Evidence that God is real

Acitnoids said:
I didn't say this was empirical or even proof. It is simply a statistical method that has been proven and in wide use today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
Click to expand...
And I never implied it was empirical or proof

I asked if there was a counterpoint

Having thought about it a little more perhaps the results obtained from this statistical only requires a change in name

Here we have the results of the Wisdom of Masses

Use the same results but rebranded as Stupidity of the Masses

Would you be able to pick the difference?

:)
 
Acitnoids said:
Exactly. I know this is hard for Atheists and Theist alike to comprehend. As an agnostic I was simply trying to separate the current notion if a "god" from religious theology. Too many people hear the word "god" and automatically connect it to religion. I think religion is hogwash period.

I make no claims for there being a god or not but one thing I am sure of, if one does exist (which doesn't seem to be the case) then we as humans have no clue what that may be. All myths are just stories and simply reflect what we all think of when we hear the word god.
Click to expand...
That's the whole problem.

Science means one exact thing to all people, the gathering of evidence of natural processes and the analysis of natural values and function.

Belief in a Supernatural power means you can make up any story you wish about a deity and the analysis of make believe stories of unproven divine machinations.
 
Michael 345 said:
And I never implied it was empirical or proof

I asked if there was a counterpoint

Having thought about it a little more perhaps the results obtained from this statistical only requires a change in name

Here we have the results of the Wisdom of Masses

Use the same results but rebranded as Stupidity of the Masses

Would you be able to pick the difference?

:)
Click to expand...
Your counter point is a moot question. Here, read the link I posted, I'll post it again to save you the trouble of scrolling back.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

Read that then come back and explain how this statistical method is bunk or implies any allusion to what you asked. If that is your conclusion then you are full of krap. There are a few legitimate arguments why using this method to answer this specific question is flawed but your question is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Well one wonders why we spend money on scientific research when we could simply conduct a survey.
Click to expand...
Don't be so dramatic. The only person suggesting that is you. Read the link and come back here and explain how this statistical method is flawed. If that is your conclusion then you are full of Krap.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

There are a few arguments against using this method to answer this question but using the "you are a stupid doo doo face poopy head" argument is not one of them.
 
Acitnoids said:
Don't be so dramatic.
Click to expand...

Why not you floated the stupid idea and got caught out and your responce is to say to me not to be dramatic...you were content trying to suggest the mob would have a good idea about a god... you deserved more... I could have been hysterical☺

Acitnoids said:
The only person suggesting that is you.
Click to expand...

Er no...that was exactly what you were suggesting.

I just reworded it to display the stupidy you tried to sneak in here...not daying you are stupid but really can you not see the basic flaw here?

Acitnoids said:
Read the link and come back here and explain how this statistical method is flawed.
Click to expand...

The method may have application to testable results but to suggest it applies to there being a god is not in the park.

Lets go for opinions on aliens on other worlds, not much different, and the result will merely reflect what nonsence the mob accept from science fiction.

I reject absolutely the notion that the mob can be of any help at all and suggest you limite the method to guessing how many beans in a jar...noting of course with the jar and the beans there is at least something physical to comment upon.

Acitnoids said:
If that is your conclusion then you are full of Krap.
Click to expand...

Well you can think that and if that is the best you can muster I proclaim a win.

The link has no bearing on the god question.

Acitnoids said:
There are a few arguments against using this method to answer this question but using the "you are a stupid doo doo face poopy head" argument is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Well why are you going down that road?

Full of crap indeed and you say that poo poo etc... you do what I have not and .....oh never mind.

OK I will read my post and if I have insulted you because you presented a stupid idea I will appologise...its possible I am in pain, I have not slept since the opperation so maybe I overstepped the line...let me check and I will get back to you.
Alex
 
Last edited:
Acitnoids said:
There are a few arguments against using this method to answer this question but using the "you are a stupid doo doo face poopy head" argume
Click to expand...
I read my post and honestly I cant see where I insulted you along the lines of you are a stupid doo doo face poopy head...
You however suggested that if I did not agree that I was full of crap...

I wish they would give me what you are on I want to drop out of reality also...Anyways perhaps if you point out where I have offended you I may alter what I have said because I dont want to insult you...sometimes folk mistake one being right as an insult ...have you thought about that as a possibility?

Anyways asking the mob is there a god and going with their answer I absolutely reject as I expect would anyone who bothers to consider the implication of such an approach.

Have a nice day.

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Why not you floated the stupid idea and got caught out and your tesponce is to say to me not to be dramatic...you were content trying to suggest the mob would have a good idea about a god... you deserved more I could have been hysterical☺
E

Er no...that was exactly what you were suggesting.

I just reworded it to display the stupidy you tried to sneak in here.


The method may have application to testable results but to suggest it applies to there being a god is not in the park.

Lets go for opinions on aliens on other worlds, not much different, and the tesult will merely reflect what nonsence the mob accept from science fiction.
I reject absolutely the notion that the mob can be of any help at all and suggest you limited the method to guesding hoany beans in a jar...noting of course with the jar and the beans there is at least something physical to comment upon.

Well you can think that and if that is the best you can muster I proclaim a win.

The link has no bearing on the god question.

Well why are you going down that road?
Full of crap indeed and you say that...
OK I will read my post and if I have insulted you because you ptesented a stupid idea I will appologise...its possible I am in pain, I have not slept since the opperation so maybe I overstepped the line...let me check and I will get back to you.
Alex
Click to expand...
So you read the link? Is that you're conclusion that this statistical method is flawed?
 
Last edited:
OK I read the link but perhaps I should have mentiined earlier I knew about this already but reading the link was refreshing and I am able to cite something from within the link that perhaps you failed to notice.

From your link...


Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[17] When there is not a precise answer crowds can come to arbitrary conclusions.[18]

The wisdom of the crowd effect is easily undermined.

Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate, while the geometric mean and the median are far more robust.[19]
End of quote now its just me ....

So I read it and its much like what I recall about the croud...or the mob as I prefer...I think it came up when I was looking at the reasoning behind the gallaxy zoo project where folk with no experience were asked to identify gallaxies...apparently it works in that situation.

That was rather specific ...

the main problem with croud input would be in framing the question...try ...do you think others gods are as good as yours and do they exist...well I suspect the croud would indicate there is no general god.

Ask do you think there is some higher being and you may get 90% saying yes...
Its is so open to maniplulation with a god question I believe it would be useless...what question would you ask...can you ask one that shows no bias for example real or unintentional...
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
OK I read the link but perhaps I should have mentiined earlier I knew about this already but reading the link was refreshing and I am able to cite something from within the link that perhaps you failed to notice.

From your link...


Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[17] When there is not a precise answer crowds can come to arbitrary conclusions.[18]

The wisdom of the crowd effect is easily undermined.

Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate, while the geometric mean and the median are far more robust.[19]
End of quote now its just me ....

So I read it and its much like what I recall about the croud...or the mob as I prefer...I think it came up when I was looking at the reasoning behind the gallaxy zoo project where folk with no experience were asked to identify gallaxies...apparently it works in that situation.

That was rather specific ...

the main problem with croud input would be in framing the question...try ...do you think others gods are as good as yours and do they exist...well I suspect the croud would indicate there is no general god.

Ask do you think there is some higher being and you may get 90% saying yes...
Its is so open to maniplulation with a god question I believe it would be useless...what question would you ask...can you ask one that shows no bias for example real or unintentional...
Alex
Click to expand...
Thank you, far more thoughtful. I'm still on the fence if you think this statistical method is flawed. It is past 1am here and I work at 6am. I look forward to dialog as opposed to the alternative. I'm off to the dream world now, another phenomena science is not able to understand heh... Zzzz ... have a wonderful day
 
Acitnoids said:
I'm off to the dream world now, another phenomena science is not able to understand heh... Zzzz ...
Click to expand...

The neat thing about science is it does not just make stuff up.

My personal view is that it is preferrable to say we dont understand something than to make something up or worse still look for the answer in a book dating back to the bronze age.

The logic I find of a theist is "well there must be a creator" " there must be a purpose" and "of course there is life after death...there must be more"...all wishful thinking...is there a creator I dont know I suppose but that does not entitle one to indulge in wishful thinking...my answer is highly unlikely in an eternal universe but really I dont know....dont know does not give licience to insert your best guess...
I think the butler did it ...oh but you dont know and you are happy with a guess...try it...I dont know...that is being honest and isnt being honest the virtue we must maintain along with kindness humility and respect for all humans insects and animals...and indeed all life forms...making up a lie and believing you are right is of no help.
Acitnoids said:
have a wonderful day
Click to expand...
Just took some pain killer and wow what a relief..I dont usually take them but this time it was just too much...nice as always chatting.

Here is a sample of your croud...
...
Alex
 
Michael said,
When there is not a precise answer crowds can come to arbitrary conclusions.
From
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

Done and dusted........
:)
Click to expand...
Acitnoids said,
wow, one whole sentence out of context. Is that you saying this method is bunk?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, yes. And I second Michael's motion.....:)

In fact , I'll try to add my perspective on the "wisdom of the masses".

In days of old, the masses tended to make up stories about the many gods and their machinations and no matter how many people accepted that story as true, no one had a clue as to what it was they believed in.

The proof lies in the fact that all those gods have since passed into the anals of mythology.

Care to defend the greater wisdom of the masses in those days and why that would be different about the current gods that hold sway with the masses today? :rolleyes:
 
Acitnoids said:
To play devils advocate, the only historical evidence I can see for thier being a "higher power" is a notion known as "The Wisdom of the Masses"
Click to expand...

That's an interesting argument that I hadn't thought of.

The Wisdom of the crowds says; If you ask enough people a mundane trivial question such as: How many beans are there in a jar or, as Francis Galton asked; How much does this ox weigh. If you average out the guesses of all those that participated you will arrive at (nearly) the correct answer.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~jsoll/Larrick Mannes Soll WOC chapter Final.pdf

I think that often works because errors tend to cancel out.

But that only happens in certain kinds of situations, where people do have some access to information about something but their judgments about it are subject to statistical error.

Last I checked, more people in the world believe some sort of "higher power" exist than do not believe. If the 'Wisdom of the Masses' (a form of statistical analysis) holds true then that chalks one up for there being something out there as opposed to nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree that belief in deities might arguably be a social thing. Many religious people don't seem to hold beliefs based on evidence at all. But they typically do hold beliefs consistent with or at least strongly influenced by their surrounding community (or the subset of that community that they identify with).

So I'm inclined to speculate that at least one part of the explanation for religious belief might be found somewhere in social psychology.

But explaining religious belief isn't the same thing as justifying it. Theists are making claims about objective reality, after all. (God exists not only for them personally, but for everyone. That's what motivates their evangelism efforts.) So, are their claims about the objective reality of God true or false? How can human beings possibly know?

An interesting question (to me anyway) is how does your idea (which most of our Sciforums crew seemingly want to reject when it's applied to belief in religious deities) different from peer-review and the consensus of the scientific community (which I'm sure most of them want to embrace)?

As for me, I don't think that conforming with group opinion necessarily makes whatever is believed correct. (Or even more likely.) What is believed still needs some sort of grounding or justification.

But it might tend to reduce certain kinds of errors. The task of characterizing those kind of errors and the kind of situations where 'the wisdom of crowds' works remains open in my opinion.
 
DaveC426913 said:
"Wisdom of the masses" is also known as "appeal to popularity" and it is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that it's wrong.

A pattern of reasoning being a "logical fallacy" doesn't mean that that form of reasoning always produces false conclusions. It just means that if you start with true premises, you aren't necessarily guaranteed that your conclusion must be true as well.

Much of the reasoning in science doesn't meet the deductive standard. Induction doesn't always deliver true conclusions. Inference to the best explanation doesn't. The much vaunted "scientific method" is fallacious in deductive terms. With all of those, you can start out with true premises and still arrive at false conclusions.

I think that the 'wisdom of crowds' is something very real. It's implicit in the whole idea of objectivity. If I make some judgment, I'm just reporting on my own belief and may be making all sorts of subjective errors. If two people agree, there's still some chance that they are both introducing the same bias or making the same error. But if a whole group of people independently agree, there's arguably a better chance that their subjective biases and errors will cancel out.

If I see something that I think is extraordinary, I'm apt to blurt out: "Did you see that?" If nobody else did (and were in position to) I'm more inclined to think that maybe I imagined it. If the whole group saw it, I'm more inclined to think that what I saw might have objective reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top