Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

There's a great possibility that there isn't...but it's also possible that there is. For instance, maybe someone in some kind of spaceship orbiting Mars has one there.

Then your views on possibility are so lax, as to be meaningless.

[Aetherous]

Then your views on possibility are so lax, as to be meaningless.

 

It's not meaningless if you understand the definition of "possible". Possible isn't merely defined as "likely"...it means "might be so".

 

Also, you haven't addressed the likelihood of a Creator at all (in terms of providing reasoning). We could say that it's possible but not likely...but based on what? How we feel? Or can we use logic to show how a Creator is unlikely, somehow?

 

Remember, this thread is "debunking a Creator". Apparently you can't, and I was correct all along that Agnosticism is closer to the truth.

[RongzomFan]

Creator has been debunked for a long time.

 

Google "kalam rebuttal".

[Aetherous]

I also asked you to provide one link that sums it up (not google of course which I already checked and didn't get far), or else sum it up yourself here...then we can see if it was actually debunked or not. I doubt that it was actually based on sound reasoning.

[Stosh]

No its not.That's the whole point with the dice.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqNDrOxhZho

The people in the clip are wrong. Their argument is based on the idea that when one says 'possible' they are saying that only the way things work out to happen is possible. She may have had three dice in the bag.

They included six possibilities for one die , but if they had rolled it (equating to emptying the bag) then only one outcome could have happened. Their conclusion ,if consistent

would then retroactively be that the die did not indicate six possibilities.. it would only imply one possibility.

Truthfully only that which happens happens , probabilities are illusion, but at least to hold to consistency allows logical conclusions to be made.

[RongzomFan]

Right, but she didn't have 3 dies, and it wasn't possible to roll an 18.

 

That's the whole point.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Aetherous]

Right, but she didn't have 3 dies, and it wasn't possible to roll an 18.

 

That's the whole point.

 

Give me the bag, we do the experiment a second time, and then it becomes possible again.

 

If we were to say, "it's not possible to roll an 18 with 3 dice from this bag" and then it happens after I've messed with the bag and made sure there were 3 dice, we would have been absolutely wrong to say "it's not possible". It was clearly possible because it happened.

 

Therefore, it is always possible until it doesn't happen...and then it's no longer possible. Pretty simple.

 

Another example to drive the point home. We could take one die and ask, "is it possible to roll a 4"? I say it is, but RongzomFan says it's not correct to say "it's possible". But then we roll a 4...so we see of course it was possible. It happened.

 

Lets ask of the dice the was rolled as a 4. "Is it possible that this die was rolled as a 6?" No. It was rolled as a 4. It's no longer possible for it to have been rolled as anything else.

 

We can ask, "Could it have been possible for the die to have rolled as a 6 instead of a 4, prior to the roll?" Yes, it was possible.

 

Hopefully the error in the video is understood now.

[RongzomFan]

 

Give me the bag, we do the experiment a second time, and then it becomes possible again.

 

If we were to say, "it's not possible to roll an 18 with 3 dice from this bag" and then it happens after I've messed with the bag and made sure there were 3 dice,

Yes but if there were 2 dice, it would have been impossible.

[Aetherous]

Yes but if there were 2 dice, it would have been impossible.

 

True. If you say, "I have two dice. Is it possible to roll an 18 of three dice with these two dice?" of course it's impossible.

 

We didn't see how many dice were in the bag, though...so it was absolutely possible at the time of not knowing.

[RongzomFan]

We didn't see how many dice were in the bag, though...so it was absolutely possible at the time of not knowing.

No it wasn't possible. There were only 2 dice in the bag.

[Aetherous]

No it wasn't possible. There were only 2 dice in the bag.

 

Go back to my single die example to see the error in this reasoning.

 

Also, give me a bag, and we redo the experiment. Is it possible now, or still impossible?

[RongzomFan]

This is the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Brian]

LOL

 

The "impossible" happens frequently. Sometimes it is merely denied but sometimes we figure out why we were mistaken and, having "explained it," we pretend it wasn't deemed really impossible in the first place. The incredibly implausible happens even more often. The problem is, though, that discussing probabilities sheds no light on possibilities or on what may be beyond that discussion. Thus, those who believe one thing continue to believe it while those who believe another thing continue to believe that -- and both continue to believe the other blind to the obvious truth.

[Stosh]

Right, but she didn't have 3 dies, and it wasn't possible to roll an 18.That's the whole point.

They are using two standards. Lets say they rolled a 3,,With the exposed die, they counted erroneous possible numbers into the "Possible" 1 to 6. But!

. With the bag , they determined" possible" by only the number of actual dice.

A physical example of the way things are , would be that I had pasta for lunch , there is no possibility that I had something else. I really had the pasta!.

One could calculate the possibility or probabilities beforehand or after , by looking at a menu , counting the foods I like , all the foods in the universe , all the items that Fit in my mouth etc etc. The probabilities possibilities would all be different numbers zero to infinity. But in the end there was but one answer , the one that actually came about.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Stosh

[Aetherous]

Actually, the error of the Atheists in the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why?

"It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." - Introduction to Logic, by Copi and Cohen 12th ed.

Also, to relate this back to the topic of this thread...if someone claimed that the Creator exists, and that it's true because it can't be proven false...that would be this fallacy. If someone claims the Creator doesn't exist, and this is true because no one can provide evidence for it...that's also this fallacy.

 

edit...

Also, "possible" does not equal "true".

Edited December 11, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

Actually, the error of the Atheists in the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why?

 

"It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." - Introduction to Logic, by Copi and Cohen 12th ed.

 

Also, to relate this back to the topic of this thread...if someone claimed that the Creator exists, and that it's true because it can't be proven false...that would be this fallacy. If someone claims the Creator doesn't exist, and this is true because no one can provide evidence for it...that's also this fallacy.

 

edit...

 

Also, "possible" does not equal "true".

 

Yes but its up to you to accept the debunking. Creator has been debunked in this thread in atleast 3 different ways.

[Stosh]

Actually, the error of the Atheists in the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why?"It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." - Introduction to Logic, by Copi and Cohen 12th ed.Also, to relate this back to the topic of this thread...if someone claimed that the Creator exists, and that it's true because it can't be proven false...that would be this fallacy. If someone claims the Creator doesn't exist, and this is true because no one can provide evidence for it...that's also this fallacy.

Despite their erroneous conclusion , there is a correct conclusion which the demonstration supports . It is that no data supports no conclusion, some data supports some conclusion. The more logic based conclusion is the one based on some data rather than no data. .but nothing is truly conclusive but a th i ng should be tentatively considered so if it has happened or is retroactively evidenced as objectively fact.

[Aetherous]

Yes but its up to you to accept the debunking. Creator has been debunked in this thread in atleast 3 different ways.

 

No, for something to be true it's not required that anyone accepts its truth. It is true regardless and is shown through reasoning.

To believe otherwise is at least one other fallacy, probably argument ad verecundiam (appeal to inappropriate authority). A sound argument stands on its own, and people can either accept it or live in denial.

There has not yet been a single legitimate debunking in this thread.

[RongzomFan]

 

There has not yet been a single legitimate debunking in this thread.

 

 

Then why do you refuse to answer whether your Creator changes or not??

 

Obviously, because either way you are screwed.

[Aetherous]

Then why do you refuse to answer whether your Creator changes or not??

 

Obviously, because either way you are screwed.

 

I answered you in saying basically both. I didn't refuse to give an answer.

[RongzomFan]

 

I answered you in saying basically both. I didn't refuse to give an answer.

Yes in that answer, you admit either way you are fucked.

 

That's a legit debunking.

[Aetherous]

You didn't understand what I said apparently...and it wasn't debunked.

[Stosh]

All proofs require subjective agreement about what is considered to constitute "proof". .which is why I hold that a god may exist , but logically one should consider it moot. I don't see why the thread can't be left neither debunked nor undebunked.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Stosh

[RongzomFan]

You didn't understand what I said apparently...and it wasn't debunked.

Does your Creator change or not?

[Aetherous]

Does your Creator change or not?

 

Already answered this. Please don't keep asking the same thing after it's already been covered...that's trolling behavior. My answer is there for you to ponder.