Do you think less of theists intelligence?

I thought you said you do believe it happened by chance, didn't you?

 

Very true, but generally theists, in our society, are Abrahamic theists.

 

Now you try to complicate the argument, in hopes to get me to the point where my lack of thorough knowledge of the Probability Theory (which proves fallacy of your argument) would show itself and thus enable you to say "Jumbuli, you are wrong in pointing my fallacy out because you don't know how to show that I am wrong!"
Of course, 1 + 1 would equal 5 or whatever but 2 if you could only show that someone you debated with didn't know the basic arithmetics


Now, as far as Probability Theory goes, what it actually does is predicting the likelyhood and chances of you guessing the right number in random.
If there were only 3 numbers to guess, you would have one out of 3 chances to guess it right (very high probability). And you could certainly guess it right if given 3 chances.
If it was a statewide megamillion dollar lottery, then chances would be 20 times higher for you to get struck by lightening than guessing the number right and you would need to make tens of millions of guesses to get it right for sure, but you still would have the chance to win the first time you made a guess (though chances would be very slim, however if millions played and made millions of various guesses, one could possibly guess it right) and nobody would question that you guessed it right just by chance (after all we do have people winning megamillion lotteries all the time).

Now, if you were in laboratory and guessed various 800 digit long numbers correctly and did it 500 times in the row, you can bet your arms and limbs that any reasonable and serious researcher would get befuddled and would look for any reason but chance that may have allowed you to get the numbers right.
Because the odds of you guessing it right in random would be impossibly long, so long that almost anything other than chance would have to be looked at and searched for to explain it.

And if there was no physical evidence , nothing they were able to detect that could have helped you to make the right guess, then they would have to admit that they didn't possess capacity to find out the real cause and would leave it for future generations of brighter scientists, if ever, to figure it out.

But to suggest that you guessed it right simply by chance and that it was the only possible explanation since no other cause or explanation was known or imaginable, well this would be highly unreasonable and invalid conclusion in a case like that.

If the neanderthal was shown a radio he would probably think it was a magic stone talking, but if he knew magic didn't exist at least the honest neanderthal would admit that he didn't know what that speaking object was made of or how it got those sounds emitted.

Is it about me or is it about chances?

No, I say if odds are impossibly long then there must be something else involved and you can't say there is nothing else but the "random chance" invloved.

Nothing that I know of.

Read above

Talk about making coherent arguments

 

Jumbuli, if you guessed that number sequence, the scientists would of course be amazed. Something like that hardly ever occurs, let alone in an environment where we can observe it.

My entire argument is based off this next part: If you guessed the numbers by yourself, with no outside help. Then you did it by chance.

I'm not denying just how amazing the event would be, I'm just saying that it is chance. We cannot write it off as anything else.

You can not and will not change my mind on this basic idea and I can not and will not change yours.

 

It's not my objective to change your mind.
You can believe that Santa Claus is real if you want to, I couldn't care less about that.

And it's not that I arbitrarily chose to have a mindset that does or does not allow for things to take place by random chance or otherwise.

It is just the matter of fact that if something takes place and if the observable elements of the phenomena are such that the odds of it's happening by chance are impossibly long, you can't then write it off as if it happened by chance and nothing but chance, simply because you had no other explanation you knew or could imagine of.

 

And this is where we differ Neither position is wrong. We do not possess all the answers as of right now. I just don't think that when all the answers are found there will be anything else.

 

And this is what is called false compromise

False Compromise:

If one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.)

Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.

"Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."

 

This is not a false compromise. It isn't even a compromise. I'm just accepting that we cannot debate this issue further.

You have no evidence that anything outside chance exists
Because we do not know all the answers in the universe I cannot say that just chance exists.

 

No, it is a false compromise to suggest that "neither position is wrong"
as far as chance and impossibly long odds are concerned.
There are things that are happening by chance. Then there are things that couldn't possibly have happened by chance (i.e. odds are impossibly long).
To say everything happened by chance, no matter what the odds are and then suggest that saying so is just as valid as saying that certain things could not be attributed to chance is to make a false compromise.

 

Prove that in something only governed by chance, that something outside of chance exists. You cannot.

You have no evidence that anything outside chance exists
Because we do not know all the answers in the universe I cannot say that just chance exists.

EDIT:

You cannot call it a false compromise because AT THIS TIME neither of us have proof that or belief is 100% correct

 

It is actually you who has to prove that something with impossibly long odds of happening by chance indeed happened by chance.
Since you are the one making the claim you are also the one obligated to prove it.

I don't need that proof to doubt your assertion that something definitely has happened by random chance, no matter how improbable and impossibly long the odds of it happening that way are.

Exactly, just because you don't know something you can't write it off to random chance, especially if the odds are impossibly long for it to have happened by chance.

There are degrees of improbability where you can say the odds of something happening by chance are impossibly long.

 

Until you prove that in areas governed by chance that there is something more at work, I don't need to prove anything.

 

If an area is governed by chance it would then by default be assumed to be in it's domain. Why would I need to prove it?

But you say someting else.
You are saying that if we have an event with even impossibly long odds of happening by chance, we still must write it off to chance simply because there is no other known to us way of explaining how it happened.

You are the one who makes this claim ergo you are the one obligated to prove it.

 

I say that if an event solely governed by chance occurs, even with impossible odds, then it was only chance.

That's not an unsupported claim. It's reality.

 

The premise of argument is that we have an event and you are claiming that you know the cause of the event and that it is indeed a random chance, no matter how impossibly long the odds of it happening by chance are.
When asked why you think it happened by chance when odds are impossibly long against it happening that way, you reply "Well, simply because there is no other way I know of how it could have happened otherwise".
And then you ask me to prove that it didn't happen that way.


So, I see man walking on the moon. The only means of transportation I know of is the horse. Since I don't know of any other means of transportation, I must assume that man who I see walking on the moon rode the horse up there. The odds of horse reaching the moon are irrelevant, because there is no other way I know of how man could get up to the moon.
Now prove that man can't ride the horse to the moon

 

With an event that is solely governed by chance. Let's say 1:500,000,000,000,000. If that event occurs 500,000,000,000,000 times in a row. One might say that it was a miracle of god or an outside force. I contest that it was just chance, amazing chance, but just chance. Not because I don't know of any other way it could happen, but because there is no other logical reason. There will never be any evidence that something else intervened because nothing else exists.

Keep in mind, I'm not refering to things like wind, human intervention, those things are all measureable. I'm refering to thinks like divine intervention or anything that we cannot measure and explain, because I'm rational I don't believe in that shit.

Measureable and understandable things include technology to advanced for us to use now. Eventually we'll understand it.

Gravity is a bitch.

 

how could i not. if they had any more control we would be living in the dark ages.

 

You don't understand the subject of discussion (I noted it few times before).
But that's not surprising. You wouldn't make so obviously fallacious arguments if you did.

This is irrelevant, I wasn't discussing "divine intervention" (I won't help you appear more reasonable than you are).

And the relevance to argument is?

First of all we don't know yet what the gravity is. It is one of the things in physics that is not well understood yet (if you have some basics knowledge of what the science of physics has discovered so far you must know it).
Second, it doesn't associate in my mind with female dog.
And finally, it's irrelevant to subject of discussion.

 

hmm I've noticed people saying this before, "We dont know what gravity is". We don't? How do you figure? Just because we can never understand why it exists doesn't mean we don't know what it is. With this logic you could say that about anything.

 

Physicists, whose job is to explain what it is, admit that they don't yet fully comprehend what the gravity is.
We can observe it's effects but so far no one was able to explain what exactly it is.