GhaudePhaede010 said:
This would be interesting if you offered me something more concrete. Otherwise, what you are presenting is no more or less bias than my own opinion. Also, the deck of cards example only works because you have examined and know all the variables beforehand. In this case, we are specifically talking about NOT knowing all the variables. If you use the card example and said, "we don't examine the cards first" then conclude that you have a 1 in 4 chance of pulling a spade, how could I argue that statistic since I am as ignorant to the cards as you are to the probability of God's existence.
Also, if you are going to continue to ignore the possibility and probability that art imitates life and we, as humans are art (as is all of this universe), then you have issues with your own ignorance that you should address instead of trying to pick an argument with me about it.
Late edit: notice I am not even getting into the argument about the credentials of Bayesian analysis? The reason is because I can clearly see you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is fine, I will let you attack it all you want. I know when I am speaking to someone informed and when I am speaking to someone a little bit ignorant. You have your heart in the right place and my goal is not to convince you or change your mind. My job was to explain how I felt and why I felt that way. Attempting to discredit my feelings will never work because I am way too strong mentally to be broken by someone beneath the appropriate level of influence. I am always willing to listen/read but I am not stupid enough to go, "oh, that random internet user that clearly knows very little about this topic has convinced me to change my mind" and you are not the person to change that position. So, attack away. Try as you may. Nothing you say is going to move me unless it is absolute and equivocated proof that there is no creator. |
I'm honestly really not trying to be rude, but I really don't understand your response.
The card example was specifically to draw the distinction between frequentist and bayesian approaches. It seems to me like you just repeated the same point back at me.
But to go with it, if I said there was a 1 out of 4 chance of getting a spade and you know that I haven't examined the deck, the correct response would be "there is no way you can possibly know that, so I don't believe you." Which is basically my response to your statistics on god. There is no way you have the information to draw that conclusion.
As for art imitating life, I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said. Like, it's a complete non-sequitur. It's like we were having a conversation about the best Nintendo game, and then you said, "well what about checkers? That's a good game". Dunno what it has to do with whether bayesian analysis is accurate or appropriate in this situation.
As for the edit, I find it kind of irritating for people just to assert that I'm wrong about something. I make an effort to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm always right, and If I am wrong about bayesian analysis, feel free to explain how I am, cause then I can correct it and know better. But if you are going to say I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate an explanation.
I don't know why you feel like you're being attacked. I don't think my response was at all aggressive. And feel free to try and change my mind. If I'm wrong, I'd definitely like my mind to be changed.
I cannot prove there is no creator, and I didn't say there wasn't. But, do you just believe everything so long as it can't be disproven? I have a unicorn sitting next to me right now. Can you conclusively prove that I don't? And if not, do you believe me?
If you wait until something is disproven to not believe in it, then you would have to believe in basically everything to be consistent. This is basic burden of proof stuff.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 24 August 2018
