question on belief

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Beruthiel

SubjectSean wrote: »

What about synchronicity? Such as the following example I robbed from wikipedia rather than boring you with my own experiences

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

stevejazzx

SubjectSean wrote: »

What about synchronicity? Such as the following example I robbed from wikipedia rather than boring you with my own experiences

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

That's just a pair of plum pudding addicts hanging around paris waiting for people to make plum pudding...come on!

Scofflaw

Beruthiel wrote: »

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

Indeed, with so many people on the planet, there will statistically be people whose entire lives are absolutely stuffed with synchronicity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, with so many people on the planet, there will statistically be people whose entire lives are absolutely stuffed with synchronicity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I just posted the same reply in another forum about randomness...hmmm

Talon1977

womoma wrote: »

Overwhelming evidence.

Disputed evidence and assertions with no basis, more likely. But as you've not mentioned any particular piece nor even what it is you think the Truth is, I can't really discuss it can I?:D

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Could this be where the phrase "the proof is in the pudding," originated??

SubjectSean

Beruthiel wrote: »

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random. Personally I think the phenomenon of coincidence is somehow connected to the existence of attractors in chaos theory but whatever the reason may be I think the statistical liklihood of the example I gave is unlikely. I do not think that there is no degree of significance. However I have not done the maths, and would not even know how to calculate the chances of Émile Deschamps story. So all these people who are telling me that this is a statistically likely occurance, how have you worked this out?

Dades

I would have thought a coincidence is something that is statistically unlikely.
Possible of course given enough situations, but not likely.

The chances of winning the Lotto are about 45 million to one, but every few weeks some bastard other than me still wins it.

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

Could this be where the phrase "the proof is in the pudding," originated??

The phrase "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless, it is a shortening of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" with the word 'proof' meaning 'test' - a sense of the word 'proof' no longer used. The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

JC 2K3

SubjectSean wrote: »

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random.

And it's not really pushing it to say a God exists?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

The phrase "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless, it is a shortening of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" with the word 'proof' meaning 'test' - a sense of the word 'proof' no longer used. The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

SubjectSean wrote: »

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random. Personally I think the phenomenon of coincidence is somehow connected to the existence of attractors in chaos theory but whatever the reason may be I think the statistical liklihood of the example I gave is unlikely. I do not think that there is no degree of significance. However I have not done the maths, and would not even know how to calculate the chances of Émile Deschamps story. So all these people who are telling me that this is a statistically likely occurance, how have you worked this out?

In an arbitrarily large sample set any given arbitrarily "unlikely" event or sequence of events will occur given a long enough time.

Doesn't the fact that the example you cited comes from the mid 19th century not make your argument seem sorta tenuous?

I mean, if you could say that this happened to you. And that it happens every time you ask for plum pudding. And a different friend will appear when you order a different desert.


And also that every time you go to the airport you coincidentally meet the same group of people.

And every time you think of a particular episode of the simpsons it's on the tv that night.

And every time etc...

I'll hazard a guess that one of these things (or something in a similar vein) has happened to most of us at some point, but think about all the times when something "coincidental" could have happened, but didn't?

It's just not possible. There are far too many times when nothing coincidental occurred.

Zillah

pH wrote: »

The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

I'm reading it at the moment actually. Its going slowly. It sounds exactly like the kind of notion he'd come out with.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....

oh.....

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

.....

oh.....

Ah. Now, how many people did I just accidentally insult?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

This being how one becomes a well-educated uncle in the first place, you please me, nevvie, with your diligence in disproving me! Erudition proceeds through error and correction.

Yum, there's even a Latin tag. Well, I shall add that meaning, since the article does not dispute my usage, but laments it.

cheerfully,
and now less ignorantly,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

pH wrote: »

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

Perhaps in getting this wrong Scoff has proven the the rule that is he always right, this of course being the exception:)

SubjectSean

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

In an arbitrarily large sample set any given arbitrarily "unlikely" event or sequence of events will occur given a long enough time.

Yes I understand this, the monkeys arriving at the complete works of Shakespeare, but what I am saying is that in the case of Émile Deschamps and the plum pudding the monkeys appear to have arrived at the completed works suspiciously soon, so to speak, and I'm inclined to think that some sort of copying has been going on. Now I know the logic of the thing is that the monkeys can arrive at the completed works at any point and therefore I should not be surprised when they appear to get there early. However it seems to me that the monkeys get there early rather more often that one might expect. Although like I say, I don't even know how to go about doing the maths, so I have no way of knowing for sure. I think I need to go and learn about probability and significance.

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that the example you cited comes from the mid 19th century not make your argument seem sorta tenuous?

I cited this just because it's well attested to. I have personal examples as I'm sure many people do, things that stagger them. However if I cite personal examples there is no way for anybody to determine their validity.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

Perhaps in getting this wrong Scoff has proven the the rule that is he always right, this of course being the exception:)

Well, if it is necessary to specifically point out that I particularly am actually wrong, then by the proper use of the phrase it would imply the rule that I am usually right - and you know what they say - the world is divided into people who think they're right.

However, even I don't believe that I am always right - I am, however, always willing to be right.


cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if it is necessary to specifically point out that I particularly am actually wrong, then by the proper use of the phrase it would imply the rule that I am usually right - and you know what they say - the world is divided into people who think they're right.

However, even I don't believe that I am always right - I am, however, always willing to be right.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah I thought it would be *fun to use the phrase incorrectly as a defense..I almost used the *i word again!

Fallen Seraph

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes I understand this, the monkeys arriving at the complete works of Shakespeare, but what I am saying is that in the case of Émile Deschamps and the plum pudding the monkeys appear to have arrived at the completed works suspiciously soon, so to speak, and I'm inclined to think that some sort of copying has been going on. Now I know the logic of the thing is that the monkeys can arrive at the completed works at any point and therefore I should not be surprised when they appear to get there early. However it seems to me that the monkeys get there early rather more often that one might expect.

I'll phrase it thusly: how many times during your average day do you reckon that a coincidence *could* have happened, but didn't?

Keith186

They'd probably believe you are of lesser intelligence due to the fact that you believe in a god that they in 'their heart & soul' don't believe in and wonder why and how you could believe in a god when they themselves have no belief in it at all.

I've had heated exchanges with people over the same subjectand they would get quite aggressive too. It's quiet an easy subject to get angry about as it's a fundamental difference.

I don't really bother talking to much people about it unless they bring it up themselves.

I don't believe in any god or anything of the sort as I believe it's just a thought in your mind. If no one told you about a god would you ever find it or believe in it. I think not.