How is this mathematical?

[Callipygous]

the only way pink invisible fairies fit the bill is if they are *ahem*CREATORS.

 

 

 

evolution requires random chance to create the first cell, doesnt it?

[ydoaPs]

evolution requires random chance to create the first cell, doesnt it?

nope, just chemistry and physics

[Callipygous]

nope, just chemistry and physics

 

 

chemistry and physics... ok. so you would argue that the earth forming with all the right elements, at the right distance from the sun and the right atmosphere, and water and all that other crap that has to be exactly right for life on earth to be remotely possible was based on something other than chance?

 

a dice roll is about as random as it gets, but technically thats predictable by physics too. lets try to keep this just a little bit reasonable.

[swansont]

chemistry and physics... ok. so you would argue that the earth forming with all the right elements' date=' at the right distance from the sun and the right atmosphere, and water and all that other crap that has to be exactly right for life on earth to be remotely possible was based on something other than chance?

 

a dice roll is about as random as it gets, but technically thats predictable by physics too. lets try to keep this just a little bit reasonable.[/quote']

 

You are presuming that life had to form on earth, though. Any planet with the right conditions is a candidate.

 

Random chance is usually interpreted as "all outcomes are equally probable." Random chance may be one or more elements in a chain of events, but the outcome, since it depends on other factors, will not be random.

[Callipygous]

You are presuming that life had to form on earth' date=' though. Any planet with the right conditions is a candidate.

 

Random chance is usually interpreted as "all outcomes are equally probable." Random chance may be one or more elements in a chain of events, but the outcome, since it depends on other factors, will not be random.[/quote']

 

 

no... im presuming that life did form on earth, and the fact that it did is comprable to rolling a very large set of dice. yes, if you roll once for every planet in the universe the odds are life is going to spring up somewhere, but that doesnt mean it wasnt random chance.

 

just like odds are you will win at least one of every thousand craps games, its still random.

 

 

anyway.... i have still yet to hear one example of something that can explain the present state of the universe besides a creator or random chance (or ScIeNcE! if it makes you feel special to think of it that way)

[swansont]

no... im presuming that life did form on earth' date=' and the fact that it did is comprable to rolling a very large set of dice. yes, if you roll once for every planet in the universe the odds are life is going to spring up somewhere, but that doesnt mean it wasnt random chance.

 

just like odds are you will win at least one of every thousand craps games, its still random.

 

 

anyway.... i have still yet to hear one example of something that can explain the present state of the universe besides a creator or random chance (or ScIeNcE! if it makes you feel special to think of it that way)[/quote']

 

So, it's probablilistic. You admit that the probability approaches 1 if you calculate over all space. That eliminates the need for a creator; science doesn't address the supernatural in any event. What, then, is the issue?

[Callipygous]

So, it's probablilistic. You admit that the probability approaches 1 if you calculate over all space. That eliminates the need[/i'] for a creator; science doesn't address the supernatural in any event. What, then, is the issue?

 

 

i dont believe for one second that there is a creator, this is just an argument over whether or not 50/50 is an exceptable probability for the existence of god.

[ydoaPs]

no... im presuming that life did form on earth' date=' and the fact that it did is comprable to rolling a very large set of dice. yes, if you roll once for every planet in the universe the odds are life is going to spring up somewhere, but that doesnt mean it wasnt random chance.

 

just like odds are you will win at least one of every thousand craps games, its still random.

 

 

anyway.... i have still yet to hear one example of something that can explain the present state of the universe besides a creator or random chance (or ScIeNcE! if it makes you feel special to think of it that way)[/quote']

assuming an outcome makes your whole argument invalid. there is a 1.8x10^-966% chance you would type that exact post.

 

physics isn't random chance. you are assuming life had to start here. if earth didn't have the right conditions, life would just start at a place where there were the right conditions.

[Callipygous]

physics isn't random chance.

 

then nothing is random chance. a coin flip can be predicted by physics. i really try to keep the insults at a minimum, but your just being stupid here. just because something happened the way it did because of physics doesnt mean it wasnt random.

 

 

you are assuming life had to start here. if earth didn't have the right conditions, life would just start at a place where there were the right conditions.

 

yet another point i addressed in my post above, but im guessing your out of material, so ill go through it again.

NO I AM NOT. whether or not life springs up on ANY planet is determined by a whole lot of very unlikely factors that are all pure random chance.

(note that when i say random chance here, im ignoring the fact that with enough processors you could simulate the big bang and predict where every single particle of every element would end up.)

[ydoaPs]

then nothing is random chance. a coin flip can be predicted by physics. i really try to keep the insults at a minimum, but your just being stupid here. just because something happened the way it did because of physics doesnt mean it wasnt random.

if you can predict it, it isn't random.

 

 

 

yet another point i addressed in my post above, but im guessing your out of material, so ill go through it again.

NO I AM NOT. whether or not life springs up on ANY planet is determined by a whole lot of very unlikely factors that are all pure random chance.

(note that when i say random chance here, im ignoring the fact that with enough processors you could simulate the big bang and predict where every single particle of every element would end up.)

you may not think you are, but you are. you are assuming your conclusion.

[john5746]

i dont believe for one second that there is a creator, this is just an argument over whether or not 50/50 is an exceptable probability for the existence of god.

 

I don't see why not, we are talking about the creation of the universe and your proposition makes sense to me. It either formed on its own, or it was created. 50/50. But, if we are seeing evidence that the coin has landed heads, then it doesn't really matter what the chances were.

[Callipygous]

I don't see why not, we are talking about the creation of the universe and your proposition makes sense to me. It either formed on its own, or it was created. 50/50. But, if we are seeing evidence that the coin has landed heads, then it doesn't really matter what the chances were.

 

we dont have any evidence that it happened either way. all we can see is that it COULD have happened either way : P

[swansont]

then nothing is random chance. a coin flip can be predicted by physics. i really try to keep the insults at a minimum, but your just being stupid here. just because something happened the way it did because of physics doesnt mean it wasnt random.

 

No, he isn't. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature. There are many things you can describe only statistically. And, because certain events can be excluded means that, although probabilistic, they aren't random chance (as I defined earlier).

 

 

yet another point i addressed in my post above' date=' but im guessing your out of material, so ill go through it again.

NO I AM NOT. whether or not life springs up on ANY planet is determined by a whole lot of very unlikely factors that are all pure random chance.

(note that when i say random chance here, im ignoring the fact that with enough processors you could simulate the big bang and predict where every single particle of every element would end up.)[/quote']

 

And the counterpoint, again, is that they are not pure random chance. They follow physical law. Many, many permutations are excluded.

[Callipygous]

No, he isn't. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature. There are many things you can describe only statistically. And, because certain events can be excluded means that, although probabilistic, they aren't random chance (as I defined earlier).

 

then there is absolutely nothing in the entire universe that is random. you people need to take a half a step back from your science for a second before you take apart the english language. everything in the universe does what it does based on the laws of physics, and therefore if you had enough information you could predict absolutely everything. and yet, what do you know, we still have the word "random" in our vocabularies. you ever stop and wonder why that might be? a dice roll is 100% predictable, and yet we still call it random because for all practical purposes it is. in the same way, a planet forming in exactly the right way and exactly the right place is also random.

 

the reason i say hes being stupid is because 1. hes arguing something that only matters for the sake of telling me im wrong for using the word "random" and 2. it doesnt even effect the original argument. the point is, there are two possibilities that explain the creation of the universe, a creator or what ever the hell you want me to call the situation without a creator, be it random chance or pure predictable gauranteed science.

 

trying to disarm my argument based on the fact that it isnt actually random if you get down to the absolute most basic level and try and calculate where everything went in the big bang is stupid. it doesnt matter what you want to call it.

 

Two options.

[swansont]

then there is absolutely nothing in the entire universe that is random. you people need to take a half a step back from your science for a second before you take apart the english language. everything in the universe does what it does based on the laws of physics, and therefore if you had enough information you could predict absolutely everything. and yet, what do you know, we still have the word "random" in our vocabularies. you ever stop and wonder why that might be? a dice roll is 100% predictable, and yet we still call it random because for all practical purposes it is. in the same way, a planet forming in exactly the right way and exactly the right place is also random.

 

Probabilistic means that no, you can't determine all outcomes, so you can't predict absolutely everything. (There are further elements of QM that tell you can't determine all the information anyway.) A die roll is not 100% predictable.

 

the reason i say hes being stupid is because 1. hes arguing something that only matters for the sake of telling me im wrong for using the word "random" and 2. it doesnt even effect the original argument. the point is' date=' there are two possibilities that explain the creation of the universe, a creator or what ever the hell you want me to call the situation without a creator, be it random chance or pure predictable gauranteed science.

 

trying to disarm my argument based on the fact that it isnt actually random if you get down to the absolute most basic level and try and calculate where everything went in the big bang is stupid. it doesnt matter what you want to call it.

 

Two options.[/quote']

 

You were wrong for using random in that way. Random implies all outcomes are equally probable.

 

Two options, with no other information, does in no way imply 50/50.

[-Demosthenes-]

i dont believe for one second that there is a creator, this is just an argument over whether or not 50/50 is an exceptable probability for the existence of god.

 

I do believe in God, but realize the absurdity of the idea. You don't believe because there's some made up probability using arbitrary statistics.

 

NO I AM NOT. whether or not life springs up on ANY planet is determined by a whole lot of very unlikely factors that are all pure random chance.

 

Yeah, and saying that there is a God has just as much evidence as that? You know that "random chance" is possible, and yet there is no evidence for a creator.

 

we dont have any evidence that it happened either way.

 

We have uncovered insurmountable evidence that it happened by "chance."

 

Two options.

 

One has evidence and one does not.

[Callipygous]

Probabilistic means that no, you can't determine all outcomes, so you can't predict absolutely everything. (There are further elements of QM that tell you can't determine all the information anyway.) A die roll is not 100% predictable.

 

if you knew the exact magnitude and direction of all of the forces involved, as well as the exact shape of all the objects involved, you could predict what side it would stop on. how is that not predictable?

 

 

 

 

I do believe in God, but realize the absurdity of the idea. You don't believe because there's some made up probability using arbitrary statistics.

 

i dont believe in god for my own reasons that you really dont know about. thats not what this discussion is about, and i havent said anything about why i have the beliefs i do. dont guess about peoples beliefs.

 

 

 

We have uncovered insurmountable evidence that it happened by "chance."

 

no, we have not. i dont even know what information we have and what we dont and i can still tell you that, no, you have absolutely zero evidence that shows that the universe was not created by some kind of god. thanks to the very definition of "creator" any evidence you could possibly have could have been planted as a test of your faith.

[-Demosthenes-]

...dont guess about peoples beliefs.

 

Never did' date=' merely stated my own.

 

no, we have not. i dont even know what information we have and what we dont and i can still tell you that, no, you have absolutely zero evidence that shows that the universe was not created by some kind of god. thanks to the very definition of "creator" any evidence you could possibly have could have been planted as a test of your faith.

 

There's no evidence to refute the possibility of a large invisible flying saucer over my house feeding me information about penguins.

 

Your point?

[Callipygous]

gah... double post : P

[Callipygous]

Never did, merely stated my own.

 

try again:

You don't believe because there's some made up probability using arbitrary statistics.

 

 

There's no evidence to refute the possibility of a large invisible flying saucer over my house feeding me information about penguins.

 

Your point?

 

my point would be that you cant disprove that either.

 

 

actually, i take that back. the two situations arent comparable at all, there are plenty of ways you could get evidence of that spaceship. like, for example, testing your knowledge, or lack thereof, of penguins. or by throwing eggs at the sky.

[-Demosthenes-]

Never did, merely stated my own.

 

try again: [As in: "yes you did make an assumption on my beliefs, when you said this:" ]

 

You don't believe because there's some made up probability using arbitrary statistics.

 

That was the universal "You." Like "You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover." I don't literally that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, I am not addressing you personally.

 

In the same way "You don't believe because there's some made up probability using arbitrary statistics," You is merely referring to universally to everyone. I didn't mean it to sound like I though that you don't believe because of something, because you had in fact explained earlier that you do not.

 

actually, i take that back. the two situations arent comparable at all, there are plenty of ways you could get evidence of that spaceship. like, for example, testing your knowledge, or lack thereof, of penguins. or by throwing eggs at the sky.

 

Rather the flying saucer is undetectable by any means, and my knowledge only works when the saucer wants it too, and will not allow it self to be proven. (On a very off topic subject, my spell check says that "proven" isn't a word, hmm).

 

Given my claim, using your logic, there is a 1 in 2 chance that this flying saucer is real.

[Callipygous]

Rather the flying saucer is undetectable by any means' date=' and my knowledge only works when the saucer wants it too, and will not allow it self to be proven. (On a very off topic subject, my spell check says that "proven" isn't a word, hmm).

 

Given my claim, using your logic, there is a 1 in 2 chance that this flying saucer is real.[/quote']

 

 

if your trying to make the situation sound ludicrous your wasting your time, because thats pretty much what i think of the idea of god. yes, given the fact that its impossible to have any evidence against your flying saucer, for the sake of argument you cant say it has anything other than a 50/50 probability of being there.

 

and yet again, im going to have to take that back : P unlike god, where there are only 2 possibilities (a creator, or a big bang situation) there are plenty of different options for this one. there could be any number of different things over the roof of your house. the god situation requires something that explains the begining of the universe. this has no such limitation.

[-Demosthenes-]

and yet again' date=' im going to have to take that back : P unlike god, where there are only 2 possibilities (a creator, or a big bang situation) there are plenty of different options for this one. there could be any number of different things over the roof of your house. the god situation requires something that explains the begining of the universe. this has no such limitation.

[/quote']

 

So your argument is:

 

1. There are only two ways to explain something.

 

2. As there is no evidence to back up either side there is an equal chance that either could have happened.

 

 

Following these logical assumptions I can prove that it is a 50% chance that bears are trying to take over the world:

 

1. There is only two ways to explain bear behavior, (1) they are unintelligent animals who cannot think the way we do, or (2) they are planning to take over the world and so are pretending to be normal animals.

 

2. As there is no evidence that will back up one and exclude the other, either side is just as likely as the other.

 

 

-Problems?

[Callipygous]

So your argument is:

 

1. There are only two ways to explain something.

 

2. As there is no evidence to back up either side there is an equal chance that either could have happened.

 

 

Following these logical assumptions I can prove that it is a 50% chance that bears are trying to take over the world:

 

1. There is only two ways to explain bear behavior' date=' (1) they are unintelligent animals who cannot think the way we do, or (2) they are planning to take over the world and so are pretending to be normal animals.

 

2. As there is no evidence that will back up one and exclude the other, either side is just as likely as the other.

 

 

-Problems?[/quote']

 

 

1. options number 3-infinity: we dont understand what bears think, so it could be any number of things, since our "knowledge" of bears is nothing more than guesses, which are based on our own psychology and the way WE would do things.

2. have bears done anything that could help lead them to world domination? or do they stand around eating fish and berries all day?

 

so yeah. problems.

 

 

just in case your about to waste your time trying again, im gonna try to clarify this first.

 

the god/no god thing is a very unique situation. however, if you actually find something that matches the same discription you will have wasted your time. you seem to be trying to come up with the most obsurd situations you can create, but what you dont seem to realise is that God falls under that catagory for me. so if you come up with something that matches i will tell you that yes, that has the same probability as in the topic we are discussing, and no i dont care. both are equally rediculous to me. your not gonna make me feel stupid, or take back my thoughts, by proving that there is some other ludicrous situation that would also have a 50/50 chance using my logic. its not any more unreasonable from my point of view.

[swansont]

What about the option that the universe always existed?