Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)

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

Probable - likely to be the case or likely to happen

epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation

 

I would suggest both approaches are lacking. Certainty is obviously not the way we commonly deal with knowledge. Probability invites us to place numbers (or some kind of judgement) on ideas even when we have insufficient knowledge. It can trick us into thinking things, like that prior probabilities are equally distributed, or to ignore unknown correlations among your probabilities, or overestimating low probabilities (which humans are notorious for), or the look elsewhere effect etc..

I suggest instead justification for belief. You can be justified in believing things, but you have no duty to a proposition that you don't believe to the point where you accept it as true. If there is a 50% likelihood that something is true, then there is knowledge that you don't have, and that knowledge may be stacked against you. As such, a better way to think about it is that the statement hasn't been shown to be true (that's not to say you believe it's not true).

 

Swensson,
Thanks for your comments. I read carefully all that you wrote. I will post a few thoughts for your consideration.

{1} Probability
{2} Plausibility
{3} "justification For Belief" {You suggested this instead of {1} and {2}.
All 3 approaches to arriving at what is truth are going to forever be
saturated with subjectivity which is the biases, prejudices, and
presuppositions of human beings.

That is true . . . yet . . .
Any claim to truth that does not rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 is going
to have to be subjected to human subjectivity.

The following is not arguable:

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

But . . .

The Teleological Argument to demonstrate that the Universe has an Intelligent Designer
is arguable. The world is projected to have 5.7 billion Theists {Christians and Muslims not
counting the Jews} by the year 2050 and its a factoid that these 5.7 Theists are pretty much
locked-down on being committed to the truth of Intelligent Design --- just as it is a factoid that
atheists are pretty much locked-down AGAINST there being an Intelligent Designer for the
Universe.

Do you honestly believe that Theists and atheists are going to be unbiased and un-prejudiced
and non-presuppositional when they are presented with evidence either FOR or AGAINST
Intelligent Design? I am 100% convinced that. for all practical purposes, both sides are
locked-down on this issue and are not going to budge 1/16 of an inch.

Every single idea up there is going to be saturated with human subjectivity {biases, prejudices,
pre-suppositions, emotional feelings, etc}

This also ends up saturated with human subjectivity. See below.

Who would get to decide that there was a 50% likelihood that something is true?
Seriously. That question must be faced head on and answered. And the answer
is that there is no such thing on this planet . . .

. . . as this:

The International Authority That Decides If There Is, Or Is Not, A 50% Likelihood
That Something Is True Or False.

What happens if You say "50%" and Your Opponent says, "No, its only 30%"?

And Tom says, "No, its 40%."

And Jerry says, "No, its 80%"

And David, says "No, its only 20%"

And ALL of you present your detailed arguments to "back up"
your contradictory percentage claims? Then who gets
to decide if the "detailed arguments" are valid arguments?
You? Tom? David? Jerry? Me?
This is the reason I wrote my Opening Post titled
Who Won The Argument?
Here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/who-won-the-argument.572838/#post-1071717853
Its simply impossible to escape the truth presented in my Who Won The Argument?

Who has the authority to issue a proclamation and say that a statement
hasn't been shown to be true? Me? You? Donald Trump? Nancy?

Trump can present his arguments that a statement has, or has not,
been shown to be true. But after his presentation You and Me and
Nancy, and Tom, and Jerry, and David, etc have to decide if Trump's
arguments were successful or unsuccessful. So? So we are back to
human subjectivity which are human biases, prejudices, presuppositions,
and emotions for or against certain ideas. So what do You do here?
You say that Trump's arguments were successful and Me and Nancy
and Tom and Jerry and David say, No, Swensson you are WRONG
Trump's arguments were NOT successful and here are our reasons
for saying that? How do you settle that? Answer: You cannot settle it.
You could be right. We all could be wrong. Or You could be wrong.
And we all could be right. And you cannot settle what is true or false
by taking a Majority Vote -- we all know that Majority Vote settles
nothing.

The above is why Christianity will eventually settle all human disputes.
Here is how human history ends:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's
dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with
them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with
them and be their God. 4'He will wipe every tear from their
eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or
pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Revelation 21:3-4
________________

Swensson, thanks again for your interesting and informative
comments. I appreciate what you wrote.

________

Swensson, God Bless.

Quotes For Today:

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

__________


“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such
times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to
decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring



`
`

 

There's no actual probability for something already happened (unless it's quantum physics). God either existed long ago (with a probability of 1), or He doesn't exist (with a probability of 0). There's nothing in between to be called probabilities. It is rather about how humans can approach such a truth (either true or false).

 

The only thing we know for certain - is that we don't know anything for certain - with respect to the question - is there a higher power - an entity that thinks and has Godlike abilities.

I suggest that this rhetorical question - one we already know the answer to - that being "we don't know" - is not pointless. It allows us to consider what a God might be like - which constitutes a kind of middle ground.

Each person will have a different answer of course - a different theory on what God might be like. The main problem of this kind of conjecture is when folks start claiming they know for sure what God wants from us - and thus everyone should live their lives "this way" because "God Says so".

 

We actually can know something for certain, that depends on how "certain" is defined. We humans can detect a certainty by the process of foretelling a future and wait for it to come to pass. You detect your own consciousness by causing yourself a pain. If the predicted pain comes to pass then you can realize that you are in the reality.

It is so because we humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if we foretell a future and this future comes to pass, then we can tell that something is a certain truth to enable it so. Science is the art of foretelling a repeating pattern for us to confirm a truth. We land on the surface of moon simply because this is predictable with a 100% certainty in terms of our physics. Thus whenever our mission failed we never say that it's our physics in error. It is always something else but not our physics which is in error, such as human errors, our engineering or applied science caused the error say in the control of fuel burning etc.

God actually did the same to tell that He's God, at least not a human. He showed prophecies and miracles to His chosen prophets, and authenticate them by enabling them to do the same. It is so because humans lack the ability to 1) tell a future, and 2) break our own physics laws. It is thus a convenient way for Him to demonstrate that He's God through a handy prophecy or miracle. That's actually why His eyewitnesses are called the prophets (i.e., a human who can foretell a future).

Acts 14:3 (NIV2011)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

 

Some things we can know for certain - but not the answer to the question - Is there a God.
Nor can we know for certain what God's Characteristics are.

God may not have - and likely did not - do any of what you are ascribing to him. You are making up a story - or reciting something that someone else made up - and ascribing that story to God - when you know for a fact that your story may not be correct - such that you are ascribing false attributes to God.

I too have a story - completely made up - just like yours In my story - similar to yours - some God is the creator.
In my Story - God has better things to do than sit and watch Good for nothing Humans misbehaving all day long - and has other experiments on other planets on the go.

So one day - God checks in on earth and notices that humans are not acting in ways that God does not like.

Does God 1) intervene to change the path or 2) let the experiment continue ?

Further investigation shows that 1 is pointless. If God wanted humans to not sin - and do nothing but worship God and sing his praises all day long - he could have created such an being - who - like a parrot on a broken record - does nothing but sing God's praises all day long.

Since this is not the case - clearly God does not want to control everything - God wants the experiment to follow its natural course.

In case my logic was not clear. If God wanted humans to be X - then humans would be X. That we see evil in the world - means that God -while not necessarily wants - but allows evil .. allows the experiment to continue - where-ever it goes - and does not interfere - because then the whole experiment would be pointless.

 

I agree that sometimes it is hard to prove something happened to someone else when you know it happened to you. But when people claim the Holy Spirit talks to them, its just them having feelings, and them interpreting those feelings as supernatural.

I also agree that proof isn't necessary. I'm just looking for a high probability of truth. The teleological argument has three problems. First, an unlikely thing is certain to happen if tried enough times, which may explain why we have complexity without a designer. Second, we have the theory of evolution that shows immense complexity developing through natural processes. Third, even if you establish a designer, you haven't come close to establishing the Christian God.

Its a good start to establish plausibility, but in the end you need probability to get anywhere.

 

what is thought for 500?

Darwin is yesterdays news, we debunked evolution in another thread

 

​

 

Guess you had a bad day

 

I'll take a bad day over a fantasy prone personality.

 

I proved it, fantasy and worshiping an atheist false gods is your cup of tea.

Darwin Debunked here:
Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-bites-the-dust.572589/page-4#post-1071739596

you dropped the ball, if you think you have an explanation how that can possibly be evolution I sometimes enjoy listening to peoples fantasies

 

Proved? There are no proofs in science.
What you have is Discovery Institute propaganda combined with your poor understanding of evolutionary science.

 

Well I posted PROOF that darwin is full of ****.

 

Yes.

Human knowledge of this universe is miniscule. Turning that into a probability of an indetectable, but all powerful onmscience is sheer fakery.

Even the Bible says it is pure faith, not the math of probabilities applied to the tiny bits we think we know.

 

I don't think you are drawing the proper line.

For example, there are large numbers of Christians who are moving our knowledge of this universe forward using scientific method - which by definition allows no opportunity for the use of ideas of "intelliget design".

Plus, there are Christians who accept interpretations such as that god made the big bang such that mankind developed on Earth - interpretations that don't pit religious ideas against the evidence of science. Maybe our theist founders were onto something when they took the view that god has stood back.

Human progress with scientific method isn't motivated as an assault on god - nor should the results of science be seen that way.

 

No...you did not.

 

To present what is being said in your OP in a different way:

5+5=10 is 100% certain. It is a proof (in this case, a mathematical proof). Mathematics is a closed functional system (it operates under a specific set of rules, called "axioms"). Proofs are simply extensions of those axioms. Logic is also a closed functional system (and likewise has proofs).

"Jesus Christ exists, and is who he says he is" (aka "Christianity") is not certain (in the same sense as 5+5=10 is certain) because religion makes use of supporting evidence rather than proofs, and because all religions are based on a theory that is not falsifiable (thus, the theory will remain as a circular argument).

I dive a bit deeper into the whole "science vs religion" comparison here:
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866

 

The problem with using probability like this is that astronomically improbable things happen all of the time. Happens every time you shuffle a deck of cards.

Let's say I have a deck of cards sitting out and you take a look at the order of the cards.

What is the more probable route of producing this exact order of cards?

Well if I intentionally ordered them that way, the likelihood is basically 100% that they would be in the order in which I intentionally stacked them.

The odds of that exact order occurring from me *shuffling* the cards are astronomical. Should we then come to the conclusion that every stack of cards we encounter were intentionally ordered that way and that no deck of cards was ever shuffled? No, of course not.

 

Koko? No. He actually believes this crap. He's also a Holocaust denialist (he denies that the Nazis committed any Holocaust against the Jews, but he tries to get around this fact by saying that he believes in the Holocaust because he believes it was actually the Jews who committed a Holocaust against the Nazis . . . I'm serious . . . that's his argument). So he's single-handedly revolutionized physics, biology, and history. Just don't go asking for evidence. You'll be disappointed. But, sure, Nobel Prizes, along with many other academic prizes, are surely in the mail. There aren't enough rofl emojis to cover this, unfortunately.

 

You did not, and you cannot.

What a science is, is determined by the community of scientists, in that science.

Even worse, you have literally no idea how to do science.

 

oh, um yes I did.