Correct. Because I know enough about statistics to realise how it is certain that some people will have a lifetime of unlikely results and experiences. I know enough about psychology to know that the human mind is great at finding patterns, and great at inventing patterns when there aren't any. And I know enough about mental illnesses to recognise delusions of specialness, even (but not only) in myself.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Thor 2
- Start date
Correct. Because I know enough about statistics to realise how it is certain that some people will have a lifetime of unlikely results and experiences. I know enough about psychology to know that the human mind is great at finding patterns, and great at inventing patterns when there aren't any. And I know enough about mental illnesses to recognise delusions of specialness, even (but not only) in myself.
David and Kathleen Long from Scunthorpe are the first people to scoop a £1m prize twice and go public, and have beaten odds of 283bn to one
The intelligent designer must really like them!
We even have phrases and sayings in the language to cover this phenomenon "a fresh pair of eyes" - "couldn't see it for looking" because it is so common.
No, no, you can't tell that from their lottery win. You can only tell that from their ability to find keys, and from certain gasket-related equipment failures.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Ah but how many times have they been stuck in traffic jams?
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
The experiment isn't when something becomes random. It's when the fact that it was random is proven. Before that, all you would have had was a general impression of non-randomness, which we know humans are terrible at determining directly. It's downright routine for people to think something isn't random when it is or is when it isn't. That's part of why we invented experiments.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Do a search on "multiple lottery winners." The list will be longer than you might guess. And no supernatural agency involved.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
One of the driving forces behind lotteries everywhere. And casinos.
Thor 2
Philosopher
Ridiculous. Surely even you see that. Oh, I am going to get my keys from their usual place. Please God, make sure they are there.
Oh, they are not there. Please God, let them be in the other place.
You will have to do better than that. And most of the time it is not keys.
And what about the fact that I can find things that other people have lost - in places I am not familiar with?
Now how about we set up a test to see how good your thing finding ability is PartSkeptic?
If we could get a number of volunteers to hide an object in their home, give you a selection of alternative places where the object is located and you nominate where it is, we could prove this ability of yours.
I feel sure the posters here are honourable people who would accurately report if you had a hit or not. How about it? Maybe we could create another thread to do it on and keep the score. We could either calculate what the random result would be or have controls (not psychically gifted) making guesses as well.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Thor 2
Philosopher
I'm sure PartSkeptic will come up with all kinds of excuses himself, (if the results are found wanting), without you helping him.
I expect the "God doesn't like to be tested" one up front.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It goes away when it's tested, remember?
That's not because it's a mistaken perception caused by confirmation bias and underestimating the expected level of coincidence, of course. It's because only signs which can't be distinguished from such mistaken perceptions are allowed.
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
Doh! (ninja'd)
Last edited:
Which is pretty much like saying I can turn invisible but only when nobody is looking at me.
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
A census-taker once tried to test me...
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Not one person has so far said "Maybe he is right". Why? Because everyone is certain the universe is not an illusion, and they KNOW for certain that God cannot exist.
What if one can influence events by positive determined thinking? It would mean that all of you get your wishes to live in a purely physical world.
And what if I am right? It would mean that theists have an evolutionary advantage and are using one of the built-in elements of intelligent design to their advantage. Atheists will eventually die off. There will be no monuments or places of worship for future archeologists to find to prove that atheists even existed. The theists will burn their books and their mark on the world will not exist.
What if one can influence events by positive determined thinking? It would mean that all of you get your wishes to live in a purely physical world.
And what if I am right? It would mean that theists have an evolutionary advantage and are using one of the built-in elements of intelligent design to their advantage. Atheists will eventually die off. There will be no monuments or places of worship for future archeologists to find to prove that atheists even existed. The theists will burn their books and their mark on the world will not exist.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Treating "God" here as referring to your vague do-nothing creator which happens to be indistinguishable from non-existence, instead of what "God" really means in English... you know perfectly well that nobody here has said it can't exist.
You also know perfectly well that your claim that nobody's said might be right isn't merely that such a non-god of a god might possibly exist, but that it definitely does and your reasoning establishes that. And we are quite correct in not thinking that even might possibly be right: whether your non-god of a god exists or not, your reasoning does not establish that it does.
Every time you claim that our position has been something other than what we actually say, you lie. Again.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Posted less than 48 hours ago:
Your straw men are getting more and more ridiculous.
What if one wrongly believed that they can influence events by positive determined thinking? It would mean that they were spectacularly ill equipped to deal with whatever reality threw at them.
The monuments to rational thought include the Large Hadron Collider and space probes which will still be on their way to the stars when the sun burns out. They will certainly outlast every church and temple currently standing.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Ehh... I'll take the bait, for the fun of it.
I suppose that it's quite possible that I didn't say that in this particular thread. I've said as much in a number of similar threads, though. We could be living in a simulation, after all, and a number of god concepts could still be the case, but I have neither means nor interest in trying to either prove or disprove unfalsifiable claims. On the other hand, I'm not friendly to fallacious arguments, which seems to be all that you put forth. I'm even less friendly to pointedly dishonest arguments, for that matter, which, unfortunately, you seem to be employing in this thread. Conveniently...
You provided yet another example of a dishonest argument that ends up just sounding like you're too afraid to understand and consider the things that are actually being said.
No, it wouldn't.
About which thing(s)? Positive determined thinking? Is there some good reason why atheists wouldn't be utilizing this? Positive determined thinking would seem to describe something notably different than prayer to a deity, after all.
And I look forward to the day when I'm standing in Heaven, looking down upon all you people who didn't believe me as you writhe in the eternal burning suffering of Hell, and laughing at you!
I suppose that it's quite possible that I didn't say that in this particular thread. I've said as much in a number of similar threads, though. We could be living in a simulation, after all, and a number of god concepts could still be the case, but I have neither means nor interest in trying to either prove or disprove unfalsifiable claims. On the other hand, I'm not friendly to fallacious arguments, which seems to be all that you put forth. I'm even less friendly to pointedly dishonest arguments, for that matter, which, unfortunately, you seem to be employing in this thread. Conveniently...
You provided yet another example of a dishonest argument that ends up just sounding like you're too afraid to understand and consider the things that are actually being said.
No, it wouldn't.About which thing(s)? Positive determined thinking? Is there some good reason why atheists wouldn't be utilizing this? Positive determined thinking would seem to describe something notably different than prayer to a deity, after all.
It would mean that theists have an evolutionary advantage and are using one of the built-in elements of intelligent design to their advantage. Atheists will eventually die off. There will be no monuments or places of worship for future archeologists to find to prove that atheists even existed. The theists will burn their books and their mark on the world will not exist.
And I look forward to the day when I'm standing in Heaven, looking down upon all you people who didn't believe me as you writhe in the eternal burning suffering of Hell, and laughing at you!
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
From my perspective, they've largely stayed at roughly the same level of ridiculousness.