HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » They Must Not Teach Proba...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:06 PM

They Must Not Teach Probability in Seminary School…

Spot the fallacy....

Fr. Alfonse Nazzaro of the St. Monica Catholic Church in Dallas, Texas is a Catholic priest with a blog, and he has a post up about how atheists don’t believe in God because we had bad childhoods or really want to sin…

… Even (atheists) still buy a lottery ticket, while at the same time denying any chance in heaven that God exists. What chance is there of winning the Powerball or Mega millions lottery? One in a billion. What chance is there of God existing? Fifty-fifty. After all, either God exists or He doesn’t. But if he does and I believe, then I just won the jackpot!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/05/they-must-not-teach-probability-in-seminary-school/

24 replies, 2129 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply They Must Not Teach Probability in Seminary School… (Original post)
pokerfan Jan 2013 OP
skepticscott Jan 2013 #1
pokerfan Jan 2013 #9
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #2
LARED Jan 2013 #3
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #16
temporary311 Jan 2013 #4
skepticscott Jan 2013 #6
temporary311 Jan 2013 #10
skepticscott Jan 2013 #11
Prophet 451 Jan 2013 #12
Ron Obvious Jan 2013 #18
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #5
rug Jan 2013 #7
skepticscott Jan 2013 #13
pokerfan Jan 2013 #15
rug Jan 2013 #19
pokerfan Jan 2013 #20
rug Jan 2013 #22
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #8
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #14
tama Jan 2013 #24
dimbear Jan 2013 #17
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #21
cbayer Jan 2013 #23

Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:11 PM

1. Hey, I either win the lottery or I don't..

So my odds are 50:50! Woohoo!

Catholic logic if ever there was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:29 PM

9. I would love to play cards with that guy

He would also totally fail the Monty Hall Problem:

Imagine that the set of Monty Hall's game show Let's Make a Deal has three closed doors. Behind one of these doors is a car; behind the other two are goats. The contestant does not know where the car is, but Monty Hall does.

The contestant picks a door and Monty opens one of the remaining doors, one he knows doesn't hide the car. If the contestant has already chosen the correct door, Monty is equally likely to open either of the two remaining doors.

After Monty has shown a goat behind the door that he opens, the contestant is always given the option to switch doors. What is the probability of winning the car if she stays with her first choice? What if she decides to switch?

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.monty.hall.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:12 PM

2. I like it!

If I buy a lottery ticket, I either win or lose. Odds: 50/50.

If I flap my arms, I either fly or I do not fly. Odds: 50/50

If open Fr. Alfonse Nazzaro's dome, I will find a brain or not find a brain. Odds: 50/50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:14 PM

3. Unlikely Seminary school requires a course in probability,

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:27 PM

16. That's relevant... why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:14 PM

4. Pascal's Wager is such a load of crap.

It only works on the assumption that the God of the one proposing it is the only possible God there can be. Then it assumes again that the proposers particular views of God, and how that God determines who does and doesn't get into heaven, is the only possible view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to temporary311 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:24 PM

6. It also relies on the false assumption

that sucking up to a god that doesn't exist costs you nothing in time, money or dignity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:32 PM

10. Good points.

Especially the money part. Its amazing just how short on cash some of these all-powerful beings are. I guess omnipotence doesn't do much for one's ability to budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to temporary311 (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:35 PM

11. And even if you give money

to support a god that doesn't exist, someone will always find a way to use it anyway. Funny, that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to temporary311 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:37 PM

12. It also fails

because adopting the Christian god isn't a matter of just believing, it increasingly means subscribing to a whole package of regressive social and political views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to temporary311 (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:26 AM

18. As well as assuming believing anything is a choice

I don't choose my beliefs, but Pascal's Wager says an awful lot about how those advocating it come by their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:16 PM

5. If your God exists, you win the jackpot

 

But your God and your belief set are not the only God. Pascal's Wager is utterly ridiculous and ethnocentric by failing to account for the vast amount of conflicting beliefs that are prerequisites to going to heaven. The more one considers, the better idea it is to remain agnostic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:25 PM

7. Why on earth would a priest want to study that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:44 PM

13. Why on earth would a priest

want to rape a little boy over and over, even when he's being begged to stop? And why would bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes cover up and enable these crimes?

Oh..right...you think the rape of children is "irrelevant". Feel free to dismiss it as unimportant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pokerfan (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:14 AM

19. That post needs a tag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:03 AM

20. Irrelevant?

QED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:36 PM

22. Quite irrelevant to a post about statistics and religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:26 PM

8. You would think they would embrace probablity...

With all things being possible before the quantum wave collapse, it is dead certain that some form of God exists in some remote permutation of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:24 PM

14. not all things are possible before probability wave 'collapse'

 

in fact the set of things that are possible describe the wave function itself. for example the 'particle in a box'. technically there is a relatively small set of possible outcomes, a subset is selected by the collapse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:57 PM

24. Before?

 

That is bit problematic, as what decoheres from state function reductions ("collapses" in some interpretations") are 4D -
space-time sheets, ie. also time "itself" or at least how time is described in Einstein's relativity.

And so, quantum superposition of and as "World of Classical Words" and/or "World of all possible worlds" is still very much open question.

Giving such superposition a theological interpretation is also a possibility, probably not far from "Spinoza's God".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:26 PM

17. If you tell the child he or she is going to hell if they squeal on you, your odds of getting

away with the violation scot free go way up.

Practical math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:53 AM

21. They must not teach reality either.

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

But they do a heck of a job teaching logical fallacy and willful ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pokerfan (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:25 PM

23. What empty and useless arguments from both sides.

Don't these people have something more worthwhile to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread