Page 86 of 88 [ 1403 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88  Next


Do you believe God exists?
1) God is a being, that one can have a personal relationship. A person God. 30%  30%  [ 55 ]
2) God is an impersonal force that guides reality as it is. He decrees our laws of physics, but does not intervene to break them. 12%  12%  [ 22 ]
3) God does not exist. Reality can be explained by scientific inquiry and the scientific method in by itself. 33%  33%  [ 61 ]
4) I am not sure. There is the possibility that God does exist, or does not. We must follow the preponderance of evidence when drawing our conclusion. 25%  25%  [ 47 ]
Total votes : 185

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 11:13 am

Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

17 Jun 2016, 12:42 pm

AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.

They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Given X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.

See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"

So, it's very murky.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdf



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

17 Jun 2016, 4:53 pm

I will say my prayers before exploring the universe while eating a burrito.

My waiters name is E. Witten.

With tongue in cheek and burrito

Shalom brother Zvi


_________________
Still too old to know it all


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 5:07 pm

AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


horses**t, ever heard of Bayesian probability? Tell Bayesian cosmologists like Joe Silk, George Ellis etc. that their 'statistics' are BS! Expose them for what they are! You are more intelligent then they are anyways!


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Last edited by Deltaville on 17 Jun 2016, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 5:10 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.

They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Given X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.

See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"

So, it's very murky.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdf


Thank you for showing the results, this is bayesian probability, something that ignorant AspE never heard of.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

17 Jun 2016, 7:41 pm

Deltaville wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.

They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Given X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.

See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"

So, it's very murky.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdf


Reverend Bayes must be turning over in his grave....


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 11:56 pm

Here is a video of Roger Penrose explaining the probability of our Big Bang's low entropy level state, no technical terms so I think AspE would be able to grasp it.



Of course he will deny there is any probability. I speculate that he might be a little too insecure with his atheism. ;)

'If you were to put every zero on every single particle in the observable universe, you'd be way short....'


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Last edited by Deltaville on 18 Jun 2016, 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 11:58 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.

They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Given X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.

See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"

So, it's very murky.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdf


Reverend Bayes must be turning over in his grave....


No it is correct, but there are some flaws with the first premise, I confess.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Jun 2016, 12:07 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

You can't. Your statistics are BS.


It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.

They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Given X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.

See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"

So, it's very murky.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdf


Reverend Bayes must be turning over in his grave....


If you are critical of the probability calculations ...

You should note that atheist physicists like Hawking concede that the universe is fine tuned to permit life.

"Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

The atheists counter that 1) String theory predicts the multi-verse, and 2) We got very, very, very, very ..... lucky, and we are in one of the life permitting universes within the multi-verse.

That is how powerful the probability argument is.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Jun 2016, 9:11 am

If there is a multiverse, or just a sequence of single universes, we aren't lucky at all.



Grischa
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 401

20 Jun 2016, 9:38 am

Aspe, your last post (and avatar) is confusing?



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Jun 2016, 11:07 am

That's Morgan Freeman going through a wormhole.

So, if there is a multiverse, it doesn't mean we are lucky enough to find ourselves in a universe that harbors life, it means that if a universe can harbor life, it probably will. All life will tend to find itself evolving in a situation advantageous to life.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

20 Jun 2016, 11:32 am

Nietzsche had a character( called Madman) say God is dead. Nietzsche also wrote/said that the 20th century would become the bloodiest century in history, because of the philosophical ramifications of the death of god. Also...then we are going to live either with megalomania or erotomania: the drive for pleasure or the drive for power, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner. It's exactly what happened.
So how did we get here? We got here starting off by killing god, then killing ethics, now we are killing men."
Ravi Z

In the 60's we had sex drugs and Rock.
What do we have now.

As far as our home The Lord is still welcome

Peace.
Zvi Arey


_________________
Still too old to know it all


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Jun 2016, 12:03 pm

You sure about that?

History and the Decline of Human Violence

Also, Hitler's army went to war with "God is with us" on their belt buckles.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Jun 2016, 12:17 pm

..."It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters."

...
Conditional probability assumes that the event in question happened more than once. But we don't know that. I agree it's nice to assume so because you can make a calculation, but if it happens more than once, it can happen an infinite number of times, which means all combinations of variables (if they are indeed variables) will occur.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

20 Jun 2016, 3:24 pm

Many people have abused The Bible and Statistics(aka numbers)

Statistics was one of the few classes I needed all night era in college.

Number 9
Number 9
Number 9
Number 9
Number 9
Me taking a right turn at an Abnormal Pychology Class after an Analytical Trig and Calculus morning. ....
Everything I know may be wrong
Numer 9
Number 9

Me a name .....


_________________
Still too old to know it all