Bayes' Theorem

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:07 am

QuantumTroll wrote: Is it ironic that I believe that there is no difference at all between talking to God and talking to yourself? We have so much in common!
Well of course! How else am I supposed to have an intelligent conversation among equals. :mrgreen:
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:46 am

Metacrock wrote:most believers find everything is a proof.
That's exactly the problem. I prayed and got better which is a sign that God answered my prayer. I prayed and stayed sick which is also a sign that God answered my prayer - He said "No."

Does nature behave consistently and predictably? That's a sign that God exists. Do some people claim that there are sometimes violations of nature's consistency and predictability - i.e., miracles? That's a sign that God exists.

This is the way conspiracy theorists think - the complete lack of evidence tying the Kenyan gay Muslim communist Barack Obama to 9/11 is a sign of how efficiently the conspiracy is covering things up. There can be no disproof. If something contradicts your worldview, it's because the media is Bilderberg-controlled.

If everything's evidence that you're right, what will you accept as evidence to the contrary? Nothing, which reduces dialogue with you to its pure entertainment value (if any).

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by met » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:26 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:get the "ground of being" idea, and I absolutely get that God can be a few different things (the Holy Trinity being a prime example). My reservations lie in how different things are attributed to God. I haven't seen any explanation as to how the "ground of being" can be a voice in someone's head. The lumping together of these concepts seems to be emotionally motivated (which would be fine, actually, as long as we can be honest about it).
Understand. How can the "ground of being" be anything that's existent within being? In that sense, perhaps even "ground of being" is more an accident of God than essential? An attribute, rather than a definition of His/Her/Its essence, which would then be indescribable as it transcends all our comprehensions and experiences, so that "Ground of being" , "Love" and whatever else you can say about God is always a description, not a definition or a delimitation?

... but I better let Meta answer that!
QuantumTroll wrote:I try to accept the liberal theology of this forum, but I want it to connect to the experience of the average, mainstream believer one meets in church. I feel that spirituality, religion, and faith should always be discussed in relation to the way they affect regular people's lives, otherwise one might end up talking about philosophical concepts that have no bearing on what's important.
There's value to that, also some value in looking at the the writings and experience of a tradition's mystics and thinkers, who've devoted their lives more fully to "God," IMO. Much of the "average believer's" knowledge and understanding will be derived from their influences. Also the big religions like xianity are long-lived and cross-cultural, exist in many different forms at various times and places. So, to the extent, any such beast really exists, you may be underestimating the sophistication of the average believer's understanding too. The "average" xian isn't an American fundie, Americans are only 5% of xianity, and I don't think the "average" adult xian (or the average any-other-kind-of-theist for that matter) really thinks God is a "big man in sky," and realizes the language used in their scriptures and such is often poetic and analogical, even if they don't have the language to express their "God" concepts in fancier philosophical terms. (ie , they may not be in so much disagreement with Meta as u think! :) )
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by met » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:05 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:most believers find everything is a proof.
That's exactly the problem. I prayed and got better which is a sign that God answered my prayer. I prayed and stayed sick which is also a sign that God answered my prayer - He said "No."

Does nature behave consistently and predictably? That's a sign that God exists. Do some people claim that there are sometimes violations of nature's consistency and predictability - i.e., miracles? That's a sign that God exists.

This is the way conspiracy theorists think - the complete lack of evidence tying the Kenyan gay Muslim communist Barack Obama to 9/11 is a sign of how efficiently the conspiracy is covering things up. There can be no disproof. If something contradicts your worldview, it's because the media is Bilderberg-controlled.

If everything's evidence that you're right, what will you accept as evidence to the contrary? Nothing, which reduces dialogue with you to its pure entertainment value (if any).
Being has to be!!! :P
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by Metacrock » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:55 am

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:most believers find everything is a proof.
That's exactly the problem. I prayed and got better which is a sign that God answered my prayer. I prayed and stayed sick which is also a sign that God answered my prayer - He said "No."
Yes but I don't think you understand what I meant by it.First what I didn't mean:

(1) There's a big difference in saying "believers find that everything is a proof" and saying "there are no proofs except the impressions believers offer which have no clear distinction between proof and not proof." Just because everything suggests proof to believers doesn't mean that some things can 't be singled out as better proofs than other things.

(2) It doesn't mean that everything is really a proof. It's a psychological impression.

(3) The reason it an impression is becuase the psychological weight of belief is the subconscious and unconscious impression based upon realizing that God is being itself and God is truth. Being and truth include everything, so everything starts to suggest itself as the answer.

(4) that doesn't mean we can't single out particular things in contrast to that which doesn't lend itself to proof in order to try and convey the realization to those who have not had it.


Does nature behave consistently and predictably? That's a sign that God exists. Do some people claim that there are sometimes violations of nature's consistency and predictability - i.e., miracles? That's a sign that God exists.
Does it do so for science? that's the assumption science makes.
This is the way conspiracy theorists think - the complete lack of evidence tying the Kenyan gay Muslim communist Barack Obama to 9/11 is a sign of how efficiently the conspiracy is covering things up. There can be no disproof. If something contradicts your worldview, it's because the media is Bilderberg-controlled.
that's taken out by what I said above in the first three points. After that you are arguing from analogy.
If everything's evidence that you're right, what will you accept as evidence to the contrary? Nothing, which reduces dialogue with you to its pure entertainment value (if any).
I didn't say everything is proof. I said everything seems to suggest proof. The reason is becuase god is in everything.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Post by Metacrock » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:04 am

to be clear I agree that if everything proves your case than than can prove it. Proof requires a contrast between true and not true. If there is no possibility for falsification then there's no possible means of validating it.

I didn't say that everything really does prove it. I said it seems that way believers at times. there are possible falsifications.

that might make an interesting thread. I'll think about it.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply