Small chance equals Impossible?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#16

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:57 pm

Jac3510 wrote:BGood . . . not that this should surprise you, but I'm not a mathematician nor a microbiologist. I have no way of knowing what the chances are that life could have come up spontaneously . . .

However, this is what I do know, and this is how it should be brought over:

1. The "simplest" form of life, so defined by way of self-replication, is extremely complex, mathematically speaking.

2. The numbers from (1) are so high it would take a large concentration of prebiotic material and an extended period of time (consider these two "chances") to produce life naturally.

3. In other words, life coming about naturally would require lots of "chances."

Now, it's up to you to provide chemical pathways. What I know is that the current pathways do NOT adequately explain the EXTREMELY low probability of life forming spontaneously. And, for the record, this is only on the evolution of life side of the argument. Have you considered the design argument as it relates to cosmology? The rate of expansion of the univeres is a great example, with a "fine tuning" of 1 to the 10^120 degree!
Again both posibilities exist.
Jac3510 wrote:The point: until you provide chemical pathways that remove the extreme chances from the natural evolution of life (or the universe for that matter), it is decidely MORE PROBABLE that it was designed. The dice example illustrates this perfectly.
I'll give you this. However the dice have already been rolled, low probability does not negate the possibility. In other words, as in the deck example the chances of what occurred are one in 101! yet this outcome has occurred. In addition we don't know what the other possibilities are. So are we to even guess what the likly hood of the only existing outcome is?
Jac3510 wrote:For the record, I notice you didnt answer my questions, other than to say, "This is all fine, however how does this relate to the natural world?" Now, I really do want answers for these, as the answers will say a lot about how to apply this further to the natural world. For your quoting convenience, here they are again:

1. What would you say to the person who decided that the dice was not rigged?
This would be a sound conclusion, however without examining the dice it would not be backed by evidence. And therefore not submissable in a court of law.
Jac3510 wrote:2. He rolls three more times, each time coming up with fives. Not satisfied, he rolls it five more times . . . all fives. We now have twenty fives in a row! That's 1 in 1,248,045,400,617,354,801,086,805,835,776. One in two billion looked good, hmm? And yet, this person says, "No, it is still possible it is only chance. We can't say for sure the dice is rigged." BGood, at what point do you concede the dice is, in fact, rigged?
At this point it would seem the dice are rigged.
Jac3510 wrote:3. How many rolls [does it take to concede the dice is rigged]?
Perhaps six rolls should suffice it to show beyond reasonable doubt that the dice are rigged.
Jac3510 wrote:4. And what do you say to the person who refuses to concede, regardless of the number of rolls, that it is rigged?
Again this is not what is occuring above. This is a false analogy. We cannot examine the dice, nor roll them again. The lottery is a better example.
Jac3510 wrote:5. And yet further, once you have rolled a five twenty times in a row, are you surprised that the 21st roll is a five, even when that should lessen the chances SIGNIFICANTLY?
Each successive roll has nothing to do with the previous roll. They are independent phenemonon. In other words If I roll six 5's in a row the chances of me rolling a 5 on the next roll is still one in six.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#17

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:13 pm

Again both posibilities exist.
I can give you that both possibilities exist . . . especially if . . .
I'll give you this. However we cannot examine the dice so probability does not dictate outcome. In addition we don't know what the other possibilities are. So are we to even guess what the likly hood of the only existing outcome is?
My interest, again, is not what is possible. Hey, it is POSSIBLE for a hurricane to build a 747 in a junkyard, though incredibly unlikely. It is POSSIBLE for a monkey to write all of Shakespeare's volumes in only one try! But, if I found a 747 in a junkyard, or a volume of Shakespeare, I'll call the person who claims that a storm and monkey were the causes insame. But, perhaps I'm closed minded?

To make a real world application, there are ONLY three logical possibilities concerning life, given the observation that it is presently here:

1) It was designed,
2) It was not designed,
3) Neither designed or undesigned, it has always been here.

We universally reject the third possibility, leaving us with ONLY the first two. To get religious, I think the first will be proven when God destroys this earth and creates a new one, but that's probably a bad time to find out you are wrong! In the mean time, we can both agree, as you just did, that it is possible to conclude that (1) is more likely than (2), based on scientific observation.
At this point it would seem the dice are rigged.
Yes, sir, I think we all would agree. So, can I fairly extrapolate from this admission, as well as your previous, that for something to be very unlikely to occur naturally, it can be reasonably concluded that design is in order?
Perhaps six rolls should suffice it to show beyond reasonable doubt that the dice are rigged.
Thank you. Then, to make direct application: at what point can something be so improbable in the natural world that design can be reasonably concluded? If you argue that we need to hold off judgment until further science comes along, I would remind you that in this analogy, the seventh roll could always come up as something different! More importantly, what we want to state is not so much categorical fact but what is most likely true based on what we know RIGHT NOW.

So, BGood: based on what we know RIGHT NOW, do you think it is MORE LIKELY that life came about by chance, or do current observations lead us to conclude reasonably that it was designed?
Again this is not what is occuring above. This is a false analogy. We cannot examine the dice, nor roll them again. The lottery is a better example.
I don't see why this is a false analogy, but I noticed you still didn't answer the question. If someone blindly refuses to recognize the obvious rigging of the dice, what would you say to them?
Each successive roll has nothing to do with the previous roll. They are independent phenemonon. In other words If I roll six 5's in a row the chances of me rolling a 5 on the next roll is still one in six.
You missed what I was saying. If by the sixth roll we see nothing but fives, we can reasonably conclude that the dice are set. We can then say, "If the dice are set, then the chances that the next three rolls are all fives will be exactly 1:1." You are, therefore, proposing a text . . . an experiment, if you will. In fact, let me ask you this:

Is it more in the real world that:

A) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls a second number, or

B) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls the same number five more times.

I'd like to see your reasoning as to how you answer as well.

Thanks
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#18

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:23 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Again both posibilities exist.
I can give you that both possibilities exist . . . especially if . . .
I'll give you this. However we cannot examine the dice so probability does not dictate outcome. In addition we don't know what the other possibilities are. So are we to even guess what the likly hood of the only existing outcome is?
My interest, again, is not what is possible. Hey, it is POSSIBLE for a hurricane to build a 747 in a junkyard, though incredibly unlikely. It is POSSIBLE for a monkey to write all of Shakespeare's volumes in only one try! But, if I found a 747 in a junkyard, or a volume of Shakespeare, I'll call the person who claims that a storm and monkey were the causes insame. But, perhaps I'm closed minded?
What information do you have that you know it is this unlikely? I am assuming you are making assumptions on how unlikely an event may be due to your preconceptions. Am I correct?
Jac3510 wrote:To make a real world application, there are ONLY three logical possibilities concerning life, given the observation that it is presently here:

1) It was designed,
2) It was not designed,
3) Neither designed or undesigned, it has always been here.

We universally reject the third possibility, leaving us with ONLY the first two.
How do you reject this posibility?
Jac3510 wrote:To get religious, I think the first will be proven when God destroys this earth and creates a new one, but that's probably a bad time to find out you are wrong! In the mean time, we can both agree, as you just did, that it is possible to conclude that (1) is more likely than (2), based on scientific observation.
Scientifically we cannot conclude anything.
Jac3510 wrote:
At this point it would seem the dice are rigged.
Yes, sir, I think we all would agree. So, can I fairly extrapolate from this admission, as well as your previous, that for something to be very unlikely to occur naturally, it can be reasonably concluded that design is in order?
No because we don't know what the possibilities are. Nor do we know any of the variables to determine the odds.
Jac3510 wrote:
Perhaps six rolls should suffice it to show beyond reasonable doubt that the dice are rigged.
Thank you. Then, to make direct application: at what point can something be so improbable in the natural world that design can be reasonably concluded?
Again you are assuming we know the probabilities, we simply don't.
Jac3510 wrote:If you argue that we need to hold off judgment until further science comes along, I would remind you that in this analogy, the seventh roll could always come up as something different!
This is quite true, however we are basing this on one roll now aren't we? That is why this analogy is false.
Jac3510 wrote:More importantly, what we want to state is not so much categorical fact but what is most likely true based on what we know RIGHT NOW.
No, sorry this is based on what we do not know right now.
Jac3510 wrote:So, BGood: based on what we know RIGHT NOW, do you think it is MORE LIKELY that life came about by chance, or do current observations lead us to conclude reasonably that it was designed?
Again scientifically there is no conclusions to be made.
Jac3510 wrote:
Again this is not what is occuring above. This is a false analogy. We cannot examine the dice, nor roll them again. The lottery is a better example.
I don't see why this is a false analogy, but I noticed you still didn't answer the question. If someone blindly refuses to recognize the obvious rigging of the dice, what would you say to them?
I am not here to make judgements. Science should let the facts stand for themselves.
Jac3510 wrote:
Each successive roll has nothing to do with the previous roll. They are independent phenemonon. In other words If I roll six 5's in a row the chances of me rolling a 5 on the next roll is still one in six.
You missed what I was saying. If by the sixth roll we see nothing but fives, we can reasonably conclude that the dice are set. We can then say, "If the dice are set, then the chances that the next three rolls are all fives will be exactly 1:1." You are, therefore, proposing a text . . . an experiment, if you will. In fact, let me ask you this:

Is it more in the real world that:

A) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls a second number, or

B) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls the same number five more times.

I'd like to see your reasoning as to how you answer as well.

Thanks
After 5 successive attempts it is likely that the dice are rigged.

Again however how many times have we rolled the "dice" in what this example is supposed to be an analogy of?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#19

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:00 pm

What information do you have that you know it is this unlikely? I am assuming you are making assumptions on how unlikely an event may be due to your preconceptions. Am I correct?
What, that a storm can make a 747 or that a monkey can type out Shakespeare? I'll assume that you are talking about the unlikliness of naturalism vis-a-vis abiogenesis, the cosmological constant, etc.

The answer to your question is "no." As I said before, I'm not a mathematician, nor a biologist. However, when Ph.D.'s in those fields provide the numbers we are talking about, I take it on good faith. If Hugh Ross says that the expansion of the universe is fine tuned to within one part in 10^120, I can believe that. And when paper after paper shows the chances of a "simple" self-replicator coming up by chance is one in a gazillion, I can accept that on good faith, too.

Here's the thing, BGood. EVERYONE recognizes the massive chance involved in this. Even Dawkin knows this, which is why he wrote The Blind Watchmaker, in attempt to discredit this very argument. In chapter ONE ("Explaining the very improbable") launches on his mission by a discussion of "improbable" as it relates to "complex." His goal, which at least is logical, is to show that "complex" is NOT the same as "improbable." His mechanism, cumulative selection (p. 43ff), is a good place to start. But here's my point: he recognizes, and freely admits, that if it is improbable, it is to be discarded. Thus, he provides a mechanism to do away with the improbable! He goes so far as to say,
Dawkins wrote:Atkins assumes the evolution of complex things -- the subject matter of this book -- to be inevitable once the appropriate physical conditions have been set up.
THAT, BGood, is what the evolutionist has to prove. THAT is science. You can't work with "wildly improbable but by chance possible." That's the stuff of blind faith!
How do you reject this posibility?
I really hope that you are just asking questions to see if I know what I'm talking about rather than seeking honest answers . . . I suppose you are familiar with the Steady State model and the reasons it has been universally rejected. I suppose you are familiar with the evidence for a true beginning of our universe, just as I suppose that you are familiar with the evidence that we have not always existed.

So, I reject, post-riori, the idea that we have always been here.
Scientifically we cannot conclude anything.
Sloppy, BGood . . . very sloppy. Shall I assume that you are a positivist? Scientifically, we cannot PROVE anything. That is very different from saying that we cannot conclude anything. We conclude things every day. Observation A plus Observation B lead to Theory C. We then test Theory C. If it's predictions come true, then we have a good, solid, tested theory. But, the conclusion doesn't come with the test. The conclusion comes with the theory itself. We concluded, based on our observations, that C must be the case. We then tested our conclusions.

Don't try to get away from solid answers, BGood. As a side note, did you watch the confirmation hearings of Alito? In it, he said something very interesting. The senators were asking him questions the whole time about abortion and executive priviledges . . . of course, he didn't answer. Finally, they started asking him really easy questions as it related to case prescedants. After a series of these, he said something to the affect of, "I can't answer these easier ones because it will place me on a slippery slope to answering the harder ones." I think that was to Graham.

You've already started down the slope, BGood. You've already admitted that we can conclude, for example, the in all probability our dice is rigged based on mathematical observation. The same is true here. Let's replace the concept of "dice" and "roll" with nature, God, evolution, etc. Let's keep this out of the real world for a moment and just do a thought experiment . . . keep on the slope, so to speak.

If scientific observation shows it is highly unlikely for something to come about by natural means, doesn't that imply design? *waits for BGood to try to slam on the breaks*
No because we don't know what the possibilities are. Nor do we know any of the variables to determine the odds.
You're jumping ahead of me, BGood. Look again at what I said verses your original answer. You're backtracking:
I wrote:He rolls three more times, each time coming up with fives. Not satisfied, he rolls it five more times . . . all fives. We now have twenty fives in a row! That's 1 in 1,248,045,400,617,354,801,086,805,835,776. One in two billion looked good, hmm? And yet, this person says, "No, it is still possible it is only chance. We can't say for sure the dice is rigged." BGood, at what point do you concede the dice is, in fact, rigged?
Now, notice your reply:
You wrote:At this point it would seem the dice are rigged.
So, you agree that there comes a point in time where we can logically conclude that, in all probability, the dice are rigged. We certainly can't PROVE it, but even opening the dice and finding weights wouldn't PROVE it. It would only make it that much more probable! Remember, we can't PROVE anything! Here's the key though: you admit that we can conclude it, logically, right here. Now,
I wrote:Yes, sir, I think we all would agree. So, can I fairly extrapolate from this admission, as well as your previous, that for something to be very unlikely to occur naturally, it can be reasonably concluded that design is in order?
This is nothing more than changing the wording to what you just agreed to. If the dice are rigged, then they were designed. You have agreed that it seems that the dice are rigged (designed). On what did you base that conclusion? On the extreme level of probability. So, you then must agree that high improbabilities can lead us to logically posit design. BUT now
You wrote:No because we don't know what the possibilities are. Nor do we know any of the variables to determine the odds.
So we went from agreeing the dice were rigged to rejecting it? Backtracking a bit, hmm? Now, we know exactly what the possibilities are. We know what the variables are. Don't jump ahead of me, BGood. Given our scenario, we CAN CONCLUDE that the dice are, in fact, designed to show up as a five. Or, to go back to your original illustration, if a predetermined order came up, even once, we could posit design in the order of the deck.
Again you are assuming we know the probabilities, we simply don't.
And, again, I'm working off of authority. When Dawkins himself admits to extreme improbability, I'm inclined to accept it. When Ian Musgrave, a staunch advocate for abiogenesis, accepts high improbablities, I'm inclined to accept them. The difference in these men and you is that they are trying to show the numbers aren't in fact, so improbable. Let's go back to our dice example.

I role five five's in a row. SHOCKING! The chances of that happening are one in 7,776. Ah, but now you find out that there are about eight thousand of us trying the same thing right now. Yeah, it's pretty cool that it happened to me, but for the other seven thousand, it probably didn't happen. In fact, we can say that it is PROBABLE that out of the eight thousand of us, the chances are that at least one of us will, in fact, roll five fives in a row! So, the number isn't so improbable after all.

Your argument, though, is totally different. "Hey, sure it's improbable! But that doesn't mean it's impossible!" :p
This is quite true, however we are basing this on one roll now aren't we? That is why this analogy is false.
Have I once argued that evolution only had once chance? I suspect that's why you want to use a lottery . . . and that's fine with me. The point is that you have to try to reduce the odds. And the base argument, BGood, is that YOU CAN'T REDUCE THEM ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROBABLE. That is the very nature of the entire probability argument. That's why I keep saying, show me some chemical pathways that make abiogenesis probable, because right now, they don't exist.

In the meantime, you have to be intellectually honest enough to admit that the high improbability leads us to logically posit a designer until future evidence indicates the contrary.
No, sorry this is based on what we do not know right now.
No, sir, it is not based on what we do not know right now. It is based on what we KNOW. We KNOW that the cosmological constant is fine tuned to within one part in 10^120. We KNOW the basic amino acids required for certain cells. These are things we know, BGood.

Here's the problem with your argument at this particular juncture. I say that the theory of gravity should be rejected because it is based on what we DON'T KNOW. In fact, the real answer is that there are invisible elves holding everything together. We can't detect them YET, but one day, science will be able to. It's just a matter of time. I posit that they exist in the sixth dimension, so as soon as we can examine other dimensions, we will be able to test it. So, the theory of gravity is great, but it is based on what we don't know.

See how ludicrous that is? The idea of design is based soundly on actual knowledge. It is based on mathematical studies on the probabilities of certain physical entities coming up by certain proposed mechanisms. It is, at present, obvious to all that the CURRENT MECHANISMS provide a VERY LOW probability for producing what we have today.
Again scientifically there is no conclusions to be made.
I've already dealt with this, so be honest, BGood. Come on, you expect me to be honest with you. If you provide solid evidence, you expect me to admit it and see its implications, so you do the same. Again, I asked:

based on what we know RIGHT NOW, do you think it is MORE LIKELY that life came about by chance, or do current observations lead us to conclude reasonably that it was designed?
What do current observations lead us to conclude, BGood?
I am not here to make judgements. Science should let the facts stand for themselves.
Of course you are here to make judgments. That is what human beings do. We made a judgment on gravity and on the sun. Why? Because the evidence pointed us in that direction. Have you concluded that there is such a thing as gravity? Have you concluded that the earth is four billion years old? Have you concluded that evolution is correct? I've seen you assert that it is, so don't tell me you aren't here to make judgments. You are. Be honest, BGood.

You will, of course, admit that it is POSSIBLE that we find evidence to totally contradict the evolutionary model or the age of the earth or the theory of gravity itself. If you don't, you will be in effect claiming these theories are non-falsifiable and, by your own definition, not science. And yet, you still conclude that these are in all PROBABILITY true. That is, they represent reality well enough to be considered reflective of it until something else comes along to say the contrary. So, let's apply that SAME standard to our discussion, BGood. Make an honest judgement, as you have been all along on these boards, and answer my question. Again, I asked:

If someone blindly refuses to recognize the obvious rigging of the dice, what would you say to them?
After 5 successive attempts it is likely that the dice are rigged.

Again however how many times have we rolled the "dice" in what this example is supposed to be an analogy of?
Ah, look, a judgment ;)

I believe I've already handled this question in the above. If, of course, we have rolled it 8,000 times then it is extremely likely that it is not rigged. In fact, we could conclude that it was NOT rigged.

But, your statement implicitly affirms what you have been denying. You conclude that the dice are rigged after 5 successive attempts, but this is predicated on the idea that we've only tried once and everything else is ligit. So, given the proper foundations, it IS possible to conclude design. Go ahead and admit that, BGood. So, I ask my question again:

Is it more likely in the real world that:

A) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls a second number, or

B) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls the same number five more times.

I'd like to see your reasoning as to how you answer as well.


I would like you to answer this and explain your answer.

Thanks again :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#20

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:47 am

Jac3510 wrote:
What information do you have that you know it is this unlikely? I am assuming you are making assumptions on how unlikely an event may be due to your preconceptions. Am I correct?
What, that a storm can make a 747 or that a monkey can type out Shakespeare? I'll assume that you are talking about the unlikliness of naturalism vis-a-vis abiogenesis, the cosmological constant, etc.

The answer to your question is "no." As I said before, I'm not a mathematician, nor a biologist. However, when Ph.D.'s in those fields provide the numbers we are talking about, I take it on good faith. If Hugh Ross says that...
Sorry there are no authorities on this.
The exact chances are not known.
Also it is not known if there is a significance to the outcome of this particular roll. In otherwords there is no way to know that the current state of things was predetermined.
Jac3510 wrote:Here's the thing, BGood. EVERYONE recognizes the massive chance involved in this.
Again you're assuming that the dice were weighted because the chances are low. In other words, if I roll 1000 dice what are the chances they will be in a specific sequence. Low.

However they are not all fives. Are they? Are you suggesting there is a pattern to the numbers?
Jac3510 wrote:THAT, BGood, is what the evolutionist has to prove. THAT is science. You can't work with "wildly improbable but by chance possible." That's the stuff of blind faith!
Evolution does not need to be concerned with the origins of life.
Jac3510 wrote:
How do you reject this posibility?
I really hope that you are just asking questions to see if I know what I'm talking about rather than seeking honest answers . . . I suppose you are familiar with the Steady State model and the reasons it has been universally rejected.
I take it that you beleive that science if infallible? Or is it bcause it agrees with your beleifs that there is no longer a need to question?
Jac3510 wrote:I suppose you are familiar with the evidence for a true beginning of our universe, just as I suppose that you are familiar with the evidence that we have not always existed.
I am quite familiar, however the evidence is not bullet proof.
Jac3510 wrote:So, I reject, post-riori, the idea that we have always been here.
So be it, however the possibility remains.
Jac3510 wrote:
Scientifically we cannot conclude anything.
Sloppy, BGood . . . very sloppy. Shall I assume that you are a positivist? Scientifically, we cannot PROVE anything. That is very different from saying that we cannot conclude anything. We conclude things every day. Observation A plus Observation B lead to Theory C. We then test Theory C. If it's predictions come true, then we have a good, solid, tested theory. But, the conclusion doesn't come with the test. The conclusion comes with the theory itself. We concluded, based on our observations, that C must be the case. We then tested our conclusions.
Sorry, you're correct of course I meant we cannot absolutely conclude something, i.e. say that the book is closed.
Jac3510 wrote:You've already started down the slope, BGood. You've already admitted that we can conclude, for example, the in all probability our dice is rigged based on mathematical observation. The same is true here. Let's replace the concept of "dice" and "roll" with nature, God, evolution, etc. Let's keep this out of the real world for a moment and just do a thought experiment . . . keep on the slope, so to speak.

If scientific observation shows it is highly unlikely for something to come about by natural means, doesn't that imply design? *waits for BGood to try to slam on the breaks*
No because we don't know what the possibilities are. Nor do we know any of the variables to determine the odds.
You're jumping ahead of me, BGood. Look again at what I said verses your original answer. You're backtracking:
I wrote:He rolls three more times, each time coming up with fives. Not satisfied, he rolls it five more times . . . all fives. We now have twenty fives in a row! That's 1 in 1,248,045,400,617,354,801,086,805,835,776. One in two billion looked good, hmm? And yet, this person says, "No, it is still possible it is only chance. We can't say for sure the dice is rigged." BGood, at what point do you concede the dice is, in fact, rigged?
Now, notice your reply:
You wrote:At this point it would seem the dice are rigged.
So, you agree that there comes a point in time where we can logically conclude that, in all probability, the dice are rigged. We certainly can't PROVE it, but even opening the dice and finding weights wouldn't PROVE it. It would only make it that much more probable! Remember, we can't PROVE anything! Here's the key though: you admit that we can conclude it, logically, right here. Now,
I wrote:Yes, sir, I think we all would agree. So, can I fairly extrapolate from this admission, as well as your previous, that for something to be very unlikely to occur naturally, it can be reasonably concluded that design is in order?
This is more than changing the wording. What you are saying is that it is highly unlikely for a series of events to occur so that means it was predestined. That's not the same as a die being rolled 6 times as a 5. How do you know that there are other possible outcomes? How do you know that the other outcomes are unfavorable? You don't that is the difference here.
Jac3510 wrote:This is nothing more than changing the wording to what you just agreed to. If the dice are rigged, then they were designed. You have agreed that it seems that the dice are rigged (designed). On what did you base that conclusion? On the extreme level of probability.
You're making a logical error. If something with a low chance of happening happens, does that means it was rigged?
Low probability = rigged?
I win the lottery = Lottery was rigged?
NO
Jac3510 wrote:So, you then must agree that high improbabilities can lead us to logically posit design.
ABSOLUTELY NOT
Jac3510 wrote:BUT now
You wrote:No because we don't know what the possibilities are. Nor do we know any of the variables to determine the odds.
So we went from agreeing the dice were rigged to rejecting it? Backtracking a bit, hmm? Now, we know exactly what the possibilities are. We know what the variables are. Don't jump ahead of me, BGood. Given our scenario, we CAN CONCLUDE that the dice are, in fact, designed to show up as a five. Or, to go back to your original illustration, if a predetermined order came up, even once, we could posit design in the order of the deck.
How is this an analogy? Do you have evidence that nature's course followed a predetermined order?
Jac3510 wrote:
Again you are assuming we know the probabilities, we simply don't.
And, again, I'm working off of authority. When Dawkins himself admits to extreme improbability, I'm inclined to accept it. When Ian Musgrave, a staunch advocate for abiogenesis, accepts high improbablities, I'm inclined to accept them. The difference in these men and you is that they are trying to show the numbers aren't in fact, so improbable. Let's go back to our dice example.

I role five five's in a row. SHOCKING! The chances of that happening are one in 7,776. Ah, but now you find out that there are about eight thousand of us trying the same thing right now. Yeah, it's pretty cool that it happened to me, but for the other seven thousand, it probably didn't happen. In fact, we can say that it is PROBABLE that out of the eight thousand of us, the chances are that at least one of us will, in fact, roll five fives in a row! So, the number isn't so improbable after all.

Your argument, though, is totally different. "Hey, sure it's improbable! But that doesn't mean it's impossible!" :p
This is quite true, however we are basing this on one roll now aren't we? That is why this analogy is false.
Have I once argued that evolution only had once chance? I suspect that's why you want to use a lottery . . . and that's fine with me. The point is that you have to try to reduce the odds. And the base argument, BGood, is that YOU CAN'T REDUCE THEM ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROBABLE. That is the very nature of the entire probability argument. That's why I keep saying, show me some chemical pathways that make abiogenesis probable, because right now, they don't exist.
There are no generally accepted pathways to abiogenisis.
Jac3510 wrote:In the meantime, you have to be intellectually honest enough to admit that the high improbability leads us to logically posit a designer until future evidence indicates the contrary.
Again high improbability absolutely does not lead one to posit a designer.

It is highly unlikely that I will run into someone with the same name and same birthday as myself. If I do does it mean that it was ordained?
Jac3510 wrote:
No, sorry this is based on what we do not know right now.
No, sir, it is not based on what we do not know right now. It is based on what we KNOW. We KNOW that the cosmological constant is fine tuned to within one part in 10^120.
We do? You know for certain that the other 10^120 possibilities for a NUMBER are actual possibilities?
Jac3510 wrote:We KNOW the basic amino acids required for certain cells.
ok...
Jac3510 wrote:These are things we know, BGood.
That's enough information to say that something is impossible?
Jac3510 wrote:Here's the problem with your argument at this particular juncture. I say that the theory of gravity should be rejected because it is based on what we DON'T KNOW.
The theory of gravity involves the description, measurement and detection of the action of gravity not the description, origin of gravity itself.
Jac3510 wrote:In fact, the real answer is that there are invisible elves holding everything together. We can't detect them YET, but one day, science will be able to. It's just a matter of time. I posit that they exist in the sixth dimension, so as soon as we can examine other dimensions, we will be able to test it. So, the theory of gravity is great, but it is based on what we don't know.
We don't know what actually is behind the force of gravity. The law of gravity does not encompass this aspect of gravity. Only the measurable aspect of it.
Jac3510 wrote:See how ludicrous that is? The idea of design is based soundly on actual knowledge. It is based on mathematical studies on the probabilities of certain physical entities coming up by certain proposed mechanisms. It is, at present, obvious to all that the CURRENT MECHANISMS provide a VERY LOW probability for producing what we have today.
Low probability does not equal intelligence.
There is a low chance that someone's child will grow up to be the president one day. Does this prove that some people are chosen?
Jac3510 wrote:
Again scientifically there is no conclusions to be made.
I've already dealt with this, so be honest, BGood. Come on, you expect me to be honest with you. If you provide solid evidence, you expect me to admit it and see its implications, so you do the same. Again, I asked:

based on what we know RIGHT NOW, do you think it is MORE LIKELY that life came about by chance, or do current observations lead us to conclude reasonably that it was designed?
What do current observations lead us to conclude, BGood?
I am not here to make judgements. Science should let the facts stand for themselves.
Of course you are here to make judgments. That is what human beings do. We made a judgment on gravity and on the sun. Why? Because the evidence pointed us in that direction. Have you concluded that there is such a thing as gravity? Have you concluded that the earth is four billion years old? Have you concluded that evolution is correct? I've seen you assert that it is, so don't tell me you aren't here to make judgments. You are. Be honest, BGood.

You will, of course, admit that it is POSSIBLE that we find evidence to totally contradict the evolutionary model or the age of the earth or the theory of gravity itself.
Yes.
Jac3510 wrote:If you don't, you will be in effect claiming these theories are non-falsifiable and, by your own definition, not science. And yet, you still conclude that these are in all PROBABILITY true. That is, they represent reality well enough to be considered reflective of it until something else comes along to say the contrary. So, let's apply that SAME standard to our discussion, BGood. Make an honest judgement, as you have been all along on these boards, and answer my question. Again, I asked:

If someone blindly refuses to recognize the obvious rigging of the dice, what would you say to them?
I will not reply to this question. =)
Jac3510 wrote:
After 5 successive attempts it is likely that the dice are rigged.

Again however how many times have we rolled the "dice" in what this example is supposed to be an analogy of?
Ah, look, a judgment ;)
Let me clarify, I meant judgement on people.
Jac3510 wrote:I believe I've already handled this question in the above. If, of course, we have rolled it 8,000 times then it is extremely likely that it is not rigged. In fact, we could conclude that it was NOT rigged.

But, your statement implicitly affirms what you have been denying. You conclude that the dice are rigged after 5 successive attempts, but this is predicated on the idea that we've only tried once and everything else is ligit. So, given the proper foundations, it IS possible to conclude design. Go ahead and admit that, BGood. So, I ask my question again:

Is it more likely in the real world that:

A) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls a second number, or

B) A person rolls a six sided dice twenty times, each time with the same number, and then, with absolutely zero changes in circumstances, rolls the same number five more times.

I'd like to see your reasoning as to how you answer as well.


I would like you to answer this and explain your answer.

Thanks again :)
Again the analogy is false.

In the dice we see a purpose, to roll a five.

In nature there is no explicit purpose.

In the dice we see a pattern and we know what is unlikely.

In nature we don't know what variables can be changed, if they can be changed and why they are the values they are.

In the dice we are able to see it progress in front of our eyes.

In nature the dice have already been rolled, leaving us with the repurcussions.

That's why I liken it to the lottery.

Winning the lottery constitutes a very high improbability.
Does this mean that all lotteries are rigged?
Jac3510 wrote:So, you then must agree that high improbabilities can lead us to logically posit design.
An absolute God may have ordained everything, but to us mere mortals, it is all chance.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#21

Post by Jac3510 » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:25 am

place holder . . .
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#22

Post by Jac3510 » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:27 am

(Statements with a -> after them are not rhetorical and suggest those I would actually like answers to.)
Again you're assuming that the dice were weighted because the chances are low. In other words, if I roll 1000 dice what are the chances they will be in a specific sequence. Low.

However they are not all fives. Are they? Are you suggesting there is a pattern to the numbers?
...

Is this . . . THIS . . . what you think our "discussion" is about? You can change the analogy, but I'll always go back to the SAME PRINCIPLE, BGood. If you roll a thousand dice, you will BY DEFINITION, come up with some series of numbers. There is a 1:1 chance of that. However, the chances ridiculously low that you will come up with a predetermined series of numbers.

Let's do another experiment BGood, to help you understand this concept:

Pick a number, 1-99999. Go ahead and write it down. I'm being serious. After that, highlight below:

94837

-> Did your number match mine, BGood?

I'm going to bet, right now, that it didn't. If there was a way to keep you honest, I'd put a wager on it! Now, is it POSSIBLE for you to pick the same number? Yup . . . you had about a one in one hundred thousand chance of getting it right (which, as it happens, is more likely then throwing ten sixes in a row!).

Now, BGood . . . let's procede slowly so that we don't confuse our readers.

Let's say you did pick the same number. Well, that would make one heck of a magic trick, wouldn't it! IT would be a phenomenal coincidence. What is the first question someone is going to ask? "How'd you do that?" And why would they ask? Because they know that the chances are too small. But, wait, so I'm a magician . . . let's do it AGAIN!

Highlight: 15465

Hey, the chances of me guessing your number AGAIN . . . 1 in 10^8!

-> Let's pretend I got both of your numbers right. Now, what can we conclude, BGood?

-> Of course . . . I didn't guess your numbers either time. Why not, BGood?

Now, let's change the experiment a bit. This time, I want you to write down a number between 1 and 10. I'm going to guess your number, and I'll get it right. Ready?

HIghlight: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Well, I took more than one guess, but I got it right, didn't I? Unless, of course, your number was four, which would be a fun coincidence! But, we can agree that I have a good chance of getting it right. Nothing odd now. Or, let's turn this into a thought experiment. I'll go get ten of my friends, and we all get one guess. Chances are, we get it right, isn't it?

Now, BGood . . .

What have we learned? In the first case, something wildly improbable happened. Thus, we had to posit some sort of trick (design). In the second case, nothing improbable happened at all. In fact, the chances were in my favor (or the favor of my friends) that we would guess your number!

That is why Dawkins uses the argument he does, BGood. He is taking the complex, which is admittedly improbable, and showing why it is not at all improbable! Because, he accepts the basic premise, that which is wildly improbable implies design.

Now, if you can't see that, I can conclude one of a a few things:

1) You are simply an idiot in the actual sense of the word, with no personal attack intended. If a person is unable to recognize axiomatic truth, it is impossible to reason with him.

2) You do see it, and you are being argumenative because you just like to argue.

3) You are trying to pre-empt a future discussion on evolution vs. design by denying the foundational premise now, which, of course, is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

-> Do you still reject the premise, and if so, why should I not believe it is one of the above three reasons?

But, BGood, this isn't a thread about evolution vs. design, is it? You said in your original post that improbability doesn't equal impossibility. Of course, we all agree, but now I'm explaining what the actual argument is, which is that improbability implies design. Once that it accepted, it is up to you to show why an event is not actually improbable. You can do that by showing that the conditions were favorable to an event happening, or showing that there were lots of chances for it to happen (therefore, while it may be improbable for a specific organism, the event itself was bound to happen eventually), etc. But, you cannot deny the foundational premise . . .

So, I say AGAIN:
Jac3510 wrote:So, you then must agree that high improbabilities can lead us to logically posit design.
Intellectual honesty is a wonderful thing, BGood.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Brigham
Recognized Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:10 am
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#23

Post by Brigham » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:51 am

Some people would just not be right for the job of Casino Security.... that is if the Casino Likes their money lol.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#24

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:06 am

Jac3510 wrote:(Statements with a -> after them are not rhetorical and suggest those I would actually like answers to.)
Again you're assuming that the dice were weighted because the chances are low. In other words, if I roll 1000 dice what are the chances they will be in a specific sequence. Low.

However they are not all fives. Are they? Are you suggesting there is a pattern to the numbers?
...

Is this . . . THIS . . . what you think our "discussion" is about? You can change the analogy, but I'll always go back to the SAME PRINCIPLE, BGood. If you roll a thousand dice, you will BY DEFINITION, come up with some series of numbers. There is a 1:1 chance of that. However, the chances ridiculously low that you will come up with a predetermined series of numbers.
Again the analogy is about being predetermined. But in the actual event there is no proof of this. Nature does not explicitly state that it was predetermined.
Jac3510 wrote:Let's do another experiment BGood, to help you understand this concept:

Pick a number, 1-99999. Go ahead and write it down. I'm being serious. After that, highlight below:
=) 32165
Jac3510 wrote:94837

-> Did your number match mine, BGood?
Of course not.
Jac3510 wrote:I'm going to bet, right now, that it didn't. If there was a way to keep you honest, I'd put a wager on it! Now, is it POSSIBLE for you to pick the same number? Yup . . . you had about a one in one hundred thousand chance of getting it right (which, as it happens, is more likely then throwing ten sixes in a row!).

Now, BGood . . . let's procede slowly so that we don't confuse our readers.

Let's say you did pick the same number. Well, that would make one heck of a magic trick, wouldn't it! IT would be a phenomenal coincidence. What is the first question someone is going to ask? "How'd you do that?" And why would they ask? Because they know that the chances are too small. But, wait, so I'm a magician . . . let's do it AGAIN!
123456
Jac3510 wrote:Highlight: [color=555555]15465[/color]

Hey, the chances of me guessing your number AGAIN . . . 1 in 10^8!

-> Let's pretend I got both of your numbers right. Now, what can we conclude, BGood?
Extremely lucky, but most probably a trick.
Jac3510 wrote:-> Of course . . . I didn't guess your numbers either time. Why not, BGood?
The chances are low.
But here any two numbers radomly have the same chance as getting the same number. You are arbitrarily putting significance onto the one's which match. Mathmatically any two numbers have the same odds, and in nature there is no indication that a specific outcome was desired.
Jac3510 wrote:Now, let's change the experiment a bit. This time, I want you to write down a number between 1 and 10. I'm going to guess your number, and I'll get it right. Ready?
4
Jac3510 wrote:HIghlight: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Well, I took more than one guess, but I got it right, didn't I? Unless, of course, your number was four, which would be a fun coincidence!
YAY!
Jac3510 wrote:But, we can agree that I have a good chance of getting it right. Nothing odd now. Or, let's turn this into a thought experiment. I'll go get ten of my friends, and we all get one guess. Chances are, we get it right, isn't it?
Yes
Jac3510 wrote:Now, BGood . . .

What have we learned? In the first case, something wildly improbable happened. Thus, we had to posit some sort of trick (design). In the second case, nothing improbable happened at all. In fact, the chances were in my favor (or the favor of my friends) that we would guess your number!
Again in the first example all the other possibilities are ignored? Why? Because there is some significance to the numbers matching. What is the parallel to this in nature?
Jac3510 wrote:That is why Dawkins uses the argument he does, BGood. He is taking the complex, which is admittedly improbable, and showing why it is not at all improbable! Because, he accepts the basic premise, that which is wildly improbable implies design.
Again all the possibilities in the first example are improbable not only the desired outcome. Does that mean any of the outcomes are a product of design?
Jac3510 wrote:Now, if you can't see that, I can conclude one of a a few things:

1) You are simply an idiot in the actual sense of the word, with no personal attack intended. If a person is unable to recognize axiomatic truth, it is impossible to reason with him.
lol
Jac3510 wrote:2) You do see it, and you are being argumenative because you just like to argue.
heh, getting warmer.
Jac3510 wrote:3) You are trying to pre-empt a future discussion on evolution vs. design by denying the foundational premise now, which, of course, is a textbook example of circular reasoning.
ABSOLUTELY NOT =P
Jac3510 wrote:-> Do you still reject the premise, and if so, why should I not believe it is one of the above three reasons?
As I stated before the problem with your analogy above is that you start with the premise that some outcome is significant or desired. Then proceed to imagine that the desired number was chosen.

In the case of the number guessing, what if I attributed some significance to these numbers after the fact. Let's say that the wavelength of light emitted by hydrogen atoms in this universe corresponded to the hexedecimal representation 127002. Now after the fact, what are the odds we would pick 94837 and 32165 which happen to add up to this number? Very low. But the significance was added to the numbers after the fact. The numbers in effect were a foundation to the premise. It is a circular form of reasoning.
The facts are we don't know what the possible values could be, nor do we know the significance of other possibilities.
Jac3510 wrote:But, BGood, this isn't a thread about evolution vs. design, is it? You said in your original post that improbability doesn't equal impossibility. Of course, we all agree, but now I'm explaining what the actual argument is, which is that improbability implies design. Once that it accepted, it is up to you to show why an event is not actually improbable. You can do that by showing that the conditions were favorable to an event happening, or showing that there were lots of chances for it to happen (therefore, while it may be improbable for a specific organism, the event itself was bound to happen eventually), etc. But, you cannot deny the foundational premise . . .
It seems we are talking about specific examples here. Please provide one.
Jac3510 wrote:So, I say AGAIN:
Jac3510 wrote:So, you then must agree that high improbabilities can lead us to logically posit design.
Intellectual honesty is a wonderful thing, BGood.
Again no, high improbability alone equates nothing.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#25

Post by Jac3510 » Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:28 am

Again no, high improbability alone equates nothing.
*sigh* You are both right and wrong. I'll focus on the latter, but rather than re-explaining myself, I'll just quotewhat I already said:
I wrote:Once that it accepted, it is up to you to show why an event is not actually improbable. You can do that by showing that the conditions were favorable to an event happening, or showing that there were lots of chances for it to happen (therefore, while it may be improbable for a specific organism, the event itself was bound to happen eventually), etc.
Improbability doesn't work for you, BGood. You have to show that an event was NOT improbable and that it was, in fact, inevidable. You have several means at your disposal to do this, but it's up to you to do it.

And why? Because when something highly improbable happens, the obvious explanation is design, as we have aptly demonstrated through cards, dice, and number guessing. In all of these, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT DESIGN IS LIKELY. The principle, then holds. In fact, it holds very strongly. You have admitted that when we add rolls, or guesses, or people, or whatever, then design is no longer likely. Why? Because the probability increases until it reaches near inevidable!

The only argument, then, you can say is, "Well we don't know in nature if there are the equivelant of more guesses, rolls, or people. Therefore, we can't conclude design."

Hey, I'm GREAT with that reply. Because, then, we can discuss specifics. I may not be able to prove a negative, but I'm OK with that. But you HAVE TO ADMIT THE PRINCIPLE IS CORRECT.

Admit it . . . you're wrong, BGood. Just come on out and say that the improbability principle implies design. Let's hear it . . . come on ;)

Oh:
BGood wrote:heh, getting warmer
Are you really just doing this for the sake of arguing? I'm interested in a rational dialogue, not a meaningless argument, BGood.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#26

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:58 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Again no, high improbability alone equates nothing.
*sigh* You are both right and wrong. I'll focus on the latter, but rather than re-explaining myself, I'll just quotewhat I already said:
I wrote:Once that it accepted, it is up to you to show why an event is not actually improbable. You can do that by showing that the conditions were favorable to an event happening, or showing that there were lots of chances for it to happen (therefore, while it may be improbable for a specific organism, the event itself was bound to happen eventually), etc.
Improbability doesn't work for you, BGood. You have to show that an event was NOT improbable and that it was, in fact, inevidable. You have several means at your disposal to do this, but it's up to you to do it.
Only if you show the significance of the outcome. Otherwise as in the deck example from the first post you are only addressing that a specific outcome is unlikely but nevertheless it has occurred.

In the deck example why must I show that the outcome was inevitable?
Jac3510 wrote:And why? Because when something highly improbable happens, the obvious explanation is design, as we have aptly demonstrated through cards, dice, and number guessing. In all of these, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT DESIGN IS LIKELY.
In all of these examples you have explicitly set a goal. Design is likely only because the desired outcome specifically stated was reached. In other words explicitly stating an outcome and then achieving it leads one to be dubious. The high improbability alone is meaningless.
Jac3510 wrote:The principle, then holds. In fact, it holds very strongly. You have admitted that when we add rolls, or guesses, or people, or whatever, then design is no longer likely. Why? Because the probability increases until it reaches near inevidable!
What you are trying to say is that because something is unlikely that there needs to be an explanation to make it more likely.

Again this is a possibility, but another possibility is that as in the deck example any of the possible outcomes has occurred and that forms the foundation for anything to follow.

In other words something can occur because it is likely or unlikely. Not all unlikely outcomes require an explanation to make it more reasonable for it to have occurred.

Do you have an explanation for the outcome of the deck example in the first post? Yet it did occur.
Jac3510 wrote:The only argument, then, you can say is, "Well we don't know in nature if there are the equivelant of more guesses, rolls, or people. Therefore, we can't conclude design."
No the other possibility is that because there is no specifically stated desired outcome that any of the outcomes are equally vaild.
Jac3510 wrote:Hey, I'm GREAT with that reply. Because, then, we can discuss specifics. I may not be able to prove a negative, but I'm OK with that. But you HAVE TO ADMIT THE PRINCIPLE IS CORRECT.
No again, without an explicit desired outcome any of the possible outcomes are equally valid. If it is even possible to know the possible outcomes.
Jac3510 wrote:Admit it . . . you're wrong, BGood. Just come on out and say that the improbability principle implies design. Let's hear it . . . come on ;)
Heh, no. Without out explicitly stating a desired outcome, all you have is an outcome with no significance than that it has occurred. In all your examples you are using a specific sequence. And stating that the specific sequence occuring is close to impossible. But what you are leaving out is that there is no significance to a specific sequence, and that there was no explicit mention of that specific sequence until after the fact.

Thus all you have is high improbability alone. Which implies nothing.
Refer back to the example of a deck with the cards flipped over one by one. Does the resulting sequence imply design?
Jac3510 wrote:Oh:
BGood wrote:heh, getting warmer
Are you really just doing this for the sake of arguing? I'm interested in a rational dialogue, not a meaningless argument, BGood.
No, even though I am arguing for the sake of argument because I find it enjoyable, beleive me when I say this: I am honestly being rational and honest in these enjoyable discussions.

:D
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

predagio
Newbie Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: The Cosmos
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#27

Post by predagio » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:13 pm

Chance is an illusion. All possible outcomes are probable and possible based on the relative transference of all energies surrounding the subjects in which the outcome is being measured. All energies, etheric, causal, mental, physical contribute to the randomization of entities of matter, or thought forms, into patterns, arrays and cycles, which are then measured, by device. Therefore, Probability, is an illusion, it is only a measuring tool and can not be used in any factual application. Any more questions?

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#28

Post by IRQ Conflict » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:29 pm

can not be used in any factual application. Any more questions?
Yes, actually. If we have a 6 sided die, all sides of which are ones, which number will appear on the next roll?

What 'tool' should then be used to express the outcome of possible scenarios if probability is nothing but an 'illusion'?
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

predagio
Newbie Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: The Cosmos
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#29

Post by predagio » Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:22 pm

The mind has the ability to comprehend on a multi-dimensional level, the energies associated with the rolling of the die. Observation with all senses, both the physical eye which is limited to observation by light, the ear which can pick up the frequency of sound that projects by nature of its movement up and down the scale of dbs which possible will fall next. The psychic bodies of the mind, the intuitive vibrational aura of the human, which understands the principles of the substructure of spiritual mechanisms that make movement of the die possible. Or a device that is highly sensitive to every movement of every photon of light that comes to pass toward, around and through the die, and the dynamics against the force of gravity, and the electro-magnetic currents that surround the die and apply it's force. These are the tools which should be used to predict the possible outcome. Also, a computer has the ability to simulate the movement of the die as it applies to many of these forces, and reach the solution. The problem with that is that, no computer that we have invented has a fast enough processor, or has the measuring devices attached necessary to view these. Many psychics who have developed those stratas of the mind ARE able to determine, before you even roll, by sensing, the rate and force that you will roll at. However, you probably arent entire open to these concepts, understanding, that TIME itself is an illusion, it's perception in a linear fashion. Because of our relationship on a dimensional plane to gravities, time is bent and percieved to us in smaller increments than it actually exists. So that the psychic mind, able to jump to a higher dimension. Can percieve that which my limited eye is not able to percieve before, and after, it has actually happened. So what I'm saying is, that probability is a man-made concept, because of his limited abilities of measurement, he created probability and chance. None of these things are actualities, accidents never happen. All things happen precisely when they are meant to, by the forces that manipulate them. We humor ourselves by betting and gambling, on probability by limited measurement. If probability were real or chance were static concepts, and not illusions, you would not be able to cheat.

Ofcourse in your example, you are using the logical mind, and the intuitive mind, the logical mind which constructs the die on a dimensional level, through its understanding of geometric principles, assigning the value of "6 sides". Then it assigns a circular numeric value of "1" dot, to each of those. The mind then takes a shortcut, through it's internal understanding of mathematical values, and deduces that if all 6 sides of the die are "1", then only "1" can be deduced. This is because the mind shortcuts between logic and intuition in each circumstance, to which would be most effective in whatever example is presented. In most cases the logical mind cannot deduce anything if the possible outcomes arent known, and even so would be slow, without the intuitive mind which is part of the cognitive spiritual experiance of the "higher mind" which can guess pretty accurately if it's in tune. These are survival devices. Any more questions?

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#30

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:03 pm

IRQ Conflict wrote:
can not be used in any factual application. Any more questions?
Yes, actually. If we have a 6 sided die, all sides of which are ones, which number will appear on the next roll?

What 'tool' should then be used to express the outcome of possible scenarios if probability is nothing but an 'illusion'?
Probability is an expression of what we do not know.

The philosophy of causality demands that probability remain by definition an expression of unknowns.

If we did know all the variables the probability would be reduced to 1 and the cause will be known.

Random events fall under the same philosophy.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Post Reply