Txag Basically Right-Non Mathematical Atheists Basically Wrong

[David Sklansky]

Txaq was derided by atheists on another thread for saying:

"There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it."

I maintain that if you fix this a little bit, the statement is correct. Change Jesus to God, eliminate the specific comment about dying for your sins, and change the word "conspiracy", which implies knowingly making up things, to "thousands of people fudging data to keep stories in line with known fact". Do that and I agree with the statment.

In other words I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

Of course where txaq AND mathematically unsophisticated atheists get confused is that admitting txaq's statement is correct doesn't change the fact that the conspiracy theory is probably the right one. BAYE'S THEOREM. How many times do I have to tell you?

If every time you ask my cat an algebra question with a one digit answer, she taps the ground correctly, whether I am there or not. And the only possible way that could happen, aside from her really knowing algebra, is that I spent years searching the world for the best surgeons to implant listening and transmitting devices in her body, THEN THATS (almost certainly) WHAT I DID. As unlikely or ridiculous as it seems. Unless there is any reason to believe that cats might conceivably be able to answer algebra problems.

Notice two things about the analogy above. One is that it isn't as ridiculous as it appears for me to hire those surgeons, if my performing cat makes me wealthy. Similarly a conspiracy of sorts regarding the bible might not be quite as farfetched as one may be first inclined to think.

On the other hand remember that Baye's Theorem is about ratios of probabilities. So if one were ever to discover a cat that could play chess for real, one should immediately start believing that my cat can do algebra. Which is why I say that if even one serious miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out and out favorite. For reasons very similar to txaq's.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly a conspiracy of sorts regarding the bible might not be quite as farfetched as one may be first inclined to think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only not far fetched but as fit ideas evolve and persist very readily and religon is very fit, its just about inevitable that complex religons exists. Its fairly obvious that the fitness of religous belief isn't related to the truth of those beliefs.

edit: I havn't followed recent TX's posts much but where I suspect your wrong in defending him is the idea that religon is in anyway less likely if god doesn't exist (or significantly less likely for the nonmaths phobic).

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Seems correct to me. But I think you also need to replace "faith in the hope" with reason, or rational thought. Entirely different things.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I maintain that if you fix this a little bit, the statement is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2=5 ( Hey, if we just make that '4', then the guy is basically right !)

oh, uh, ok.. luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I say that if even one serious miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out and out favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so we're clear -
Let's not have any confusion between "an event occurred" and "a miracle was totally proven".

Ok, I'll admit it ... I don't know what 'proving a miracle occurred' would consist of. It always seems a simple Gap claim ..period.

In the feline example, claims that the cat was channelling einstein are not proven by our finding no implants, brain modifications, etc, you actually have to prove she was channelling einstein. That the cat seems able to do algebra contrary to every view we have of cats does not make anything 'true' other than our view of cats was wrong.. her cousin chessing it up in the other room is just evidence of the same thing. Do I have to find a second platypus?

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

I meant proving that the event occurred at all. Txaq contends that the bible makes all these accurate predictions hundreds of years beforehand. I'm will to concede that these predictions are miraculous. If it really happened.

[MidGe]

In which way do the bible "prophesies" differs from Nostadamuses? In both case the statements are so ambiguous that it is easy to make them fit some facts. Nostradamus seems more consistent than the bible even, to those who "believe".

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand remember that Baye's Theorem is about ratios of probabilities. So if one were ever to discover a cat that could play chess for real, one should immediately start believing that my cat can do algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Aren't you missing the first qualifying criteria (i.e. the first cat?) Since that hasn't been proven, you can't draw the obvious conclusion. Without a fixed point, all you're doing is assigning relative probabilities.

And that's not good enough. You'll have to go back in time to get that qualifying criteria. Even if something significant happens in the future, it can be anticipated as a solution that is shaped to fit the situation, much as many of Nostradamus' prophecies were.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. This is how effective religions are selected for; they psychologically arm their believers to effectively combat their own reason, and shape their world to fit the religion rather than the religion to fit their world.

Do you think a religion that did otherwise could last thousands of years and spread itself to billions of people?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In which way do the bible "prophesies" differs from Nostadamuses? In both case the statements are so ambiguous that it is easy to make them fit some facts. Nostradamus seems more consistent than the bible even, to those who "believe".

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter that the prophesies are so vague and unsubstantiable, just that if they were true then it would be hugely significant.

Evolutionary ideas explain religon easily but I cannot imagine how they or anything else that wasn't a significant intelligence capable of miraculous tricks (by our standards) could explain accurate prophesies.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter that the prophesies are so vague and unsubstantiable,... .............................
................

....could explain accurate prophesies.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"Of course. This is how effective religions are selected for; they psychologically arm their believers to effectively combat their own reason, and shape their world to fit the religion rather than the religion to fit their world.

Do you think a religion that did otherwise could last thousands of years and spread itself to billions of people? "

Again these arguments allow for counter arguments. Txaq said that the Bible makes hundreds of specific accurate predictions about the future. Sceptics say that the explanation is not that the predictions are vague but rather that they were written after the fact. Txaq says that would require a farfetched conspiracy. I say that such a conspiracy is much more likely than something having the supernatural ability to predict the future since there is no mechanism for it and it has never happenned.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it."

[/ QUOTE ]This txaq statement is a correct statement, but only in broad terms because it needs corrections and more exactitude. Sklansky took care of some, but not all. Let me address the term "conspiracy".

Suppose I proclaim that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy undertaken by Lee Harvey Oswald, Nikita Kruchev, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Giancana and De Gaulle working together.

Suppose now that evidence is independently discovered that indicates, with a significantly high probability, that there was actually a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, involving Lee Harwey Oswald "and other men".

Does this evidence make my own personal theory about a conspiracy involving the above-mentioned guys more probable - and, if so, how much more probable?

[ QUOTE ]
BAYE'S THEOREM. How many times do I have to tell you?

[/ QUOTE ] That's right but with one caveat: We have first to assign the proper prior probabilities.

Let's work with mutually exclusive scenarios on the JFK example:
Theory A = My own theory.
Theory B = Conspiracy between LHO and Nikita Kruschev.
Theory C = There was no conspiracy. LHO acted alone.

Just assume that these are the only possible scenarios.

Obviously, Theory C goes way down a posteriori. But what about the other two theories, each involving a conspiracy? Well, as a whole they do go up and a conspiracy does become the overwhelming favorite, but that doesn't mean that my pet theory is now the favorite!

And this is because my personal theory was the overwhelming dog to begin with. The evidence against my theory is clearly, overwhelmingly against me: Those guys would likely not co-operate in any form or manner for anything.

In the Jesus/Bible scenario, it works like this:

Theory A = There is no Jesus Christ. There has been a a MASSIVE amount of "co-operation" to lie to people over the centuries. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to Man.
Theory B = There is no Jesus Christ. People are gullible in matter of religious beliefs. No need for such a large conspiracy, a minimum of effort and a lot of bloodshed is needed, mostly. And miracles are performed daily by Indian gurus, street magicians and Blackjack mechanics.
Theory C = There is a Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, precisely as the Bible prescribes.

Suppose now that evidence is discovered that shows that someone like Jesus Christ most probably never walked this Earth. Then Theory C goes way down in value. But it is now more likely that Theory B is correct rather than A, because (I dare submit) it is far more likely a priori than Theory A.

[ QUOTE ]
[Suppose] every time you ask my cat an algebra question with a one digit answer, she taps the ground correctly, whether I am there or not. And the only possible way that could happen, aside from her really knowing algebra, is that I ... implant[e]d listening and transmitting devices in her body. THEN THATS (almost certainly) WHAT I DID. As unlikely or ridiculous as it seems.

[/ QUOTE ] Now what did I just say?

[ QUOTE ]
If even one serious [Biblical-like] miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out-and-out favorite.

[/ QUOTE ] For all except chezlaw.

Mickey Brausch

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I say that if even one serious miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out and out favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is important not to confuse cause and effect.

Consider these two possibilities.

A) The bible is a true and accurate treatise on how the universe works, and the performance of a specific biblical miracle would be just a consequence of the reality of the Christian universe view.

B) One of the biblical miracles happened to the extent that to human witnesses events were observed to transpire as outlined in the bible.

If A then the truth of the Bible would seem reasonable.

If B, then the bible is likely little more than a lot of confused people’s efforts to give and explanation to something they don’t understand. Consider how wildly inaccurate most pre technological efforts to explain other ‘mysterious’ natural phenomenon have been.

Or put it another way, if a Biblical miracle happened which is more likely:

1) The Bible is a true and accurate account of how the universe works.
2) Ptolemy’s model of the Solar System is correct.

I think your claim about the “truth of the Bible” is giving humans way way too much credit for understanding and accurately transcribing events.

[madnak]

You're straight wrong, David. The Bible is made up of hundreds of thousands of statements. It's highly fallacious to say "either all of these statements are true, or all of these statements are false." And no mathematician should make such an error. You ought to be more careful.

It's entirely likely that some statements in the Bible are true, and other statements are false. There's no indication of "fudging" - most of the statements aren't independently verifiable in the first place.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter that the prophesies are so vague and unsubstantiable,... .............................
................

....could explain accurate prophesies.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose I was able to predict the future accurately, that would be impressive and mean I was very very special. If I described those prophesises vaguely and in a manner you couldn't substantiate then it wouldn't alter the fact that there was something special going on.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what did I just say?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If even one serious [Biblical-like] miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out-and-out favorite.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all except chezlaw.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure why you singled me out as I've been agreeing with DS. The proven occurace of a miracle would change everything but I assume you realise that it can never happen. All you can ever have is unexplained events that appear miraculous and they are ten a penny.

Also, if a miraculous event did occur it would generate some impressive stories but no reason to believe the stories were true. What's important is prophesies because that links the miraculous with some intelligence.

chez

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is made up of hundreds of thousands of statements. It's highly fallacious to say "either all of these statements are true, or all of these statements are false." And no mathematician should make such an error.

[/ QUOTE ]The premise is that, irrespective of what low-falootin' mathmaticians might claim, the Christian faithful are generally supposed to take the all-or-nothing approach.

One cannot accept miracle A as true but reject miracle B as myth, and remain correct in the eyes of the Church. The parables are clearly stated as such; the miracles are supposed to be all literally true.

Ask Bluffy about the body of Christ which he literally devours and the blood of Christ which he literally imbibes -- with clock precision around the year.

Mickey Brausch

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I was able to predict the future accurately, that would be impressive and mean I was very very special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very intelligent anyway. The thing is, with prophecies that eventually fulfill themselves, there are never specific dates or a time limit. They don't expire, and if it's vague enough on the details and needs interpretation...

The probability of an event occurring that is in line with the prophecy keeps rising with time until it occurs. And considering the limitations of possible human events and the open-ended nature of interpretation by another human or a group of humans.

I can predict today the Earth will be consumed by red fire and I'd be right. Would that mean I'd be hailed as a Nostradamus a very long way down the road, simply because I know of the event?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I was able to predict the future accurately, that would be impressive and mean I was very very special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very intelligent anyway. The thing is, with prophecies that eventually fulfill themselves, there are never specific dates or a time limit. They don't expire, and if it's vague enough on the details and needs interpretation...

The probability of an event occurring that is in line with the prophecy keeps rising with time until it occurs. And considering the limitations of possible human events and the open-ended nature of interpretation by another human or a group of humans.

I can predict today the Earth will be consumed by red fire and I'd be right. Would that mean I'd be hailed as a Nostradamus a very long way down the road, simply because I know of the event?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes some predictions (which we don't usually count as prophecies) aren't impressive, some are impressive such as halley's comet but involve regular events which isn't so impressive, but predicting unlikely one-off events accurately is very impressive as long they aren't self-fulfilling prophesis.

but its irrelevent to the discusion as is the vague wording of the prophesies. All these objections are very good reasons not to take the bible seriously but say nothing about how seriously we should take the bible if the prophesis were accurate.

chez

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
If even one serious [Biblical-like] miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out-and-out favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be wrong.

1) By "Bible-like", you mean any miracle like the ones described in the Bible? If so, this is an easy wrong because the existence of such miracle doesn't justify all the other ones or the reason behind them which is written in the Bible.

2) If you mean one of the miracles written in the Bible, this also seems wrong, because just because the Bible contains reference of one true miracle, doesn't make everything else you put along true.

[luckyme]

There seems to be several unrelated issues being treated as directly connected in the OP and later.

chez-
[ QUOTE ]
The proven occurace of a miracle would change everything but I assume you realise that it can never happen. All you can ever have is unexplained events that appear miraculous and they are ten a penny.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, whew, thanks, that was first hurdle, leaving the bulk of the discussion in the Square-Circle category.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if a miraculous event did occur it would generate some impressive stories but no reason to believe the stories were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?! are you saying that my neighbouring tribes building runways won't attract and bring planes bearing gifts? After all, now I've seen the planes, I've seem them land on other runways, so Bayes? seems to tell me that their stories about the connection between the building of runways and the gift-laden planes has gone up in 'truth'. neat.

In some sense, science seems to have been the recurring discovery that mud doesn't generate frogs. It seems a trap, bayes induced perhaps, to assume causation with zero understanding/explanation of the mechanism.

Some version of that, with the Gap thrown in, is the issue I've been raising.

[ QUOTE ]
What's important is prophesies because that links the miraculous with some intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems muddy and gift-laden to me. It seems like the ID argument in a reversed time-frame. Iow, I'd not be eager to assign causation without some evidence of the mechanisim itself.

Separating the issues, the only point I'm questioning is the leap to an explanation of intelligence being the cause. My own first search area of an accurate, specific, detailed prohesy would be worm-hole related.

onward, thru the fog, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Separating the issues, the only point I'm questioning is the leap to an explanation of intelligence being the cause. My own first search area of an accurate, specific, detailed prohesy would be worm-hole related.


[/ QUOTE ]
and if I'm making use of some worm hole technology that would be very impressive wouldn't it?

the alternative is somehow I'm picking up messages from the future by some accidental process. I knew I shouldn't have had those new tachyon sensitive fillings for my teeth.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot accept miracle A as true but reject miracle B as myth, and remain correct in the eyes of the Church. The parables are clearly stated as such; the miracles are supposed to be all literally true.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s obviously just a PR move on the Church’s part and should be disregarded if we mean to do a proper scientific analysis of any demonstratable miracles /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I was able to predict the future accurately, that would be impressive and mean I was very very special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very intelligent anyway. The thing is, with prophecies that eventually fulfill themselves, there are never specific dates or a time limit. They don't expire, and if it's vague enough on the details and needs interpretation...

The probability of an event occurring that is in line with the prophecy keeps rising with time until it occurs. And considering the limitations of possible human events and the open-ended nature of interpretation by another human or a group of humans.

I can predict today the Earth will be consumed by red fire and I'd be right. Would that mean I'd be hailed as a Nostradamus a very long way down the road, simply because I know of the event?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes some predictions (which we don't usually count as prophecies) aren't impressive, some are impressive such as halley's comet but involve regular events which isn't so impressive, but predicting unlikely one-off events accurately is very impressive as long they aren't self-fulfilling prophesis.

but its irrelevent to the discusion as is the vague wording of the prophesies. All these objections are very good reasons not to take the bible seriously but say nothing about how seriously we should take the bible if the prophesis were accurate.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it is irrelevant. And the very vagueness of the prophecies help their cause, as do the possibility of multiple interpretations.

You can even go back to significant events and interpret them differently. So the objection should be to take them as they are, recognize that the probability of those events eventually occuring are high and increase with time. That does not mean they shouldn't be discounted.

The problem is, you create a mindset, at least for Christians, a self-fulfilling condition where these events are going to happen, miraclous as they are... That when they happen, the event itself is redundant. It, however, shapes justifications for acts and motivations to commit acts because those prophecies will be fulfilled.

The moral standard for actions beforehand can't help but be lowered. And for Christianity, every prophecy is self-fulfilling, not to the individual, but the faith.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it."

I maintain that if you fix this a little bit, the statement is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dropped the ball here Mr. Sklansky. There does not need to have been conspiracy or deliberate "fudging of data" in order for Christianity to grow like it has.

As for txag, I humbly ask why he isn't busy praying toward mecca 3 times a day?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

and if I'm making use of some worm hole technology that would be very impressive wouldn't it?

the alternative is somehow I'm picking up messages from the future by some accidental process. I knew I shouldn't have had those new tachyon sensitive fillings for my teeth.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that wouldn't be as silly as thinking you can tell the details of a distance rock-face because some cells on you head can pick up information from a dualist particle-wave message of some sort.

The two issues - The Humean-challenged prohesy, the DS bayesian mechanism claim. We seem to agree that Hume is not losing sleep. Waving our hand, granting a detailed, specific prohecy.... yes, it'd be impressive, but why would a desert tribes explanation have anything to do with THE explanation. They were able to see the rockface but had a dorky explanation of that, and of hearing, and of frogs and of ...

Look it over, it seems the way you're using intelligence would be at the Humean event not the claim of tribe for the mechanism. DS is claiming improved authenticity for the tribal mechanism claim, I'm stressing the unrelated nature of the two topics.

I fail to see how their accurate description of the distant rockface adds credibility to the claim they receive notes about it inside invisible chocolate bunnies. In a milder vein, I'm much slower to accept intelligence at the mechanism level, having experienced incredibly clear mirages in the desert myself. Sure, I could claim some intelligence was giving me the detailed miraged view of the distant city, but so what?
I'm content with simply labelling 'unexplained yet' to such things.

Time may be trickier than it appears to me.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

David why is everyone in huge disagreement with this OP, besides mickey? The ammount of easily viewed fudged data by xtians is impressive indeed. Did you know that you can't find a tree older than the times of the flood? Did you know that evolution is clearly a myth and dianosours are dragons? Did you know that carbon dating has proven to be false and the earth is only 2,000 years old? The predictions about the future that txag claims the bible makes are slightly more amazing then mediocre street perfoming magician, guessing peoples wieght and ages. If the wine turns to blood every sunday. If the sea parts, If the body rose from the dead. If the blood of saints boil. If there was peace on earth. A bonified miracle. But when someones view a peice of toast as a miracle, or a window stain, or stigmata as miracles. It's not miracles it just more apparent fudging of data. If the future was perdicted all though the likley hood of god goes up. The likley hood that we don't know as much about time as we believe we do, becomes the favorite, not god and especially not the christian god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how their accurate description of the distant rockface adds credibility to the claim they receive notes about it inside invisible chocolate bunnies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but if the predictions are of genuine miracles or the predictions are themselves genuinely miraculous then it would be a mistake not to re-evaluate the book containing them as a great deal more credible, and it removes the objection that miracles probably cannot happen.

all it boils down to I think is that a non-miraculous explanation becomes a worse bet if miracles are known to happen and a much worse bet if the thing being explained predicts the miracle which is now known to have happened.

there's some confusion because DS uses a lower standard for 'miracle' than most of us but it goes with his lower standard for 'god'. Use our gold standrad for 'miracle' and 'god' and baysian inference doesn't apply (just for you Micky)

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is made up of hundreds of thousands of statements. It's highly fallacious to say "either all of these statements are true, or all of these statements are false." And no mathematician should make such an error.

[/ QUOTE ]The premise is that, irrespective of what low-falootin' mathmaticians might claim, the Christian faithful are generally supposed to take the all-or-nothing approach.

One cannot accept miracle A as true but reject miracle B as myth, and remain correct in the eyes of the Church. The parables are clearly stated as such; the miracles are supposed to be all literally true.

Ask Bluffy about the body of Christ which he literally devours and the blood of Christ which he literally imbibes -- with clock precision around the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I think relatively few educated people are literalists these days. But, it doesn't matter. Txag's statement is still incorrect. You're right (in theory) as far as the strict Biblical literalist interpretation is concerned - if the literalists finds one error in the Bible, his whole view comes crashing down. However, txag presented the argument toward atheists - basically, if certain passage of the Bible are true (says txag), then the whole thing must be true.

Assuming he has an all-or-nothing position, that makes his argument even weaker. Not only do a few grains of truth not make the Bible true, but even if 99.999% of the Bible were true, and only a tiny part of it false, then that would still completely invalidate the Bible. In other words, the smattering of statements txag is using to support the truth of the Bible become even less powerful.

Now, with regards to conspiracy and truth, your point only applies to known falsehoods. Only if the ancient clergy actually knew that certain sections of the Bible were false would they have had to engage in any kind of deception in order to support it. And chances are they knew no such thing.

That's not to say they didn't deceive anyone - I'm sure they did. But if a part of the Bible is false, that isn't a necessary indication that they did. In fact, even if the entire Bible is false (something which almost nobody will claim, thus txag's disigenuous reasoning), that still doesn't necessarily mean the Christians haven't believed in it.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...As for txag, I humbly ask why he isn't busy praying toward mecca 3 times a day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,

In all honesty, have you ever done anything humbly in your life? /images/graemlins/wink.gif


RJT

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree but if the predictions are of genuine miracles or the predictions are themselves genuinely miraculous then it would be a mistake not to re-evaluate the book containing them as a great deal more credible, and it removes the objection that miracles probably cannot happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, there's no way to evaluate a "genuine" miracle.

Second, if we consider the Bible as being a great deal more credible than it is now, that still doesn't make it particularly credible.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree but if the predictions are of genuine miracles or the predictions are themselves genuinely miraculous then it would be a mistake not to re-evaluate the book containing them as a great deal more credible, and it removes the objection that miracles probably cannot happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, there's no way to evaluate a "genuine" miracle.

Second, if we consider the Bible as being a great deal more credible than it is now, that still doesn't make it particularly credible.

[/ QUOTE ]Firstly, I agree but what's that got to do with it. Secondly if the bible was slightly more credible it would be infinitely more credible.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly if the bible was slightly more credible it would be infinitely more credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

And still pretty incredible /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree but if the predictions are of genuine miracles or the predictions are themselves genuinely miraculous then it would be a mistake not to re-evaluate the book containing them as a great deal more credible, and it removes the objection that miracles probably cannot happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two separate unrelated objections.
Event A - no evidence it happened and it contradicts everything we know about our world.
Event B - the causal event of A, may have the same objection as A, may not.

Evidence of A does not elevate Event B if it is still a class A event on it's own.

The 'mud produces frogs' did explain the event. It's the auto-joining of 'the miraculous event' and 'the incredible explanation' that seems to have no justification.

Take a non-physical laws destroying global flood (so not even a miracle) -- if we find evidence of one, why does that make Gilgamesh's version of the reasons less likely than biblical or the other hundreds of myths about it. Surely we're not letting the current nature of xtrian mythology give it special standing. If this discussion was taking place in 2000 BC than DS would be hauling out bayes to claim credence for gilgamesh .. no? why is the modernized xtrian version of it 'better'.

If I found a salt statue of a woman buried outside the gates of sodom, I'd be looking for an artisans shop with salt crystals stuck to a form, why would the biblical 'explanation' have gained anything from my discovery?

sorry to keep questioning the connection between two events that you and DS are seeing, but I don't see it and it bugs me .... in case you're right :-)

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If I found a salt statue of a woman buried outside the gates of sodom, I'd be looking for an artisans shop with salt crystals stuck to a form, why would the biblical 'explanation' have gained anything from my discovery?

[/ QUOTE ]
but what if the salt statue was miraculous i.e. there was no natural explanation?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but what if the salt statue was miraculous i.e. there was no natural explanation?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My objection still holds. There is no reason 'his' explanation gains anything from that discovery. His explanation needs it own foundation. That's the basis of the hippie joke - snapping his fingers to keep the elephants away and claiming 'proof' because there are none to be found around him.

luckyme

[andyfox]

The point is that if a Bible or Bible-like miracle has ever existed, that would mean that the claim in the Bible that God performs miracles would have substance.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but what if the salt statue was miraculous i.e. there was no natural explanation?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My objection still holds. There is no reason 'his' explanation gains anything from that discovery. His explanation needs it own foundation. That's the basis of the hippie joke - snapping his fingers to keep the elephants away and claiming 'proof' because there are none to be found around him.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
and if the bible made an accurate prediction about this miraculous event?

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that if a Bible or Bible-like miracle has ever existed, that would mean that the claim in the Bible that God performs miracles would have substance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of an growing species?

Sometimes knucklers are better. Although that's a different subject perhaps. Perhaps not.

~FM

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that if a Bible or Bible-like miracle has ever existed, that would mean that the claim in the Bible that God performs miracles would have substance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but what if the salt statue was miraculous i.e. there was no natural explanation?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My objection still holds. There is no reason 'his' explanation gains anything from that discovery. His explanation needs it own foundation. That's the basis of the hippie joke - snapping his fingers to keep the elephants away and claiming 'proof' because there are none to be found around him.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
and if the bible made an accurate prediction about this miraculous event?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont really think thats the point. The point is that, ALMOST no matter how ridiculously unlikely a conspiracy theory must be for it to explain the data (and I personally dont think it would need to be that ridiculous) it is still by FAR the preferable solution, compared to the miraculous one. The reason for this is that there has never been a miracle. If there were even a single miracle, regardless of whether it was a Biblical one or not, it increases the chances of BIBLICAL miracles by a huge factor. I think you and lucky are getting bogged down in the wrong kinds of details.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but what if the salt statue was miraculous i.e. there was no natural explanation?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My objection still holds. There is no reason 'his' explanation gains anything from that discovery. His explanation needs it own foundation. That's the basis of the hippie joke - snapping his fingers to keep the elephants away and claiming 'proof' because there are none to be found around him.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
and if the bible made an accurate prediction about this miraculous event?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont really think thats the point. The point is that, ALMOST no matter how ridiculously unlikely a conspiracy theory must be for it to explain the data (and I personally dont think it would need to be that ridiculous) it is still by FAR the preferable solution, compared to the miraculous one. The reason for this is that there has never been a miracle. If there were even a single miracle, regardless of whether it was a Biblical one or not, it increases the chances of BIBLICAL miracles by a huge factor. I think you and lucky are getting bogged down in the wrong kinds of details.

[/ QUOTE ]
I generally agree with that but its not entirely simple.

If you mean that a miracle requires a god then of course it makes an intervening god a lot more likey /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If by miracle you mean something beyond our understanding then its evidence for stuff beyond our understanding but we already knew that.

Conscious experience is pretty miraculous by many definitions. Does that make the bible more credible?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were even a single miracle, regardless of whether it was a Biblical one or not, it increases the chances of BIBLICAL miracles by a huge factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unexplained event Y that goes against all our knowledge, but is ( somehow) shown to have occured, raises the Hopi claim that the Great Crow did X exactly how?

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?"

luckyme

Yes. As long as the original probability for them was not zero.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were even a single miracle, regardless of whether it was a Biblical one or not, it increases the chances of BIBLICAL miracles by a huge factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unexplained event Y that goes against all our knowledge, but is ( somehow) shown to have occured, raises the Hopi claim that the Great Crow did X exactly how?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think DS is saying that it DOES go up. I dont think he is saying it lends creedence to the literal Biblical account specifically, it just gives creedence to any claim that things which are scientifically impossible can happen.

I think you raise a good point though. Can such a thing ever happen? What would it even mean? I can't think of a single example of something happening that I would call a miracle. I am a little uncomfortable that my idea of "miracle" is tautological. Anyone wanna give it a shot?

[David Sklansky]

"I can't think of a single example of something happening that I would call a miracle"

You play right into theists hands with such silly statments.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

"And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?"

luckyme

Yes. As long as the original probability for them was not zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assigning any probability except zero to the existence of the unobserved is a mistake.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

"And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?"

luckyme

Yes. As long as the original probability for them was not zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
When Douglas Adams gave us the story of the great green Arklesiezure sneezing the universe into existence, did the probability of the bible being correct go down?

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"I can't think of a single example of something happening that I would call a miracle"

You play right into theists hands with such silly statments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I know. Thats why I asked for help. Whats your definition of a miracle that avoids this problem?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?"

luckyme

Yes. As long as the original probability for them was not zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
When Douglas Adams gave us the story of the great green Arklesiezure sneezing the universe into existence, did the probability of the bible being correct go down?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the ones with blue covers.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

"And if Giglamesh, the Aztecs and sundry Indian tribes have other myths that account for this miracle .. they ALL go up? even if they conflict?"

luckyme

Yes. As long as the original probability for them was not zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Originally there was an event that seemed too miraculous to have occurred, and naturally there are infinite 'explanations' for it. Somehow ( I'm being generous to allow for discussion) the event is shown to have happened. There are still infinite explanations .... how does anyone one of them go up enough to warrant calling it a meaningful increase?

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I say that if even one serious miracle were to ever be totally proven, it would instantly make the truth of the Bible reasonable if not an out and out favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

A specific claim for the cause of the miracle event now is 'reasonable' and perhaps a 'favorite', that'll please the Hopi's, Aztecs, wiccans, numerologists, astrologers, and the odd lutheran ( if they can be pleased), it's nice when everyone can be the favorite. Do we do a group hug? :-))))

But not the truth of the event and it's biblical explanation, heck no, the truth of the entire bible yet. Finding Troy raised the Illiad/ODyssey to history lectures?

nope, I'm sticking to the concept that the explanation for an 'event' is an 'event' of it's own and has no claim on the event until the relationship is proven.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

A specific claim for the cause of the miracle event now is 'reasonable' and perhaps a 'favorite', that'll please the Hopi's, Aztecs, wiccans, numerologists, astrologers, and the odd lutheran ( if they can be pleased), it's nice when everyone can be the favorite. Do we do a group hug? :-))))


Implicit in my statement is the supposition that if stuff happened that made some sort of personal God likely, the Judeo Christian one would be at least as likely as all the others combined.

And for those who want an example of such a miracle, how bout if all nuns started flying in a vaccum tomorrow?aql. That wouldn't significantly increase the chances of the truth of Christianity?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
And for those who want an example of such a miracle, how bout if all nuns started flying in a vaccum tomorrow?aql. That wouldn't significantly increase the chances of the truth of Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no, but it'd increase the pleas for God, whether in positive fashion or negative. Depends on the nuns, really.

[surftheiop]

"Assigning any probability except zero to the existence of the unobserved is a mistake."

WOWZA- so your telling me that you put the probability of the Higgs Boson existing at 0 %? So all the guys at CERN are just wasting their live away correct?

-"But the Higgs boson remains hypothetical; it has not been observed"

[FortunaMaximus]

Ah, surf, but it's been observed mathematically, has it not?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Assigning any probability except zero to the existence of the unobserved is a mistake."

WOWZA- so your telling me that you put the probability of the Higgs Boson existing at 0 %? So all the guys at CERN are just wasting their live away correct?

-"But the Higgs boson remains hypothetical; it has not been observed"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not what I'm saying. The probability of the existence of the Higgs boson is based upon things that have been observed.

PS. You might have caught me in a semantic slip, but you get my point, I presume.

[surftheiop]

Ah, surf, but it's been Predicted mathematically, has it not?

Im no particle physicist but its predicted mathematically, math cant observe can it? (im no mathematician either so this could be completly wrong)

[Borodog]

It has been predicted based on the existence of things that have been observed.

And before you go there, it has been predicted in a non-fallacious way.

[FortunaMaximus]

And keep going back through the process, what predicted the non-observed existences first?

The chicken or the egg. There had to be the chicken first. Or the egg.

[surftheiop]

This part is a question - as im not very schooled in the search for higgs boson.

Arent they basically searching for it because they need something to show what causes/creates mass?

Is this that much different from observing that the universe exists so there must be something to cause it to exist?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Implicit in my statement is the supposition that if stuff happened that made some sort of personal God likely, the Judeo Christian one would be at least as likely as all the others combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, that Bayes is a tough taskmaster. --
A Hopi does a chant so the black crow will turn into a spirit and expose the hopi's enemy to him. IT HAPPENS ! .. and now Bayes tells me the xtrian god is more likely and now the huge favorite. cheeeez, I'll never get, sigh.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

As far as the technical details go, that's for Boro, obv.

Well. It's basically a jigsaw puzzle.

The universe is a bigger jigsaw puzzle, but all the pieces are there and you know what's observable and measureable. As far as causality, pre-Universe... The biggest question probably is whether it needs an observer or is self-emergent. And there's no easy way to do that from within, so theists assume an ultimate observer. They may not be wrong, I tend to think it's not a necessary condition, but it would be nice if there was one.

And that's not going to change the fact that the Universe exists.

Apologies if I sound like an irreverent short-bus rider at times. It's just my personality. <shrugs>

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And for those who want an example of such a miracle, how bout if all nuns started flying in a vaccum tomorrow?aql. That wouldn't significantly increase the chances of the truth of Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't we need to know who cast the spell, or invoked the ether? My first reaction would be to line up any muslims who had their knuckles smacked by a nun... or Apache's forced to give up their native beliefs in a christian orphanage... are all black crows accounted for. ( since it doesn't sound like something a person would request for themself).

luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
And keep going back through the process, what predicted the non-observed existences first?

The chicken or the egg. There had to be the chicken first. Or the egg.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow. The Standard Model exists to explain observed phenomena.

[revots33]

I do not think it would take a conspiracy, or even a massive fudging by thousands. What it takes is a few zealots willing to exaggerate/make up facts in the very beginning, combined with the human desire to believe. After that, no one thinks they're fudging anything.

Take any cult that has at least a few followers and makes incredible claims. What you have is a charismatic leader and gullible followers. Some of these cults die out, some last but never grow beyond a small membership, some grow to become mainstream religions practiced by millions. It's hard to say why some of these cults grew and others didn't - perhaps a combination of the appeal of the message, the leader's charisma, and the political/social circumstances at the time the cult got started.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This part is a question - as im not very schooled in the search for higgs boson.

Arent they basically searching for it because they need something to show what causes/creates mass?

Is this that much different from observing that the universe exists so there must be something to cause it to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Higgs Boson is expected to exist because of its inclusion in a theory that explains a vast number of observed phenomena. Postulating invisible men and saying "They did it" does not explain anything.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And keep going back through the process, what predicted the non-observed existences first?

The chicken or the egg. There had to be the chicken first. Or the egg.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow. The Standard Model exists to explain observed phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

tl;dr summary version: So there's a Standard Model existing as a catch-all to explain observed phenomena. Its roots trace rather farther back than just the last theory.

Keep going back. The Standard Model emerged from earlier theories. And those emergent theories can be traced back to the point where man discovered mathematics to explain and count.

And the mathematics were always there, man didn't observe them, and when he started to observe them, he used them to found very basic theories. Until the Greeks.

Yes, I realize this is irrelevant in context with the main discussion. The Higgs can be explained in mathematical terms, can it not? And the unobserved state of its current existence does not mean it is not there. It can be weighted and calculated through inference using already-observed elements in the whole model.

And proving or disproving the existence of that particular variable is simply a matter of time. As is the complete Unified Theory. I'd be willing to wager there are variables in that theory that are neither observed or unobserved because we lack the capability or basic fundamental principles to explore those territories yet.

Take the Lebiniz/Newton co-independent discovery example. After a period of adjustment, those individuals would be able to catch up with current theory. Whether they would contribute anything significant is debatable, but the fact is they had less to work with and came to similar conclusions, independently. In the 21st, we have more to work with. Someone in the 23rd will have more to work with, and there are probably still going to be unanswered questions.

As we discover more complexity in the observed Universe, it's becoming increasingly apparent we have not yet begun to scrape the upper limit of this complexity.

[Borodog]

Mmmmk.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Mmmmk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been predicted based on the existence of things that have been observed.

[/ QUOTE ]
So had God. The question is, who interprets the observations, and the models based on them? We're back to square one, with both God and Higgs Boson at > 0.

edit: never mind, just read the above. dead horse.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What it takes is a few zealots willing to exaggerate/make up facts in the very beginning, combined with the human desire to believe. After that, no one thinks they're fudging anything.


[/ QUOTE ]
So who were these zealots who made up facts about Christianity from the very beginning? Jesus? The apostles?

We know about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus from the apostles. Did they do it? What was their motivation? They certainly didn't get wealthy from it. They were willing to die for it.

We know about their gruesome deaths in the name of Christ from historians in the first century Church, which by the way, consisted of thousands. Did the Church make up facts about the apostles death?

Oh, and did they write the book of Daniel, which predicts the sacrifice of Jesus? We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that it was written centuries before Christ life. (Probably around 500 B.C., but even the most liberal scholars place it around 165 B.C.).

So if Christianity is not true and yet still not a conspiracy of thousands, what's your theory? How did it happen?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
We know about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus from the apostles. Did they do it? What was their motivation? They certainly didn't get wealthy from it. They were willing to die for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know their motivation. Maybe they were disaffected men who needed something to believe in, and found it in Jesus. Maybe they really believed what they were preaching. But there have been other suicidal cult members who also believed what they were preaching. That's not a proof of authenticity.

[ QUOTE ]

So if Christianity is not true and yet still not a conspiracy of thousands, what's your theory? How did it happen?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, exactly. Probably a combination of an appealing message and charismatic early leaders. Islam is growing faster than Christianity these days, I don't see that as an argument for its truth either. Islam's message appeals to certain people, just as Christianity's appeals to others.

[disjunction]

Not sure I understand the application of Bayes rule. How are you assigning the priors? Would everybody involved agree with this assignment?

[Darryl_P]

I think he's saying:

Event A: Massive conspiracy-like co-operation
Event B: Miracles really did happen

The raw probabilities might be something like 1 in a million and 1 in a billion, respectively, or whatever they are, he's assuming P(A) >> P(B)

So given the fact that here we are with billions of people believing in miracles, you are looking at P[A given (A or B)] which is close to 100%.

If it turned out a miracle like the resurrection of Jesus could be scientifically shown to have been reasonably likely, though, then P(B) increases dramatically so P[A given (A or B)] drops to below 50% putting P[B given (A or B)] above 50%.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

The raw probabilities might be something like 1 in a million and 1 in a billion, respectively, or whatever they are, he's assuming P(A) >> P(B)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so this makes an a priori assumption that the miracles depicted in the Bible were very unlikely events. But I'm not sure if everyone will agree with that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not a proof of authenticity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it was. I only said the alternative was a conspiracy involving thousands of people.

[ QUOTE ]
Islam is growing faster than Christianity these days, I don't see that as an argument for its truth either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Islam, on the other hand, was founded by how many people?

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is made up of hundreds of thousands of statements. It's highly fallacious to say "either all of these statements are true, or all of these statements are false." And no mathematician should make such an error.

[/ QUOTE ]The premise is that, irrespective of what low-falootin' mathmaticians might claim, the Christian faithful are generally supposed to take the all-or-nothing approach.

One cannot accept miracle A as true but reject miracle B as myth, and remain correct in the eyes of the Church. The parables are clearly stated as such; the miracles are supposed to be all literally true.

Ask Bluffy about the body of Christ which he literally devours and the blood of Christ which he literally imbibes -- with clock precision around the year.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

I once, long ago, tried to explain a mathematical problem and solution to a high school graduate who could barely count to 10. I soon learned I was wasting my time. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Sadly it is true that many are educated beyond their levels of understanding. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Divad Yksnal]

[ QUOTE ]

The chicken or the egg. There had to be the chicken first. Or the egg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately David has aleady answered this for us:):


http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambli...f6c395aa98679ad (http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/8b0ce2003661961c/cf6c395aa98679ad?lnk=st&q=chicken+egg+sklansky&rnu m=1#cf6c395aa98679ad)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The chicken or the egg. There had to be the chicken first. Or the egg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately David has aleady answered this for us:):


http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambli...f6c395aa98679ad (http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/8b0ce2003661961c/cf6c395aa98679ad?lnk=st&q=chicken+egg+sklansky&rnu m=1#cf6c395aa98679ad)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised. And correctly too. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If every time you ask my cat an algebra question with a one digit answer, she taps the ground correctly, whether I am there or not. And the only possible way that could happen, aside from her really knowing algebra, is that I spent years searching the world for the best surgeons to implant listening and transmitting devices in her body, THEN THATS (almost certainly) WHAT I DID. As unlikely or ridiculous as it seems. Unless there is any reason to believe that cats might conceivably be able to answer algebra problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be a nit... this isn't true. And there's an interesting real life example. I forget the details because it came from a textbook I had nearly 2 decades ago so I'll do my best...

In the late 1800s or early 1900s there was a sensation in Europe over a 'psychic' horse. The owner could ask the horse all sorts of questions and the horse would tap out the answer. When people came to study the phenomenon, they isolated the owner or had other people ask the questions and the horse continued to give the right answer.

They eventually discovered that the horse would get the answer wrong when the person asking the question didn't know the answer. They learned that the horse was reading very subtle clues from the people observing the question about what was expected from it. Once they learned that the horse wasn't reading minds, they lost interest in it. (though the point of the book was that they should have taken more interest in the fact that people were communicating with the horse in ways they didn't even realize)


[ QUOTE ]
In other words I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this remarkable. People still teach their kids that Betsy Ross created "Old Glory". People taught each other that the earth was flat for centuries. Unorganized cooperation in perpetuating untruths I would say is rathar commonplace. If you add to that... there is intentional spreading of the information through organized political action- either through governments and/or religious organizations.

I agree with Sklansky that the "conspiracy" is the most likely cause.

[vhawk01]

He specifically said that the cat could do it whether he was in the room or not, basically because he was anticipating exactly this response.

[kurto]

I'm pointing out that the cat doesn't need him... just a person. If Sklanksy left the room but someone else was there, that might be enough.

Anyhow, I'm sure that's not the point (except that it allows more options then he gave)

[MidGe]

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html) is a different view from Dawkins as a reply to the OP.