people playing: 154, servers online: 46, games played: 136,867,632 Top Player: Savior4

  Toribash Community » General » Discussion
Register FAQ General Rules Community
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 19, 2017   #91
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Veoo View Post
This is silly, if that is the case you can simply say all theories explaining something have evidence that it needs to be explained, meaning they are equally likely so its not a means of prove one is better then the other so it would not be the definition of of evidence which is as follows:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." -Google note card definition

How does the very problem that requires an answer provide that one specific theory is true or valid.

This is silly

I see why you could make this mistake though.

All theories that explain a phenomenon have that phenomena as evidence, but not all theories have equal amounts of evidence.

The existence of the universe would be a part of the body of facts in your definition. If the proposition is the existence of god, that could be seen as evidence for, equally there are other parts of the body of facts that could be seen as evidence against.

Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
A phenomenon without an explanation is in itself evidence for a theory explaining it.

I can say I have evidence for anything with your logic here as long as the contrary isn't proven. That would mean evidence is redundant and useless. Protip. evidence is not redundant

You would be correct! This is somewhere near what Im trying to get across, using Veoo's definition above - one part of the body of facts is not enough to draw a conclusion. One piece of evidence on its own may sometimes be useless as it could allow many conclusions to be drawn.

An analogy:
A murder victim, person 1, is found to have stab wounds.

This is a piece of evidence in the murder case, it suggests that someone stabbed person 1.
We cannot rule out any people as we have no more evidence at this point, equally we cannot convict anyone because we have insufficient evidence or from Veoo's definition "only one fraction of the body of facts". But it remains the case that it is still evidence

If we find another piece of evidence that person 2 is holding a bloody knife.
This is another piece of evidence.

Another piece of evidence is that the DNA of the blood matches person 1.



If my theory is that person 2 stabbed person 1, its easy to see in this analogy how when more pieces of evidence or "phenomena" fit the model, there is more evidence for the model and it is easy to accept. It would have been silly to accept this theory when we only had the first piece of evidence, even though it was evidence.



Smallbowl, you are the only one here misunderstanding what evidence means.
You also dont understand occams razor, you think it's some sort of a rule that actually applies to anything, it doesn't. If you think the universe works in a way that the simplest outcome is always chosen you are as dumb as you seem to be in your writing.

Occam's razer can be interpreted in 2 ways - 1. Simplest, 2. Least Assumptions.

The application changes if you pick the other 1 rather than 2. Occam's razor is commonly used to argue against Last Thursdayism and the Earth being created 6000 years ago.

If it was simplest, last thursdayism is a very simple explanation, but contains a lot of assumptions.

Second of all, you think a god is the simplest explanation? My fucking shit is that a stupid thing to say. A god creating everything is literally the most complex explanation possible.
Where did the god come from? How does it have powers to create the universe? How could it create something before anything was created? All the questions are as complex as any explanation. Your "BUT MAH OCCAMS RAZOR" spouting is the dumbest thing ive heard in a long time.

These questions are examples of assumptions that have to be made, however the point remains that there are not currently models with less or less extreme assumptions.


But hey, according to your logic. I can just as well say that leprechauns who like gay porn created the universe and then named the universe Michael. I have just as much evidence for that as you do for god creating it. Which is ONE.

You could say that and there would be 1 piece of evidence you could point to, to support your model. The existence of the universe.

However that on its own is not enough evidence for you to gain much support for your gay porn leprechaun theory.

Literally the dictionary definition of evidence. Now you can shut up with your nonsense:

noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Here this is an argument of semantics, because not only can your definition be interpreted in different ways, there is not but 1 definition of evidence and not but 1 dictionary. This could easily be where our disagreements stem from.

But I think my analogy above explains where Im coming from quite well and better than previously so I would like you to read that
[sigpic][/sigpic]
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context
SmallBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #92
cowmeat
Forumite
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,689
Clan: Alpha






"A word is whatever I want it to be, so I'm right every time" - Smallbowl 2017

First you say we dont understand evidence, then refuse to accept the common definition because it proves your statements wrong.
This is a farce


Ban me so I dont have to look at this pure stupidity.

Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 19, 2017 at 05:44 PM..
cowmeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #93
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post



"A word is whatever I want it to be, so I'm right every time" - Smallbowl 2017

First you say we dont understand evidence, then refuse to accept the common definition because it proves your statements wrong.
This is a farce


Ban me so I dont have to look at this pure stupidity.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence


so where did you get your "common definition" from? Is it more reliable than oxford university? Which by the way is the same as Google inc.'s definition





______________


Edit: I found you got it from dictionary.com which isnt as widely accepted as oed but whatever, so I stayed on that company website and the first synonym for evidence is clue. Which fully contradicts your view on the definition of it having to prove something.
[sigpic][/sigpic]
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context

Last edited by SmallBowl; Mar 19, 2017 at 06:18 PM..
SmallBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #94
Zockinator
Forumite
 
7th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,787
Clan: Parrot



@Smallbowl What interests me is, how exactly is God the explanation with the least assumptions?

For example, couldn't we just say that the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang, which inhabited all matter and energy of the universe, was always there? Wouldn't that make way less assumptions than an all powerful, all knowing, all present, intelligent being with a fully developed ego?
Zockinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #95
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Zockinator View Post
@Smallbowl What interests me is, how exactly is God the explanation with the least assumptions?

For example, couldn't we just say that the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang, which inhabited all matter and energy of the universe, was always there? Wouldn't that make way less assumptions than an all powerful, all knowing, all present, intelligent being with a fully developed ego?

Perhaps, however I would point out that "was always there" doesnt really apply since it is believed that time started with the big bang. However the question posed is not why the singularity exists, rather why it "exploded".
[sigpic][/sigpic]
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context
SmallBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #96
Zockinator
Forumite
 
7th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,787
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Perhaps, however I would point out that "was always there" doesnt really apply since it is believed that time started with the big bang.

Oh yeah, you're right, sorry.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
However the question posed is not why the singularity exists, rather why it "exploded".

But wouldn't any simple trigger make less assumptions than a God? Any spontaneous kind of energy outburst? I mean, it doesn't really matter what kind of trigger it is, let your imagination flow, but as long as it's just very simple it makes less assumptions than the idea of a God.

Last edited by Zockinator; Mar 19, 2017 at 11:06 PM..
Zockinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2017   #97
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Zockinator View Post
Oh yeah, you're right, sorry.



But wouldn't any simple trigger make less assumptions than a God? Any spontaneous kind of energy outburst? I mean, it doesn't really matter what kind of trigger it is, let your imagination flow, but as long as it's just very simple it makes less assumptions than the idea of a God.

Maybe, its impossible for me to imagine such a trigger though because space and time are both nonexistant. So anything is impossible to visualize -not that me not being able to visualize lends itself to a god.
[sigpic][/sigpic]
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context
SmallBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2017   #98
+Ele
Community Manbanger
 
2nd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,292
Clan: Parrot



The default answer to things that we don't understand yet shouldn't be 'god' or 'magic'. That way is thinking isn't conducive with logic or reason. The proper response is to accept that we don't understand it yet and being to investigate (with science) it.

Obviously, we are not the tools of some magic deity, tasked to accomplish some goal. There is no prophetic reason for our existence, it just happened. We exist because we exist, there is no deeper meaning.

The knowledge that there is no deeper meaning to life can upset some, like ripping a baby from the comfort of its mothers teat. Now baby needs to figure shit out for itself. Where can baby hope to find meaning in this wacky world without god??

From within! We give our lives meaning - We decide how we want to live our lives and the impact that we want to make. Baby can choose to stride forward confidently, inspired and energised by that realisation, or baby can crawl back to its mummy's tit, and try to delude itself into believing the magic story again (that suddenly seems a little less believable).

Last edited by Ele; Mar 20, 2017 at 01:05 PM..
Ele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2017   #99
Veoo
Forumite
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,858
Clan: All Stars



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Perhaps, however I would point out that "was always there" doesnt really apply since it is believed that time started with the big bang. However the question posed is not why the singularity exists, rather why it "exploded".

dude

are you stupid omg.

This thing about how phenomena is evidence for any theory explaining it is completely ridiculous

Cowmeats proof doesn't make much sense either.

You can use either definition, mine or cowmeat's and you're still wrong as fuck.

But for your sake, Ill use mine.

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You are created what is formal known in logic as a tautology.

You are saying the same thing twice, first as the premise of the logical proof, second as the evidence.

Here is the difference between Circular reasoning and a tautology:

"Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that circular reasoning restates the premise as the conclusion, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise."

As this states, a tautology derives the conclusion from the premise.

What does derive mean??

"obtain something from (a specified source)."

This basically means that you are taking the premise or problem and trying to use it as evidence for your answer without a proof.

This means I could, using your incorrect logic, that

Premise: All bunnies are brown, grey or white.
Theory: Because I like Ferraris
Evidence: All bunnies are brown, grey or white.
Veoo please stop talking you're a disappointment -Mr.Softy aka Admiral Dweeb
Veoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2017   #100
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Veoo View Post
dude

are you stupid omg.

This thing about how phenomena is evidence for any theory explaining it is completely ridiculous

Cowmeats proof doesn't make much sense either.

You can use either definition, mine or cowmeat's and you're still wrong as fuck.

But for your sake, Ill use mine.

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You are created what is formal known in logic as a tautology.

You are saying the same thing twice, first as the premise of the logical proof, second as the evidence.

Here is the difference between Circular reasoning and a tautology:

"Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that circular reasoning restates the premise as the conclusion, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise."

As this states, a tautology derives the conclusion from the premise.

What does derive mean??

"obtain something from (a specified source)."

This basically means that you are taking the premise or problem and trying to use it as evidence for your answer without a proof.

This means I could, using your incorrect logic, that

Premise: All bunnies are brown, grey or white.
Theory: Because I like Ferraris
Evidence: All bunnies are brown, grey or white.

Evidence =/= Proof

A phenomenon is evidence for a model that explains it.

A model is not proven by a phenomenon or by an experiment, more evidence is just provided by them.




Your Ferrari analogy is not the same because you liking Ferraris does not explain the colour of bunnies.



Better example:
Phenomenon: I ate a biscuit
Hypothesis: Maybe I like biscuits? This would explain why I ate one.

The fact I ate a biscuit is evidence that I might like biscuits. Ergo the phenomenon is evidence for a hypothesis/theory/model that explains it.

Note: It has not been proven I like biscuits, maybe it was the only food around and I was hungry, but there is evidence suggesting it. If we carried out another experiment and gave me biscuits when I wasnt hungry, this may provide another piece of evidence, but it still isnt proof



____________

Ele and Zockinators responses were good, providing reasons that you shouldnt just believe the hypothesis based on 1 piece of evidence, as there are other answers and other models that can explain the same thing
[sigpic][/sigpic]
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context

Last edited by SmallBowl; Mar 20, 2017 at 02:13 PM..
SmallBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ragdoll fighting game physics fighting game ragdoll fighting physics funmotion joints martial arts karate pc mac free game turn based game