User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)

  1. #1
    Points: 5,685, Level: 17
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    JAG's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    120
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    424
    Points
    5,685
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    43
    Thanked 111x in 82 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)

    JAG Writes:

    An alternative title for this thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Plausibility)

    My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
    the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
    there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
    that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.

    What I just said deals with showing Christianity to be true as opposed to knowing
    Christianity to be true. William Lane Craig makes this point in his book Reasonable
    Faith.

    What that means is we Christians hold that we can know Christianity to be true
    based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and tells us that
    Christianity is true. It is utterly impossible for us to prove this to be true with
    intellectual arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4.

    _________________


    So I admit (as does William Lane Craig) that we can not demonstrate with logical
    arguments that Christianity is true, with proof that rises to the certainty-level of
    the following syllogism:

    All men are mortal.
    Socrates was a man.
    Therefore Socrates was mortal.


    So?

    So it is impossible to establish certainty (as noted above).

    We have to be satisfied with establishing probability.
    But when we attempt to establish probability, we immediately enter the realm
    of the subjective and that is where the constant bickering and arguing back and
    forth occurs, because one man's probability is another man's improbability.

    For example, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God seeks to establish
    probability based on the obvious order, design, and complexity that we see in the
    natural world, in the human body, in the Hubble Deep Field, and for that matter on the
    shelves of Walmart and Sam's Club --- all evidence of endless variety of products made
    from endless varieties of raw materials. Intelligent Design.

    The very best anyone can do with the Teleological Argument is to establish probability,
    and thereby enter into the world of the subjective. Most Christians find the evidence
    for Intelligent Design to enjoy high probability. It ought to be safe to say that all atheists,
    by definition of atheism, will find the Argument from Intelligent Design to be improbable.

    ________________


    Certainty vs. Probability In Argumentation.

    Says William Lane Craig:
    "The Christian apologist may employ both deductive and inductive arguments in defense
    of Christian theism. In order for the arguments to be good ones, the premises need to have
    a particular epistemic status for us.
    But what sort of status is that? Certainty is an unrealistic
    and unattainable goal.
    Were we to require that we have certainty of the truth of an argument's
    premises, the result
    for us would be skepticism. What we're looking for is a comparative
    criterion: the premises in a good argument will have
    greater plausibility than their respective
    denials."___William Lane Craig

    __________

    Then Craig makes this statement:
    "Plausibility is to a great extent a person-dependent notion.
    Some people may find a premise plausible while others do not.
    Accordingly some people will agree that a particular argument is a good one, while
    others will say that it is a bad argument. Given our diverse backgrounds and biases,
    we should expect such disagreements.
    Obviously, the most persuasive arguments will
    be those which are based on premises
    which enjoy the support of widely accepted
    evidence or seem intuitively to be true."
    ___William Lane Craig,

    All quotes above are from Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, by William Lane Craig, page 55
    `
    __________


    Definitions of what I mean when I use the following words in the Opening Post:

    Plausibility - the quality of seeming reasonable
    Probability - the likelihood of something happening
    Epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation

    JAG

  2. #2
    Points: 21,919, Level: 35
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Helena's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2323
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,128
    Points
    21,919
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    3,286
    Thanked 2,314x in 1,399 Posts
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JAG View Post
    My view is (and has always been) ...
    Nope. Wrong. Try again.
    You are wrong about police.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Helena For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (08-07-2020)

  4. #3
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JAG View Post
    JAG Writes:

    An alternative title for this thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Plausibility)

    My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
    the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
    there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
    that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.

    What I just said deals with showing Christianity to be true as opposed to knowing
    Christianity to be true. William Lane Craig makes this point in his book Reasonable
    Faith.

    What that means is we Christians hold that we can know Christianity to be true
    based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and tells us that
    Christianity is true. It is utterly impossible for us to prove this to be true with
    intellectual arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4.

    _________________


    So I admit (as does William Lane Craig) that we can not demonstrate with logical
    arguments that Christianity is true, with proof that rises to the certainty-level of
    the following syllogism:

    All men are mortal.
    Socrates was a man.
    Therefore Socrates was mortal.


    So?

    So it is impossible to establish certainty (as noted above).

    We have to be satisfied with establishing probability.
    But when we attempt to establish probability, we immediately enter the realm
    of the subjective and that is where the constant bickering and arguing back and
    forth occurs, because one man's probability is another man's improbability.

    For example, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God seeks to establish
    probability based on the obvious order, design, and complexity that we see in the
    natural world, in the human body, in the Hubble Deep Field, and for that matter on the
    shelves of Walmart and Sam's Club --- all evidence of endless variety of products made
    from endless varieties of raw materials. Intelligent Design.

    The very best anyone can do with the Teleological Argument is to establish probability,
    and thereby enter into the world of the subjective. Most Christians find the evidence
    for Intelligent Design to enjoy high probability. It ought to be safe to say that all atheists,
    by definition of atheism, will find the Argument from Intelligent Design to be improbable.

    ________________


    Certainty vs. Probability In Argumentation.

    Says William Lane Craig:
    "The Christian apologist may employ both deductive and inductive arguments in defense
    of Christian theism. In order for the arguments to be good ones, the premises need to have
    a particular epistemic status for us.
    But what sort of status is that? Certainty is an unrealistic
    and unattainable goal.
    Were we to require that we have certainty of the truth of an argument's
    premises, the result
    for us would be skepticism. What we're looking for is a comparative
    criterion: the premises in a good argument will have
    greater plausibility than their respective
    denials."___William Lane Craig

    __________

    Then Craig makes this statement:
    "Plausibility is to a great extent a person-dependent notion.
    Some people may find a premise plausible while others do not.
    Accordingly some people will agree that a particular argument is a good one, while
    others will say that it is a bad argument. Given our diverse backgrounds and biases,
    we should expect such disagreements.
    Obviously, the most persuasive arguments will
    be those which are based on premises
    which enjoy the support of widely accepted
    evidence or seem intuitively to be true."
    ___William Lane Craig,

    All quotes above are from Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, by William Lane Craig, page 55
    `
    __________


    Definitions of what I mean when I use the following words in the Opening Post:

    Plausibility - the quality of seeming reasonable
    Probability - the likelihood of something happening
    Epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation

    JAG
    Through every philosopher's credo, there is one common thread which remains incalculable. The Human Condition.
    There are so many variables about Man, that the calculations have to keep constantly changing.
    To a degree, Man is predictable, his actions may appear to follow a common path, but each has his own reason for being "there." That is what we refer to as Individualism. These types might have attributes that tend to lean on the "Spiritual" side of thinking.
    I believe there is no such thing as coincidence. Some things appear random, but in fact they fit into a big picture. Cause and effect. For every action, there is a reaction. (It may not be equal nor opposite)

    Things you thought you got away with so many years ago that you forgot they ever happened, show up and bite you in the ass, today. And, sometimes at the worst time possible.
    But if there's no such thing as coincidence, then how do we explain death? Is the time of one's demise preordained? Are the things that follow as consequence, part of that plan? Or coincidence? Few people actually talk about death. It is a rather unpleasant topic.
    Take a snapshot of a graveside funeral. There could be large number of people there for the services, or it could be just a few. Regardless, each has their reasons for being there. Some share commonalities up to and including some way of having a relationship with the deceased (work, family, friends, etc.) The same is in our work lives and personal lives.
    These people are not there by accident. You meet the people you are meant to meet at the time you are supposed to meet. Those people at the funeral, some you don't know who they are or how they knew the deceased, but they are there for a reason.
    So, in balance, I really don't believe there is anything called coincidence when you examine a "thing" from every possible angle, then look beyond. If you examine cause and effect for a particular event in your life, you can see what led up to that event, and results. Were the results a matter of coincidence, some random act that led nowhere? Or did your decision have a small domino effect? Not that anyone may have been "knocked over" but maybe benefited from your choice. Would that have been a coincidence?
    Maybe you helped someone at some point in their lives and it changed them in a positive way, and you never knew it? Is that a coincidence?
    Once you get a handle on that, adopt this thinking externally.
    Spiritually, and intellectually, I know there is no such thing as coincidence.
    To me, it is the ultimate philosophy.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  5. #4
    Points: 5,685, Level: 17
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    JAG's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    120
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    424
    Points
    5,685
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    43
    Thanked 111x in 82 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    JAG Writes:My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments
    that deal with
    the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the
    supernatural, that
    there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of
    5 + 5 = 10, and
    that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is
    probability, not certainty.


    Helena Quotes The Bolded Red And Replies With:
    Quote Originally Posted by Helena View Post
    Nope. Wrong. Try again.

    So you don't believe this below?

    My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
    the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
    there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
    that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.

    You think there ARE some arguments for the supernatural world that DO rise
    to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10 ?

    You said "Nope. Wrong. Try again"___Helena

    Best .

    JAG
    Last edited by JAG; 08-08-2020 at 06:08 PM.

  6. #5
    Points: 21,919, Level: 35
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Helena's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2323
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,128
    Points
    21,919
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    3,286
    Thanked 2,314x in 1,399 Posts
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IS. And has always been.

    That is incorrect.
    You are wrong about police.

  7. #6
    Points: 5,685, Level: 17
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    JAG's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    120
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    424
    Points
    5,685
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    43
    Thanked 111x in 82 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    Through every philosopher's credo, there is one common thread which remains incalculable. The Human Condition.
    There are so many variables about Man, that the calculations have to keep constantly changing.
    To a degree, Man is predictable, his actions may appear to follow a common path, but each has his own reason for being "there." That is what we refer to as Individualism. These types might have attributes that tend to lean on the "Spiritual" side of thinking.
    I believe there is no such thing as coincidence. Some things appear random, but in fact they fit into a big picture. Cause and effect. For every action, there is a reaction. (It may not be equal nor opposite)

    Things you thought you got away with so many years ago that you forgot they ever happened, show up and bite you in the ass, today. And, sometimes at the worst time possible.
    But if there's no such thing as coincidence, then how do we explain death? Is the time of one's demise preordained? Are the things that follow as consequence, part of that plan? Or coincidence? Few people actually talk about death. It is a rather unpleasant topic.
    Take a snapshot of a graveside funeral. There could be large number of people there for the services, or it could be just a few. Regardless, each has their reasons for being there. Some share commonalities up to and including some way of having a relationship with the deceased (work, family, friends, etc.) The same is in our work lives and personal lives.
    These people are not there by accident. You meet the people you are meant to meet at the time you are supposed to meet. Those people at the funeral, some you don't know who they are or how they knew the deceased, but they are there for a reason.
    So, in balance, I really don't believe there is anything called coincidence when you examine a "thing" from every possible angle, then look beyond. If you examine cause and effect for a particular event in your life, you can see what led up to that event, and results. Were the results a matter of coincidence, some random act that led nowhere? Or did your decision have a small domino effect? Not that anyone may have been "knocked over" but maybe benefited from your choice. Would that have been a coincidence?
    Maybe you helped someone at some point in their lives and it changed them in a positive way, and you never knew it? Is that a coincidence?
    Once you get a handle on that, adopt this thinking externally.
    Spiritually, and intellectually, I know there is no such thing as coincidence.
    To me, it is the ultimate philosophy.
    Thank you for your comments and for your contribution to the thread.
    You made some interesting points.

    Best.

    JAG

  8. #7
    Points: 5,685, Level: 17
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    JAG's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    120
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    424
    Points
    5,685
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    43
    Thanked 111x in 82 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helena View Post
    IS. And has always been.
    That is incorrect.
    LOL
    Okay Helena. you scored a point.
    Yeah, you're correct on that.
    Are you a philosopher?
    You're a Logician.
    Keep me sharp, now.
    /Big Grin

    Best.

    JAG

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts