It's official: SCIENCE says God is real

Hahahaha. The universe is infinite for all we know. We could have multiverses. We could have infinite universes. That makes the chances of life almost 100% considering its an inevitability.

Wtf? Going off the assumption that naw, too many variables is absolutely retarded when we dont know the universe itself. For all we know, there is like 100 million other lifeforms in our universe. Not even counting that maybe we have multiple universes.

The guy who posted that dawkins article pretty much sums it up.
 
Dochter said:
You mean misestimated probabilities that fail to understand when multiplication should be used?
Click to expand...

As in what Krauss is saying? As in, yes, it is possible to arrive at those probabilities using the known data. But it is also possible that there are other factors that would alter those probabilities in favor of chance. But no one can say with certainty.

So "We don't know" = "No God" (no intelligent agency)

Hey, that conclusion sounds sort of familiar...

All it really comes down to with a guy like Krauss (and perhaps you as well) is this:

The impossibility of envisioning a coin being flipped heads-up 10 quintillion times in a row (or even one half or one quarter that many times) is less philosophically problematic than envisioning a coin flipped heads-up that many times in a row due to some invisible, directed, non-measurable energy controlling the metal disc.
 
This article is a complete joke.

There's no evidence presented at all only opinions.

'Life on a planet is so unique there must be a creator' herp derp.

I hope this is a troll thread.
 
genecop said:
Shitty? I think Steven King himself would have been honored to have sold as many copies as the Shitty Bible.....it might turn out to be all bullshit, but it definately was a marketing success....
Click to expand...

The little Red Book from Mao was the most printed of all time, but doesn't mean it's not full of crap.
 
Ive actually heard this before.
Something like when the universe was in its early years if it wouldve altered by one grain of sand nothing would be here today. So basically it took everything to work completely right for it to exist and for life to happen.
 
So at bestban argument for deism. Good luck arguing from there to the god if the bible or whatever you like to believe.
 
The need to convince others seems to be more of a need to convince oneself. If one is content and certain, what is the need?
 
Bob Charlie said:
How many coin tosses can be performed in infinity amount of time? What is the probability of any potential result in a span of infinity?
Click to expand...
Lump of gold, cup of tea, and you've got yourself a space ship.
 
ultramanhyata said:
As in what Krauss is saying? As in, yes, it is possible to arrive at those probabilities using the known data. But it is also possible that there are other factors that would alter those probabilities in favor of chance. But no one can say with certainty.
Click to expand...
No, as when religiously motivated individuals try to calculate probabilities they do it wrong and fuck up the math. But yes, also by making up the probabilities to begin with.

ultramanhyata said:
So "We don't know" = "No God" (no intelligent agency)

Hey, that conclusion sounds sort of familiar...
Click to expand...
Relevance? "Strong" atheism indeed suffers that problem. Strong atheism is quite rare even among the more obnoxious atheist writers. Even Dawkins isn't a strong atheist.

ultramanhyata said:
All it really comes down to with a guy like Krauss (and perhaps you as well) is this:

The impossibility of envisioning a coin being flipped heads-up 10 quintillion times in a row (or even one half or one quarter that many times) is less philosophically problematic than envisioning a coin flipped heads-up that many times in a row due to some invisible, directed, non-measurable energy controlling the metal disc.
Click to expand...
Like the other guy said, it's amusing to watch religious people suck at math. Or, put another way, no.
 
That was painful to read. I also heard the misinformed (or purposefully misinforming) author of that piece on the Medved show last week. Here's another refutation of this dubious claim in addition to the one linked a few posts above.

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
 
ultramanhyata said:
I don't think this article comes as a surprise to those of us who've sought to approach the question of biologic origins rationally and impartially.

I began, personally, with a strong, strong faith in an intelligent, creating agency who was a benevolent, intercessory, Father-God creator - one who desired to reveal Himself to mankind and establish relationship with us.

The evidence, the reality of the human condition, led me to an anguishing rejection of this interpretation of the creator.

However, the statistical evidence for a creating agency - of some kind - has remained untouched, or I should say greatly enhanced, as I've gone ever deeper into the current science. Particularly aspects of quantum mechanics and the ideas of Michio Kaku. To say nothing of the entirely self-refuting theory of mutation and selection as the driver of evolution.

But I'm afraid that in the same way that most Father-God theists will desperately cling to that conclusion despite the mountains of empirical evidence against it, the majority of atheistic science cultists will continue to cling to their own dogma, in spite of the insurmountable problem of probabilities.
Click to expand...

How does natural selection, mutations, fitness, and evolution refute itself? If you understood anything about probabilities and very large numbers you'd realize you were wrong. It's like creationists misapplying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
 
OldGoat said:
Made up statistics are made up.

Furthermore low probability events occur continuously.

The probability of this random string is of characters is (1/26)^n if we just use the lower case alphabet. So a 12 character string randomly generated has a lower probability of occurring yet it's trivial to have a random one occur.

Furthermore #2, you can only have a universe that can generate self-awareness in a universe that can generate self-awareness. There may be an infinite amount of other universes are what not. We just don't know.

There may be a god but I doubt it's the type we would recognize.
Click to expand...

But if X is the infinite and (1/26)^n is movable making it variably different then Y, then 1/3*4^ will have to concede to the more mathematical acceptable of 3/4*Y(x)^.

So a 12 character string would prove that God would have to exist for awareness of self of awareness in self and it could not retain without it.
 
its official: this thread title sucks.
i mean, i know its zroc, but still........
 
ZroC said:
That’s nothing, though, compared with conditions required for the universe itself to exist. The odds of them occurring simultaneously are one in 100 000 000 000 000 000. (17 noughts). That’s the same as a randomly tossed coin coming up heads 10 quintillion times in a row.
Click to expand...

If time didn't exist, one could try until they manage to toss that coin coming up heads 80 quintillion times in a row it wouldn't change a thing, you have eternity to achieve that result.

Your odds could be 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 for all I care it doesn't mean randomness can't be the cause of the creation of the universe as it is.

Creationists always try to make it appear as if it was a one-shot effort by God.
 
Bob Charlie said:
How many coin tosses can be performed in infinity amount of time? What is the probability of any potential result in a span of infinity?
Click to expand...

We don't have a span of infinity according to science - we have roughly 4.5b years (actualy less) a flip every second = 388,800,000,000,000 flips.

Thats a lot, but not quite what the probablity claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,998
Messages
55,460,310
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top