tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post5905705199517478536..comments2017-03-22T09:38:42.140-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: Rationality, Expected Value, and Pascal's WagerBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-46341075843377180652017-03-19T10:18:04.656-07:002017-03-19T10:18:04.656-07:00He thinks Bayes is stupid and he doesn't like ...<i>He thinks Bayes is stupid and he doesn't like because in his day(he retired years ago) mathematicians didn't like it.</i><br /><br />There's nothing stupid or mathematically incorrect about Bayes' Theorem. What's stupid is the way people apply it. For example, you can't state the prior probability of a specific (or one-of-a-kind) event. Statistical probability im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-12565563567773763212017-03-19T02:33:46.184-07:002017-03-19T02:33:46.184-07:00IMS: Pascal's wager really has nothing to do w...IMS: <i>Pascal's wager really has nothing to do with the resurrection. It is a question of risk vs. reward.</i><br /><br />The second half of the post is talking about risk; that the risk from not believing the resurrection is sufficiently high that you should believe it, even if the probability is small.<br /><br />Presumably the author also thinks we should believe Islam is also true Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-15947627628098987262017-03-18T22:56:09.580-07:002017-03-18T22:56:09.580-07:00My favorite professor,m they guy who got me to be ...My favorite professor,m they guy who got me to be a historian was a math major at Brown when he got saved and went into church history. He thinks Bayes is stupid and he doesn't like because in his day(he retired years ago) mathematicians didn't like it. He always told me historical probability is never quantified.Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-86816282985636197532017-03-18T22:50:57.403-07:002017-03-18T22:50:57.403-07:00I understand.I have my resistance work in addition...I understand.I have my resistance work in addition to apologetic,Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63912768426871546582017-03-18T10:17:12.151-07:002017-03-18T10:17:12.151-07:00Joe,
I would like to debate, but I have to take i...Joe,<br /><br />I would like to debate, but I have to take it slow, because I've been rather busy.im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-39182528897189840332017-03-18T09:36:09.784-07:002017-03-18T09:36:09.784-07:00Pascal's wager really has nothing to do with t...Pascal's wager really has nothing to do with the resurrection. It is a question of risk vs. reward. From Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-77818984435376827392017-03-18T06:33:31.672-07:002017-03-18T06:33:31.672-07:00DM: Pix, I only argue about probability because so...DM: <i>Pix, I only argue about probability because so many atheists assert that the probability of theism or miracles is "vanishingly low," and they use devices like Bayes' theorem in an attempt to prove the point. I don't think probability calculus is the best way to answer metaphysical and historical questions. I'm only trying to speak the language certain atheist friends Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-42419149886236353582017-03-18T01:32:54.931-07:002017-03-18T01:32:54.931-07:00Skep that does not not mean i dislike you.I am gla...Skep that does not not mean i dislike you.I am glad you come here and I appreciate your comments.Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-46048689460239619212017-03-17T23:08:43.502-07:002017-03-17T23:08:43.502-07:00skep I challenge you to a formal debate on the exi...skep I challenge you to a formal debate on the existence of God,Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-17753796706808643912017-03-17T23:07:54.679-07:002017-03-17T23:07:54.679-07:00There is no guessing about the prior probability o...There is no guessing about the prior probability of resurrections. It is 0. Even the so-called "witnesses" in the NT didn't see that happen.<br /><br /><b>tht shows how little you know about Bayes, because that's exactly what it is. I;'ts like a gunner finding his range, you first shoot over then under then split the difference and keep narrowing,</b>Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-45423479954740849952017-03-17T18:11:40.842-07:002017-03-17T18:11:40.842-07:00Or you could take the un-skeptical route and simpl...Or you could take the un-skeptical route and simply believe.<br />im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-60597546021494039412017-03-17T12:51:50.121-07:002017-03-17T12:51:50.121-07:00Pix, I only argue about probability because so man...Pix, I only argue about probability because so many atheists assert that the probability of theism or miracles is "vanishingly low," and they use devices like Bayes' theorem in an attempt to prove the point. I don't think probability calculus is the best way to answer metaphysical and historical questions. I'm only trying to speak the language certain atheist friends seem toDon McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01387665301048762546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-3528773164135932672017-03-17T08:34:19.590-07:002017-03-17T08:34:19.590-07:00There is no guessing about the prior probability o...There is no guessing about the prior probability of resurrections. It is 0. Even the so-called "witnesses" in the NT didn't see that happen.im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-40576259841024082992017-03-17T08:19:35.663-07:002017-03-17T08:19:35.663-07:00any use of Bayes requires a prior distributions wh...any use of Bayes requires a prior distributions which is essentially a guess.Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-32209384087209569822017-03-17T05:26:21.449-07:002017-03-17T05:26:21.449-07:00JH: the problem of numbers being made up is true o...JH: <i>the problem of numbers being made up is true of any use of Bayes.</i><br /><br />If you mean any use <i>in this context</i> (and from the rest of your comment it sounds like you do) then I agree.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-44268544864625695832017-03-16T18:15:45.556-07:002017-03-16T18:15:45.556-07:00the problem of numbers being made up is true of an...the problem of numbers being made up is true of any use of Bayes. I am not commenced Bayes can be used for things like the resurrection or for any historical events. I am totally against applying it to God, it violates the principle of mystical theology.<br /><br />it works well for things like submarine detection and finding missing children. It doesn't work well for things that are beyond Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-87449956768432884202017-03-16T12:45:47.353-07:002017-03-16T12:45:47.353-07:00DM: Does this mean that we should be committed to ...DM: <i>Does this mean that we should be committed to believe with precisely 40% confidence that the resurrection actually occurred, or to withhold belief until probability exceeds .5? Not necessarily. </i><br /><br />If the probability is 0.4, then we can conclude the probability is 0.4. Sure, once it is higher than 0.5 we can label it as "probable", but even then if the probability is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-7399678356195013602017-03-16T08:59:32.912-07:002017-03-16T08:59:32.912-07:00I'm not exactly a mathematician or statisticia...I'm not exactly a mathematician or statistician (far from it), so if anyone notices errors please let me know and I'll edit the post. Thanks. Don McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01387665301048762546noreply@blogger.com