What does it mean for something to be possible, plausible, or probable?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Plausible and possible are almost synonyms meaning that whatever is under consideration can exist, happen or be accomplished. Probable means that whatever is under consideration is likely to happen or be accomplished.

I disagree.

I'ld say that nearly everything is "possible", but not all those things are "plausible".

 

[Michael]

Most atheists believe in a hole in the paradigm of life as a biochemical accident called abiogenesis. It is not a theory, nor even a valid scientific hypothesis. There is no evidence nor anything in the axiomatic model.

I'd add that to even 'hold belief' that abiogenesis could be an 'accident' requires one to specifically rule out the concept of a living universe (Pantheism/Panentheism). Within the context of a living universe, abiogenesis could be true, and the belief it was an 'accident' might not be true.

Ultimately abiogenesis doesn't even technically rule out 'intelligent design'.

 

[Mountainmike]

As I said. I don't like the word plausible, which is in essence a statement of belief.

.

I disagree.

I'ld say that nearly everything is "possible", but not all those things are "plausible".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said. I don't like the word plausible, which is in essence a statement of belief.

I don't see how it is a statement of belief though.

It is technically possible that an alien space ship will land 10 seconds from now in my garden and take me away to conduct weird experiments on me.

However, it is not plausible that that will happen.

I'm not seeing the statement of belief here.

 

[Mountainmike]

But what criteria do you say that it is not plausible? If you accept it is possible, you therefore also accept that aliens exist and are mobile ( IE Core beliefs) With those beliefs as a premise then all you can say it is highly unlikely. But With those as beliefs it is clearly plausible.


If you don't have those beliefs you would say it is impossible, not implausible.


.

I don't see how it is a statement of belief though.

It is technically possible that an alien space ship will land 10 seconds from now in my garden and take me away to conduct weird experiments on me.

However, it is not plausible that that will happen.

I'm not seeing the statement of belief here.

 

[Michael]

I don't see how it is a statement of belief though.

It is technically possible that an alien space ship will land 10 seconds from now in my garden and take me away to conduct weird experiments on me.

However, it is not plausible that that will happen.

I'm not seeing the statement of belief here.

I works out to "I believe that is 'likely/unlikely' that....."

There are all sorts of "beliefs" wrapped up into a subjective opinion. Admittedly it's a sound opinion and all, but it's still an opinion you 'hold' belief in.

You could of course alternatively suggest that "I lack belief in....." which doesn't necessarily involve an opinion as to likelihood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what criteria do you say that it is not plausible?

The criteria that there are exactly zero (known) precedents of this, the understanding of the kind of technological and logistical hurdles an alien race would have to overcome in order to even be able to get here, and finally of all the billions of people they could abduct - them choosing me.

If you accept it is possible, you therefore also accept that aliens exist and are mobile ( IE Core beliefs)

No. I accept that they potentially could exist and that if they do, there is no reason why they could not be able to advance their technology to such a state that they could engage in interstellar travel.

After all, we exist and while we still have a long way to go, it is most certainly not impossible or unthinkable that one day we'll have the required technology to travel to planets lightyears away. And if we would encounter a planet with life on it then to them, we would be that alien race.

This, in no way, means that I accept it as true that such an alien race exists and have achieved such technological levels.

It merely means there is no reason to think that it couldn't be the case.
ie, it can't be called "impossible".

"possible" and "true" are not synonymous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I works out to "I believe that is 'likely/unlikely' that....."

lol, I guess you're right.

There are all sorts of "beliefs" wrapped up into a subjective opinion. Admittedly it's a sound opinion and all, but it's still an opinion you 'hold' belief in.

Okay, sure... but I tend to be carefull here with the word "belief".

Obviously anything I have an opinion about, or even consider as plain fact, can be phrased in a sentence starting with "I believe that....".

But considering the baggage of the word "belief" on a religious forum, I prefer not to.

In context of this forum, the world "belief" usually reflects some kind of black and white thinking.

As in "I believe it to be true" or "I believe it to be false".
It tends to forget about all the gradations between "considered true" and "considered false".

And in fact, I rarely go with those extremes of "true" and "false". Usually I am always on some scale in between, sometimes approaching the extremely REALLY CLOSELY, but still refraining to make that jump to 100 or 0. I'll get stuck at 0.0000001 or 99.99999.

To borrow from Lawrence Krauss:
"I don't 'believe' anything either way. I either consider things 'likely' or 'unlikely'..."


Come to think of it... During that same lecture/debate (I think), he also said something along the lines of:
"Anything is possible. But that's not interesting. What is interesting, is what is plausible".

 

[Michael]

To borrow from Lawrence Krauss:
"I don't 'believe' anything either way. I either consider things 'likely' or 'unlikely'..."

Come to think of it... During that same lecture/debate (I think), he also said something along the lines of:
"Anything is possible. But that's not interesting. What is interesting, is what is plausible".

IMO it's highly ironic that you selected Lawrence Krauss to quote on this topic. He more than anyone exemplifies the "subjectivity" aspect of the "plausibility" argument, particular as it relates to the topics of astronomy and God. He personally holds faith in four unique supernatural constructs related to astronomy, yet finds the concept of "God" to be less "plausible" than being correct about his four supernatural agents of astronomy. All four of his presumably "plausible" supernatural agents are more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God too. Go figure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IMO it's highly ironic that you selected Lawrence Krauss to quote on this topic. He more than anyone exemplifies the "subjectivity" aspect of the "plausibility" argument, particular as it relates to the topics of astronomy and God. He personally holds faith in four unique supernatural constructs related to astronomy, yet finds the concept of "God" to be less "plausible" than being correct about his four supernatural agents of astronomy. All four of his presumably "plausible" supernatural agents are more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God too. Go figure.

Ow goody. That thing again.

 

[Radrook]

possible = intelligent design
probable = intelligent design
impossible = abiogenesis
improbable = abiogenesis

 

[Radrook]

IMO it's highly ironic that you selected Lawrence Krauss to quote on this topic. He more than anyone exemplifies the "subjectivity" aspect of the "plausibility" argument, particular as it relates to the topics of astronomy and God. He personally holds faith in four unique supernatural constructs related to astronomy, yet finds the concept of "God" to be less "plausible" than being correct about his four supernatural agents of astronomy. All four of his presumably "plausible" supernatural agents are more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God too. Go figure.

What are those four supernatural constructs related to astronomy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

possible = intelligent design
probable = intelligent design
impossible = abiogenesis
improbable = abiogenesis

Nice bunch of bare assertions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are those four supernatural constructs related to astronomy?

They aren't actually supernatural.

Michael simply likes to say so in a rather juvenile attempt to discredit mainstream science because he is butthurt that the ideas he adheres to, don't get any traction in the scientific community.

 

[FredVB]

I’ll use as an example, William Lane Craig’s premise that “The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.” (I took this quote from this essay here:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...od-exist). What is meant by possible in this context? He goes on to say “In order to understand this argument, you need to understand what philosophers mean by ‘possible worlds’.

The argument about God is not on that same level as such other things. Existence in fact is necessary, and nothing but necessary. This is the case because if it weren't so, nothing would exist or ever exist. Probability is not involved for there being existence. And necessary existence always exists, and exists without any limits. Yet there is more of existence than what there is of necessary existence, such other existence all has a beginning, with cause to it all. Of what can be found and defined in the physical universe, there is nothing we can say is such necessary existence that always exists and exists without limit, that necessary existence is then beyond what is this physical universe, and though also existing through all the universe, which was caused with having a beginning, not perceived as any material thing, all of the universe was caused with there being a beginning to it, and the necessary being is the cause to it coming into being, and is then the maker of it all. With such design that can be discerned in it, that is avoided by some only with speaking of wildly unprovable things, the necessary being is what we can call God, being the supreme being.

 

[Michael]

Ow goody. That thing again.

Just noting the irony is all.

 

[Michael]

What are those four supernatural constructs related to astronomy?

The following four claims of LCDM theory are "supernatural" claims which defy empirical laboratory support:

1. Space expansion is a "cause" of photon redshift.
2. Inflation is a "cause" of "space expansion"
3. Dark energy did it. (without even defining a single source)
4. Exotic matter did it.

Not one of those claims enjoys empirical cause/effect justification in a lab. All four claims are "acts of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

 

[Michael]

They aren't actually supernatural.

They don't show up in the lab. In the case of "dark matter" it even has "supernatural" properties assigned to it, starting with it's supposed "invisibility" property of a supposedly "massive" mass object that's supposedly heavier than a proton.

It needs a "space expansion" genie to "expand space' in very special and unique places where humans can never reach to actually 'see it happen' in a real test.

It needs a dark energy god to accelerate the universe which has the supernatural property of retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, and "negative pressure" thingy too.

Inflation is the *ultimate* ad-hoc supernatural claim. It defies all the gravity in the universe, and somehow causes "space expansion" in the presence of high concentrations of mass/energy. There couldn't be a more "supernatural" claim because it's actually 10 to the 100th power *less likely* that a "flat" universe would occur with inflation compared to *without* it. Go look up Penrose's objections to the idea.

Michael simply likes to say so in a rather juvenile attempt

There's nothing juvenile about it. You just resent the implications of all the "supernatural" claims being made in LCDM. It simply bothers you that I pointed it out, because it demonstrates the hypocritical nature of atheism in general. There is no "falsification" necessity in "science", and "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) is typical in the realm of "science".

to discredit mainstream science because he is butthurt that the ideas he adheres to, don't get any traction in the scientific community.

It's really no skin off my nose either way. What I do know is that empirical physics always eventually triumphs over supernatural dogma. Birkeland and his team knew more about solar atmospheric physics over 100 years ago than most solar physicists understand to this day. Science isn't 'flawless', and it's methods are ridiculously slow at times.

 

[Loudmouth]

Selective blindness isn't science.

Blindness to what?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is plenty of analytical evidence for bread became flesh in eucharistic miracles.

Whaaaat?

By your rules, abiogenesis is not possible.

No experiment has shown that abiogenesis is impossible.

What would we expect to see if abiogenesis did happen on Earth? What we would expect to see is very simple life at the start of the fossil record. That is exactly what we see. The earliest fossils are of single celled organisms with the absence of any modern organisms like mammals or even fish.