Evidence for God from Science

Blob wrote:

Byblos wrote:If you look at the least fine-tuned example (maximum deviation in the ratio of electrons to protons) it is mind-boggling to see that it is 1 in 10 ** 37 (to the power 37).

In other words, what science is telling us is that the probability of that happening is so infinitesimal that it can be considered virtually impossible.

Yet here we are.

By that probability either we are not here or the calculation is flawed.

And as you point out, here we are.

Felgar wrote:The fundamental question here, is whether anything is simply a matter of chance, or whether 'chance' is merely our human perception of unpredictable results due to incomplete information. I agree with August - there is no chance in the coin toss; Newtonian physics allows us to predict the toss accurately if we can appropriately measure the variables.

Blob wrote:I thought you might!

I take the second option.

Now what we need is a nihilist to post in favour of the first option (we don't exist) and we'd have the full spectrum of opinion.

Blob wrote:Now what we need is a nihilist to post

Byblos wrote: Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

August wrote:

When we don't do the measurements, what we mean by chance is that the unknown conditions over a multiple trials do not favor one way or the other.

So then there is not really something such as chance, just a lack of measurement?

Felgar wrote:The fundamental question here, is whether anything is simply a matter of chance, or whether 'chance' is merely our human perception of unpredictable results due to incomplete information. I agree with August - there is no chance in the coin toss; Newtonian physics allows us to predict the toss accurately if we can appropriately measure the variables.

In the past there have been many things deemed as chance that were merely not yet understood. The appearance of comets for instance, were once thought unpreditable but now we know better - we have learned the variables and how to measure them. Currenlty the realm of quantum physics seems unpredictable, but perhaps our understanding is simply too limitted. Or perhaps it's by design that chance occurs at a lower level in order to bring order out of chaos... I don't really know.

Regardless, what is the point of this thread? What assertion are you making BGood?

August wrote:

Your confusing the term removing variables.
The force variable was removed because it was measured and set.

I think we are talking past each other here, but don't tell me I'm confused. Go and read my first post on this topic to see what I meant by variables.

The force to make the coin spin was not removed. The fact that it was measured means that we knew the value of the variable, but the force to make the coin spin remains as one of the variables that will determine the outcome, as does the weight of the coin, for example.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

No I can take practically any example and multiply the probabilities until I get rediculous numbers, to make anything impossible.

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

No I can take practically any example and multiply the probabilities until I get rediculous numbers, to make anything impossible.

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

The flaw in the above logic is that yes, the chances of me personally being conceived are '1 to 1 googlebazillion' but the chances of a grandchild being conceived from a given set of grandparents are much, much greater. The analogy does not fit because the example I referenced does not leave room for 'alternate' life forms if certain conditions were different. It clearly supposes (and that is well established by science) that any other possibility other than the red dime being picked and life as we know it would not have been possible. That is the difference in our models, you're saying any number of things could have happened and I'm saying only 1 out of 10**37 did happen, and it happened only out of one pick.

Blob wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But on the other hand, the fact that it is always this way may be due to supernatural interference determining order in an otherwise chaotic universe?

That which can interfere with the universe is by definition natural.

puritan lad wrote:However, if the result of the coin flip are calculated based on the height, velocity, angle, and angular momentum, and the coin tosser is skilled enough to replicate these calculated values, then of course the "chance" is really no longer a chance. That's a lot of trouble to go through for a cookie

Jbuza wrote:

Blob wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But on the other hand, the fact that it is always this way may be due to supernatural interference determining order in an otherwise chaotic universe?

That which can interfere with the universe is by definition natural.

Supernatural has long been a term that was simply applied to what we don't understand, it is not that it isn't a natural phenomenon of the reality of things, it is just that our Theory doesn't explain it. An evolutionist might call The influence of God on the universe supernatural, while I might call missing links supernatural, or science fiction really. Lets see how does this relate to the coin.

From one perspective one of the variables could be the influence on the coin by God, and from the other will the coin become a bowling ball before it lands. ooops

Rather that is to say we perhaps can not really know the entirety of the variables even in the laboratory setting.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

It doesn't matter if its the same variables or multiple the chances are only a calculation yet here we are!

All this does is prove your ability to calculate probabilities.
It doesn't make something impossible.