Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

To WILLOWTREE:After reading Gilgamesh's posts, I realised that he is in fact making two points, and you seem to have addressed only one. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I gathered:Point 1:Some "miracles" described and promoted by some Christian churchs in Australia are, in fact, normal everyday occurences that are not miraculous in the least. The fact that they are portrayed as miraculous (as in the case of Gilgamesh, or the late "Dom") suggests that they are preying on the population's ignorance of the law of probability and standard deviation spread of attributes (including recovery times).Perhaps this point could be expressed as a lottery draw:Imagine a lottery draw of 7 numbers from 50 (order not important). The number of possible combinations = 50 nCr 7 = 99,884,400, which is just under 100 million.The fact that there is only one winning combination out of 100 million indicates that the chances of you winning is highly improbable, and should you win, it would indeed be miraculous.However, if 100 million individuals all bought a ticket with combinations different to each other (that is, together, they cover all the possible combinations), then the chances of SOMEONE winning the lottery is 1 (or certainty). If 70% of those who bought a ticket in this lottery are Christian, then the "miracle" could be attributed to the act of God in 70% of the time. (If all of them are Christians, then God is busy during every draw)Now consider that the chances of some of the "freaky" occurences in the world are much higher than 1 in 100 million, and that there are well in excess of 6 billion people in the world, perhaps then you would realise the flaw in a "miracle" argument?********************************************************************Point 2:Surely you have heard of miraculous apparitions in other religions? From the Hindu statues that drank milk to the statue of Vigin Mary that cried tears of blood; from the impenetrable skin of Shoalin monks to the God-like feats claimed by the founder of Falun Dafa.How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles? Are they all fake? Are Christian claims true?Or are you going to attribute them to Satan (a.k.a. the universal scapegoat)?Patiently awaiting your reply.Edited to correct figure "60 billion" to "6 billion"This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-09-2004 12:50 AM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To WILLOWTREE:A large part of the "Are there miracles?" debate in the last 20 odd posts may, in part, be explained by point 1 in my early post. Though my expression is lacking, I do believe that the point was well made and valid. I encourage you to delve deeper into it. Excellent. We are making progress. I apologise for making the statement "How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles?". I hereby retract it.HOWEVER, now we are in a much more interesting position to discuss miracles:Since... ...and... ...I would like to know, how can we tell the difference between miracles performed by God, and those performed by Satan? Can you please kindly answer this question?Note: I would prefer a more practical/pragmatic solution as opposed to "because you can feel the difference". Thank you for your time. But I haven't dismissed Satan. Haven't I mentioned him in my post? I merely didn't think it too likely that Satan would perform miracles on-par with the Almighty to such extents that we can't tell the difference between the two.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To WILLOWTREE: Can you kindly provide quotes for this claim? Well, no...I merely suggested Satan as a possible answer to the question. Why did I cite Satan in a "scapegoat context"? Because he seemed to be the answer to most of God's apparent blunders.Note: "Blunder" as in something occuring that is inconsistent with His original intention. For example:Why is there Evil?
Because of Satan.Why did man fall?
Because of Satan.Why was there a deceptive snake in a perfect Garden of Eden?
That IS Satan.Why did Jesus have to die?
To save us. Because we fell, and we fell because we sinned, and we sinned because of Satan!And now, we have:Why are there miracles in other religions?
Me: Maybe...just maybe...could it be...Satan?Can you see from my perspective now?Answering my question with "Satan" doesn't make your answer invalid or unacceptable. It just meant that you chose an answer I have already anticipated. What's wrong with saying: "Yeah, I AM going to say it's Satan!"? Well, no. I'm not saying that.Instead I'm saying that my impression of Satan is that he is a notch (or a couple of notches) below the rank of "God". So I was surprised that his powers could produce miracles as "miraculous" (pardon the tautology) as God. Note that by "on-par" I was referring to "miraculous-ness" (if I may coin such a term), not numerical inferiority. Certainly my expression is lacking. I apologise for your misunderstanding.*******************************************************************In short, a summary of your view:Pray to Biblical god:If I ask God for something (say, cure my dog's cancer), and my dog is healed, this is evidence for God's miracle (God answered my prayer).If my dog dies, then this means that God is testing my faith.Pray to other Gods:If I ask anything/anyone apart from God to cure my dog of cancer, and my dog heals, it's Satan's miracle.If my dog dies, then...then what? What does it mean? Satan's not listening? Satan is testing my..."unfaith"?Please check if my summary of your perspective is correct (change if they are not) and answer the question above. Thanks.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13: I agree completely. Errr.....you may wish to avoid circular reasoning. You defined evil as arrogance in the "Satan/Lucifer is...bad?" thread, granted. But then "every evil pattern of thinking and action stems from arrogance"?Evil = arrogance = evil pattern of thinking and action = evil?(By the way, I accept your definition of evil = arrogance)Thanks for your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To WILLOWTREE: I thought we were talking about causation. "Originate" = cause. How can something originate from you if you have not caused it? Deception is to deceive, which is to give a false impression. If the serpent lied, I would say he gave a fairly "false" impression, wouldn't you? Whether Eve knew it was a lie or not is irrelevant to whether the act itself is deception, so you kind of answered your own question by stating that the serpent lied. Which part of the bible did you get this from? Is this actually written or is it speculation? That's fine. I never claimed to have perfect understanding of your view. Instead of interpreting your view, why don't I go to the source and ask you:*******************************************************************In your opinion, when I......pray to the Biblical god:If I ask God for something (say, cure my dog's cancer), and my dog is healed, then this shows ___________________If my dog dies, then this shows ___________________...pray to other gods:If I ask other gods to cure my dog of cancer, and my dog heals, then this shows ___________________If my dog dies, then this shows ___________________Please fill in the blank where appropriate. Thank you for your time.********************************************************************Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thanks for the info. WILLOWTREE appears to have gone...

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz: Who DID Satan murder?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Dan Carroll:In answer to your confusion, you may wish to read some of my exchanges with Hangdawg13 on the "Lucifer/Satan is...bad?" thread.From my understanding of his/her perspective:Hangdawg13 believes that God/Holy spirit is the ultimate truth that is unchanging, and thus he/she believes that this makes Christianity "objective". Anything that arose from human actions (such as science) is "subjective" in his/her eyes.Now read the quote again and you will realise why it makes perfect sense to Hangdawg13.(Hint: In order to understand his/her argument, you have to think like him/her.)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:I understand your views, but in no way endorse it.Your use of the terms "objective" and "subjective" is curious at best. You appear to have no idea what they mean, and you use them to suit whatever you want them to mean.Please define these words:1) Objective.
2) Subjective.
3) Bias.
4) Explain why biblical truth is (supposedly) objective, as you say it is.
5) Explain (in detail) how science can be subjective.5 easy questions.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:Your points 1 and 2 check out and I'm happy to accept your definitions, though not necessarily the way you've used those two words. (see critique of point 4 below)Point 3 is fine too, and if you bear with me, I will show how your notion is biased by your definition.Point 4 is circular reasoning:1) Bible is true.
2) The existence of Holy Spirit was derived from the Bible.
3) The Holy spirit is truth.
4) The Holy spirit inspired the Bible.
5) Therefore the Bible is true.You're bringing in the condition of "objective" into the arena by tagging it onto "truth" like so:6) Truth is objective.
7) Therefore the Bible is objective.I am sorry, but your reasoning is invalid and suggests a bias (that bible is true, or that the Holy Spirit exists) on your part. Understood and agreed to some degree. It is actually the scientist's job to "limit all truth to the physical realm" because science is based on the physical. To say that one has, through scientific means or otherwise, proved/disproved anything that exists in anything BUT the physical realm is a misuse of science.They may dismiss the spiritual world (that is, the notion will not/cannot be considered) in a scientific sense , but they cannot reject it (that is, to declare it false or non-existent).To state that only the physical exist is subjective, yes. But that is hardly the flaws of science, but rather the flaws of scientists. This line needs to be drawn clearly.To say that the spiritual world cannot exist is harsh and unfounded. It is much more reasonable (and tolerant) to say that there is no physical evidence to support the existence of a spiritual world, and so there is no reason for such an assumption to be made.This is the gist of the religion/science difference, and the reason why I believe the two should never conflict.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:I think that you have confused the definition of the words "faith" and "trust" (just like "objective" and "subjective").You have to understand that the Bible contains two types of information: historical records, and spiritual truth.Historical records are physical (such as the existence of Jesus as a person), and can be verified by historical research, archaeological finding, chemical analysis, physics calculations, etc. Any historical records that cannot be verified/confirmed are dismissed until evidence can be found to support it. Faith is entirely unnecessary for the verification of historical records.Spiritual truths are, by necessity, unfalsifiable. No one can prove (or disprove), scientifically or otherwise, that Jesus is God, nor that Satan exists. This is the reason why spiritual truths are accepted on the basis of faith - belief in something that cannot be proven, and exists regardless of physical reality (evidence).Confusion of historical records with spiritual truth (e.g. creationism) results in a faith-based treatment of historical records (which will never be tolerated by the scientific community) or a scientific treatment of spiritual truth (which is interesting but effectively pointless, since beliefs based on faith are never meant to be logical or falsifiable).And here is my point:To say that the Bible is true is misleading because it certainly contains elements of historical truth (history of civilisations and records made by independent historians have confirm the validity of the bible with regards to SOME of its record of historical events in comparable time slots) but also an enormous amount of spiritual truth (Genesis, The Ark, the miracles of God in the OT, Jesus's miracles, etc.) that cannot (and should not) be verified physically.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:Interesting. Your posts now make much more sense because you have acknowledged that there is bias in your thinking. Due to bias, your opinion is subjective as opposed to objective - do you see why Dan Carroll and I (and I'll bet, many others) are confused with your use of the terms "objective" and "subjective"? I don't know which evolutionist you've talked to, but if you can provide scientific (physical) evidence and/or logical arguments against evolution, he/she should accept it, or else he/she would not be an objective scientist. The question is whether your evidence is scientific (e.g. an opinion is NOT evidence) and whether your argument is logical (i.e. free from logic errors). Interesting. In your opinion, where does the physical end and the metaphysical begin (and vice versa)?If God (metaphysical) says "Let there be light!", and there is light (physical), then we are saying that the metaphysical can influence the physical, yes?If our prayers (physical) can influence God's decisions (metaphysical) on what happens in the world , then we are saying that the physical can influence the metaphysical, yes?So if the two levels can interact, what draws the distinction between the two? Power? But...who's looking for God using science (their own power)? As far as I know, only Christians have ever tried to prove God by looking for physical evidence.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13: Firstly, science doesn't ever find "truth", as I've said before. It is assumed that the ultimate "truth" that defines the universe will never be found.Secondly, "a biased outlook" is one that exists regardless of evidence to the contrary. If scientific theories are formulated such that it can best (relatively) explain the evidence available (that is, it minimises/explains conflicting evidence), I suppose we would say that it is a decidedly unbiased (objective) outlook, regardless of who holds it. The "If" that preceded your paragraph is where the bulk of your bias lie. The fact that evidence does not support this position makes the statement "If the bible is true..." as worthwhile as "If Santa Claus exists...". Well, the reason why physically verifiable proofs are valued is because it changes "There are super magical fairies" to "I have phyically verifiable evidence of the existence of super magical fairies". Wow! The difference it makes!And no, I don't need to disprove the existence of super magical fairies in order to dismiss the claim that they exist, and I would be very surprised if you disagree. So yes, your subjectivity is very much unfalsifiable (like King Arthur, Santa Claus, and super magical fairies!)And again, biased opinions are those that exist regardless of conflicting evidence. The lack of evidence FOR Biblical truth means that the null hypothesis (Bible is not true) has NO conflicting evidence. No idea what you're on about, but not an important point, so forget it. Well, I'm questioning the difference between the physical and the metaphysical. If God can influence us, and we can influence God, what's the difference between the physical realm and the metaphysical? I'm not contesting that they are looking for evidence and proof of Jesus, but are you sure they are doing so to "prove God"? (That was my point - see my quote)As Lam has stated, he started the thread in an attempt to examine the "physical evidence" proposed by theists in proving (scientifically or otherwise) the existence of God, because he/she is sick and tired of having those (apparently) unsupported arguments shoved in his face along with the assertion that the biblical God exists. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Lam's thread.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:.....and I'm back! So what did I miss?Hangdawg13, haven't I repeatedly shown the flaws in your circular reasoning? Would you like me to examine your posts in depth to illustrate your post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias (if any, I'm not sure since I haven't started)?Patiently awaiting your reply.(By the way...no reply to post 224? I'm so bored....)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Nah...I'm much too lazy. I'll just pick post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias from our debate. {Read Crashfrog's post 239}There are people in the world who buys lottery tickets every day of their lives and never won anything. Is "lottery can never be won" truth?Definition of truth? Look up the dictionary. I'm happy with any definition you come across as long as the dictionary is a valid one. You've made some weird remark in post 223 stating that truth is "assimilated" to become our "biased outlook". Forget it, what you said doesn't make much sense either way and I was only humouring myself with the explanation. Do you still not understand? I'm happy that you believe that the bible is true. You can believe that it is true until kingdom comes for all I care. However, there is a clear difference between BELIEVING and BROADCASTING.When you assert that something is true while you possess no physical proof, you could be misleading (even though it may be with good intentions) as opposed to informing. You could be spreading falsehood instead of truth. I will state this one last time: You believing something is truth does not make it true. And here's where post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias take its toll.Consider: I will now make a 100% accurate prophecy -"The brother has fallen from the kingdom lost.
Before her time of glory, the judgment awaits.
For the ape has summoned the courts of deception.
And the beast was set loose beyond the plane."Every single line of the above prophecy will be realised on newspaper headlines within one week from now. Care for a wager? And this answers my question...how? My question is: What separates the physical (us) from the metaphysical (God and Angel and Devils and Easter bunnies) apart from the fact that they are much more powerful beings (ESPECIALLY Easter bunnies). So like I said. Who has the capacity to physically disprove God? It is an impossible task defined by the very limitations of science (the physical realm).Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"