Added: Sep 2, 2008
From: QualiaSoup
Duration: 8:13
A look at some of the ways in which people go wrong when they try to use statements of probability in arguments for supernatural beings, divine plans and dismissing evolution.Here is an interactive version of the Monty Hall Dilemma for those who want to see the results of sticking versus switching:http://www.cut-the-knot.org/hall.shtml.
Channel: Education
Rating: 4.91 (274 ratings) Views: 3475' favoriteCount='144 Comments: 127
MaggotLibera Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - very good video, they deny science facts when they are against their belifes but then try to use em to prove it.. =/ sad sad sad.I barely see any difference between nowdays relgions and ancients praying to Zeus (< would be far more cool god anyway xD )
AcidJustice Says:
Dec 8, 2008 - "The likelyhood of a dictionary being formed by an explosion at a printing factory." this one had me in stitches!
QualiaSoup Says:
Dec 8, 2008 - Yes, AcidJustice, and the *really* hilarious thing is: people actually use it(!) ;^>
soulhunger1 Says:
Dec 8, 2008 - Excellent video.
grayswandir47 Says:
Dec 13, 2008 - Your videos are excellent. I'm glad I subscribed.
QualiaSoup Says:
Dec 14, 2008 - Thanks, Grayswandir, that's much appreciated. And welcome to the channel.
MrFacet Says:
Dec 18, 2008 - Sorry HonestDisc, missed this one 3 months ago.The assumption is that royal families prefer to have a male heir. So they keep on trying to get children until they (i.e. the legitimate royal couple) have a son. And the conclusion is that royal families must have more male than female offspring.But apparently the conclusion is wrong.
HonestDiscussioner Says:
Dec 18, 2008 - Well it's been a while since I thought of this, but thinking about it now, they would only stop if they get a male heir, so a family that gets a male on the first try has 1 male, the one that gets it on the 10th try has 9 females and 1 male . . . so yea I guess it makes sense.
jebus6kryst Says:
Dec 23, 2008 - Creationist so over uses the probability argument. I am so glad you addressed in to eloquently. Now I have a video to point them too when they bring this up. If the odds are not 1:1 than you are doing it wrong.
QualiaSoup Says:
Dec 23, 2008 - Thanks, Jebus.Those tactics are all part of trying to seem like science. People recognise the obvious strengths of science and want to appropriate those strengths for their own position, by going the lazy way and trying to emulate style, rather than working on substance.
slLLyhumans Says:
Dec 24, 2008 - Awesome video .5 stars !
anthonyfoxtrott Says:
Jan 2, 2009 - awesome video. "parameters":x + y = cxE(2:5) (x is a parameter with values between 2 and 5)yE(9:12)therefore, cE(11:17).if wanna 'math' G*d, define G*d...
EdwardHowton Says:
Jan 2, 2009 - Hm... Would you say it would be fair to say that given the infinity of possible gods (and I'm not saying any exist), the probability that someone's personal idea of a god has a 1:infinity chance of being accurate?I hope I'm being clear, but I'm merely pointing out by that that the odds of (let's say) God existing in the precise image that a given christian has is a good as impossible. I could make up a dozen gods in an hour, so if a theist did happen to be right, it'd be amazing luck?
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 2, 2009 - Oh, definitely, Edward. When it comes to definitions rather than number, I'm completely with you. It would be amazing luck.And even if a person had that amazing luck, they couldn't claim to know they had it. It would be like millions of people picking socks from a giant drawer in a pitch black room, wouldn't it. The person that got the one blue sock would never know until it was confirmed by evidence.
trevken Says:
Jan 3, 2009 - Again, good vid - liked the Hall Dilema. Although not for this usage. I don't believe in a specific god but I draw the conclusion that the probability of there being some "Supernatural" force(s) however subtle, is high. Especially when looking into the sciences of physics and space.
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 4, 2009 - "Again, good vid"Thanks, Trevken.Please note that this video is not saying 'there are no gods', or that I don't think you're entitled to believe in them. It's pointing out specific flaws in specific arguments.
luerwulf Says:
Jan 4, 2009 - Playing devil's advocate here and, since I'm an atheist, it's as good an advocacy as any;] were to be an infinity of possible gods, wouldn't it follow that such an infinity would necessarily, by definition, include all possibilities of all personal ideas of 'a' god? I can see the theists eager to run with this one except for the fact that each theist will insist their personal idea is the only 'real' possibility.See, I imagine that a finite number, like a dozen, is anecdotal in nature.
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - Hey, Luerwulf. Yes, you're right that an infinity of possible gods would include all possibilities of all personal ideas of 'a' god.The only bit of your message I'm having trouble understanding is how your observation plays 'devil's advocate'. Could you explain a little further?
luerwulf Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - "devil's advocate" is just a figure of speech ('adds no nutritional value' - lol) intended to subversively illustrate how a 'figure of speech' is sometimes read to be meaningful in some way when it's only purpose is to add color as opposed to adding information. The example I would refer to is the phrase "the universe 'follows' laws".It was in response to the post that said " the probability that someone's personal idea of a god has a 1:infinity chance of being accurate?"
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - Luerwolf, to play 'devil's advocate' means to take a certain position for the sake of argument - usually a position that you disagree with. For example, as an atheist, I might play devil's advocate by trying to construct an argument for the existence of gods.I didn't get what position you were arguing though, ie. the one you said theists would be eager to run with. I just wanted you to explain what you meant.
luerwulf Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - I was arguing that the statement that "the probability that someone's personal idea of a god has a 1:infinity chance of being accurate?" seems the inverse of "an infinity of possible gods would include all possibilities of all personal ideas of 'a' god." The theist hook: the notion of "an infinity of possible gods" would clearly make it tough to assert "there is no God" which atheism doesn't purport in the first place but which seems to be a favorite accusation of theists.
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - Ah, yes. I see the 'theist hook'.Even as I type, I'm getting a strange 'tip-of-the-tongue' feeling that I've actually heard that argument used. I think it was even used *seriously*... Lol!
luerwulf Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - Well, like I always say "Ambiguity in Spain, reigns mainly on the plain." I always say that - always. LOL
QualiaSoup Says:
Jan 5, 2009 - It's a grower! Lol!
fortress7373 Says:
Dec 2, 2008 - Of course there is another possibility - that all the movers are linked in a huge circle that comes right back to the start, an infinite universe, infinite time - hey, why not?