|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Mar 30, 2018 22:21:06 GMT
"...the hell you say !!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:41:25 GMT
Occam's razor is not a logical necessity. It's not good evidence against an afterlife. You were talking about evidence, not logical necessities. Occam suggests that we need not consider more complex hypotheses without evidence that distinguishes them from simpler hypotheses. There is no such evidence for an afterlife. You only diminish Occam because you don't realize how crucial it is in assessing the likelihood of hypotheses. If you come home to find your house ransacked and valuables stolen, you can either blame human burglars or aliens. Both hypotheses account for the same evidence, but one is much simpler. I don't think you'd like it if you reported it to the police and they said "Have you considered aliens? No? Why not? It's too complicated? Well that's not good evidence against aliens!" |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 4:33:16 GMT
Saw this a couple of hours ago. Maybe they're trying to squelch it. After all, this is the same Pope who said that the Marxists he's known were not bad people.  Hell is absolutely real. I've seen it and felt it. If you don't want to believe it, then don't. The Herald Erjen has spoken. I so wish it was and you had. The evidence is, however otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 18:01:54 GMT
tpfkar Saw this a couple of hours ago. Maybe they're trying to squelch it. After all, this is the same Pope who said that the Marxists he's known were not bad people. Hell is absolutely real. I've seen it and felt it. If you don't want to believe it, then don't. The Herald Erjen has spoken. STELLA SPOOKY
Would you believe me if I told you that I had communication with them? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 18:14:47 GMT
Occam's razor is not a logical necessity. It's not good evidence against an afterlife. You were talking about evidence, not logical necessities. Occam suggests that we need not consider more complex hypotheses without evidence that distinguishes them from simpler hypotheses. There is no such evidence for an afterlife. You only diminish Occam because you don't realize how crucial it is in assessing the likelihood of hypotheses. If you come home to find your house ransacked and valuables stolen, you can either blame human burglars or aliens. Both hypotheses account for the same evidence, but one is much simpler. I don't think you'd like it if you reported it to the police and they said "Have you considered aliens? No? Why not? It's too complicated? Well that's not good evidence against aliens!" The problem I have with "Occam's Razor" is that it is too often the recourse of the intellectually lazy. I am not certain whether you were saying that too. I disagree with your analogy, if that's what it was supposed be, between the afterlife and a burglary. I'm saying no, you can't use Occam's Razor to dismiss any afterlife. Were you? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 2:07:44 GMT
You were talking about evidence, not logical necessities. Occam suggests that we need not consider more complex hypotheses without evidence that distinguishes them from simpler hypotheses. There is no such evidence for an afterlife. You only diminish Occam because you don't realize how crucial it is in assessing the likelihood of hypotheses. If you come home to find your house ransacked and valuables stolen, you can either blame human burglars or aliens. Both hypotheses account for the same evidence, but one is much simpler. I don't think you'd like it if you reported it to the police and they said "Have you considered aliens? No? Why not? It's too complicated? Well that's not good evidence against aliens!" The problem I have with "Occam's Razor" is that it is too often the recourse of the intellectually lazy. I am not certain whether you were saying that too. I disagree with your analogy, if that's what it was supposed be, between the afterlife and a burglary. I'm saying no, you can't use Occam's Razor to dismiss any afterlife. Were you? Occam has been formalized thanks to Kolmogorov Complexity and Solomonoff Induction, which encapsulates the entire process of producing hypotheses for a set of data. In Solomonoff, the probability that hypotheses are correct is directly proportionate to their comparable complexity measured in binary code. You call that lazy? It's so the opposite of lazy that no computers can currently run it, and we don't even have any good approximations of it yet. In the meantime, I'm saying we can use Occam practically to dismiss any hypothesis that is more complex than another until additional evidence is introduced that favors the more complex hypothesis. This very much applies to the afterlife. There is no evidence for the afterlife that would favor it over the simpler explanation of people experiencing altered brain states, and quite a bit of evidence that altered brain states are capable of producing the experiences people attribute to the afterlife. I don't know why you disagree with my burglar analogy. If we're not using Occam, then why are we not seriously considering the alien hypothesis? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 1, 2018 2:35:22 GMT
Because the alternative is kinder...elimination from existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 2:44:37 GMT
How did he ever get elected?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 3:42:50 GMT
The problem I have with "Occam's Razor" is that it is too often the recourse of the intellectually lazy. I am not certain whether you were saying that too. I disagree with your analogy, if that's what it was supposed be, between the afterlife and a burglary. I'm saying no, you can't use Occam's Razor to dismiss any afterlife. Were you? Occam has been formalized thanks to Kolmogorov Complexity and Solomonoff Induction, which encapsulates the entire process of producing hypotheses for a set of data. In Solomonoff, the probability that hypotheses are correct is directly proportionate to their comparable complexity measured in binary code. You call that lazy? It's so the opposite of lazy that no computers can currently run it, and we don't even have any good approximations of it yet. In the meantime, I'm saying we can use Occam practically to dismiss any hypothesis that is more complex than another until additional evidence is introduced that favors the more complex hypothesis. This very much applies to the afterlife. There is no evidence for the afterlife that would favor it over the simpler explanation of people experiencing altered brain states, and quite a bit of evidence that altered brain states are capable of producing the experiences people attribute to the afterlife. I don't know why you disagree with my burglar analogy. If we're not using Occam, then why are we not seriously considering the alien hypothesis? As I said recently in "Remember When You Were Kids" I admire your attempts at science and wish you more success in the future. I have explained already several times your failure with the evidence, such evidence as it is, for spiritual phenomena. It is indeed easy to fake evidence and much of it might well be faked. It can seem expedient (or intellectually lazy) therefore to assume it is all faked. However there are people who through their special familiarity with the all the circumstances have experienced things it would be impossible to fake. I am not one of those people myself, but I know people who claim to be one. I have a very high degree of trust in some of them. Many of them I know and perhaps some I don't know choose not to press their point on the wide world insofar as the wide world has no special reason to trust it, and would assume it is faked. Others in history have made advancements in society with the help of their experiences with the supernatural. Notice the world is much more civilized after than before the Bible for just one example. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 4:49:21 GMT
Occam has been formalized thanks to Kolmogorov Complexity and Solomonoff Induction, which encapsulates the entire process of producing hypotheses for a set of data. In Solomonoff, the probability that hypotheses are correct is directly proportionate to their comparable complexity measured in binary code. You call that lazy? It's so the opposite of lazy that no computers can currently run it, and we don't even have any good approximations of it yet. In the meantime, I'm saying we can use Occam practically to dismiss any hypothesis that is more complex than another until additional evidence is introduced that favors the more complex hypothesis. This very much applies to the afterlife. There is no evidence for the afterlife that would favor it over the simpler explanation of people experiencing altered brain states, and quite a bit of evidence that altered brain states are capable of producing the experiences people attribute to the afterlife. I don't know why you disagree with my burglar analogy. If we're not using Occam, then why are we not seriously considering the alien hypothesis? As I said recently in "Remember When You Were Kids" I admire your attempts at science and wish you more success in the future. I have explained already several times your failure with the evidence, such evidence as it is, for spiritual phenomena. It is indeed easy to fake evidence and much of it might well be faked. It can seem expedient (or intellectually lazy) therefore to assume it is all faked. However there are people who through their special familiarity with the all the circumstances have experienced things it would be impossible to fake. I am not one of those people myself, but I know people who claim to be one. I have a very high degree of trust in some of them. Many of them I know and perhaps some I don't know choose not to press their point on the wide world insofar as the wide world has no special reason to trust it, and would assume it is faked. Others in history have made advancements in society with the help of their experiences with the supernatural. Notice the world is much more civilized after than before the Bible for just one example. I appreciate your admiration of my attempts. I wish I could say the same about you. I do wish you ANY success in the future. You deserve to end the losing streak. And I think I've explained to you before that there's a difference between phenomena and evidence for a hypothesis for that phenomena. I do not doubt all the phenomenal experiences that people report with regard to all kinds of things they attribute to the supernatural, including NDEs. The question isn't that they experienced what they claimed, the question is what hypothesis best explains the experience. The simplest hypothesis is that their experiences are produced by altered brain states. It's not only the simplest one, it's also the only one that can make sense out of how reported experiences vary, especially between cultures where people tend to experience the afterlife their culture teaches about. To me, this is hardly limited to the subject of the afterlife and God and whatnot. You probably haven't seen the short-lived TV show Strange Evidence (it was cancelled quickly and was kinda stupid anyway); but the idea was that they'd show candid camera footage of extremely strange phenomena, like cars suddenly levitating in the street, or a strange, hairy, shadowy thing running across a highway at night. Then you'd get people offering all these outlandish theories to explain the strangeness, and every time the actual answers turned out to be something quite simple: the cars levitating was caused by a trip wire that got pulled taut and got hooked underneath the cars, the shadowy, hairy figure was college kids in a costume pulling a prank. Here's a clip of the car one: www.today.com/video/mystery-of-chinas-levitating-cars-solved-can-you-spot-it-576230979561 |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 5:06:26 GMT
I do wish you ANY success in the future. You deserve to end the losing streak. You believe what you are more comfortable believing. That is fine, but it has no privilege as you imagine it does. It is neither science nor logic nor does it have any legal privilege. Other people do not necessarily have to feel more comfortable believing what you do and that might well be as I noted because they are better informed than lazy you. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 1:50:01 GMT
I do wish you ANY success in the future. You deserve to end the losing streak. You believe what you are more comfortable believing. That is fine, but it has no privilege as you imagine it does. It is neither science nor logic nor does it have any legal privilege. Other people do not necessarily have to feel more comfortable believing what you do and that might well be as I noted because they are better informed than lazy you. Good! Now maybe if you practice saying this in front of a mirror everyday you’ll finally get it. Keep practicing!  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 2, 2018 1:57:24 GMT
You believe what you are more comfortable believing. That is fine, but it has no privilege as you imagine it does. It is neither science nor logic nor does it have any legal privilege. Other people do not necessarily have to feel more comfortable believing what you do and that might well be as I noted because they are better informed than lazy you. Good! Now maybe if you practice saying this in front of a mirror everyday you’ll finally get it. Keep practicing! I've never depended on Occam's Razor and neither should you. It is funny how you think because it's useless everything others say must be too. That's just how muddle brained you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:13:09 GMT
Good! Now maybe if you practice saying this in front of a mirror everyday you’ll finally get it. Keep practicing! I've never depended on Occam's Razor and neither should you. Guarantee you're wrong. You've used it and just didn't realize it. Anytime you came to a conclusion for anything it would've been possible to concoct more complex hypotheses that explained the same evidence. You didn't bother because you intuitively applied Occam. Remember my alien/burglary scenario? You've never bothered to answer why we shouldn't seriously consider aliens without Occam. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 2:45:01 GMT
Hell certainly fails the sniff test. Even if one ventures into the realm of the unproven, it seems unlikely that it will be found there.
Certainly if there is a god who isn't thoroughly evil, then there is no such place as the popular concept of hell.
Of course the popular conception of heaven is just as nonsensical, if not more so.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2018 3:18:10 GMT
Good! Now maybe if you practice saying this in front of a mirror everyday you’ll finally get it. Keep practicing! It is funny how you think because it's useless everything others say must be too. That's just how muddle brained you are. AHAH! I get it now! THIS is why you always answer like a bearded old Methuselah! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 15:52:07 GMT
"Annihilationism" is certainly one interpretation of the Bible, though if you're going to believe in this sort of thing I dunno if there's much validity for that. As a nonbeliever, obviously I don't believe in Hell, but the Bible is pretty clear on the matter: Revelation 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I'd say there's far more evidence for Annihilationism throughout the Bible than for any other interpretation. And most of the ECS stuff is from symbolic books like Revelation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 16:28:28 GMT
I can't understand how so many people can be so hateful as to want an infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing (and free will doesn't exist, so rational people know that there is no such thing as true moral culpability, only marionettes cast in the role of villain).
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Apr 2, 2018 16:52:29 GMT
I can't understand how so many people can be so hateful as to want an infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing (and free will doesn't exist, so rational people know that there is no such thing as true moral culpability, only marionettes cast in the role of villain). Not even wrongdoing in most cases, but wrongthinking. i don't know how world percentages break down exactly but however you look at it that's billions of people on the planet that basically support a brutal dictator who punishes thought crime. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 16:56:51 GMT
tpfkar I can't understand how so many people can be so hateful as to want an infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing (and free will doesn't exist, so rational people know that there is no such thing as true moral culpability, only marionettes cast in the role of villain).  The tendentious irrational do try very hard to ineptly define it away and fortify the religious.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
