We're born with a belief in the supernatural, says scientist

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

Excuse me? Here - let me remind you:
You say there is proof

yes I siad so but I didn't give any? so I didn't speak about any proof that what I meant:)

Zulu wrote:

care to provide it?

I already siad to someone here to start new thread, let's discuss there

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zulu

CatStevens wrote:

http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Ah internet websites - it must be true!!! :rolleyes: "The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism" ...gimmie a break please.

I'm sorry CatStevens, God gave me a brain and an intellect with it. The "proof" you've provided isn't going to cut it. I can equally provide links as to why Scientology is the "true" religion, but I won't bother trying to insult anyone intelligence. ...and by-the-by, proving that Darwinism is false doesn't prove that Adam or God for that matter exists.

You either have proof or you don't - and you don't, but thats ok; we can discuss. Just don't claim to have proof when you don't, because thats a lie, and baby Jesus cries in heaven when people lie.

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

I didn't give any yet

I was referring to the everyone has their own proof part of your post. If it is a proof that only applies to one person then it isn't proof.

But if you wish to explain your proof that a god exists I'm all ears. But you must understand that it is not possible to accept explinations along the lines of "I have a feeling" or "he has spoken to me" as proof. You could just as easily be mad

CatStevens wrote:

Any proofs

Well you would have to name a naturall phenomona first.

For example, lightning used to be attributed to the actions of the gods. So was rain fall and other weather events.

CatStevens wrote:

BTW many times scientists say something today and change their mind tomorrow

That is a fundamental aspect of science.

Not only can a scientific theory be incorrect, it must be possible for it to be shown incorrect when it is first written up, otherwise it is not accepted as science.

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

gimmie a break please.

well, that's the author's opinion and you don't have to read that particular book if you don't want to, there is number of other books, Articles, Audio and video stuffs.

Zulu wrote:

The "proof" you've provided isn't going to cut it.

Did I provide any?

Zulu wrote:

I won't bother trying to insult anyone intelligence

you know we have urinary system, digestive system all by chance ,there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by chance.. and there is a pipe delivers what I eat to my stomach by chance This is the widest imagination eva just like the Japanese Animes

Zulu wrote:

You either have proof or you don't - and you don't, but thats ok; we can discuss. Just don't claim to have proof when you don't, because thats a lie

I have and to note something what I may say it as proof you may not

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

layke

We are at a turning point in the history of mankind. Atheism, that has so influenced the world of science and thought since the 18th century, is now undergoing an inevitable collapse.
In this film you will see how the most basic assumptions of atheism collapsed with scientific, political and sociological developments in the past decades. From the theories of Charles Darwin or Sigmund Freud, to the fall of communism or the hippie dream, see how the atheist dogma falls at the dawn of the 21st century.

Lol, talk about denial. I'd love to see that vid tbh and how it's been spun.

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Oh great, another Creationist with a lack of understanding of biological evolution and science. Just what we need :rolleyes:

CatStevens, despite what those websites will tell you, neo-darwin biological evolution is an observabe fact. You can observe the different elements taking place. You can observe gentic mutation causing an increase in genetic material. You can observe self-replicating molecules initially forming naturally and then beinging to evolve.

I'm sorry if that contradicts with your particular holy book, but really that is just something you are going to have to learn to deal with. Most religious people have managed to, I really fail to see why Creationists cannot accept it happens.

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

I have and to note something what I may say it as proof you may not

I've started a new thread for you, we await this "proof" with baited breath.

But really it better not be something like "I was sitting on the toliet one day and God started to talk to me in my head. He told me to ..."

Zulu

CatStevens wrote:

you know we have urinary system, digestive system all by chance ,there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by chance.. and there is a pipe delivers what I eat to my stomach by chance This is the widest imagination eva just like the Japanese Animes:)

I'm sorry, what are you banging on about?

CatStevens wrote:

I have:)and to note something what I may say it as proof you may not

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

robindch

> many times scientists say something today and change their mind tomorrow

Yes, it's because of a process which I've heard is called "learning". Some people go on doing this all their lives, while others stop when their brains become full. And there are a few frightful people, but just a few -- the sacred vaults of heaven preserve us from them! -- who think that reconsidering your conclusions when you know more facts is actually a good thing. Burn 'em, I say!

CatStevens

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

CatStevens, despite what those websites will tell you, neo-darwin biological evolution is an observabe fact. You can observe the different elements taking place. You can observe gentic mutation causing an increase in genetic material. You can observe self-replicating molecules initially forming naturally and then beinging to evolve.

And does the prove the inexistence of God
Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

I'm sorry, what are you banging on about?.

I'm talking about the big bang & the evolution theory , if they happened without God's leading,anyway let's move to that new thread

Zulu wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here

I meant if some one show me something as a proof for something I may accept it as a proof but you may not accept it as a proog get it=)

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Yes, it's because of a process which I've heard is called "learning".

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Asiaprod

CatStevens wrote:

I meant if some one show me something as a proof for something I may accept it as a proof but you may not accept it as a proog get it=)

It is probably a good idea to stop telling us that we might or might not accept it, and just go ahead and show us this proof. We can decide for ourselves.:)

CatStevens

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

It is probably a good idea to stop telling us that we might or might not accept it

I was talking generally, I mean whether a proof was to prove god or whteva
Ok, dudes, move to the new thread. see ya there

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Tar.Aldarion

CatStevens wrote:

http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

If you believe that, you know nothing of what you are talking about, just going, 'oh yeah, sounds convincing, although I have no idea, as I've never learned about it'.


The only creationists I have seen on boards(ie the only creationists I have seen) lack understanding of science(they can't see why they are wrong scientifically, son_goku has some lovely posts on it) and lack even the understanding of 'evolution' for the most part.

It's like Wolfsbane on the creationism thread, 'Oh I have never learned about it but these links say something nonsensical that seems like sense to somebody who knows not about what they are talking about!'

Those links are outright hilarious in a sad way.

robindch

> And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100%
> true discovery or whateva

Leaving aside your hip mis-spellings, researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do -- remember that science is not a religion. The only people who do assert themselves to be 100% accurate are religious people, whose minds tend to be closed to new information, new evidence and new conclusions.

I could explain more about how the scientific method relies upon the notion of provisionally-agreed conclusions based upon provisionally-agreed evidence and why that's a good thing, but you seem to have made all your decisions already, so I doubt there's much point.

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do

I didn't say that, thatresearchers do so

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

robindch

> I didn't say that, that, researchers do so

Could you show me where they do, please?

What would be best is a series of verifiable quotes from a series of different researchers, all of whom are saying that they are "100% true"? The more, the better.

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Could you show me where they do, please?

Ahahaha this is unbelievable, again I said I didn't say that researches do so, i.e. researches don't do so

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Myksyk

Be clearer then please. It's hard enough to follow you without ambiguous, poorly constructed sentences.

CatStevens

I Am
re-read it carefully

CatStevens wrote:

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

And does the prove the inexistence of God

No it doesn't, nor does it attempt to.

The theory of evolution has never commented on, or tackled, the existence or non-existence of God, either way. Neo-Darwin biological evolution simply shows the natural processes that developed life as we know it on Earth.

Some religious people take objection to this, as they prefer to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that life could not have developed on earth without direct intervention from their god. This makes them feel special about their place in the universe.

But equally lots of Christians and Muslims accept that natural abiogensis and natural evolution are the way life developed on Earth, while still believing in a supernatural god

robindch

> Ahahaha this is unbelievable, again I said I didn't say that researches
> do so, i.e. researches don't do so

A helpful suggestion -- I think it would help your position if you were to re-read your posts before clicking on 'submit'. It should also help you to get your position clear in your own mind, as you're coming across as a bit confused.

CatStevens

robindch
or maybe you have to read the posts in order

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
or maybe you have to read the posts in order

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

The problem is your posts are confusing Cat, not least because of your colouring and your rather Yoda like way of phrasing things

You said that science changes a lot, and because of this you would not take something a scientist says at 100%

Robin is pointing out that you aren't supposed to take something a scientist says as 100% in the first place. The inability of science to give 100% definiate answers is not a failing of science, it is the way it is supposed to function

Creationists often use that fact that scientific theories change and develop as a criticism of science, as you apear to be doing also, when in fact it is one of the best things about science, and put science far above something like Creation Science which does not, and by its very nature, cannot change or develop.

CatStevens

O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,
I said:

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

he said:

researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do

over

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

robindch

> O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,

Do you accept that researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva"?

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

> O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,
Do you accept that researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva"?

Didn't I already answered that I'v neva claimed such a thing, OK, here ya go dude, researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva, happy now enjoy your day

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
Didn't I already answered that I'v neva claimed such a thing, OK, here ya go dude, researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva, happy now enjoy your day

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

I am glad myself and Robin could increase your understanding of the scientific method. Now maybe you will have a better respect for science

robindch

> I'v neva claimed such a thing,

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

> enjoy your day

...and you too!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I'v neva claimed such a thing,

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

> enjoy your day

...and you too!

To be fair, Cat has (rather confusingly) said only that he/she takes with a grain of salt things that he accepts researchers offer with a grain of salt.

I'm not sure why he bothered to say that he doubts what is proffered as doubtful, except that a lot of people fail to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I'm not sure why he bothered to say that he doubts what is proffered
> as doubtful, except that a lot of people fail to do so.

Yes, the point I didn't see him understanding was that the information that researchers provide isn't ever supposed to be the final truth. And you're quite right to say that very few people seem to appreciate that!

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Yes, the point I didn't see him understanding was that the information that researchers provide isn't ever supposed to be the final truth.

Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.
God

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.
God

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

You are prefectly correct in pointing out to them that science can only ever be 99.99999999999999999999999999999...% certain of something, that 100% truth is not possible. If they don't understand point them to the work of Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

But the reason Robin took acception to your post was that your statements were suspiciously similar to arguments used by Creationists to attack science everyday.

Creationist used the fact that science cannot be 100% sure of something to call into question the validity of all of science, and to claim that there theories are some how equal in standing.

They think that if there is doubt, even tiny doubt, in a theory, that their alternative theories (young earth, intelligent design etc) are then equally valid theories. We don't know 100% that evolution is how life on earth developed, and we can never know 100%, but because of this they claim therefore that intelligent design is a possibility, so therefore it should be taught along side evolution.

What they fail to realise is that we don't know for certain anything really, we can only judge the likelyhood of theories to be correct. ID is possibility but then so is anything else you can make up. The likelyhood of a theory increases with the evidence supporting it, and the more it seems to fit and work in different situations. Based on this it is very very very very very very very very very likely that neo-darwin genetic evolution is the way life developed on Earth. And at the same time it is very very very very very very very very very unlikely that all life was created in an instant by a supreme being approx 10,000 years ago.

Someone can choose to believe the very unlikely possibility, and say that it is still a scientific possibility, if they wish. But then they are rejecting science, and along with rationality, in the first place, so it is a bit weird to use science to support that rejection. They want to find a way to believe what they want to believe, the scientific likelyhood of it being true is irrelivent to them.

Hope that clears up why people on this forum take acceptions to the implications behind statements like "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva"

I'm still not sure if you did or didn't meant it the same way Creationists do, but if you did I suggest you read up on the philosophy of science so you understand why science works like that before you reject it off hand.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You are prefectly correct in pointing out to them that science can only ever be 99.99999999999999999999999999999...% certain of something, that 100% truth is not possible. If they don't understand point them to the work of Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

Well given that 0.9999... = 1, I'm not sure I see the point!

I'm not sure I find the reduction of things to probabilities, either useful or sensible. I am 100% certain in gravity. Maybe the details of the theory (how strong it is, what causes it) will change, but that doesn't stop me being 100% confident that I'll remain attached to this planet, and the moon will continue to orbit this planet.

Put another way, if you're not 100% sure (certain) then you're 100% - X%. Unless you can quantify that X% in a meaningful way (I'm 99.998374% certain that we evolved and here's how I calculated that number) then why bother?

How certain are you that we live on a roughly spherical planet and not a flat earth. If you're not 100% certain then exactly how certain are you and how did you figure it out?

Scofflaw

CatStevens wrote:

Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.

By that, I think you mean that you will ignore what science offers when it suits you to do so, because it is not necessarily 100% true. This is merely the converse of the fallacy of taking everything science says as absolute, permanent truths.

By the way, it is possible that science is 100% right about something - just not provable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

pH wrote:

I am 100% certain in gravity. Maybe the details of the theory (how strong it is, what causes it) will change, but that doesn't stop me being 100% confident that I'll remain attached to this planet, and the moon will continue to orbit this planet.

You are thinking about it in everyday laymans terms, which is fine.

But it is not scientifically possible to state, for 100% certain, that gravity will still function exactly the same tomorrow as it does today. It is simple a very reasonable assumption, based on all evdience up to this point, that it still will.

pH wrote:

If you're not 100% certain then exactly how certain are you and how did you figure it out?

It doesn't matter exactly how certain I am.

You don't need to quantifiy X so long as you realise it can't be 100%

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You don't need to quantifiy X so long as you realise it can't be 100%

How very paranormal and unscientific of you!

"X exists, I can't quantify it or measure it but take my word for it - it exists!"

Dades

Read this on the DART this morning, from Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Reminded me of the talk here of late of what we can and can't know...

All we have to believe with is our senses: the tools we use to perceive the world, our sight, our touch, our memory. If they lie to us then nothing can be trusted. And even if we do not believe, then we still cannot travel in any other way than the road our senses show us; and we must walk that road to the end.

The bottom line is we are stuck with what we can perceive whether we like it or not.

bonkey

pH wrote:

Well given that 0.9999... = 1, I'm not sure I see the point!

Why (and since when) is that a given?

I'm not sure I find the reduction of things to probabilities, either useful or sensible.

Not being useful or sensible to you is entirely different from being non-useful and/or non-sensible.

I'm willing to bet that the fine differences between (say) Newtonian and Relativistic physics are entirely non-useful to you, and could understand how the notion of going through all those extra complexities involved in the Relativistic physics calculations would therefore seem nonsensical to you also.

That doesn't mean they're worthless. It means that they are subjectively worthless from certain perspectives. This pedanticism is relevant - if only because it harks back to CatSteven's assertion that what serves as proof to him may not be proof for others. This is an admission that what he's referring to isn't an objective proof, but - at best - a subjective one.

I'm sure very few people will disagree that subjective proofs for God's exist. The problem is that subjective proofs aren't worth much.

I am 100% certain in gravity.

You can be. That doesn't make gravity 100% conformant with our models of it. It just means that you believe it is.

Maybe the details of the theory (how strong it is, what causes it) will change, but that doesn't stop me being 100% confident that I'll remain attached to this planet, and the moon will continue to orbit this planet.

Again - you can be as confident as you like. That doesn't make you right, nor does it change the fact that science cannot share your 100% certainty.

Put another way, if you're not 100% sure (certain) then you're 100% - X%. Unless you can quantify that X% in a meaningful way (I'm 99.998374% certain that we evolved and here's how I calculated that number) then why bother?

Because the acceptance that X has 0 and 100 as exclusionary lower and upper bounds is central to the constant-revision nature of science. The only unassailable truth about science appears to be that there are no other unassailable truths.

Why bother? In the case of science, the acceptence that established truths are not unassailable has been central to the progression of science.

On the other hand, the benefit of being able to apply definite probabilities to everything has not been shown to be central to anything beneficial.

So it would seem that your question needs to be turned around. Why bother worrying about the exact percentage? What's the significance of it? What will knowing or not knowing an exact value for it bring about? We have established that there can be benefits from accepting that established truth can be significantly wrong and should always be open to revision etc. Thats why we bother accepting that something cannot be known scientifically with 100% certainty.

robindch

> > Well given that 0.9999... = 1, I'm not sure I see the point!
> Why (and since when) is that a given?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999%E2%80%A6_equals_1

> I am 100% certain in gravity.

You shouldn't be. Have a read of Feynman's elegant chess analogy:

Richard Feynman once noted that discovering the laws of physics is like trying to learn the laws of chess merely by observing chess games. You notice that bishops stay on the same color squares; you write this down as a law of chess. Later, you come up with a better law – bishops move diagonally. And, since diagonal squares are always colored the same, this explains why bishops always stay on the same color. This law is an improvement – it is simpler, and yet explains more. In physics, discovering Einstein's theory of gravity after knowing Newton's theory of gravity is a similar type of discovery. As another example, noticing that pieces don't change their identity in a chess game is similar to discovering the law of mass-and-energy conservation.

Eventually, say, you see a chess game in which a pawn reaches the other end of the board and is promoted. You say, "Wait, that violates the laws of chess. Pieces can't just change their identity." Of course, it does not violate the laws of chess; you just had never seen a game pushed to that extreme before.

The whole Feynman video is here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009&q=Feynman

Zombrex

pH wrote:

How very paranormal and unscientific of you!

"X exists, I can't quantify it or measure it but take my word for it - it exists!"

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

a + b = c where 0 < a,b,c < 1 ... I haven't quantified a, b or c in that, but they all exist in the sum.

As bonkey explains know X isn't important. The only important bit is to not assume it is 100%, because it can't be. Using Feynmans chess analogy (which I had not heard before but I have very glad I have now since it is very nice), you can never know if you have actually learnt the rules of chess. You might have, and you might think you have, but you cannot know for sure. No one is going to tell you that you have learnt ALL the rules of say how a knight can move. You can only realise you haven't learnt all the rules when you see something that doesn't fit your previous set of rules.

So you think that you have a pretty good grasp of the rules of gavity to say that you will not fall off the Earth tomorrow. You are probably right. But you can't know for certain.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

a + b = c where 0 < a,b,c < 1 ... I haven't quantified a, b or c in that, but they all exist in the sum.

I'm presuming in your example you're defining 'exist' and > 0, well great if you start of with an axiom that it exists ( 0 < a,b,c < 1) then you can conclude that it exists!

Let's say c is the total force that you feel downwards.
Let a = the force due to gravity
Let b = the force due to invisible pixies pulling you down.

What about

a + b = c ( where 0 <= a,b,c <= 1)? This is a much fairer representation of what I'm saying, from which you can conclude nothing about the value of 'c'

So you think that you have a pretty good grasp of the rules of gavity to say that you will not fall off the Earth tomorrow. You are probably right. But you can't know for certain.

Are you allowing be be 100% certain of past events? I'm 100% certain I didn't fall of the earth and float to the moon yesterday! - will you allow me that?

That said, I'm not sure you've backed up the statement :

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

I feel it is wrong, but we may end up in a tangled mess of agreeing definitions of 'exist' and 'quantify'. To me the definition of an object's existence is synonymous with quantifying/measuring it somehow.

Also the statement "We can never be 100% of anything" - surely the statement itself is included in the set of things you can never be sure of, hence you can't be sure of that statement, so you might be able to be 100% sure of something?

bonkey

pH wrote:

Are you allowing be be 100% certain of past events? I'm 100% certain I didn't fall of the earth and float to the moon yesterday! - will you allow me that?

I wouldn't. Not with 100% certainty. Close to 100%, sure.

I was reading something on this recently. THe thinking went like this...

If teh universe is "open ended", then it will go on expanding forever, with mass getting more and more distributed, notionally forever. However, once we have this infinite timeframe, we end up with some unfortunate conclusions.

For example, it is possible (but massively unlikely) for quantum events to allow (say) a particle to jump from one location to another, without passing through the intervening space. THe probability of this occurring drops with the distance, but is still non-zero.

The probability of every particle the universe en masse jumping so that the end result is a lower state of entropy than where it was before the jump is almost zero, but over infinite tiume that becomes a certainty.

If thats a certainty, then we can't be certain that our apparent history is our actual history, and that we haven't spontaneously arrived at some point along it from such a jump.

So you can be almost entirely certain of past events, but not 100%, because there's the remotest possibility that its all just an illusion, and that the universe sprang into existence via quantum uncertainty somewhere "along" our history line. Anywhere from Planck Time ago (most likely, as it has highest entropy of all past states) to Planck Time after the Big Bang (least likely, as it has lowest entropy of all past states).

Also the statement "We can never be 100% of anything" - surely the statement itself is included in the set of things you can never be sure of, hence you can't be sure of that statement, so you might be able to be 100% sure of something?

There may be things that we could be 100% sure of.
We just can't be sure of it.

jc

Zombrex

pH wrote:

I'm presuming in your example you're defining 'exist' and > 0, well great if you start of with an axiom that it exists ( 0 < a,b,c < 1) then you can conclude that it exists!

No, X isn't the likelyhood something exists. X is how confident you are something exists, or in a more general sence, something is true.

X can't be 0% or 100% since you cannot be completely positive something is either true or false. That is no reflection on if something is or is not true

Using the example above, the rules of chess are fixed, but we can never be sure we have actually learnt all the rules from just watching the game.

pH wrote:

What about

a + b = c ( where 0 <= a,b,c <= 1)? This is a much fairer representation of what I'm saying, from which you can conclude nothing about the value of 'c'

Well there you are saying you can be 100% certain something is true, or 100% certain something isn't true (you are 0% certain it is true)

pH wrote:

Are you allowing be be 100% certain of past events? I'm 100% certain I didn't fall of the earth and float to the moon yesterday! - will you allow me that?

No, as the movie the Matrix demonstrated quite well

That said, I'm not sure you've backed up the statement :

pH wrote:

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

Quantify exactly how certain you are it is or is not going to rain tomorrow.

Any value you put on it (56% certain as opposed ot 57% certain) is going to largely meaningless in a specific sense, and could change at a whim. That still doesn't mean you do not have an certainity it is or is not going to rain tomorrow. The certainity exists, but you have no meaningful way of quanifitying it.

pH wrote:

Also the statement "We can never be 100% of anything" - surely the statement itself is included in the set of things you can never be sure of, hence you can't be sure of that statement, so you might be able to be 100% sure of something?

Owww .. my brain ...

Well I think science accepts that the uncertainty applied to study of things external to ourselfs, ie the universe. This is because we are not told by anything the actual rules of the chess game, we can only observe the game and attempt to work out the rules. But at no point can we be sure we have actually cracked it.

If on the other hand we make up the rules of the chess game ourselfs (ie mathematics rules, certain philiosophies etc) then we can be certain of things because we have actually defined the rules themselves.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

The bottom line is we are stuck with what we can perceive whether we like it or not.

I think this is an important point. It makes me think that the starting point nearly has to be clarification about perception. It’s next door to an old Woody Allen gag about epistemology. ‘Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?’

There is an amount of useful discussion simply on how people acquire knowledge, and where we know human perception can be faulty. But taken too far, that simply means any discussion of any kind is impossible. Maybe the Quran doesn’t exist, or was first published last week, and we are all suffering from a delusion that it has been around for over a thousand years. Before any engagement at all is possible, we have to assume the world is there, and we are living in it.

We can also acknowledge an element of belief is involved in accepting a materialist conception of creation. I do not personally have the expertise to demonstrate evolution. I’m really operating on a belief that reports of scientific research are correct. I’m probably stronger on what I would see as the holes that emerge from any organised religion when its doctrines are submitted to scrutiny. So why do I go with evolution? Because I reckon religion is bunkum, so creationism isn’t the answer which makes me willing to accept that what science reveals is much closer to the truth.

The two beliefs are not identical, though. I know that if for some reason I feel a need to query evolution, I can personally view the published literature on the subject. I can read the material challenging the orthodoxy.

On the other hand, if I’m a theist and I want to substantiate my belief in god, there is no published research that I can refer to. I don’t know if I’m putting this well, but I think this is the key practical difference between ‘belief’ in science and ‘belief’ in religion.

pH

No, X isn't the likelyhood something exists. X is how confident you are something exists, or in a more general sence, something is true.

That is a very subtle distinction, one that if it exists I can't see.

Using the example above, the rules of chess are fixed, but we can never be sure we have actually learnt all the rules from just watching the game.

I appreciate Robin's chess analogy, but I don't find it appropriate in this case. I totally agree that by observing the rules of chess you never know you've got them all. However I'm asking not "how certain you are in the rules of chess", I'm asking after studying all these rules "How certain are you that the game of chess exists?" I fail to see how your knowledge of the rules (how much/many you know) of the game affects your certainty in the games existence.

pH wrote:

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

Quantify exactly how certain you are it is or is not going to rain tomorrow.

Any value you put on it (56% certain as opposed ot 57% certain) is going to largely meaningless in a specific sense, and could change at a whim. That still doesn't mean you do not have an certainity it is or is not going to rain tomorrow. The certainity exists, but you have no meaningful way of quanifitying it.

You seem to have moved away from your original statement:

You don't need to be able for quantify something for it to exist

Are you now saying that this is only applicable to probability?