@Orathaic, lol, I do hold it. I wasn't saying the belief was false. I was saying the belief is a belief, contra what Yeoman claimed.

I _would_ also go on to say that if one is a materialist, or more generally an atheist, then the belief (or the worldview with the belief incorporated, as it always is) is incoherent and irrational.

@"You don't even know what the thread is about do you... This is about the people, not the belief. "

I did read the whole thread before posting, and i did respond to specific quotes in my first post.

I don't advocate the position that people are stupid because the believe in YEC, so i didn't mention that.

'Considering you can't prove him/her false, you should respect his/her beliefs.'

Why, if someone believes that killing Jews is good, should you respect their belief? Are all belief's suddenly created equal?

'Flying Spaghetti Monster belief isn't shared by a fourth of the world's population.'

So what? popularity has nothing to do with truth, a popular belief is merely one which many people have adopted. It doesn't make it valid.

Adoption may be a result of common sense, or indoctrination but it is not necessarily linked in any way to validity. (common sense happens to disagree with both Einstein’s relativity and Quantum Mechanics, it also happens to be the case that not all people see newton's laws of motion as common sense, even though they are based in the world we evolved to understand)

The Theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a scientific theory at least by the criteria which ID (Intelligent Design) advocates specify.

It has equal merit to be taught alongside ID and evolution, if you propose non-science be taught in science classes.

"There's nothing to back Last Thursdayism, there are teachings to back YEC." - heresay.

The teachings are just that, and would be in-admissible in a court of law.
The point is that logically these two theories (YEC and Last Thursdayism) are on the same basis. If God can be used to explain away any evidence then it can be invoked for Last Thursdaysim. The are logically equivalent. Just because one has heresay backing it doesn't make it any more or less likely.

You can't disprove Last Thursdayism, by your own arguements that means you should respect people who hold this belief.

@semck: you said "I _would_ also go on to say that if one is a materialist...then the belief...is incoherent and irrational. "

We're talking about the belief that tomorrow will be as today was, (or the next second will be as the last second...) How is it incoherent and irrational?

"So religion is out to get humankind?"

It's out to scare people into giving religious authorities money, wealth and power. "Hand over your cash and your blind obedience or else you'll burn for eternity".

"Logic is not always a good source of information."

Interesting comment. I quite agree. Why it's interesting you say this is because most of the religious debaters who like to attack science and evolutionary theory rely entirely on silly syllogisms to do so (because they have nothing else). They substantiate nothing. No evidence whatsoever. But they're very proud of their logic chopping because without it they bring absolutely nothing to the table. Nonetheless, they're highly selective in their use of logic. It's only used to critique, it's rarely used to make a positive case for religion. The tactic of the religious is to exploit science's penchant for speaking in terms of cautious probabilities and declare "Ha, you haven't explained X, Y, and Z yet. Therefore god is a better explanation!".

" I'd be willing to bet that a majority of Christians are of higher intelligence than you."

Ok, fine, but did you see that poll I just cited? There is a correlation between lack of education and belief in Christian theological accounts of the origins of the planet. I'm no genius but I'm willing to bet you'll lose your bet. Christianity thrives on ignorance.

" For instance, what would logic tell you about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? "

There's multiple forms of logic. The more familiar form is Boolean logic. But there's also quantum logic. Quantum logic says the distributive principle does not hold, so it says quite a lot about the uncertainty principle.

"Their beliefs are completely substantiated. They base their beliefs on a being that they (including me) think to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent."

What substantiates them? Where's the substance?

"They base their beliefs on a being that they (including me) think to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. "

Qualities which are logically impossible. The whole concept of 'god' and its abilities is a pile of logical contradictions. How can a being be both beyond space and exist everywhere in space? How can a being be beyond space & time and also be a person at the same time? How can an omnipresent being also be a person? How can an omniscient being also have freedom, in the sense that he knows what he will do so he cannot do something contrary to what he knows he will do?


"Main point: you're mentally slow and you really have no idea what's going on. Read through your post, and think about it. If you truly still stand by it, then you the help of a mental institution."

So you provide nothing to contradict my points except insults, when all I did was say Basvan was right about the kinds of tactics you people use to handwave away the terrible *lack of any reason to believe whatsoever* problem you have.

@orathaic, Ok, good, so we agree that it's not intelligence at question

Youre example about respecting beliefs is the core difference between respecting beliefs and opinions. Your example is respecting an opinion. Also, having a belief, and acting on it are different. Acting on your belief when contradicting beliefs are present is where the conflict occurs, not the mere existence of contradicitng beliefs.

Popularity gives credit to the belief. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is outrageous and difficult to believe because of lack of any support and following.

I don't quite understand your "adoption" point, or your "theory of flying spaghetti monster" point

I don't propose non-science be taught in science classes. I propose that we not treat those with different beliefs with demeaning behavior based solely on beliefs.

Yes, God can be used to explain Last Thursdayism, but this support wouldn't be as solid as YEC. Why? Because of something a court would term motive. YEC has Biblical support, along with religious reasoning support.

PS, again, I'm not backing the YEC theory. I'm only saying one should not criticize those who believe this.

And yes, I can't disprove Last Thursdayism. So yes, I do respect those who believe it. To believe something means you truly know such a fact in your perspective. So there must be some sort of reasoning behind that belief. Therefore, I respect that belief. That's different from saying I believe it. I just respect it.

"It's out to scare people into giving religious authorities money, wealth and power. "Hand over your cash and your blind obedience or else you'll burn for eternity". "

This was true back in the middle second millenium. As it happens, this is nowhere near the case. You obviously don't understand anything about religion. There is a subtle difference between the Church and religion. If you look through religious teachings, you'll realize that Christianity is a full advocate of individual relationships between you and the Lord above. There is nothing about power and wealth in the Bible. Again, try reading before interpreting, because there is a fairly large chance that you'll misinterpret (such as this case).

"Why it's interesting you say this is because most of the religious debaters who like to attack science and evolutionary theory rely entirely on silly syllogisms to do so (because they have nothing else). "
With this comment, you really bring to the table your knowledge of religion. Religion is based on faith, not logic and reason. That's why they don't call religion science. Religion is religion, science is science.

"There is a correlation between lack of education and belief in Christian theological accounts of the origins of the planet."

Read through my posts. I've answered this already. Has something to do with the education system.

"What substantiates them? Where's the substance? "

Again, and again, Religion. Go read about it and try and understand it. Or just read my post and try and understand. I answer this pretty clearly.

Your questions about the "qualities" I mention again show your ignorance about religion. If we understood it, would it really be called religion? No... that would be called science. Again, it's a very significant distinction you can't seem to grasp.

@orathaic,

"you said 'I _would_ also go on to say that if one is a materialist...then the belief...is incoherent and irrational. '

"We're talking about the belief that tomorrow will be as today was, (or the next second will be as the last second...) How is it incoherent and irrational?"

First, I'll point out that I amended (during one of the above elliptical passages) to say that the worldview including it was incoherent.

The way it's incoherent is this. There is absolutely no reason supporting an atheist's belief that tomorrow WILL be the same as past days, that the sun will rise tomorrow. (Yes, it has in the past, but why will tomorrow be the same?). That's not to say it couldn't be, of course, but it could also not be, and indeed, there are far more ways in which it could not be than ways in which it could be, and we have no way to distinguish which of them is the real case. (As a physicist, you're doubtless aware that disorder is probabilistically far more likely than order. This is true within the laws of physics, when discussing entropy of a state, but it's also true of possible universes, when discussing those that have laws at all and those that don't).

Hence, a belief that you yourself point out is absolutely key -- the belief in the consistency or regularity of nature -- is based on nothing at all in the materialist worldview, and indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely to be false. Yet it is accepted as a foundational belief. This is what I meant by an incoherency.

Re:adoption: the number of people adopting any given idea does not directly reflect the validity of the idea.

Common sense indicates that the sun goes around the earth ('sure i can see it, the earth stays where it is every day, and the sun goes up in the sky...')

This does not make the idea correct. (though strictly speaking, in the reference frame of the earth the sun does indeed go around it... and modern physics, especially einstien's relativity states that all inertial reference frames are equivalent - though the earth's rotating reference frame in not inertial... )

If you had read my link to the Flying Spaghetti Monster letter then maybe you would understand it a bit better.

Irony as a debating technique, is when you take the opposite view that the one you belief in, and argue it out. Your arguement then makes the position look ridiculous. This is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster advocates are doing. Opposed to the teaching of ID (i know not YEC, but i'm sure there is a co-orelation there) in schools.

YEC has biblical support. But Last Thursdayism suggests that 'God' or the 'creator' made up this support to test our faith.

Thus the proponents of Last Thursdaysim (LT) will claim that this 'evidence' can be safely ignored.

The two theories stand on equal logical and intellectual footing.

As you pointed out, they do not have the same cultural meaning, they do not have the same historical precedence.

Just as some Catholics believe in the divinity of Christ, yet find the ideas of Mormonism (ie the tale of Jesus visiting the Americas after the crucifixion) to be laughable. At least one Catholic questioned her belief after hearing the story of Adam Smith.

She said (and i can't find the link to the video, or i'd post it) roughly, why do i take these stories i was raised with as obvious and true, and then laugh at these ideas of the Mormons. Her conclusion was simply that she was indoctrinated at such a young age she didn't question the ideas she was raised with, and thus only still believed them because she had never questioned herself... (this lead to her atheism, though i'm sure some Catholics/Christians come to a conclusion whereby the literal meaning of the history is abandoned as a child's fairy tale, but the moral message of how to live is retained)

The point is, SOME people subscribe to a belief which they have not thought about because it is the story they were raised with.

I do not, in fact, believe this has anything to do with intelligence.

"And yes, I can't disprove Last Thursdayism. So yes, I do respect those who believe it. To believe something means you truly know such a fact in your perspective. So there must be some sort of reasoning behind that belief. Therefore, I respect that belief. That's different from saying I believe it. I just respect it. "

I do not respect those who hold this belief. Does my lack of respect mean i think they are any less human? No. There are as human as anyone else. But that doesn't mean i think their belief should be respected.

You must earn respect. And while there are no people who actually subscribe to Last Thursdayism (it is again a logical construct to simply demonstrate how ridiculous YEC is - by comparison) That doesn't i should respect them.

If i lived in Germany in 1935, i could respect the people who hold Nazi beliefs about White Supremacy, but i would not. (that is, the I who i am today) I find their belief to be out-outrageous - of course if Hitler had won his war then I would likely have grown up in a very different Europe, where culturally these beliefs found a lot more traction.

Beliefs are not all equal, and while I don't have to respect people who hold them, that doesn't require (in my belief system) that I discriminate against them for holding a belief (i can discriminate based, as you say, on their actions)

And where the actions of YEC undermine the greatest achievements of our culture, I feel entitled to belittle their beliefs in public. They are damaging a stupid (the beliefs, not the people)

'Hence, a belief that you yourself point out is absolutely key -- the belief in the consistency or regularity of nature -- is based on nothing at all in the materialist worldview, and indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely to be false. Yet it is accepted as a foundational belief. This is what I meant by an incoherency. '

Ok, but we have no evidence that other universes without laws exist. So there is nothing to support your claim that this is overwhelmingly likely.

You have put forward the case the it is possibly false, yet i still fail to see how that makes for an incoherency.

Based on that one belief we can construct idea about entropy, tests and physical models. Statistical analysis and understandings.

Without this belief we can predict nothing, develop no world-view, and in-fact take no actions with confidence of the result.

Thus if we wish to do any of these things we must start with this assumption. (or be paralysed by indecision) If we conclude from our investigations of the Universe that in-fact it is more likely to not be the case, then we have made a conclusion which indeed contradict our underlying belief (this is not a conclusion i have ever come to - which perhaps explains why i didn't get your point at first...) but then we have lost the a priori assumptions and our conclusion is no longer valid.

We go back to knowing nothing, having no world view. If I was to accept you conclusion as a possibility, then i might go on to say that i HAVE to assume your conclusion is wrong in order to live my daily life. If at some point your conclusion has some proof then i can revisit my belief system, but at present it is only back by theoretical constructs...

@The Situation:

I can hold the belief that YEC is damaging and stupid. Do you have to respect my belief?

Come again? What substantiates your claims is faith? You do know what substantiate means, right?

I do enjoy your selective use of evidence elsewhere though. You claim the Bible describes historical events accurately, but then you try to dodge any evidence-based accountability, or any accountability whatsoever, for your nonsense as per usual.

" If you look through religious teachings, you'll realize that Christianity is a full advocate of individual relationships between you and the Lord above. There is nothing about power and wealth in the Bible. Again, try reading before interpreting, because there is a fairly large chance that you'll misinterpret (such as this case)."

Ah right, the usual flimflam about how the whole rotten history of your movement is somehow an aberration. They weren't really following the Bible for these couple of thousand years, but now suddenly you know the Truth and the Way. Surely the Biblical writers intended their movement to be a bunch of separated individuals locked away in rooms mumbling prayers to god on a one-on-one basis like a personal therapist or good-luck charm, instead of a united community of followers/church 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 5:22-25.

Furthermore the Bible is full of references to tithing and storing tithes and explicitly calls for world conquest (Matthew 28:19).

@orathaic,

"Ok, but we have no evidence that other universes without laws exist. So there is nothing to support your claim that this is overwhelmingly likely."

Yes, but the point is, we also have no evidence that a universe with perpetual law exists. We know only of one universe, which has had laws (or regularities) THUS FAR. We don't know whether either of the following exists:

(a) A universe that has regularity thus far, and then keeps having it.
(b) A universe that has regularity thus far, and then stops having it.

So your singling out (b) as having a lack of evidence is precisely the problem. We don't have evidence of either one (though we can say that one or the other exists, since we have had regularity thus far). And actually, to even speak of evidence presupposes regularity.

"Based on that one belief we can construct idea about entropy, tests and physical models. Statistical analysis and understandings. ... Without this belief we can predict nothing, develop no world-view, and in-fact take no actions with confidence of the result. "

OK, but this is an argument from usefulness. The point remains that the materialist worldview does not actually provide any support for this proposition. It may be very useful, yes, but that's only saying that it would be great if it were true, not that it is. It will NOT be useful to assume that it's true if it is, in fact, false.

For example, it may instead be true that there is no constant physical law, and that tomorrow, the first person to climb the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after 5 AM will have 1 million dollars in gold suddenly materialize in his pockets. If this were true, then it would be most useful to assume it was true. That does not go to its truth, however. What the materialist worldview lacks is a way to support the one (regularity of nature) but rule out the other (million dollars materializing).

We simply lack the epistemological resources to know anything at all about what will happen tomorrow.

"If we conclude from our investigations of the Universe that in-fact it is more likely to not be the case, then we have made a conclusion which indeed contradict our underlying belief "

But if the universe stopped being regular, investigations would be useless in finding that out beforehand. It could be _totally_ regular up to some time, and then abruptly stop, and have magical horses start appearing everywhere. There is no reason to prefer one of those to the other. Nothing about the regularity of the past implies the regularity of the future in any way.

"If I was to accept you conclusion as a possibility, then i might go on to say that i HAVE to assume your conclusion is wrong in order to live my daily life. If at some point your conclusion has some proof then i can revisit my belief system, but at present it is only back by theoretical constructs... "

It's true, of course, you do have to assume it, but that is precisely why a materialistic worldview is inadequate for daily life. If you have to assume totally arbitrary things that aren't supported by your worldview to get along, isn't that problematic?

Now I confess I don't understand the last part. My conclusion is supported "only by theoretical constructs"? I'm not just being rhetorical, I really don't know what you mean, and would appreciate explanation. Obviously, as a scientist, you appreciate how useful theoretical constructs are, though I'm not sure which constructs you're referring to here. My argument is simply an analytic one, and it's Hume's:

You have no reason to believe that the future will resemble the past in any way. If you say, "Well, it always has in the past," that is merely begging the question. Thus, you are left without anything at all supporting the future being like the past, yet you MUST assume this (as you point out), just to get by. (But even to say that requires assuming that it is true).

So the question is, since your worldview (assuming you're an atheist*) completely fails to support this key belief, why is it you hold on to it as rational?
---
*I'm being casual about switching back and forth between materialist, atheist, etc. Technically I shouldn't, but most forms of atheism these days, particularly among scientists, takes a form of materialism, physicalism, naturalism, or some vaguely similar ism, to any of which this critique applies.

PS. I say above, "There is no reason to prefer one of those to the other." That is, between any universe that is ordered up to some time, there is no reason to prefer the hypothesis where it stays ordered over any single one where it does not. However, since the latter vastly outnumber the former, the principle of ignorance does suggest that it is vastly more probable that the universe would stop being regular at each given moment.

'OK, but this is an argument from usefulness. The point remains that the materialist worldview does not actually provide any support for this proposition. It may be very useful, yes, but that's only saying that it would be great if it were true, not that it is. It will NOT be useful to assume that it's true if it is, in fact, false.'

Correct, but it will be useful to assume that it is true UNTIL it is proven to be false.

And i will bet the usefulness of this theory against any other you choose to come up with for. That is assuming one bet will do and i don't have to repeatedly prove myself. That each time i am right you cease to exist... eventually only people who bet alongside me will still exist (i think that's called evolution, but i may be wrong, biology isn't my strong suit)

"Nothing about the regularity of the past implies the regularity of the future in any way."

i believe this is called induction. We see today was like yesterday, we induce tomorrow will be like today.

This inductive logic may not be correct, but it is better than your position or not having any tool to usefully predict what will happen tomorrow.

The theoretical constructs i was referring to was your construction of universes where no laws apply. For which we have no evidence (not the B situation where we have a universe where laws apply now and stop tomorrow)

"If you have to assume totally arbitrary things that aren't supported by your worldview to get along, isn't that problematic?"

No. It would be problematic to have things which are contrary to our worldview which you have to assume, not merely things for which we have no support. (this is something we must have faith in, but i think i've stated that this is a belief upon which all of science is founded... actually more than all of science, religion wouldn't do very well without it either... i don't mean to imply the science is special in relying on this assumption)

Your theoretical constructs were merely to suggest other possibilities are more likely. I don't have any way of telling which is more likely.


And ye, purely theoretical objects do have their uses. Though only if they can make predictions. 12 different string theories which can be fine-tuned to agree with any experimental evidence can't be distinguished from each other and are thus not useful for predicting results.

"So the question is, since your worldview (assuming you're an atheist*) completely fails to support this key belief, why is it you hold on to it as rational?"

Do you hold this belief system to be irrational? Just because there is nothing in it to contradict the key belief?

**And i don't claim to be an atheist, but that is rather apart from the question in my mind.

"However, since the latter vastly outnumber the former, the principle of ignorance does suggest that it is vastly more probable that the universe would stop being regular at each given moment. "

but you have no evidence to say that the latter outnumber the former.

This is my point about theoretical constructs which make no prediction. They are not useful.

And there is inductive logic to use. Admittedly it is an assumption, but it is the basic assumption upon which the rest of the framework is based. Without it, (and it may be falsified) nothing can be concluded.

So i could spend some time philosophizing on the nature of lawless universes, but this would not provide me with anything useful. I do not say one view is more or less likely than the other. Merely that investing time in speculation of this nature isn't worth the payback. Because no matter what happens tomorrow, I will not be able to make useful predictions if the laws of the universe break down.

That is what it comes down to. Use of time - i have a choice of using my time to decide how i should act.

If i can make useful predictions, this benefits me.

If i can not the time spent make useless predictions does not benefit me.

Your example of the million tonnes of gold is flawed. The assumption that a million tonnes of gold will materialise in the pockets of the first person to climb the monument is equally likely as the assumption that the gold will materialise under my bed.

So when deciding whether to go to the monument of stay at home i have two equal choices. With no useful method of deciding which is more likely.

That is, i can't make any decision based on these assumptions.

@orathaic,

"Correct, but it will be useful to assume that it is true UNTIL it is proven to be false."

You don't know that at all. It will be useful to assume that it is true until it IS false, but that's quite another matter. If I assume the laws of physics will hold tomorrow, and they don't, then my assumption (tonight) that they would hold was not useful, even though they were not proven false till then.

"And i will bet the usefulness of this theory against any other you choose to come up with for."

Yes, yes, I'm sure you will. I believe in regularity too. My point is just that the atheist can't JUSTIFY that in his worldview, not even at all. He can just type high-sounding rhetoric (like this) about how it's dependable. He can't actually give any kind of a reason for why it should be or is (consistent with his worldview).

"(i think that's called evolution, but i may be wrong, biology isn't my strong suit)"

More to the point, biology itself relies on regularity.

"i believe this is called induction. We see today was like yesterday, we induce tomorrow will be like today. "

It is. And yes, that's precisely the point. Inductive argument is insupportible in an atheistic world view. This has been well known since David Hume. You are only giving a name to the problem.

"This inductive logic may not be correct, but it is better than your position or not having any tool to usefully predict what will happen tomorrow."

Well.... not if it's not correct, it's not. Having an incorrect tool isn't at all better than not having one. They're the same.

But anyway, I agree we need induction. My point is just that _the materialist_ can't consistently have it. Every time he relies on it he's betraying his own view of the world.

"The theoretical constructs i was referring to was your construction of universes where no laws apply. For which we have no evidence (not the B situation where we have a universe where laws apply now and stop tomorrow)"

Ah OK, my apologies for not being clear, then. Yes, the universes of interest are the ones where laws apply up to now and then stop, but those are all that are needed for the argument. The ones where the laws stop far outnumber the ones where they don't -- just like if you're tossing a coin 100 times, and the first 75 come up heads, the ways that it can become disordered thereafter far outnumbers the ways it can stay all heads (2^25 - 1 versus 1).

"No. It would be problematic to have things which are contrary to our worldview which you have to assume, not merely things for which we have no support."

Very interesting. So you are going on record as saying that it is totally fine to believe things for which you have no support, as long as they don't explicitly contradict something else you believe?

Of course, as I've said above, it actually _does_ contradict the rest of the materialist worldview. Since the disordered-future possible universes far outnumber the ordered-future possible universe, the materialist should not believe in an ordered future.

But even ignoring that, and assuming (incorrectly I think) that, as you claim, you have no way of knowing whether induction holds, then this leaves you in the odd position of saying that it is completely fine to totally order your life around something you assume with no justification at all. This makes it improbable that you will ever be able to criticize anybody else's belief system, since probably that person is doing the same thing. This is perhaps Situation's point.

He can, though, I think, criticize yours. Your whole life is built around assuming things you admit you could have no way of knowing at all -- so in fact you can't know anything.

"Do you hold this belief system to be irrational? Just because there is nothing in it to contradict the key belief?"

I'm not sure I follow the question. Could you please rephrase, making clear what you mean by "this belief system"?

If you mean atheism, then yes, I do. I think it destroys knowledge, as above.

"but you have no evidence to say that the latter outnumber the former. "

Sure I do, that's just math. We're just talking possibilities. Just like with the coin tossing scenario.

And you talk about predictions, but if induction fails, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make predictions. Remember, something is not useful if it's false.

"And there is inductive logic to use. Admittedly it is an assumption, but it is the basic assumption upon which the rest of the framework is based. Without it, (and it may be falsified) nothing can be concluded. "

Yes, and the whole point is, in a materialist framework, it is a _bare_ assumption. You could make any other. For example, you could assume that you'll wake up tomorrow a billionaire, so long as you microwave your shoes for five minutes tonight.

Why not assume that? That would also be useful if true. So why not assume it? It's another bare assumption you could make, which would not flat-out contradict materialism, but is totally unsupported by it. Please explain why you haven't put your shoes in the microwave already.

(You may say that's not predictive or useful... _but it is if it's true!_).

"I do not say one view is more or less likely than the other. Merely that investing time in speculation of this nature isn't worth the payback. Because no matter what happens tomorrow, I will not be able to make useful predictions if the laws of the universe break down."

Again, not true. If you happen to guess the right random thing, and it happens, then that guess will have been just as useful as assuming that the laws of the universe continued (and just as justified).

@orathaic,

(I am going to bed after this post, and will likely be away for most of tomorrow).

"Your example of the million tonnes of gold is flawed. The assumption that a million tonnes of gold will materialise in the pockets of the first person to climb the monument is equally likely as the assumption that the gold will materialise under my bed.

So when deciding whether to go to the monument of stay at home i have two equal choices. With no useful method of deciding which is more likely.

That is, i can't make any decision based on these assumptions. "

Yes, true, and both are equally likely as the assumption that the laws of the universe will continue. So already we have two assumptions where they fail, and one assumption where they stay. You can see how quickly the numbers will mount up against the laws of physics.

That doesn't mean my example is flawed though. The millions of dollars in gold materializing in my pocket is one possibility, _just like the laws of physics staying_, and you seem perfectly happy with accepting one indistinguishable possibility out of many. So what's the problem? How to distinguish?

"The ones where the laws stop far outnumber the ones where they don't -- just like if you're tossing a coin 100 times, and the first 75 come up heads, the ways that it can become disordered thereafter far outnumbers the ways it can stay all heads (2^25 - 1 versus 1)."

the count is correct, but the analogy fails on the assumption that tails is a possibility.

If i throw a coin 75 times and it comes up heads each time, then the chances are it will come up heads the next time. Because the chances are it is a biased coin.... But even your example assumes that there is a regularity to the process of flipping a coin.

"Very interesting. So you are going on record as saying that it is totally fine to believe things for which you have no support, as long as they don't explicitly contradict something else you believe?"

Yes, you may even believe that God will send you to heaven for your good works on earth. And you can argue for as long as you like the utility of such a position. (Putin will claim that is it to enrich the church and opress to illiterate, no doubt)

"Of course, as I've said above, it actually _does_ contradict the rest of the materialist worldview. Since the disordered-future possible universes far outnumber the ordered-future possible universe, the materialist should not believe in an ordered future."

The case for disorder is not one where the laws change. Infact you could contrive changes in the laws of physics which would decrease dis-order. We have way to estimate the number of possible dis-ordered future (theoretical constructs) and any estimate of that number would be useless in any case as the specific path the universe happened to take would still be unknown.

Our best estimate for a chaotic universe would still be to assume a 'regular' universe, but with some perturbation.

"If you mean atheism, then yes, I do. I think it destroys knowledge, as above."

I'm pretty sure you can build a system of knowledge on an assumption, and that non-atheists do the same. How can you claim this 'destroys knowledge' when any alternative system of knowledge has the same basis?


i said:"but you have no evidence to say that the latter outnumber the former. "

semck said: "Sure I do, that's just math. We're just talking possibilities. Just like with the coin tossing scenario."

No, you can't count the number of possible universes where no regularity ensues. By the same virtue you can't count the number of possible universe where the laws hold, because in both cases you don't have any way of knowing how many of them there are.

Your assumption that they are somehow like tossing coins, or that entropic solutions to the statistical properties are founded on nothing. You can't claim any knowledge of universes where this regularity requirement is dropped.

it's like you're saying 0 > 0. Because in both cases you have counted no universes fitting the descriptions.

"And you talk about predictions, but if induction fails, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make predictions. Remember, something is not useful if it's false."

Yes, and until induction fails we have a useful system for modelling the Universe. But no amount of work done now can prepare us for the case where induction fails, so there is no use in doing that work.

If regularity at some point fails then we can start trying to live in such a world, but until that point any such efforts will produce less.

"Yes, true, and both are equally likely as the assumption that the laws of the universe will continue. So already we have two assumptions where they fail, and one assumption where they stay. You can see how quickly the numbers will mount up against the laws of physics."

It is a very simple bet.

It doesn't matter that anything might be possible because we can't act on that basis.

"you seem perfectly happy with accepting one indistinguishable possibility out of many. So what's the problem? How to distinguish?"

The result of actions in these two cases are distinguishable.

if i assume no regularity then i have no knowledge of the result of any action and all actions are equal.

if i bet that there will be regularity i can take actions which i think will benefit me.

if my bet is wrong then it doesn't matter actions i have taken because all actions are equally unpredictable.

That is how to distinguish how i should act.

There is no basis for decision making without the assumption of regularity.

Alternatively i can deny the concept of free-will, and claim that as an animal all my actions are determined but the inputs from my environment, (as indeed they are and i am) then there is no question of how to act, no assumptions being made.

This is also the case.

Hume's radical scepticism was targeted by Kant's transcendental deduction (and then Kant's synthetic apriori knowledge was targeted by logical positivists). I think he did a good job.

I have one question for Semck83:

Regarding the quote and response you wrote in your above post


""but you have no evidence to say that the latter outnumber the former. "

Sure I do, that's just math. We're just talking possibilities. Just like with the coin tossing scenario."

What evidence do you have to assume that all of these cases have equal probability? That in itself seems to be making an assumption. Is it not entirely possible that for some completely incomprehensible reason an ordered case is favored? I don't feel that one can make a strong logical case based on probability without making assumptions that undermine the whole premise of avoiding assumptions of underlying order... Maybe I'm just not understanding your argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw&feature=related

I'll admit not having read everything that has been said in the last page. But I do want to respond to a couple of posts.

@Putin: Thank you, those are kind words. By the way, my name is Dutch, so it's just "Bas".

@The Situation: I'm glad to hear you're not actually a YEC. As an academic exercise, it is certainly useful to take a position contrary to one's own belief, and defend it. But this particular one is rather difficult to defend consistently.

1) I don't think believing YEC directly influences a politician's policy (apart from the question whether or not YEC should be taught in schools), but being Christian does. Commandment 6 states "thou shalt not kill". On a first read, one cannot disagree with that moral rule. But when you think about it, are there *no* situations where ending human life is justified? Self-defense springs to mind. Or killing to prevent a greater evil. So maybe that moral rule isn't so clear-cut. And when you get to that point, think again about why abortion and euthanasia are so bad.

A christian politician makes policy in accordance with Christian values (and proud of it!). These values should be discussed.

2) I have asked multiple times to stop saying "respect everyone's beliefs", and I'm going to say it again. What "respect my beliefs" really means is
- Acknowledge that what I'm saying isn't metaphysically impossible, and draw the conclusion that I'm just as right as you.
- Stop trying to argue that I'm wrong, because it's all a choice anyway.
Whenever one side in a discussion appeals to metaphysical uncertainty, that side invalidates himself to make any rigorous claims anymore. But that's not what happens. What happens is: "You can't say God doesn't exist. You have to respect my belief that God exists. You have to belief yourself that God might exist. Now, regarding abortion, I'm against it. And I have God on my side, so I must be right."

3) The largest religion in the world isn't Christianity, but it is Islam. Yet, that word hasn't appeared in this 20.000-word discussion at all. Popularity has nothing to do with metaphysical truth.

4) I agree completely. YEC is based on religious teachings. It is also debunked by religious teachings (those of the Buddhists, the muslims, and the Hindus). YEC stands or falls by the assumption that the Bible (all books of it) is historically accurate.

At home, we had a children's Bible. I also went to a Catholic school, where they teached some of the scriptures. I tried reading the actual Bible once, but I was bored to death by it. So now I'm going to assume that my priest/the writer of the children's Bible/my school teachers did read and understand it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of Jezus' messages that Judean priests were putting too much value in the rules of Old testament, and too little on loving thy neighbour? That was the main gist of the parable of the Samaritan, right? That sounds awfully much like a appeal for sociological change (and one I can agree with).

I think Christianity is better off saying "hey, we realise that the Bible isn't complete up-to-date, and we realise some of its factual content may be wrong, but what book isn't? That's not the point. The Bible conveys a ethical message, and we like that message. That's why we are Christians". Then we can start an ethical discussion, which would be very useful.

There are issues out there that are worth some controverse. There are good arguments for and against abortion. We should engage in a discussion about moral values and norms, and leave God out of it (and maybe science too).

One side remark (this is going be \walloftext anyhow): Science is based on the crucial assumption that the world is logical and simple at heart. If the world is chaotic, or if the laws of nature are so complicated we can grasp them, scientific method is bound to fail.

I think there is a case to be made for Deism (the idea that the universe was created, but left to its own).

whatever public discussion you engage in regarding moral values and norms, i don't think you can leave science out of it.

I don't think you should use science as a means to making decisions, it can tell you how to do many things, but not why you should do things.

So in a why conversation, science can only inform the underlying background information.

When discussing abortion, for example, science can be used to demonstrate 'how' an abortion can be achieved. Perhaps even a safe abortion. It can inform 'how' the fetus develops., etc, etc. It does not inform you as a society why you should perform an abortion.

But you can't have an informed discussion without having some level of scientific literacy and background.

@bas - The commandment is mistranslated. The word used is ratsach and is more properly translated in this context as murder. It means killing without justification and has nothing to do with self-defense, time of war, or the death penalty.

I really hate the KJV and Roman Catholic Bibles that originally translated it to kill.

Yeah... i'm not reading through that.

A few counter-points in resposce to several recent comments:

Disclaimer: I am countering ideas out there that I percieve, and in no way intend insult to any individual.

"Respect everyone's beliefs"
Is this reasonable?
Let's take a look at several beliefs:
A. The natural world is all there is and the supernatural is a construct of human imagination. (People often launch this belief to the level of fact, belying the ignorance of their understanding of a worldview or belief system, but nonetheless, this is held by many as a valid viewpoint).
B. God (however he is defined) exists and one (or many) of the religions about him (christians, jews, muslims, budists, hindus, etc.) is right.
(No argument here, these are beliefs).
C. Cheddar cheese is what makes the universe and all life possible and the eating of cheddar cheese is the ultimate crime, therefore all who eat cheddar cheese should be tortured to death. (An unreasonable belief system).

So in western culture, the first category of belief system is held up as fact rather than a belief, the second is recognized as a belief system, and alternately respected or looked down on by others in western society, while the third belief system is rejected by pretty much everyone, it rightly deserves no respect.
I guess that just because someone holds something as a belief doesn't mean that everyone should respect that belief.
Ok, so what about rephrasing the statement?
"Respect everyone's right to hold beliefs"
Well really, you can't take away anyone's right to hold beliefs, so this doesn't make much sense, but now it gets closer to the issue, how you treat people based on what they believe. Obviously also, some beliefs are more accurate than others, and some beliefs are exclusive and reject other beliefs. They can't all be right, thus some must be more right than others. It doesn't make sense to "respect all beliefs" and leave it at that. It's a cop out that does say "end of argument." Here I agree with Bas.
So in the final analysis, I choose: respect the individuals (unless their beliefs hold no respect for humanity, eg the cheddar serial killer enforcing his beliefs), reject the beliefs (but recognize that you are operating from a belief system that others have the right and ability to reject), and respect the cheese (you may be next!).



"You can't say God doesn't exist"
Yes you can. You can say God does exist, you can say God is pudding.
Can you prove any of these, well no.
Can you prove that any of these aren't true? Not really.
What for pudding's sake is the big deal then?
I take you back to the discussion of beliefs.
People say they can disprove God because science has only shown natural causes. They miss the underlying assumption that science makes, namely natural phenonmenon can be studied by looking at purely natural causes and explaining them through the scientific method. Nobody denies the validity of science in studying natural phenomenon, but where so many go wrong is to assume that since science has been so successful when studying natural phenonmenon, natural phenomenon must be all there is, thus science is the tool for explaining everything. From this stand point it is easy to say that science disproves the existence of God. I put forward however that science is incapable of proving (or disproving) whether natural phenomenon are all there is. This is a belief system that is being promulgated as fact in much the same way many naturalist scientists themselves fear intelligent design and YEC being forced in media and public schools. A wee bit of hypocrisy maybe?

So "Does God exist or not?" is in the same category as "Is the natural world all there is?" One is held up as fact, while the same people holding it conveniently ignore the fact that their position is underpinned by a belief system, at the same time calling the other side "ignorant" for holding a belief system.

Drop the double standard. I can respect you for holding a belief system that says the natural world is all there is. There is plenty of evidence that people point to for such a system. Don't call me ignorant for rejecting your beliefs. I don't propose teaching my brand of beliefs to everyone, I only propose teaching that people have beliefs, including scientists. I don't reject the body of science just because it is underpinned by beliefs, it would be rather stupid of me to reject gravity because it is based on science. I reject some of the origins conlcusions that people arrive at and attempt to use science to prove, but more importantly I reject the fact that people attempt to use science where science doesn't belong. It is a disgrace and a discredit to science and those who use it that way.

I believe it more ignorant to call someone who believes in God, intelligent design, YEC, cheddar cheese pudding pieism, ignorant for holding a belief while claiming you aren't operating from a belief system, than to believe in cheddar cheese pudding pieism in the first place. If a person recognizes they hold a belief system, they can then judge between the validity of belief systems without being a hypocrite, but again I urge respect for the individuals who hold differing belief systems (within reason of course).
I don't respect an individual who holds a belief system that demands certain behavior (other than accepted social behavior) out of everyone, including/especially those who don't hold that belief system. I will not sacrifice my goldfish to my cheddar cheese pudding pie thank you very much! Likewise I don't expect you to behave according to my christian beliefs.



"Yes, you may even believe that God will send you to heaven for your good works on earth."
I'd like to point out (side note) that this is a religious belief and that the Christian belief is that the best good works are still stench in God's eyes and will land the good works doer in hell, except that Jesus did the true good works in our place, paid the death penalty required for all the really truely crappy stuff (bad works) we did, and offers forgiveness and a free exchange of life for death.

@orathaic, I'll respond to you later.

@Nightlord,

"What evidence do you have to assume that all of these cases have equal probability? That in itself seems to be making an assumption. Is it not entirely possible that for some completely incomprehensible reason an ordered case is favored? I don't feel that one can make a strong logical case based on probability without making assumptions that undermine the whole premise of avoiding assumptions of underlying order... Maybe I'm just not understanding your argument? "

Well, sure, there might be some unknown reason why one is far more probable. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which one that is. My point is about what we can _know_, what we have reason to believe. Since we have no reason to assign greater probability to any of them, we have to assign equal probability to them all. (The principle of ignorance. That's just how probability works).

Kind of like if you're guessing how a coin toss turned out that has already been tossed, but that you can't see yet (maybe it's covered). There's actually a 100% chance that it's one or the other, but you don't know, so you have to assume 50/50.

@semck - Is there not a probability in the coin toss that the catcher is a magician and is going to reveal a dove instead of a coin? Sorry, had to be a smart-ass for a moment. But the logic holds to belief systems. God=the great magician in the sky. But reality is his illusion and we don't know the odds that he'll pull a "prank" or let our assumptions and expectations stand.

@Draugnar: That makes sense. But the commandment "thou shalt not kill with justification" is a lot less strong. It only puts a strong objection against ending human life, not an absolute rejection. Euthanasia, anyone?

@Semck: no, that's not how probability works. If you really think that, let's make a bet. We'll pick an online random number generator, and let it choose a number between 1 and 10. If it's 4, you win, else I do.

@The Situation: if you don't want to read my entire post, here are the good parts:
What "respect my beliefs" really means is
- Acknowledge that what I'm saying isn't metaphysically impossible, and draw the conclusion that I'm just as right as you.
- Stop trying to argue that I'm wrong, because it's all a choice anyway.
Whenever one side in a discussion appeals to metaphysical uncertainty, that side invalidates himself to make any rigorous claims anymore. But that's not what happens. What Christians say is: "You can't say God doesn't exist. You have to respect my belief that God exists. You have to belief yourself that God might exist. Now, regarding abortion, I'm against it. And I have God on my side, so I must be right."

I think Christianity is better off saying "hey, we realise that the Bible isn't complete up-to-date, and we realise some of its factual content may be wrong, but what book isn't? That's not the point. The Bible conveys a ethical message, and we like that message. That's why we are Christians". Then we can start an ethical discussion, which would be very useful.