**Animal Farm**

More evidence of the narrow minded refusal to think that atheist display. it's a typical day on carm so there are about a hundred examples to choose from. In this one I got a thing about whether or not ECREE is an exact rendition of the Bayes's theorem. I keep saying the thrum i sfine it's the idea that ECREE is exactly derived from it that I'm protesting. they keep saying "that's so backward no to accept Bayes. or "what do you have Bayes?"

Originally Posted by

**Metacrock**

'ECREE' is merely an English statement of Bayes's Theorem. A claim with a low prior probability needs a higher likelihood than a claim with a high prior in order to have the same posterior. You are not only wrong, but incompetently wrong. That's it; that'sI said:ALL'ECREE' is saying. This is a mathematical fact. You can even see a very simple proof here.

And, contrary to what Meta claims, it is use all the fracking time. For example, let's look at drug tests. Last year, an estimated 0.5% of the general US population used cocaine. Let's assume that we have a 99% accurate test for cocaine. People like Meta will try to tell you that this means that anyone who tests positive on a random drug test has a 99% chance of having actually done cocaine. The reality, however, is that if we plug the numbers into Bayes's Theorem, we see that there's nearly a 66% chance of it being a false positive.

'ECREE' is why we never do just one test for cancer. Extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence; this is mathematical fact.

I'm not allowed to use the image tags, but here is a good cartoon about 'ECREE': http://xkcd.com/1132/

**Meta:**

you know you are taking what I said out of context. you are doing this on purpose becuase you can't stand the fact I just beat your previous little fortress of facts.what I originally said

you have no facts. atheism is not a fact. It's junk it's a house of cards. I just blew the house apart.

You are taking it out of context because you said Bayes is a fact. I said its not a fact that it apply to all god arguments. that's nto a fact. I proved it's not a fact. you are saying the theorem is a fact, I didn't dispute that. I said it doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't it as a very limited application. I dont' know that it applies to any god arguments.

post 37

It's not a fact that your mathematical fact has application to my God augments. nothing in Bayes theory says "all God arguments are subject tot his argument."

that's just an example of the fortress of facts fallacy.*

*Yes I coined the term it's not an official fallacy but it is a real one.so in other words it doesn't apply because the theory is only about probability.Most of my God arguemnts are not probabilistic. that only apply to indicative arguments. most of mine are not. Doesn't apply at all to any kind of phenomenology or existentialism of deductive reasoning. .

But they can't stop and read the truth. They have to keep up the mockery. It's clear from the things they say they are not even reading my answers. The incredilby illogcial assertion he's making that ECREE is Bayse's theorum just put into English, therefore, since Bayse's theorem is a fact then ECREE is a fact.

**Sylor**

It is a mathematical fact (see the proof linked in the OP) that claims with low priors need higher likelihoods than those with high priors to have the same posterior. That isALL'ECREE' is. It's merely a fashionable expression of Bayes's Theorem. Extraordinary claims (i.e., unlikely claims) require extraordinary evidence (i.e. greater than normal amount/quality of evidence).

The only goalposts that have been moved are by those who want to deny mathematical fact so that they can believe in magic.

**Lance:**

No ECREE is a proven fact. By Bayes theorem Pr(H|E) = Pr(E|H) * Pr(H) / Pr(E). Therefore; Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)

If someone means anything other than Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E) when they talk about ECREE, then sure maybe it's a vague subjective slogan. But this is certainly true and obviously very clear.

Let's suppose that some evidence E makes hypothesis H more likely than not. Thus;

0.5 < Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)

0.5 < Pr(H) / Pr(E)

Pr(H) > 0.5 * Pr(E)

They are reading it as ECREE = Bayes when in fact it's only derived from it. Bayes saying nothing about extraordinary claims for example. I question the possibly of "translating" math into english as though math is the kind of language English is. I've always been by friends in the sciences that it can't be more than rough approximation. when it is their little ideology they want to think it's 1x1, right on the money exact. I know form translating Greek and French there's no such thing as a "literal translation." All translations are approximate or interpretive or derivative. The Genius Sylor says "it's mathematically precise" meaning ECREE is periscope. that's just not possible even translating form English to French. ECREE is not mathematics. It's only partially derived from a mathematical formula. Lance is extolling the praises of the mathematical formula that doesn't prove the linguistic derivative shares the exactitude of the formula.

Then they try arguing that probability applies to miracles and can rule them out.

**Darth Pringle**

**Meta:**

take off the blinders and think for a change? your assumption is that it has to be automatic. Yes you are assuring so. Otherwise probability would have nothing to do with it. you have to assume that it works like a drug or medicine you get the prayer you have to be healing doesn't' work.Let's say hypothetically God does hate amputees. that's a reason why he doesn't work automatically on command to heal them. So now if you say "that means 0 probability of being healed by God for amputation tha'ts true, but that doesn't' meant that he can't do it. what he does in one case? you can't rule out that case as a miracle merely because you had a probability.

Probability doesn't' apply to certainty. going case by case we find many examples of miracles. but they have o probability. because taking it case by case there's no expectation.

you dogmatically refuse to read anything I write. read this one thing you will learn a lot.

See my essay on Doxa "Causality in Miracle hunting.Originally Posted byLance

Originally Posted by

**Lance**

no it's not. that's impossible because you can't deal with it as though it were something that has to happen on a regular basis. No reason to look for other resurrections, there though there have been some., bit's supposed to be imposable that is what a miracle is. there' only one incarnate logos who died on cross who is going to raise form the dead. Never going to happen again so there's nothing to establish a probability by.

you can't establish a probability with a one time thing.

I challenged Lance to read my article on ECREE, in two parts.

All he says is;

Bayes Theorem entails Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E). There is nothing you can do about this. When we say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we mean that Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E).So he's not the least big willing to read the article.

**Meta:**

notice friends, this is his way of saying I refuse to read the essay. So he's admitting yes he is too narrow minded to consider ideas off template he atheist template is the only thing he can think he doesn't' dare think ideas nt on it. that's just what ideology is.then he tries to argue it out:

Didn't take long for him to fail that test.

Originally Posted by

**Lance**

ahahahaha that's recursive! that's circular reasoning. think about it:

**Believer**What is extraordinary?

**Atheist**it's one which has a low probability

**Believer**:how do we know it it has a low probability?

**Atheist**because it's extraordinary!

The whole point of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is predated on knowing what's extraordinary. that has to be known in advance it can't just be hacked in by opinion. If calculating probability for an argument is impossible ten obviously the theorem can't apply.

Originally Posted by

**Lntz**

so the logic ECREE is proved right because you don't like atheist watch. you still wont me to think you are not an ideologue?

## No comments:

Post a Comment