Could "luck" increase probability?

[theaetatus]

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You haven't even read his reasoning on that point and you have already attributed a massive amount of beliefs to him.

I have attributed one belief to him in total... That he believes in the christian god, which he states quite categorically. How is this a 'massive amount of beliefs' ?

[Ele]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have attributed one belief to him in total... That he believes in the christian god, which he states quite categorically. How is this a 'massive amount of beliefs' ?

By attributing that one belief to him you also pull in all the other connotations that it brings with it without hearing or listening to his reasoning about why he believes it is justifiable; and in turn dismiss his valid reasoning on the issue actually at hand based the connotations you now attribute to him. You can find further discussions on this other topic in several RNF threads so as not to derail this thread.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

This first begs the question of "what is a supernatural event?" Which can be defined as a suspension of natural laws.

I think it would be helpful to expand the scope of your statement. Instead, let us say "your apparent belief in God casts doubt..." If we accept the proposition that God exists under the standard omniscience/monotheistic model, he is by definition beyond the boundaries of reality. Thus, any action taken prior to the existence of our current universe is by definition supernatural. If we accept that He is indeed the creator, it stands to reason that at some point a supernatural act must have occurred.

If looked at through the lens of the First Mover/Cosmological Argument, we can see that, at some undefined point, an event occurred beyond this reality to put into motion events that have lead to our present day. This is the precedence, and one of the main rationalizations, of the concept of supernaturality. Thus, the precedent having been established, allows us to explore and investigate the issue of how frequently such events are made to occur given that it has happened "at least once."

I seems to me that you also mean to ask implicitly: "Why is one instance of supernatural belief acceptable, yet another is not?" More specifically, you ask the following:

Originally Posted by theaetatus

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

Such a view is rational provided that the person holding the view has a proper body of satisfying evidence upon which to draw such a belief. Just as I take issue with Nocturne's use of a National Geographic video, I suspect that you take issue with my own personal evidentiary standards by the fact that I am a Christian which is something that you find to be rationally unsupportable. This is where the discussion begins with respect to how high, or low, the bar should be set when considering evidence as persuasive.

I made the statement I did because to take an unknown facet of our universe and declare it utterly unknowable is fallacious. Christianity explicitly supports rational inquiry. (ACTS 17:2 being an off-the-cuff example). My own inquiries and findings have, in turn, shaped my beliefs. In short, I buy the Cosmological Argument. I find the Christian faith to be the most plausible. I find dispensationalism to be an exceedingly satisfactory rationalization for the structure of the faith's history, and I find a full compatibility with the concept of theistic evolution. All of these concepts have come together to form a coherent and rational narrative that satisfies my own rigorous (by my measure) standards. This is the essence of how I can say that mysticism is but a retreat from reason.

Though I am not Catholic, I very much enjoy John Paul II's notion that " Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."

It is my sincere hope that I have properly addressed your questions. As I mentioned before, I'd prefer not to devolve this thread into yet another firefight over religion as this board already has enough of those. As always, if you wish to discuss this matter in earnest, I am always available for those who seek.

Once again, I consider this tangent addressed.

[theaetatus]

I love how the old 'Please don't derail this thread' excuse comes out as a defence. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Belief in the christian god (a supernatural being) is by definition a belief in the supernatural. I'm not attributing any connotations here.

I'm not criticising his belief here, just pointing out the glaring logical disparity of believing in one supernatural, unprovable force and simultaneously criticising belief in a different, equally plausible supernatural, unprovable force on the grounds of its supernatural, unprovable nature.

[theaetatus]

I see how your interpretation of the First Mover argument could lead to belief in the supernatural, but from there it is a huge leap to believing in the christian god in particular, over all of the other possible gods. Why not Buddha, or Thor, or Mana-Yood-Sushai?

I am an agnostic and do not deny the existence of possible supernatural powers, but I have never seen a rational argument for believing in a particular god over the other possible gods.

Certainly this 'chi' energy is as rational a belief as belief in a god, as both are without evidence or proof. Perhaps chi energy is the force that created the universe?

[Knuckle]

I say yes, and here's why. There is evidence that dreams can be shared between individuals based on their synapses receptivity to certain electrical impulses. I believe on a microscopic scale our brain sends out electrical impulses, much the way a radio sends out a wave. So 'wishing' for something strongly, under this belief, would increase electrical impulses sent into the air.

Shared electrical impulses have also been studied through practitioners of Quigong which is about blood control in oneself. In large groups, energy via these electrical impulses is shared via large handholding prayer/rituals.

In other words, everything we learned in science class relating to technology we've made or the sun, can apply to our own body and even our brains in some situations.

In short, I do believe luck can factor into something based on probability. Does that mean I'm going to rely on luck by 'wishing' good things to happen to me? Of course not, but I'd surely try in a game of roulette.

[Resheph]

Did this thread seriously go from asking if luck could have some role in a video game to discussion about religion and metaphysics?

[theaetatus]

By the same argument, however, wishing for something might decrease the probability of an event happening.

The question here is the problem... Of course luck COULD increase probability, just as the flying spaghetti monster COULD exist, or pigs COULD fly (given the right atmospheric conditions)

"Does luck increase probability?" would be a more useful question, though equally speculative.

[Resheph]

Luck, by definition, is something out of a person's control. Regardless of whether you're discussing a RNG, religion or metaphysics none of that applies when the question is regarding luck. Luck is random, period. Because of this, it can play no part in making something happen to the hopeful more often than others. If you believe that hoping for something increases your chances then other factors are involved, even if unseen, which means it's not luck.

Luck is a word used by people to describe a series of events because it's human nature to need a word to describe something. People generally cannot just let things be, they have to have a word, phrase or image to assist them or they simply can't wrap their brains around something.

[theaetatus]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did this thread seriously go from asking if luck could have some role in a video game to discussion about religion and metaphysics?

Yes, how odd that a thread starting with a question about metaphysics could derail into a conversation about metaphysics! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Luck" here is not just probability, "Luck" as the OP mentioned is a proposed supernatural force that alters probabilities. The OP is essentially asking if such a supernatural force exists.