A Math Magic God Problem

[carlo]

As noted in the Bible Christ Jesus performed many healings(restoration of sight to the blind,the lame walk,the crippled restored,etc.) in addition to turning water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead. Don't think your "Laws of Physics" can even begin to have a say here unless you are saying "Laws of Physics Past,Present and Future" which really gets you off the hook for you are arrogating that very thing which many have subscribed to a Creator. No substance at the alter of science for we are talking of human beings ,not contrived parsimony of substance.

Back to the point. In the first century there lived a man who performed miraculous healings(sight to the blind, lame walked, brought a young girl back from the dead,turned water into wine) and is stated to have done the same feats of Christ Jesus. His name was Apollonius of Tyana.

Questions:

1)Does Probability have anything to say here?
2)What logical conclusions do you make from this?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
As noted in the Bible Christ Jesus performed many healings(restoration of sight to the blind,the lame walk,the crippled restored,etc.) in addition to turning water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't think your "Laws of Physics" can even begin to have a say here unless you are saying "Laws of Physics Past,Present and Future" which really gets you off the hook for you are arrogating that very thing which many have subscribed to a Creator

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

It's only common sense for us to require extraordinary evidence for us to discard the Assumption. Do "stories in the Bible" constitute such extraordinary evidence? Considering the nature of those kinds of writings, among other things, NO. Not for the NonReligious person. But for the Religous person where the extraordinary factor of Faith is added, the answer could be yes.

[ QUOTE ]
1)Does Probability have anything to say here?


[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, the mathematics of probability requires a well defined mathematical probability model in order to "say" anything. There is no such model here.

Loosely speaking, people come to have a subjective degree of conviction about the truth of propositions. Most NonReligous people will see the stories in the Bible depicting Events that don't conform to the working assumption of Science, as just that. Stories. They draw that conclusion because of their experience with story telling and their experience with the record of reliability for the working assumption of science.

They might express their conviction about this interpretation of the stories as "Highly doubtful". Or, loosely speaking, they might say, "Highly unlikely". It has the same meaning. However, they would be incorrect to claim mathematical authority for rigorous mathematical use of the term "probability". They simply don't have such mathematical rigor.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I have two remaining points of contention with you. The first of which you can't refute since you are not a mind reader. Which is that you are wrong when you think I throw around math terms in order to add credence to my points. I do it only as a short cut so I don't have to keep repeating the "argument" that applies to the magician, the Salem Witch Trials, the contention that the Bible makes good predictions and is therefore probably true, or whatever. I don't do it to add weight to the "argument". If the math terms, stictly speaking, don't apply, so be it. That is why I posted this thread. But the "argument" stands by itself and I never meant to prop it up with technical terminology.

As to my talking about events that are not only not explainable by present day laws of physics, but also not explainable by what might be future laws, I think I can do that. Even though we don't know what future laws will be. Because we do know that they will have some sort of generality to them and some sort of reasoning behind them. They are not likely to be something like "you can't go faster than the speed of light unless your name is Hiram". They are more likely to be "you can't go faster than light unless you can duck into the seventh dimension and then come back". So if Hiram does indeed outrun light, we can assume it was probably due to a reason similar to the second one rather than the first. But if millions of Hirams do it and, only them, I'd call it a miracle rather than try to claim that the first reason is a physics law.

Obviously there are many hypothetical events that don't fit so neatly into one category (obeying future reasonable laws of physics) or the other (my idea of a miracle) but I don't think the distinction is silly. Arthur Clarke made the famous statement that any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I disagree. If Isaac Newton was shown a television and a time machine, I'm quite sure he would identify only the second as magic.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollonius of Tyana is not a figure of the Bible. Classical history reveals his existance.

[ QUOTE ]
We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientific hypothesis states that at one time the moon separated from the earth. I find it hard to believe that present scientific laws(whatever that may be) could account for that particular event. The "big bang"(theory again) certainly takes to question present "laws" vis a vis "past laws". If one could sit as an observer at the beginning of time(for science-big bang) do you really BELIEVE that the laws of physics are the same as now?

For anyone who cares to clarify-what EXACTLY are these laws of physics that the scientist lays his head on? In this time technology is what most people are impressed with but to expect the theoretical scientist to explain the world and especially MATTER is a voyage into non comprehension.

It's an illusion that technology comes from theory-airflight, radio, penicillin, steam engine,computer etc., are all the result of practical men given results unexpected by their thought and thusly technology. The practical scientist,engineer,inventor,creative genius is our modern day names for these men.Technology is what most ,but not all, see as "science" and in this they are impresssed.

The World/Cosmos offers similarity to a Beethoven symphony(not a strictured logical conundrum)-the idea that chimpanzees could produce the same is bad science and bad thinking.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
you are wrong when you think I throw around math terms in order to add credence to my points. I do it only as a short cut

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you seek to clarify your arguments and avoid statements like this,

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
My math also does not give a figure for the likelihood of a God who won't or can't stray from science or statistics laws. It only applies to Gods who can and do. Which is the one most people believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
Math tells us that unlikely explanations become likely explanations if the alternatives are ridiculous explanations. Math doesn't show that an explanation is ridiculous. To do that one uses statistics rather than math.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this,

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Math tells us" certainly Looks like an appeal to the authority of Math. You're right, I'm not a mind reader. I can only read what you write. I know there is a principle of inference you are trying to get at and apply. The problems come in clairifying the principle and determining how well it applies in the circumstances under discussion. Just saying "Math tells us" hardly does the job. You are certainly smart enough to do the job right if you would quit being so lazy with your shortcut language.

I realize this principle often comes to light in a mathematical probablistic setting. That doesn't mean we have that setting at hand. It's a principle I appy myself in coming to similiar conclusions as you some of the time. But it's not an automatic thing you can apply haphazardly. And sometimes I think you come to incorrect conclusions doing just that.

[ QUOTE ]
As to my talking about events that are not only not explainable by present day laws of physics, but also not explainable by what might be future laws, I think I can do that. Even though we don't know what future laws will be. Because we do know that they will have some sort of generality to them and some sort of reasoning behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can possibly believe that description is in any way clear enough to meaningfully serve as a foundation for broad definitive conclusions. It just looks like fuzzy guesswork.

[ QUOTE ]
They are not likely to be something like "you can't go faster than the speed of light unless your name is Hiram". They are more likely to be "you can't go faster than light unless you can duck into the seventh dimension and then come back"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that example transforms the fuzzy guesswork of your previous statement into a clear definition that everybody will agree holds and from which we can work?

[ QUOTE ]
So if Hiram does indeed outrun light, we can assume it was probably due to a reason similar to the second one rather than the first. But if millions of Hirams do it and, only them, I'd call it a miracle rather than try to claim that the first reason is a physics law.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you are going to be the judge of the Freak Anomalies we may very well encounter exploring the Universe in Future Ages? You think you can determine which fall into the Miracle Category ala Hiram and which don't? Before you even see them? You are as bad as the prehistoric people who saw lightning and decided it must be a Miracle attributed to Thor.


[ QUOTE ]
Obviously there are many hypothetical events that don't fit so neatly into one category (obeying future reasonable laws of physics) or the other (my idea of a miracle) but I don't think the distinction is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have an idea in there that's worth talking about. But you've been applying it like some kind of Law of Sklansky by which you insist people accept certain conclusions. One of which has been the charge of Bias for Athiests who don't buy your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Arthur Clarke made the famous statement that any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I disagree. If Isaac Newton was shown a television and a time machine, I'm quite sure he would identify only the second as magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like you have an idea that may be worth talking about, so did Clarke. There's a principle there but it might not rise to anything like "Clarke's Law".

The Fundamental Principle that I see and have provided on other threads is this:

If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

Some have said this is too trivially true to be of value. On the other hand, I take it you think it's false and you could tell the difference ala Hiram, at least some of the time. Who knows, maybe this too is just an idea that doesn't rise to a Fundamental Principle. However, I am not so persuaded by your Hiram example.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

David,

I want to make a couple points on miracles, one of which I've made before. And that is that I, and most other christians, believe that God has performed and still is performing miracles. But that the vast majority of them over time are subtle coincidence type of stuff where He guides normal physical processes in a way that is consonant with the range those processes possess, as well as the experience believers have of Him in their daily lives. All of which is small unprovable by science type of "interferences". Also, even regarding the "big" type of biblical miracles or later ones like the miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917, that are manifested to large numbers of people in a specific area (instead of just one like the small stuff), and also clearly seem at least to violate the laws of physics, *still* are very small percentage of the total of reported so-called "big" miracles. Like in way less than 1%. Most of all that stuff are indeed either lies, psychological delustions or poorly understood (for the time) physical phenomena.

My second point is that I realize that you and many non-believers have a problem with this because you can't understand why God would choose to act in this mostly unprovable way over time. But clearly such a manner of acting is possible if one grants that a Creator can interfere after the initial creation of the universe.

Also you deny the central probability. And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere". And the reason is that the initial act of creation of the quantum singularity and the physical laws which lead to its present form 14 billion years later, is FAR greater of an "interference" than any subsequent ones claimed by religious believers, with the possible exception of the resurrection of Our Lord. In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls. To maintain otherwise is preposterous. And hence the reason the atheists you take to task here sometimes are so resistant to first cause arguments, because they know where they logically will lead.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollonius of Tyana is not a figure of the Bible. Classical history reveals his existance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I did not inlude your discussion of Apollonius when I quoted you. That's because I'm not familiar with it. So the case I was talking about was the Jesus case. That's the one I'm familiar with. That's the one I quoted from your post. And that's the one I was talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientific hypothesis states that at one time the moon separated from the earth. I find it hard to believe that present scientific laws(whatever that may be) could account for that particular event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they make a pretty good case these days for the theory of a collision-type event with a large astroid-planetoid-type body. Computer simulations based on known laws of physics.

[ QUOTE ]
The "big bang"(theory again) certainly takes to question present "laws" vis a vis "past laws". If one could sit as an observer at the beginning of time(for science-big bang) do you really BELIEVE that the laws of physics are the same as now?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert in this area. I think they are having some troubles with exactly that question. My impression is it's all very speculative. But notice I said that "known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future" is just a Working Assumption of Science. Notice I said it is not a Known Fact. I never said it might not be discarded or ammended in the future. But it has proved very Reliable for predicting events. Would you want to just haphazardly ignore it? Do you think it is worthless? What do YOU require to set it aside?

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an expert in this area. I think they are having some troubles with exactly that question. My impression is it's all very speculative. But notice I said that "known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future" is just a Working Assumption of Science. Notice I said it is not a Known Fact. I never said it might not be discarded or ammended in the future. But it has proved very Reliable for predicting events. Would you want to just haphazardly ignore it? Do you think it is worthless? What do YOU require to set it aside?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I know an antagonism to current scientific theory would not be productive for the thought processes involved are really of an extraordinary quality. There is a compulsion in thought which carries a person along within its own reality.

My posts(lately anyway) have tried to present some breadth to a discussion and hopefully would enjoin one to pause and consider a larger tapestry.Replacement of science is not the point but a metamorphoses of science is definitely possible and in this the hypothesizing mind has to consider that materiality is the lynch pin of present scientific thought and its barrier to truth.

An example is the particle wave duality of modern physics.Particularity is assumed until experimental results display a non materiality. The reflection of mirrors of the Michelosen-Morley experiment assumes a pure reflector. Logically one can only say that the speed of light in this case is a function of the reflector which has its own characteristics. One can only say that light travels from a reflected mirror at a certain speed and therefore the speed is a function of the reflector not the intrinsic speed of light. In this case the assumption is that we have "pure light" and "pure mirror". This is not the case.

Another is the sighting of color through a prism.Modern thought has light broken into pieces of red,green,blue,etc. So light contains the colors within itself. This is material thought which doesn't conceive that the color is the result of the work of light in the medium.

The above examples are directly related to the materialistic bias and refusal to see the world as it is. The pieces of light within is a grave error in thinking. If a boxer hits his opponent in the arm and leaves bruises the bruises were not in the fist of the boxer but the result of the impact. As Goethe said" colors are the deeds and sufferings of light". This statement is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo but a reality which can be ascertained in thought.

The idea that one needs an all encompassing thought(big bang theory) in order to be truth takes one from the experimental evidence which is clamored for in the halls of science. Each scientist working with the realization of a non material basis can work with light and will be able to garner its true nature. So a community of scientists working in nature will bring these truths to clarification and be brought to all of us.








[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Also you deny the central probability. And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere". And the reason is that the initial act of creation of the quantum singularity and the physical laws which lead to its present form 14 billion years later, is FAR greater of an "interference" than any subsequent ones claimed by religious believers, with the possible exception of the resurrection of Our Lord. In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls. To maintain otherwise is preposterous. And hence the reason the atheists you take to task here sometimes are so resistant to first cause arguments, because they know where they logically will lead.


[/ QUOTE ]


How do you like dem probabilities David? Do you think they have anything to do with mathematics? Just like with your use of the terms, they indicate his subjective opinion about how persuasive the observation is for the conclusion he says he has some conviction for.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure nonsense from a Jesus-loves-me fried brain.

If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs. Think about it. Step out of your silly Christian indoctrination and think of the scale of the universe, of imagination, of thought. Think like a Tibetan Buddhist for a while.

Why on Earth would God create the universe to have a petty relationship with some creatures in a tiny speck of it? It made sense to an oppressed race in the crowded deserts of the middle east, but with our understanding today it's monstrously absurd. If God/the afterlife is anything, it'd be like the Tibetan model - we are probably part of a number of planes of spiritual existence, where God exists as a source of everything. To think that God had sent his "son" to save us from a place of fire is the funniest thing imaginable in this day and age.

Think of the scale of existence. Why is it unlikely to you that God created trillions of petri dishes just like our universe, where life could teem and flourish and develop into everything imaginable? If something as vast and grand as God existed, it is inconceivable to me that he would stop at creating something as petty and hilarious as the Earth and the human race, and stop there. It is also inconceivable that he would intervene in the system he had created in order to satisfy the desires of a creature losing homeostasis from inadequate food. Do you see why?

BTW, how does your model of God-love account for aliens? Did he send them a Jesus-equivalent so they wouldn't burn in fire too? That's an interesting question for a theists who accepts evolution and Jesus.

Sorry for the hijack David. I don't often get a chance to catch BluffTHIS with his pants down.