opinion matter - the subject of who is correct here is verifiable.

[chezlaw]

Can be I be pedantic for a moment (clearly I can [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

100% certain is a a grammatical tautology

99% certain is an oxymoron

chez