Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

I believe that we are probably going in a giant circle. It that a reality. It is also my belief that we are not truely learning about the others belief system. True or false? Or is that only a probability?

It's a distinct possibility.

 

[Pako]

Danoff and Famine,

Do you guys have any cognitive content held as true?

 

[Danoff]

Danoff and Famine,

Do you guys have any cognitive content held as true?

I believe that I exist. That's it. The rest of it is probability based on evidence.

 

[Swift]

I believe that I exist. That's it. The rest of it is probability based on evidence.

So you do have a belief then!

 

[Famine]

Danoff and Famine,

Do you guys have any cognitive content held as true?

"Je pense, donc je suis."

 

[Danoff]

So you do have a belief then!

Yup. 1. Because I can prove it.

 

[Swift]

Yup. 1. Because I can prove it.

I know there's a HUGE thread on this in this very forum. But you believe you're the originator of your thoughts, correct?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You're quite right - but it's not because you don't understand it. If that was the case I'd try and explain it, at increasing levels of inaccuracy, until I found a level at which you did understand it. The issue is that you can't understand it - as SCJ is now demonstrating - any more than I can understand the concept of God speaking directly to me. It's no indictment of your intelligence, just that you are set up to require something to believe in and I am not....

Just thought I would leave you with this one residual tidbit, even though I hate to have to disagree with you again.
God has given every man the measure of faith so its not a question of the set up process. Like your intellect, you just have to use it.

OK, I promise I'll go away.................for a while anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I know there's a HUGE thread on this in this very forum. But you believe you're the originator of your thoughts, correct?

Yup. Actually I think this discussion has taken place in this thread a few times too.

 

[Pako]

I believe that I exist. That's it. The rest of it is probability based on evidence.

"Je pense, donc je suis."

A simple yes or no would do....

 

[Famine]

A simple yes or no would do....

No - "Je pense, donc je suis" is called "the first certainty", or that of which you can be certain without any further information. It requires no belief at all.

 

[Swift]

No - "Je pense, donc je suis" is called "the first certainty", or that of which you can be certain without any further information. It requires no belief at all.

Sorry, not totally following this.

So, what is your certainty?

 

[Pako]

I don't believe you Famine. I will further go on to say that there in a high certainty of probability that you are avoiding the inevitable conclusion that you in fact have some cognitive content that you hold as true.

 

[Danoff]

I don't totally understand Famine's definition of belief either. But I think we both admit that we hold some "cognitive content" as true. I'd be willing to call it a belief.

 

[ledhed]

I believe therefore I am ?

 

[Famine]

Sorry, not totally following this.

So, what is your certainty?

That I exist.

Pako - I'll leave that up to you. After all, belief is your domain, not mine...

 

[Pako]

Quick, close the thread.



[edited]

Dang, too late....

 

[Pako]

If I tell you I'm a white guy from Montana and have two kids, do you believe me?

In simplistic terms this is a very basic form of belief. I have given you no reason to doubt my word. You've seen pictures of me, you've seen pics of my two kids, and all in all a pretty trust worthy guy as far as you know.

Even simpler. I tell you I like steamed broccoli. Do you believe me? You have no evidence to support my claim that I like steamed broccoli, but do you believe me anyways?

 

[ledhed]

Pako its up to you now...I feel like I am watching a tennis game .

Your serve.

 

[Famine]

If I tell you I'm a white guy from Montana and have two kids, do you believe me?

In simplistic terms this is a very basic form of belief. I have given you no reason to doubt my word. You've seen pictures of me, you've seen pics of my two kids, and all in all a pretty trust worthy guy as far as you know.

Even simpler. I tell you I like steamed broccoli. Do you believe me? You have no evidence to support my claim that I like steamed broccoli, but do you believe me anyways?

I don't disbelieve you - but I do develop "A Theory of Pako".

The first step is the Null Hypothesis. This states that the information is independent of Pako.

Occam's Razor is then applied, which, at its most raw, says that the explanation which makes the least number of assumptions and covers all available evidence is the correct one.

We have two possible explanations - the Null Hypothesis which says that the information you provide about yourself is independent of who you are, and the counter to the Null, which says that is isn't. There is a third explanation - that some of the information is independent of you and some is not.

The Null requires quite a few assumptions - that you're lying, that you have a reason to lie, that you have access to a number of similar pictures of a person to cement that lie, that no-one else knows that you're lying and that you've managed to continue a lie, with no detectable inaccuracies, for a prolonged period of time.

The counter requires far fewer assumptions - I have no reason to suspect you of lying, because there is no detectable inaccuracy in the information you provide and volunteer the information rather than try to get out of volunteering it.

The third option is somewhere in between, and requires the lies to be consistent with the truth.


So, Occam's Razor determines the greatest probability is that you are not lying and that you are who you say you are, disproving the Null Hypothesis.

And at no point in the process has belief entered into it.

Better yet, every time you add more information - such as your palette for broccoli - the "Theory of Pako" is modified to account for the new information. In the case of broccoli I have no reason to suspect you are being anything other than truthful (you and I both know that in order to gain and retain trust, one must be trustworthy), but the possibility remains that you are not, in order to demonstrate an example. You may reveal that this is the case, at which point new evidence is introduced and Occam's Razor re-evaluates to account for the new evidence.



This has all been covered, at great length, by danoff and myself in this thread already. Is there any chance of getting back close to Creation and Evolution now?

 

[Danoff]

I'd add to the "Theory of Pako" that based on the information present, I'd be willing to act under the assumption that the conclusion from Pako Theory holds.

If I were inviting Pako over for dinner, I'd probably go ahead and prepare a little steamed broccoli. Sure, he might have been lying all along, but based on the evidence, I've figured a good enough probability of being correct that I think it deserves some action.

 

[ledhed]

One day someones gonna grab occams razor and cut that guys head off with it ...

 

[Sage]

It’s so interesting how discussions in this thread always seem to revolve around semantics…

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It’s so interesting how discussions in this thread always seem to revolve around semantics…

At times what we have here is "failure to communicate" and at other times what we have here is "failure to interpretate".
Nevertheless this thread continues to meander along.

 

[Pako]

I don't disbelieve you - but I do develop "A Theory of Pako".

The first step is the Null Hypothesis. This states that the information is independent of Pako.

*snip*

I know, well I think, you're being serious with your response, but honestly....it sounds like an essay I would write in high school or college when I wanted to impress the teacher without actually saying anything relevant.

If you don't disbelieve me then you do believe me. The answer is either yes you believe me or you don't believe me. Since you have no reason to disbelieve me, then you must in fact believe that I do like steamed broccoli.

Now, where were we?We have established that you and danoff actually believe in things, what does that tell us?

 

[Famine]

If you don't disbelieve me then you do believe me.

As they say, not necessarily.

The answer is either yes you believe me or you don't believe me.

I keep saying this, but:

Where you say "belief" we say "judgement of probability".

As I said earlier, the fact that you need to believe things prevents you seeing why other people don't. As I also said, the fact that I don't need to believe things prevents me from seeing why you do - but at least we accept that you do and move on.

Since you have no reason to disbelieve me, then you must in fact believe that I do like steamed broccoli.

No - I just think it's likely that, given the available evidence, you like steamed broccoli.

Now, where were we?We have established that you and danoff actually believe in things, what does that tell us?

Back with my quote that people for whom belief is an important factor cannot accept that there are people for whom it is not a factor at all.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I'm with Famine on this.

Its a high probablity that Pako indeed is telling us the truth, based on past events turning out true. We have no reason to think you are lying however we do not know for sure. I think the word is we trust you are correct.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I had thought it wise to wait until the smoke had sufficeintly cleared, to post the last part of our earlier discussion concerning "beliefs". However due to the reluctance by some parties to admit the obvious, the time frame has been cut.

Beliefs or believing is usually associated with evidence although not always. In the previous examples whenever someone agrees and acts as to what they will do in the future, while probabilities are involved, absolutes, irrefutability, and conclusiveness are removed from the equation. The further into the future you agree to go, the more the favorable probabilities are discounted as a evidence factor. At the very least a person in this situation is acting upon "belief". Although a very strong case can be made in both and inparticular with respect to the marriage scenario, that the person is, (dare I let this word fall from my keyboard) acting on "faith", since that requires no evidence, faith being the substance of something hoped for, the evidence of which is not seen.
I submit that in these scenarios that fits like a glove.

Sorry, my mistake. Make that two residual tidbits.

 

[Pako]

I'm with Famine on this.

Its a high probablity that Pako indeed is telling us the truth, based on past events turning out true. We have no reason to think you are lying however we do not know for sure. I think the word is we trust you are correct.

What is it then if you trust some one to be telling the truth? What can I conclude other than you believe me when I tell you I like steamed broccoli?

Just so you know where I'm coming from...trust is holding onto a truth without evidence for a belief, IMO. To have this, you must have some faith. Faith that you can trust me, faith that what I say is fact, faith that I even know what broccoli is. Faith, trust, belief....., I can see why danoff and Famine would not like to admit to having any belief in anything because that would conclude they have faith, or a trust in something that they don't have evidence for. This would go against their purist since of their scientific method for life. I guess since I'm such a trusting person, I can't imagine some one with no trust in anyone or anything.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Sorry Famine but by this definition you do have belief. You are just in denial. You have stated many things in the last month that would contradict your current position.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
be‧lief  /bɪˈlif/
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
be‧lieve  /bɪˈliv/
–verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.