Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[TripTango]

Yep tooth picks are simply no even close to the complexity of the brain. Glad you've noticed.

For the puzzle, I would stick with my choice because the probability of it being on the other is 50/50.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Turns out probability has a few tricks up its sleeve...

 

[crowTrobot]

Yep tooth picks are simply no even close to the complexity of the brain. Glad you've noticed.

what denny is saying is random chance and "goddidit" are not the only possiblities. evolution is neither of those.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep tooth picks are simply no even close to the complexity of the brain. Glad you've noticed.

For the puzzle, I would stick with my choice because the probability of it being on the other is 50/50.

You should switch doors. I just gave you the correct answer. Think about it and tell me why my answer is right.

Nobody disagrees the brain is amazing and complex. Nature did a heck of a job coming up with it, after 4.4 billion years.

 

[MARIS61]

This is a perfect example. You are using this as chance, I am saying it is logical that it was designed by a creator. But with the tooth pick theory. It is very possible that it could someday; millions, billions, trillions of years eventually spell out your name; but assume for a minute that you have two options. Which sounds more logical? Intelligence putting it there, or it eventually happening over the course of a few billion years?

The 3rd option is the most likely.

Somebody NOT very intelligent, wearing a helmet, maybe a 45 IQ or so, wasted his time spelling out some other guy's name with toothpicks.

Still waiting for you to prove god exists, which is obviously the only way to support your thread title.

 

[Denny Crane]

Some of us know why he should switch. It's no big deal that someone doesn't get it. The answer confounded a few PhDs got it wrong and argued vehemently that they were right.

 

[MARIS61]

Logically, Jesus and Osama Bin Laden might be lookalikes.

Or directly related.

 

[TripTango]

Or directly related.

We are all related, MARIS. No need for that.

 

[RR7]

Okay evidence 1-2 - I am told I don't know so I am wrong to question it. (check) LOL

Okay evidence #3 - I am told they don't know so I am wrong. (check) LOL

Okay evidence #4 - I am told that chance is possible therefor it's more logical. (check) LOL

Okay evidence #5 - I am told that complexity can happen by chance as long as you have gazillion years to do it (check) LOL

I really can't wait for the answer for the next one. This is great!

False. False. False. Not entirely true. Don't necessarily need a gazillion. Could be instantaneous. Could take a gazillion.

Wow. So you start a thread telling people why their "belief" is wrong. You put together poor or faulty "evidence" to prove this. You say you aren't trying to prove anything, but to use evidence is to make an attempt to prove. You ignore comments from people, or write them off to tell you why information is wrong. People respond mocking some of it, and then you seem offended. As if everyone should be so enlightened to sit and listen, and just basically sit and shut up. Now imagine someone doing the same to you about your beliefs. Would they whine when you mocked their "proof"? Yeah, we all can't wait for the next one either. Somehow, I'm sure it'll be the one that proves your point. And you talk of arrogance.

 

[magnifier661]

You should switch doors. I just gave you the correct answer. Think about it and tell me why my answer is right.

Nobody disagrees the brain is amazing and complex. Nature did a heck of a job coming up with it, after 4.4 billion years.

Yep nature did one heck of a job didn't it?

Please tell me why I should switch doors?

 

[Denny Crane]

We are all related, MARIS. No need for that.

Maris61* actually got a chuckle out of me on that one.

You know... Jesus was an insurgent, too!

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep nature did one heck of a job didn't it?

Please tell me why I should switch doors?

The odds aren't 50-50. There are 3 doors, each with a 33% chance.

I'm not spelling it all out for you yet. I'm hoping you logically deduce why you should switch, or google for the answer and learn the logic.

This isn't about making you look bad, it's about why what seems logical isn't sometimes.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay so because the game show host knows where the door is; and asks do I want to switch; gives you a higher probability to get the car?

 

[Denny Crane]

What are your odds with door 1, and what are they with door 3?

 

[magnifier661]

False. False. False. Not entirely true. Don't necessarily need a gazillion. Could be instantaneous. Could take a gazillion.

Wow. So you start a thread telling people why their "belief" is wrong. You put together poor or faulty "evidence" to prove this. You say you aren't trying to prove anything, but to use evidence is to make an attempt to prove. You ignore comments from people, or write them off to tell you why information is wrong. People respond mocking some of it, and then you seem offended. As if everyone should be so enlightened to sit and listen, and just basically sit and shut up. Now imagine someone doing the same to you about your beliefs. Would they whine when you mocked their "proof"? Yeah, we all can't wait for the next one either. Somehow, I'm sure it'll be the one that proves your point. And you talk of arrogance.

You should read it again. The general consensus from your camp holds true. Am I lying?

 

[magnifier661]

What are your odds with door 1, and what are they with door 3?

3 doors each door 33.333333% chance. Door number 3 was the goat. So now it's 66% of 100?

 

[RR7]

Are you lying about 1-5? Well, I wouldn't say lying, necessarily. But you're wrong, and ignoring what people have said to you over 8 pages if that is what you get from it. As much as you want to learn, and you keep asking people to explain to you, teach you, and show why. And get mad when they don't read your posts, watch your videos, etc. And what you got out of people's explanations of, at the least, 1-2 is "I am told I don't know so I am wrong to question it." That's just blatantly ignoring what everyone is saying, and, essentially, pouting. Feel free to trot out your remaining 4 or 5 so they can be shot down, and then you can say you are right, and we can all go on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Door #2 was the goat. What are your odds if you stick, and if you switch?

 

[MARIS61]

Let’s say I have this clock and I completely dismantle every part of that clock. I take this clock and put it in a tin can and shake it up for 1 billion years. Is it logical that every piece of that clock will come together in perfect synergy? I think not. And guess what?!?! You actually have all the pieces necessary to make this clock; and still it isn’t logically possible.

This is another evidence to me that there was a designer.

Not at all. As you state in your example, the watch already exists. No creator/designer is required.

You just need to hire an illegal alien to assemble it for you.

 

[TripTango]

Yep nature did one heck of a job didn't it?

Please tell me why I should switch doors?

It's a cool probability trick.

The sleight-of-hand happens when you assume (as I did, when I first heard it) that the second choice is completely unrelated to the first, and therefore should be calculated fresh as a 50/50 choice. This isn't correct.

The right way to look at it is to start at the beginning. You have a 1/3 chance to pick the prize the first time, and a 2/3 chance to pick a goat. Let's look at each option individually, assuming that we always switch doors at the second stage. If you pick the prize right the first time, and then switch doors, you will obviously fail the game -- this represents a 1/3 chance of failure using our strategy. Now let's say that we picked goat #1 on our initial choice. The host will reveal the second goat, and thus by switching to the third door we win the prize. This is a 1/3 chance of success, based on our strategy. Finally, if we choose goat #2 with our first pick, Monty will then reveal goat #1, ensuring our victory by switching doors. Added with the previous 1/3 chance of success, this makes a 2/3 chance of getting a prize.

So, if you switch doors on the second choice, you have a 2/3 chance at victory -- the only way you fail is if you happen to initially pick the door with the prize. On the other hand, if you stick with your initial choice, you only have a 1/3 chance of success -- you have to nail it the first time, or not at all.

 

[magnifier661]

Door #2 was the goat. What are your odds if you stick, and if you switch?

2 and 3 chance?

 

[TripTango]

The odds aren't 50-50. There are 3 doors, each with a 33% chance.

I'm not spelling it all out for you yet. I'm hoping you logically deduce why you should switch, or google for the answer and learn the logic.

This isn't about making you look bad, it's about why what seems logical isn't sometimes.

Ooops... Sorry for spilling the beans!

 

[magnifier661]

Ooops... Sorry for spilling the beans!

No I finally got it. But it was close. And very confusing, I admit.

 

[Denny Crane]

By showing you the goat, he is giving you the choice of both other doors. So 66% chance if you switch.

There are two morals to this exercise.

1) logic says 50-50, but the math is never wrong.

2) if you're going to argue with crowTrobot and trip tango, you better at least stay in a Holiday Inn the night before!

 

[MARIS61]

Maris61* actually got a chuckle out of me on that one.

You know... Jesus was an insurgent, too!

repped for getting my point.

 

[magnifier661]

Are you lying about 1-5? Well, I wouldn't say lying, necessarily. But you're wrong, and ignoring what people have said to you over 8 pages if that is what you get from it. As much as you want to learn, and you keep asking people to explain to you, teach you, and show why. And get mad when they don't read your posts, watch your videos, etc. And what you got out of people's explanations of, at the least, 1-2 is "I am told I don't know so I am wrong to question it." That's just blatantly ignoring what everyone is saying, and, essentially, pouting. Feel free to trot out your remaining 4 or 5 so they can be shot down, and then you can say you are right, and we can all go on.

Really I get mad because people didn't watch my videos? You are presumptuous aren't you? And actually, Trip said I did have a point. So once again you are presumptuous. And looking back, I haven't ignored yet tried to explain why I disagree and still question.

Once again you only want black and white answers and YOU are unwilling to be open minded. I have already proved I can have an open mind about things; you are just spouting I'm wrong, without any logical rebuttal. Are you speaking for Trip or Denny or yourself?

 

[magnifier661]

By showing you the goat, he is giving you the choice of both other doors. So 66% chance if you switch.

There are two morals to this exercise.

1) logic says 50-50, but the math is never wrong.

2) if you're going to argue with crowTrobot and trip tango, you better at least stay in a Holiday Inn the night before!

And your point is? So instead of 50/50 you get an additional 16%, just because you can eliminate 1 odd? And how does this relate to the toothpicks or the Mona Lisa? I am seriously curious?

 

[MARIS61]

It's a cool probability trick.

The sleight-of-hand happens when you assume (as I did, when I first heard it) that the second choice is completely unrelated to the first, and therefore should be calculated fresh as a 50/50 choice. This isn't correct.

The right way to look at it is to start at the beginning. You have a 1/3 chance to pick the prize the first time, and a 2/3 chance to pick a goat. Let's look at each option individually, assuming that we always switch doors at the second stage. If you pick the prize right the first time, and then switch doors, you will obviously fail the game -- this represents a 1/3 chance of failure using our strategy. Now let's say that we picked goat #1 on our initial choice. The host will reveal the second goat, and thus by switching to the third door we win the prize. This is a 1/3 chance of success, based on our strategy. Finally, if we choose goat #2 with our first pick, Monty will then reveal goat #1, ensuring our victory by switching doors. Added with the previous 1/3 chance of success, this makes a 2/3 chance of getting a prize.

So, if you switch doors on the second choice, you have a 2/3 chance at victory -- the only way you fail is if you happen to initially pick the door with the prize. On the other hand, if you stick with your initial choice, you only have a 1/3 chance of success -- you have to nail it the first time, or not at all.

Mags should switch doors, judging from how often he's been right in this thread.

Were it me, I'd stand pat as I'm always right.

 

[TripTango]

And your point is? So instead of 50/50 you get an additional 16%, just because you can eliminate 1 odd? And how does this relate to the toothpicks or the Mona Lisa? I am seriously curious?

The point is that "common sense" isn't always as reliable as we like to think. And would you rather have a guard who shot 50% from the field, or 66%?

 

[ABM]

where did ANYTHING come from? We don't know, but at least it can be shown that there is no need for intelligent consciousness behind the formation of patterns in nature.[/IMG]

But, it always comes back to...."Where did it all come from?" And the resulting answer always appears to be, "We don't know." You'll never escape that equation, TripTango.....ever.

Where did it all come from does demand an answer.

 

[magnifier661]

The point is that "common sense" isn't always as reliable as we like to think. And would you rather have a guard who shot 50% from the field, or 66%?

You have a point; but #4 and #5 have nothing to do with mathematical probability in one case.

Yes it is possible that at one moment, the toothpicks can land and spell out your name. But there is another factor involved here. The factor that it could be just as probable, if not better that a person actually came up and wrote your name with tooth picks. Did anyone else think of that?

You way out both probabilities. One can give you a better probability than the other. Both can be wrong; but one has a better chance of being right. No?