Comments on: Is Probability a Problem for RTB?Science Apologetics for the nonscientistBy: Kenneth Huebel- February 21, 2008 I may be way out of my league here but Bobs challenge creates a number of questions that seem obvious to me. Is there a possibility for the universe other than natural or supernatural Can a natural cause be the result of anything other than random chance Is there empirical evidence the universe is eternal and necessary Maybe Ive missed something but, based on the empirical evidence Ive seen, I am only aware of two possible explanations for the universe -- natural or supernatural. If H...http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-1075 By: Preston Phillips- February 17, 2008 Hm, I thought I had written this at one point before. I guess not. Regardless... I never said that we can't talk about the probability of an event occurring. However, as I recall (it's been a while), we always use the probability of an event NOT occurring when making calculations, simply because it avoids unnecessary errors. Also, it helps to clear up the debate. Sure, we can say that there's a, oh, 20% chance of an event occurring. Now, you could say that that's still a 15 chance... but.http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-1038 By: RA Carder- February 14, 2008 ............Correction.............. RA Carder Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 14th, 2008 at 2:54 pm I apologize Bob, but lets say that you are the first human being (and this can be proven) on another planet and you find a box with what look like gears, and some type of working mechanism, etc; there are no other such findings, and no findings anywhere after much investigation that that planet contained life in any form; and nothing else exists, after much investigation,.http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-1005 By: Bob L. Sturm- February 14, 2008 ==== Dear all, I am thankful that Kenny called Creation Update, and that Hugh Ross took the time to address my arguments. I would like to directly address Ross's comments. First, any appeal to probability is not a bogus appeal. Modern science works the way it does because of the intellectual revolutions probability theory has founded. As I have said before, probability theory is one of the most, if not the most, important developments of the 20th century. It provides a powerful tool for...http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-999 By: C.J.- February 14, 2008 Hi Bob, You never said you were an atheist but your line of argumentation is stereotypical of a skepticatheist. Are you telling me that you are a believer that is just refining the RTB probability argument out of the goodness of your heart I think your starting point on this argument makes all the difference in the world. You follow the typical path I see from skeptics who spend countless hours debating the minutae of large and often contested theories. I think you're getting lost in the...http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-996 By: Bob L. Sturm- February 13, 2008 ==== Dear Kenneth, If probability is only applicable to random natural processes, then RTB should not be applying probability to support their claims of a supernatural being! ==== Dear Martin, Your analysis is spot on. Unfortunately for RTB, the probability of the existence of the supernatural being that created us P(H) has never been demonstrated, and appears to be sloughed off by a wave of Ross's hands as insignificant detail. Either RTB purposefully does not divulge this essential part of.http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-994 By: Kenny- February 13, 2008 I asked Dr. Ross about this debate and you can hear his comments at the 1 hr. 14 min. mark of the 21208 Creation Update webcast. Maybe he will spend some time next week on it.http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-991 By: RA Carder- February 13, 2008 To Bob With respect to your arguments, I think that P(X) where X is "we exist" is too loosely defined. In arguments such as this, precise definitions are of great importance. I think it can be well argued that P(X), "we exist" or "I exist" is 1, "I think therefore I am...". But P(X) where X is finding carbon-based life somewhere else in the universe, in another system in the galaxy, or in another galaxy, is near 0. I certainly stand to be corrected but I think that RTB's probabilities are...http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-989 By: Jon S.- February 13, 2008 I am truly thankful for the stimulating debate on line and I want to thank Bob for opening my understanding of this issue. I am also an electrical engineer and I work with probability and reliability figures on a daily basis. I think people are missing the bigger picture by focusing on Bayes Theorem. I agree with Martins assessment. Bob is trying to say RTB is misinterpreting probabilities like 1 in 10282 power as being virtually impossible having a near zero probability which would leave.http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-987 By: Larry- February 13, 2008 It's apparent that Bob is determined to show us that RTB's use of PT is flawed and a 'ruse'. In, fact, he passionately feels that RTB is flawed, no matter what counter-evidence is given. So, yes, Bob is stubborn. That does not equate to being correct. At the end of the day, he just 'feels' RTB is wrong. In my humble opinion, his views are not really based on 'science', but they are based on philosophy---it's a worldview question. Bob, this may come as shock to you, but RTB's use...proper...http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=49#comment-984 |