Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Then is there nothing that is impossible?

Of course not. I'll let you try to think of some examples. But in the the case which came up there is some slim chance (less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power). But by definition it is still possible; there is always that 1 in 10 to the 50th plus power possibility.
I am really confused by why people have a problem with this. How can you give odds on something and then turn around and say it is impossible ?

Luke 18:27

I don't see how something that demands for the 2ndlaw of thermodynamics to not hold true for several billion years on earth is impossible...not just improbable.

There really should be no confusion.

Possibility: Can something occur within theoretical context of mathematical or statistical information?

Probability: Can something be expected to occur with known given variables and respect to mathematical or statistical information?

Is it possible that life occurred as a direct consequence of primordial soups? Yes. The numbers clearly state that it is theoretically possible.

Is it probable that life occurred as a direct consequence of primordial soups? No. Although numbers point to a possibility, the sheer variance of necessary materials joining in a non-destructive, productive, recombinable sequence is decisively nil when added to known, physically observed laws of the system.

Where'd you go to? I'm saying that you can't have an explanation violate a well established law. And if you do, all you can do is use special pleading, which is a fallacy

BGood:

Sorry Mystical this is incorrect.

No, I'm sorry, but it is not.

Wrong again by definition Sandy is correct.

Wrong again. Sandy is incorrect.

So 10 ^ 50 is not impossible.

Yes it is, my friend.

That's your position obviously, Sandy's point is that the term impossible is being used incorrectly in this case. And I wholey agree.

I'm sorry that you agree with sandy, but agreement doesn't make you right. Let me explain: It is actually you who are misusing the term "impossible" with your postition. Extending the limits/avenues of "impossibility" by applying theoretical constructs does not make the concept a reality. It is theory only. In theory, anything is posible. Why, I could wake up tomorrow and be a giant, purple dinosaur. However, logic allows us to employ a more reasonable, dialectical understanding of reality and the reality of impossibility. Denying logic does not create reality. 10 to the 50th is impossible, whether you agree or not.

Mystical wrote: Extending the limits/avenues of "impossibility" by applying theoretical constructs does not make the concept a reality. It is theory only. In theory, anything is posible. Why, I could wake up tomorrow and be a giant, purple dinosaur. However, logic allows us to employ a more reasonable, dialectical understanding of reality and the reality of impossibility. Denying logic does not create reality. 10 to the 50th is impossible, whether you agree or not.

Impossible means it can not happen. Squaring the circle is impossible. Can we agree that impossible means something absolutely cannot happen, or are you using a different definition of impossible ?

Maybe you're using a different definition, or maybe more than one definition? I've already stated mine. Have you finally decided on yours?

Mystical wrote:

BGood wrote:So 10 ^ 50 is not impossible.

Yes it is, my friend. ... Let me explain: It is actually you who are misusing the term "impossible" with your postition. Extending the limits/avenues of "impossibility" by applying theoretical constructs does not make the concept a reality. ... Denying logic does not create reality. 10 to the 50th is impossible, whether you agree or not.

Consider the probabilities involved in tossing a coin, where we will assume that the odds are 50:50 for heads:tails.
What are the odds of tossing heads n times in a row ? 1 in 2 to the nth power.
n=1 2^n = 2^1 = 2; the odds are 1 in 2
n=2 2^n = 2^2 = 4; the odds are 1 in 4
n=3 2^n = 2^3 = 8; the odds are 1 in 8 of tossing heads on 3 tosses
...
n=100 2^n = 2^100 ~ 1.27 x 10^30; the odds are pretty low for 100 heads in a row
...
n=166 2^n = 2^166 ~ 9.35 x 10^49
n=167 2^n = 2^167 ~ 1.87 x 10^50

According to the logic of the "10^50 is impossible" contingent, we see that it is possible (although highly unlikely) to toss 166 heads in a row. However, according to the same logic, it is impossible to toss 167 heads in a row as the odds are now worse than 1 in 10^50. Does anyone here really believe this ? That after 166 heads in a row, the probability for the next toss is 0% heads, 100% tails ?

sandy_mcd wrote: According to the logic of the "10^50 is impossible" contingent, we see that it is possible (although highly unlikely) to toss 166 heads in a row. However, according to the same logic, it is impossible to toss 167 heads in a row as the odds are now worse than 1 in 10^50. Does anyone here really believe this ? That after 166 heads in a row, the probability for the next toss is 0% heads, 100% tails ?

Have you ever met anyone who tossed even 20 in a row? Tossing around ridiculous chance as an alternative to a creator is an exercise in the absurd.

dad wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: According to the logic of the "10^50 is impossible" contingent, we see that it is possible (although highly unlikely) to toss 166 heads in a row. However, according to the same logic, it is impossible to toss 167 heads in a row as the odds are now worse than 1 in 10^50. Does anyone here really believe this ? That after 166 heads in a row, the probability for the next toss is 0% heads, 100% tails ?

Have you ever met anyone who tossed even 20 in a row? Tossing around ridiculous chance as an alternative to a creator is an exercise in the absurd.

Quite to the contrary. Being overly indoctrinated to the point of obviating the value of the theoretical constructs in the learning process is absurdity.

Case in point: A dog can smell, pick up a scent, as long as there is 1 particle in 7 billion that carries an odor. Unfortunately, math is not a particular acumen of mine, so if sandy or someone else would like to show the theoretical mathematical expression of that statement, it would be helpful. (1 in 10^n, where 10^n represents the billions of particles)

Theoreticals, especially in mathematics, help us to apply logic where it is needed. Either as a statement of possibility or plausibility, it teaches us the boundaries of our universe and our epistemic functions.

It is both a learning tool, and is often used in negative testing to eliminate data that is not likely plausible.

Plus, no one that I noticed, deduced from the theoreticals any proof that the existence of a Divine Creator was impossible.

Perhaps we should avoid attacking individuals and just stick to the contentions represented in the posts.

Mastriani wrote:..
Quite to the contrary. Being overly indoctrinated to the point of obviating the value of the theoretical constructs in the learning process is absurdity.

No, dreaming up dumb chances is absurd.

Case in point: A dog can smell, pick up a scent, as long as there is 1 particle in 7 billion that carries an odor.

God made em with good noses, no cards or coin tosses needed.

Theoreticals, especially in mathematics, help us to apply logic where it is needed.

God doesn't play dice with the universe.

Either as a statement of possibility or plausibility, it teaches us the boundaries of our universe and our epistemic functions.

Mostly idle dreaming.

It is both a learning tool, and is often used in negative testing to eliminate data that is not likely plausible.

It has it's uses in the here and now, yes.

Plus, no one that I noticed, deduced from the theoreticals any proof that the existence of a Divine Creator was impossible.

Your numbers aren't that big, and you don't know how to use the ones you do have!

dad wrote:

Mastriani wrote:..
Quite to the contrary. Being overly indoctrinated to the point of obviating the value of the theoretical constructs in the learning process is absurdity.

No, dreaming up dumb chances is absurd.

Case in point: A dog can smell, pick up a scent, as long as there is 1 particle in 7 billion that carries an odor.

God made em with good noses, no cards or coin tosses needed.

Theoreticals, especially in mathematics, help us to apply logic where it is needed.

God doesn't play dice with the universe.

Either as a statement of possibility or plausibility, it teaches us the boundaries of our universe and our epistemic functions.

Mostly idle dreaming.

It is both a learning tool, and is often used in negative testing to eliminate data that is not likely plausible.

It has it's uses in the here and now, yes.

Plus, no one that I noticed, deduced from the theoreticals any proof that the existence of a Divine Creator was impossible.

Your numbers aren't that big, and you don't know how to use the ones you do have!

If you are going to refute backed information, please do so in an elucidating manner, and not with statements of preference and personal bias. You have made no summarizing refutations based on information, data, knowledge, or facts. You have just taken an antithetical stance to my suppositions, which are supported.

Mastriani wrote:...Plus, no one that I noticed, deduced from the theoreticals any proof that the existence of a Divine Creator was impossible.



If you are going to refute backed information, please do so in an elucidating manner, and not with statements of preference and personal bias. You have made no summarizing refutations based on information, data, knowledge, or facts. You have just taken an antithetical stance to my suppositions, which are supported.

This isn't backed information, that there is no God. You have not even any idea how to apply numbers to this question. You are a phoney, sorry to break it to ya. Maybe you have some good ideas, somewhere, but not here.