txaq007's Inescapable Error

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
"You can "be convinced" by taking an objective look at the evidence."

Then why do you think that over 90% of the people who have IQs above 130 and know math, physics, chemistry, biology, logic, and probability, well, and who have taken an objective look, are not convinced?

[/ QUOTE ]

because conviction deals with intelligence that doesn't necessarily rest on scientific proofs, or irrefutable facts, or cold logic.

what do you get out of all of this, i wonder? are you a mathematical missionary? do you feel some moral obligation to set us all straight? are you an arrogant man who needs to prove his intellect superior? are you still trying to convince yourself that God doesn't exist and that Faith is stupid by repeating the set of facts that correspond to the criteria you've set up as sufficient proof against these things? maybe some part of you says that there is a chance you're wrong, but you can't bear to live with that possibility?

regarding the 3 statements (100% certainty, lack of 100% proof, not being close-minded):

i think it is not necessary for the poster to be 100% certain. Jesus addressed doubt in relation to Faith in many places. there is no rule or mandate that says you have to be 100% certain to be a christian. you are not 'bad' because you have doubts. faith and doubt must coexist. the existence of doubt is not a negation of faith, but rather a byproduct. faith is a working, dynamic understanding.

think about this. let's say you are playing no limit holdem. you know your opponent is pretty tight, and you've read him for a weak hand. you don't have much, but you think you can get him to fold. you don't know 100% that he will, but you have enough faith that he will fold to bet into him on the river. this is a form of faith. you are not 100% sure, but you are sure enough to act.

[David Sklansky]

"Or maybe you're just saying the smartest people aren't convinced, so neither should we be?"

That was exactly what I was saying. As to your other point it is irrelevant that high IQ people are often wrong. Flat earth is a terrible example. Because low IQ people thought the same thing. What is relevant is when high IQ people disagree with low IQ people. What's the line then?

[David Sklansky]

You are right as usual. But his original statements implied that his 100% certainty relied only on arguments he was espousing.

[David Sklansky]

"I am not well versed in mathematical proofs, so I am wondering from others on the site if there are indeed mathematical certainties that cannot be proved. Anyone?"

No. Period.

[RJT]

Lestat,

You are exactly right when you say, “You caught him in an error of words, but not in logic.”

You are mistaken though when you say, “Unfortunately for him, if I'm not mistaken, he can't do this and remain a Christian. So he must retain his 100% belief status.” All Christians have moments of doubt. Even Jesus, had his moment of doubt on the cross.

Txaq007 is guilty of bad English is all.

RJT

[RJT]

David,

For the record:

33% of the world’s population is Christian.
21% Islamic.
14% Hindu.

If we broke this down to educated folk (not intelligent) would I be presumptuous to suggest that these numbers mean that close to 40% of the of the world’s educated people are Christian?

Another fact: 40% of scientists believe in a God. Does this suggest that because 60% don’t, then the odds weigh in favor of no God, because most high IQ folk think so?

I am not challenging your basic point regarding because most high IQ think no to Christianity, etc. - I agree with it probability speaking, it makes sense - I am just wondering what do you think of these statistics.

(I would suggest, though, that none of this gets us too far either way without knowing the percentages of scientist who have actually studied religions “to the same extent…” )




RJT

[RJT]

I should modify this to say he has error in words. I haven't really read all that he wrote to give an opinion on the logic part.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
here is why I think that txaq is still on solid ground, it is the fact that the second premise is that there is not 100% proof he can give to you. Think of the following example.

Imagine you are in a room that is painted blue with a blind person, you tell the blind person that you are 100% certain the room is blue, but due to the fact that he is blind you cannot offer him 100% proof. I think we would say that there is nothing about your claim that the room is blue and that you are 100% certain of that belief even though you cannot give any proof to your blind friend.

Similarly, txaq's argument is that the proof he has is epistemically inaccessable to you, as you cannot access his personal experience that counts as proof for him. In this way txaq can be open minded, be 100% certain, and unable to give 100% proof, the reason is that the possible proof he could give you is epistemically inaccesable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good explanation but it still leaves the problems I raised. The blind person has no reason to support a 100% belief the room is blue unless he trusts his friend 100%. If the blind person is unaware that he is at a disadvantage then that would be an unsupportable level of trust. Only the experience of blueness could provide the certainty needed.

Secondly, if the experience of blueness conveys 100% certainty about the room being blue then all other evidence is irrelevent - nothing is going to persuade you the room isn't blue. So, it is the experience not the evidence that is needed for 100% certainty. No experience no certainty.

One other thing. The reason experiencing blueness convinces you the room is blue is there is no gap between the two - its blue if the sensation you experience is blueness. Can there be an experience that conveyes the divinity of god? Assuming you have some experience how do you know it wasn't caused by a non-divine god using some advanced science?

chez

[Kripke]

[ QUOTE ]
"I am not well versed in mathematical proofs, so I am wondering from others on the site if there are indeed mathematical certainties that cannot be proved. Anyone?"

No. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, very interesting David...

How do you explain something like Godel's incompleteness theorems? And I guess you then know that i.e. the Goldbach conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis are provable or are they not mathematical certainties?

And I guess the continuum hypothesis is then a mathematical certainty? Or how does that work?

For someone who keeps insisting on the power of mathematics and logic it seems you know very little about these disciplines.

- Kripke

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat,

You are exactly right when you say, “You caught him in an error of words, but not in logic.”

You are mistaken though when you say, “Unfortunately for him, if I'm not mistaken, he can't do this and remain a Christian. So he must retain his 100% belief status.” All Christians have moments of doubt. Even Jesus, had his moment of doubt on the cross.

Txaq007 is guilty of bad English is all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi

We're not talking about moments of doubt but a persistant acceptance that christian may have got the whole thing wrong.

If you can be christian and accept that, for example, god may not be divine then the charge of close-mindedness is withdrawn. Is christianity compatible with such open mindedness?

chez