‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker

 

I'm a little upset with myself for even posting in this thread but I feel that I must.

As several posters have pointed out, you are making a mistake in assuming that we have a large enough sample in order to apply variation to the universe.

The following are quotes from the article you linked in your OP. This is your own source.

How does one tell the difference between special cause variation and common cause variation, and avoid the mistakes that can ensue from misunderstanding these concepts? The answer lies in the use of control charts where data is collected and analyzed with respect to trends and patterns that can be acted upon. In the 1920s, Walter Shewhart developed the idea of three-sigma control charts. Control limits—which are generated by the data itself, collected over time—clarify the distinction between common cause and special cause variation.

Notice the author states that telling the difference between special cause and common cause is determined with the "use of control charts where data is collected and analyzed with respect to trends and patterns that can be acted upon."

So I must ask what data you are using to come to your conclusion?

Well I kinda have that effect around here...

Control charts, huh?

Ever heard of the empirical rule?

Look into that my friend...and let OT know where the percentages of data fall randomly around the normal mean?

I won't spoil your epiphany....let me know

As an aside, do you realize we have observed 50 stars, like our sun...and guess what, all of them had planets around them? don't get excited tho 90% of the stars have one and only one planet, revolving around it, pretty gasy ones

reply to post by awake_and_aware



I'm sorry you are sooo angry bro...let it go

It's sad really...

reply to post by OldThinker


It's sad more people arn't angry towards charlatans.

Peace.

reply to post by OldThinker


Observed abundance of extraterrestrial gas giants is an artefact of out detection methods. As a rule of thumb, less massive planets should be more common than massive ones. This is also expected to be true for all celestial obejcts, including stars, asteroids, black holes etc.

reply to post by Maslo


Why bother challenge him on his probability or proof for God. He clearly isn't an astronomer, mathematician or a biologist. He's just a religious fanatic.

And everyone knows where knowledge ends; religion begins.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Everyone does hm?

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

SOURCE

If only the world was soo black and white.....

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Here's a list of a few common fallacies:-


appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

It's cool to quote definitions.

Watch out for these in threads like this.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Doesn't change the fact you're guilty of the one i mentioned.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Yeah very true, Maybe i shouldn't have said "everyone" - Rather, everyone SHOULD.

Funny how God takes a step back though everytime science finds something new, what causes volcanos and hurricanes.

Oh wait, it's because we live on a heating/cooling planet. It's not "GOD" giving us punishment.

Apologies for the way i worded that, i made a mistake in adhering to the fallacy you mentioned xD

Here's the fallacy that i used for my argument (WOOPS)

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

[edit on 22/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You're tying yourself up in knots here friend. And funny, what people say about a thing reflects on the reality of the thing? Fascinating. A almost magical thought. I am not saying a higher power exists but it seems to me it wouldn't matter what us ants attribute to it if it did.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I was merely admitting to my shortcomings. I thought i was being humble.

I agree, I can't prove that there is or isn't a god. The same way i can't prove there are invisible unicorns that are really pink. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Religion, made BY MAN, can be falsified easily, at least by simple deductive logic; we can see that at least one of the religions have got it wrong, or are simply making it up.

But as a strong assertive Atheist, i believe there is no God and that man just wishes there was, and has made up guesses, because when knowledge is short, answers needed for salvation, people are happy to accept these for comfort, or guidance or whatever. I think it is an appeal to ignorance.

How could any man have revealed wisdom from the highest power in the universe. Are we to believe God talks, and humans can understand? I don't get it, i think it's false.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Atheists fall under the same fallacy as theists. Argumentum ad ignorantiam does cut both ways. And just to be clear, I am not arguing against you believing as you do. That is not my right and quite frankly I am unable to muster the sheer false certainty to do what I view as a foolish, vain and ultimately pointless act. But what I am doing is pointing out that you have no more logical ground to stand upon than they do.

*addition: Also the universe does not depend or what you or me consider possible and impossible or our abilities to imagine how things could work. Like Shakespeare said:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

*



[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

OP has no conception of the proper use of, and the underlying assumptions of the statistical methods in question.

FAIL

reply to post by Grumble


Agreed.

What every serious, intelligent person has been trying to say since this thread started

[edit on 22/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Beware the person who speaks in generalization while attempting to sound intelligent.. :p

Originally posted by Grumble
OP has no conception of the proper use of, and the underlying assumptions of the statistical methods in question.

FAIL

Well please explain to all the readers the proper use..

Granted the OP...in fact, most OP's are speculation.

The concepts I brought up in the first post are certainly controversial and in the infant stages...

And sometimes I use a lil hyperbole at times in`OP's to garnish a lil interest....it has seemed to work this time I'd say.

But the fact remains the "unassignable" data (Normal distribution) makes up 99.7 percentage of all data and fall within the first three std deviations to the left and right of the mean.

Data that falls outside is termed "special" cause, assignable, exceptional.

Next 94% of negative variability and 94% of ways to improve that variability is within those first 3 std deviations and, meaning the answers are "IN" the process" IN the "system"...in other words "COMMON"

If "NATURE" is "NORMAL"...natural, to use another word...logic would lend it to seeing more "outcomes" of this NATURE, such as intelligient life.


And to the poster questioning my statistics, the only thing in question here is my "alternative hypothesis, not my knowledge....

Any help from posters to dialog constructively about this, thru the attacking of the skeptics, would be appreciated.

OT

[edit on 22-8-2010 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I don't get it, i think it's false.

Since you brought it up,

read II Corinthians 4:4 and Romans 5:8

And btw, charlatans piss me off too.

Still trying to apply the % probabilities to the universe and arguing we should have found more planets with life? Still ignoring the fact that our sample size isn't big enough?

And no, "50 planets" isn't a large enough sample size. So any discussion about "explain to me why 97% blabablabla" is statistically IRRELEVANT! And that doesn't change even if you keep on asking the same question over and over again even though people pointed out to you how statistics don't work that way because of sample size.

Tell me OT, why is it that you continue to ask the question when people already told you it's scientifically and statistically irrelevant thanks to your sample size?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Tell me OT, why is it that you continue to ask the question when people already told you it's scientifically and statistically irrelevant thanks to your sample size?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

The sample size is waaaaaaaaaaaaayy big enough for the empirical rule, and the percentage of distrbution per std deviation,....way way big enouch, heck it work with a few hundred M&M's, so relax


Mr XYZ, I am hoping to move the tone to positive, ur welcome to change your MO and continue