Religion

[a13antichrist]

I think the odds were somthing like .00000000000001 in 10 Trillion.

Let's take your word on this for a second, OK? If the odds of any given planet having the right conditions, etc etc, were that number, i.e, 0.00000000000001x10^-13 P=0.000000000000000000000000001, then the probability of that planet NOT having those conditions is 1-P = 0.999999999999999999999999999. Now, the Probability of any two planets chosen at random NOT having the right conditions etc is

P1 x P2 = 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999999

=> 0.999999999999999999999999998.

For three planets?

P1 x P2 x P3 = 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999

=> x 0.999999999999999999999999997

So, the Probability [ P(x) ] of there NOT having the right conditions on Z number of planets is (0.999999999999999999999999999)^Z.

But the universe is infinite. So to find the P() that these conditions did not appear on ANY planet anywhere in the universe, we need to take

lim      (0.999999999999999999999999999)^Z
z -> oo

, which is of course 0. Therefore, it is CERTAIN, that no matter how small the probability of any given planet having those right conditions, in an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets, there WILL be at least one planet that has the right conditions for bearing life.


Q.E.D

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Let's take your word on this for a second, OK? If the odds of any given planet having the right conditions, etc etc, were that number, i.e, 0.00000000000001x10^-13 P=0.000000000000000000000000001, then the probability of that planet NOT having those conditions is 1-P = 0.999999999999999999999999999. Now, the Probability of any two planets chosen at random NOT having the right conditions etc is

P1 x P2 = 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999999

=> 0.999999999999999999999999998.

For three planets?

P1 x P2 x P3 = 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999999 x 0.999999999999999999999999

=> x 0.999999999999999999999999997

So, the Probability [ P(x) ] of there NOT having the right conditions on Z number of planets is (0.999999999999999999999999999)^Z.

But the universe is infinite. So to find the P() that these conditions did not appear on ANY planet anywhere in the universe, we need to take

lim      (0.999999999999999999999999999)^Z
z -> oo

, which is of course 0. Therefore, it is CERTAIN, that no matter how small the probability of any given planet having those right conditions, in an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets, there WILL be at least one planet that has the right conditions for bearing life.


Q.E.D

Assuming the universe really is infinite. Many think it is in fact...finite.

I think Einstein was one of them.

 

[MrBishop]

 

[MrBishop]

I believe that this red herring belongs in this thread. I found it as I walked in.

Since I'm just walking into a hot zone of arguements, may I ask a pertinent question to all of you?

Would you consider faith as the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or a belief in something for which YOU have no evidence?

I personally, have in my possesion, no evidence of the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs, evolution, or God.

If I believe in the existance of any of these...it is on faith (Either of science or religious dogma).

My faith is personal...as is yours.

I don't try and tread on other's faiths and accept the same in return.

Why does this seem like such a difficult thing to grasp?

 

[chcr]

Chcr- I hate to sound sarcastic but not every thing a person encounters in life came from the web. I read it in this thing that had soft white stuff made from tress with this printing stamped in it. I think it was called....umm...... A book.

Actually, I average about two to three books per week. I have 900+ in my library at home. I think you will find that yours is outdated. Remember the title, BTW? As we learn to see farther and farther out into the galaxy, we find that planetary systems are actually not that uncommon. In fact, I suspect that for any given number of stars in any given galaxy, a fairly constant percentage will be bound to have planetary systems. That's just a theory, and I probably won't live long enough to find out if it's true. What is true, in my experience anyway, is that by and large statistical analyses are highly influenced by the preconceptions of those who initiate them. I've been an atheist for more than thirty years, I have certainly heard the arguments, doesn't it seem unlikely that you'll change my mind.

 

[a13antichrist]

Yea maybe. I have some land in Nevada to sell you that I think will eventually be ocean front. Its a gamble but you seem like the type to go for it (joking).

We don't need to gamble. For us, the gamble has already been won.

It was years ago and Im 98% sure it was not a "pro-christian" book. It was an exert in a book about belief systems. The exert was written by a mathematician who had set out to prove that God doesnt exsist and against his hardest attempts at it he felt he had ended up proving (in his opinion) that God did exsist. Ive read similiar accounts and statements from virtually every field of science from Marine Biology to Chemestry, etc etc.

Accepted opinion of this work is that he made a critical mistake in his reasoning. He concluded that since he couldn't disprove it, it must be true. You can't prove that I'm not telepathic, even if you tested me, I could just say I'm not co-operating. However that doesn't prove that I AM telepathic, far from it. There are lots of things we can't prove but instead we can REASON that they are so unlikely we can conclude their non-existence. Nobody can PROVE there's no life on Venus, but we can be pretty sure there isn't. Nobody can PROVE directly that black holes exist, but we can be pretty sure they do.

The problem with trying to disprove God is that his roots are not set in a philosophy that obeys our laws of logic. ANY attempt to disprove him logically will fail. However, we can REASON that such a proposal is unlikely and hence discount it.

Above all else, it's a question of credibility. His existence requires ignoring rules we apply to everything else in the universe. We seem awfully OK with breaking them to accept such a being. We would have to do far less to accept the formation of life. The existence of any sort of superior being that is exempt from the laws of physics is insulting to the very nature of science.

People make a similar mistake to the one your famous mathematician made. In not having a definite answer to certain questions, they decide that it must be inexplicable, and hence "divine". If "Divine" is taken to mean "all that which we do not [yet] have the capacity to understand" then there's no problem. Attributing it all to a "higher power" is simply scape-goating your thoughts, which is why they gain no respect from me.

 

[a13antichrist]

Would you consider faith as the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or a belief in something for which YOU have no evidence?

I personally, have in my possesion, no evidence of the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs, evolution, or God.

If I have no reason to believe something then why would I waste my time believing it? The only answer is that we do it to make ourselves feel better - faith in the doctor that the op will go ok, faith in your partner that s/he won't cheat on you. If people are unable to stand on their own two feet and need a security blanket to get them through, well that's up to them. Doesn't mean I have to respect them for it though.
I prefer to know, or to accept that I don't know. If I don't know then I'll make sure I have trust in my doctor or my partner, but there's no-one to trust when it comes to God. Or the Big Bang for that matter, so I simply have to go with whichever one sounds the least ridiculous. It's not a hard choice.

 

[a13antichrist]

Assuming the universe really is infinite. Many think it is in fact...finite.

I think Einstein was one of them.

True. But given the scale we're talking about, that only changes the conclusion from "certain" to "very highly likely".

I love the impossibility of trying to visualise an open but finite universe. If you know what I'm talking about, you'll know what I'm talking about, if not, don't worry.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Well Im out of arguments.

"good times, good times"

I was just playing Devils advocate errrr....Gods Advocate anyway.

Sometimes I think I believe, sometimes Im not sure.

I usually just stick with my alien/star trek ideas though.


The idea that we just one the "galactic lottery" sure does seem to also require a great deal of "faith" to accept as fact.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

True. But given the scale we're talking about, that only changes the conclusion from "certain" to "very highly likely".

I love the impossibility of trying to visualise an open but finite universe. If you know what I'm talking about, you'll know what I'm talking about, if not, don't worry.

You dont have to visualize it, just remember the episode in Battle star Galactica when they flew into a "void" none of their insturments would work and there were no stars and it was as if they were just in an endless nothingness.

Or, the ending of MIB 1 with the light speed pull back from earth that shows our galaxy in kids marble.

 

[a13antichrist]

The idea that we just one the "galactic lottery" sure does seem to also require a great deal of "faith" to accept as fact.

Why? It's entirely logical. Someone had to win it. It's us quite simply because we're the ones that won it.

 

[a13antichrist]

You dont have to visualize it, just remember the episode in Battle star Galactica when they flew into a "void" none of their insturments would work and there were no stars and it was as if they were just in an endless nothingness.

Or, the ending of MIB 1 with the light speed pull back from earth that shows our galaxy in kids marble.

Like I'd watch Battle Star Galactica..

That's not it, anyway. Imagine the Earth. If you start in New York, jump in a hovercraft and take off in any direction you like. You cross Europe for example, Asia, the Pacific, and then the US and eventually, provided you haven't changed course, you arrive back in New York where you started.

Now transpose that idea to the universe, and try and picture it.. In your hovercraft you move in three dimensions, but travel in three. To escape the "infinity" of earth you have to travel perpendicular to your standard motion.. in that third dimension. By corollary, in the universe your motion is in 3D.. but you travel in four. ANd you could theoreticlly escape this universe by moving in that fourth dimension... .. . .

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Would you consider faith as the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or a belief in something for which YOU have no evidence?

Personally i believe their is evidence for the existance of god Though it lies in scientific theory. This is not however what i base my faith on. I believe for the most part however that god wants us to come to him by faith which is why there is no solid evidence to prove the existance of god. To find him we must look far beyond ourselves and step into a sea of uncomfortable humility.
I'm going to quote something from a previous post of mine that explains why i believe the existance of god can be proven theoretically.

The molecules are in motion. To believe in the laws of physics is to have faith in the notion that these laws are unchanging. They might change to a certian extent because we haven't understood them to their full extent, but we believe that there is always predictability within them. After all, how could anything exist within a state of chaos. Predictability and constants are what make life possible. If the molecules in my body acted differently than those in yours randomly than there would be nothing to stop one of our bodies from becoming a black hole or supernova. But physics doesn't work that way. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With this law we know that one neutron is not going to explode with the force of an exploding sun. It only has a certian amount of energy and that equals its mass X the speed of light squared or (299,792,458m/s2 ). This is how we can so accurately pridict if a comet is going to strike the earth from a trillian miles away(literally). It's not going to suddenly decide to make a 90o turn. If a body is in motion it is going to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The same goes for your body. Your body is similear to the universe. It's molecules are just like stars comets and planets. Each one has an orbit, momentum, & burns energy at its own predictable rate. That includes the chemicals in our brain, nerves & muscles etc. In other words, our bodies and minds are predestined. They follow the laws of physics. There is no willing our arm to pick up that cup of coffee. The molecules are already on that course. There is no changing or interfearing with the laws of physics. Ask any of the worlds leading physicists and they will tell you they are perplexed by this fact. I'm not telling you that their is a god, only that your will to do as you will is mearly an appearence.

So essentially my belief is that according to the laws of phyisics the human will is mearly an illusion. Yet since i believe we do have a will their must be some other uknown force making a will possible. Again, this is not something base my faith upon but it is something i believe.

 

[MrBishop]

If I have no reason to believe something then why would I waste my time believing it? The only answer is that we do it to make ourselves feel better -

So you have no faith. In anything, by your own admission.

I'm assuming that you believe in the sciences asa matter of fact, as opposed to having faith that the math and calculations of those called "Experts" are correct. Do the nice little scientificaly accepted theories make you feel better about the why's and wherefore's of reality as we know it?

I'm agnostic in nature. Prove it to me, and I shall believe.

I can admit that I have to believe in the sciences, because I do not have the knowledge or skill to prove it for myself.

In addition, I do not have the knowledge or skill to even attempt to prove the existance of God to you, or anyone else for that matter.

I have faith in the sciences...I have faith in the existance of God. It makes me feel better. I'll admit it. I doubt that it's a waste of my time.

I also don't believe that by disbelieving in the existance of a supreme being, that you should, with the same blow,discount everythign that religion and it's dogma has given to society as a whole.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater A13...it's a waste!

 

[AlladinSane]

...the question rather becomes "prove that he does exist".

I can't, Just like you can't prove otherwise

Well for a start, to permit his existence you have to employ all sorts of physical-law-breaking exceptions.

What physical laws. The ones we currently know? If I have told you on the middle ages the earth was round, you would have called me a retard, because by the physical laws known them if the earth was rounded we would fall in to the void. That's because gravity was not known by then, despite being felt by everyone every day. But if the earth was never perceived as rounded, it would never have been conceived as a body, and probably gravity theory would never have been formulated(?)

He clearly doesn't exist in the physical world. In a logical world, he does not exist.

Did you expect him to be made of tangible matter? If God created the world, he is omni-powerful and a perfect being. If he's perfect, he is immutable(unchangeble?), because if it could change it could not be perfect. If he's immutable it cannot be part of the universe as we know, because matter is affectable by changes. If he was tangible he wouldn't be God, therefore.

As this is the only world of which we have any indication of existence, there is utterly no logical basis on which to claim his existence.

I've seen my share of phenomens(?) with no logical evidence. People that can see and communicate with spirits. That can under their influence talk about things that they would not know otherwise, speak in strange languages they never knew. I have witnessed myself excerpts from previous lives. All of that can't be proven by scientifical means. I can a)make believe they never happened b)create/apply extraordinary scientifical explanations that cannot be explainable themselves c)accept that there are things that can't be understood in their essence by now. I chose the later because opening my mind to them is the best way to experience and investigate them and to pursue the truth.
What I'm trying to say is this is no BMW x Mini question, you can't really judge over this matter efficiently...

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Like I'd watch Battle Star Galactica..

That's not it, anyway. Imagine the Earth. If you start in New York, jump in a hovercraft and take off in any direction you like. You cross Europe for example, Asia, the Pacific, and then the US and eventually, provided you haven't changed course, you arrive back in New York where you started.

Now transpose that idea to the universe, and try and picture it.. In your hovercraft you move in three dimensions, but travel in three. To escape the "infinity" of earth you have to travel perpendicular to your standard motion.. in that third dimension. By corollary, in the universe your motion is in 3D.. but you travel in four. ANd you could theoreticlly escape this universe by moving in that fourth dimension... .. . .

Well I dont really have a very good understanding of this fourth dimension so I am not sure how you escape. You have the x axis, the y axis and the z axis. What is the 4th?

Unless your talking some kind of space time phased paralleral energy stuff.

Ok I admit I was never good at physics and math.

 

[chcr]

The fourth dimension is time. A lot of people seem to think it only runs in one direction, and at a constant rate. I'm not so certain. I think the question is, what happens if you hare off in a perpendicular direction of time? This may not be what a13 was driving at.

 

[a13antichrist]

I myself am not totally sure what I was driving at but I think you're right, it's sorta in there somewhere..

On the other hand it could be something related to moving perpendicular to the curvature of space, random thought though..

 

[chcr]

Isn't there a current theory regarding six dimensions? It seems I read something about it not too long ago. Might or might not have something to do with string theory...

Umm... Did this thread get highjacked?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Speaking of dodging the question, still waiting for your reply on your choking agents.

You can interpret an opinion you don't like as anger if that makes you feel better. Some choose religion, others choose the -head-in-the-sand technique, it's all the same in the end.

When you come up with a good argument, instead of quibbling over the details, then I'll answer your question on choking agents.

As for the 'head in the sand', I believe yours was exposed for everyone here to see. You are a bigot by your own admission. Don't even try to ask me to prove it, because everybody here sees it. Not only that, but you are arrogant, pompous, and close-minded to whatever doesn't fit into your personal 'belief' system. Your 'opinion' was anger, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw it. When you eventually grow up, you may see it for what it is, or you will continue to bury your head in books, hoping to find your answer. Just remember one important thing...people make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes take years to uncover. Especially with hard sciences.