Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Occams Barber]

This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurance because it already happened".

The odds of such an event occuring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.

When it comes to gambling and odds humans are notoriously capable of wrong thinking. This particular issue is just one of several Gambler's Fallacies which affect us all from time to time.

As an example: what are the odds of drawing a Royal Flush in poker compared to the odds of drawing a no-value hand (say) 2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D? 9 out of 10 people will give you the wrong answer.

Basically you've now had 4 or 5 people trying to explain this odds thing to you. You can continue to insist you're right or you could spend a little time thinking about it.

Once a horse race is over what are the odds on the winner winning?

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

For me, I think this question is more directed toward purpose and reason than it is even necessarily a matter of being about God.

OK. You completely avoided my pointing out that the existence of life does not prove (or even suggest) the existence of God.

Haven't you ever looked at yourself in a mirror and asked yourself the question "why am I here?". Have you not considered the possibility that perhaps you are here for more and aren't merely a product of truly random chance?

I considered the ''reason' for life' question over 50 years ago. I recall I was 18 and on a train to Melbourne at the time. In one of those rare moments of blinding intuition I realised that the problem wasn't in finding the answer - it was in the question. The question assumes that there must be a reason or purpose for life. Once you realise that there doesn't need to be a purpose or reason, the rest falls into place. I'd never been a Christian but that recollection marks the point where the last serious question about god belief was finally resolved.

The question goes beyond the theory of evolution. Because even evolution itself is subject to the same questions of purpose and meaning. Why are there things such as convergent evolution that drive us to become intelligent to begin with? We don't have to be intelligent (as seen in other life forms), the universe doesn't have to exist in any fashion in which we might live (as we see in much of the universe that isn't hospitable). And yet here we are.

Convergent evolution doesn't drive us to be anything, including intelligent. Convergent evolution is where two (or more) separate evolutionary processes produce a similar result. Eyes and wings are two examples.

The reason you value intelligence over strength or speed or any number of attributes is because you're biased - your a human. Crocodiles have lived for millennia in more or less the same shape. Arguably they are much more successful than humans. If we go by numbers, the organisational ability of an ant colony beats humans hands down.

I think we can safely add Evolution to Statistics on the list of things you think you understand - but really don't.

It's not even about God. It's a question of where your heart is.

My heart is where its always been, On the left side of my chest. I'm not impressed by emotional non-sequiturs

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

Haven't you ever looked at yourself in a mirror and asked yourself the question "why am I here?".

Sure, and then I remember why I went into the bathroom or I don't and leave only to remember 30 seconds later.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sure, and then I remember why I went into the bathroom or I don't and leave only to remember 30 seconds later.

You wouldn't believe it!

I have exactly the same problem.

OB

EDIT: I checked with my Doctor. Apparently this form of forgetfulness is rare and only affects very, very intelligent people.

 

[Bradskii]

For me, I think this question is more directed toward purpose and reason than it is even necessarily a matter of being about God.

Haven't you ever looked at yourself in a mirror and asked yourself the question "why am I here?". Have you not considered the possibility that perhaps you are here for more and aren't merely a product of truly random chance?

The chances of your parents meeting and both surviving up to the point where you were conceived were ridiculously small. Now multiply that by a few generations worth of people. All your great parents needing to meet the exact person they did and have a child that was your grandparent. Now extrapolate that just a million years and think of all the things that had to happen exactly as they did for you to be sitting there reading this. It's literally infinity to one against it happening.

Yet it did.

So has the universe been specifically designed so that you personally will be one of the results of a few billion years worth of physical and biological evolution? Are you that special or are you just someone who happened to have one winning ticket in the celestial lottery?

'Cos those are the only two options. Just like a state lottery. If you win, did you get lucky or was it all specifically designed so that you'd win? It's obviously the former. But you don't seem to accept that principle when it comes to the 'celestial lottery'.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, and then I remember why I went into the bathroom or I don't and leave only to remember 30 seconds later.

I get that problem with the fridge quite a lot - I stand there and wonder what the hell it was I wanted. I generally grab a beer so it wasn't a wasted trip.

 

[Job 33:6]

The chances of your parents meeting and both surviving up to the point where you were conceived were ridiculously small. Now multiply that by a few generations worth of people. All your great parents needing to meet the exact person they did and have a child that was your grandparent. Now extrapolate that just a million years and think of all the things that had to happen exactly as they did for you to be sitting there reading this. It's literally infinity to one against it happening.

Yet it did.

So has the universe been specifically designed so that you personally will be one of the results of a few billion years worth of physical and biological evolution? Are you that special or are you just someone who happened to have one winning ticket in the celestial lottery?

'Cos those are the only two options. Just like a state lottery. If you win, did you get lucky or was it all specifically designed so that you'd win? It's obviously the former. But you don't seem to accept that principle when it comes to the 'celestial lottery'.

Your analogy relating to me existing still doesn't size up to the larger question of why. Why such a system would be in place for me to even be a possibility or for me to have the option to win the lottery to begin with.

But as mentioned above, it doesn't have to be about God at all. Much less a Christian God or any intelligent designer. It's more of a larger question of purpose and meaning.

 

[Job 33:6]

When it comes to gambling and odds humans are notoriously capable of wrong thinking. This particular issue is just one of several Gambler's Fallacies which affect us all from time to time.

As an example: what are the odds of drawing a Royal Flush in poker compared to the odds of drawing a no-value hand (say) 2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D? 9 out of 10 people will give you the wrong answer.

Basically you've now had 4 or 5 people trying to explain this odds thing to you. You can continue to insist you're right or you could spend a little time thinking about it.

Once a horse race is over what are the odds on the winner winning?

OB

What Are The Odds of a Royal Flush? - Upswing Poker

"The odds of making a five-card royal flush out of a 52-card deck are 4/2,598,960. "

There is no such thing as a no value hand, though a hand with no valuable combination of cards that ends with just a high card would be 1,296,420/2,598,960.

Your horse race question seems to ignore odds before the race is won. Why is that?

 

[Job 33:6]

I considered the ''reason' for life' question over 50 years ago. I recall I was 18 and on a train to Melbourne at the time. In one of those rare moments of blinding intuition I realised that the problem wasn't in finding the answer - it was in the question. The question assumes that there must be a reason or purpose for life. Once you realise that there doesn't need to be a purpose or reason, the rest falls into place.

I think this is a strange position to hold. To say there is no purpose, no meaning, things simply are as they are for no apparent reason chance.

Convergent evolution doesn't drive us to be anything, including intelligent. Convergent evolution is where two (or more) separate evolutionary processes produce a similar result. Eyes and wings are two examples.

Which demonstrates a mechanism which drives us toward having things such as eyes and wings, and also a brain. How can you say that these mechanisms do not drive us to become anything but then turn and acknowledge that these mechanisms have driven various species to a similar end result?

I would say that these mechanisms clearly do drive species to acquire abilities, ultimately including intelligence.

The alternative would be chance behind even just having such systems in place to begin with.

The reason you value intelligence over strength or speed or any number of attributes is because you're biased - your a human. Crocodiles have lived for millennia in more or less the same shape. Arguably they are much more successful than humans. If we go by numbers, the organisational ability of an ant colony beats humans hands down.

Even strength and speed are abilities in which species have been driven toward. As opposed to an alternative in which no mechanism exists at all.

It's safe to say that you don't see the heart issue at play here.

I think we can safely add Evolution to Statistics on the list of things you think you understand - but really don't.

Of course this is just an ad hominem.

I think you're overlooking the heart issue here. You've reached a point where it doesn't matter what organization you see in the universe, and it doesn't matter to you that we have the intelligence to unwrap these topics, rather it's all just meaningless chance. No reason nor rhyme. No purpose.

I mean, why even live if there is no purpose? You feel driven to live and to survive. But these driving factors, in your mind, even themselves have no meaning or purpose, no direction. They just are as they are for no apparent reason.

Maybe you could say that you live perhaps to experience joy while you eat delicious foods or watch a sunset by the beach. But why even bother if it's just chance without meaning or purpose?

When I go to play a game of baseball, I play with interests in winning, interests in becoming a stronger and better player, interests in developing skills.

Your view is like appearing in the middle of a baseball game, no reason or rhyme for the game even existing to begin with, no reason behind you even being in the game, no trophy or skill development accomplishment or trophy at the end, everything in the end just disappears and was for nothing.

 

[jacknife]

What Are The Odds of a Royal Flush? - Upswing Poker

"The odds of making a five-card royal flush out of a 52-card deck are 4/2,598,960. "

There is no such thing as a no value hand, though a hand with no valuable combination of cards that ends with just a high card would be 1,296,420/2,598,960.

Your horse race question seems to ignore odds before the race is won. Why is that?

Because if the race is already over I can tell you who won with 100% accuracy.

 

[pitabread]

Your view is like appearing in the middle of a baseball game, no reason or rhyme for the game even existing to begin with, no reason behind you even being in the game, no trophy or skill development accomplishment or trophy at the end, everything in the end just disappears and was for nothing.

Does life have to be about goals? Can one not simply enjoy the journey?

 

[partinobodycular]

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.

Why would one conclude that the supernatural gave rise to the physical, when the opposite seems much more plausible, that the physical gave rise to the supernatural.

I can think of a number of supernatural things, like love, and faith, and hope, and even God. And it's easy for me to see how a mind might be capable of giving rise to such things, because even my own mind does that. It gives rise to love, and faith, and hope, and all manner of "supernatural" things. But what I find much more difficult to conceive is how love, or faith, or anything else supernatural can give rise to the physical. It's hard to see how the supernatural gives rise to the physical, but somewhat easier to see how the physical gives rise to the supernatural.

Unless, there really isn't anything physical at all, and the mind creates it all.

 

[Ophiolite]

So has the universe been specifically designed so that you personally will be one of the results of a few billion years worth of physical and biological evolution? Are you that special or are you just someone who happened to have one winning ticket in the celestial lottery?

We are all at the centre of our own personal universe. Unfortunately some people confuse the personal universe with the universe at large.

I think this is a strange position to hold. To say there is no purpose, no meaning, things simply are as they are for no apparent reason chance.

I am taken aback. You have been an active member here for some considerable time. You must have seen this view expressed frequently, by many members. It is my perception that it is the default position of most atheists and many agnostics. I am therefore astounded that you would call the position "strange".

The alternative would be chance behind even just having such systems in place to begin with.

And clearly you have a problem with that. Would it help to tell you that it is chance working within certain constraints, related to the nature of the fundamental particles, forces and constants?

Of course this is just an ad hominem.

I suggest not. Your views, as expressed, do not align with current evolutionary theory. It is, therefore, a valid criticism to say you do not understand evolutionary theory. I think it would be more nuanced to say you appear not to understand some of the conclusions that arise from current evolutionary theory.

I mean, why even live if there is no purpose? You feel driven to live and to survive. But these driving factors, in your mind, even themselves have no meaning or purpose, no direction. They just are as they are for no apparent reason.

The logic you are using here is: I don't like the idea that life has no purpose. That is unattractive, disheartening and a little frightening, therefore I reject the idea that there is no purpose.

Logic doesn't work like that. The universe doesn't work like that.

What surprises me is that you seem unaware that you can make your own purpose. You are an independent entity. You decide what is important. You set the goals. Then go for them. Surely that is a much more satisfying purpose than one imposed from without. (Especially if the external purpose is imposed by an omniscient being who apparently knows in advance whether you will succeed or fail and seemingly will do nothing to prevent the failure.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

What Are The Odds of a Royal Flush? - Upswing Poker

"The odds of making a five-card royal flush out of a 52-card deck are 4/2,598,960. "

There is no such thing as a no value hand, though a hand with no valuable combination of cards that ends with just a high card would be 1,296,420/2,598,960.

and for Occam's Barber's hand of "2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D", there is only 1 in 2,598,960 possible hands. The royal flush has four was to form as there are four suits you can make it with.

Your horse race question seems to ignore odds before the race is won. Why is that?

The odds beforehand are irrelevant after the event happens.

The odds of getting "2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D" after you've already been dealt cards is either "1" because that is your hand or "0" because it isn't.

 

[Job 33:6]

and for Occam's Barber's hand of "2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D", there is only 1 in 2,598,960 possible hands. The royal flush has four was to form as there are four suits you can make it with.



The odds beforehand are irrelevant after the event happens.

The odds of getting "2D, 4S,7S, JH, 9D" after you've already been dealt cards is either "1" because that is your hand or "0" because it isn't.

This seems like it ignores probability prior to events occuring.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This seems like it ignores probability prior to events occuring.

Do you know the Monty Hall Problem?

 

[Job 33:6]

I am taken aback. You have been an active member here for some considerable time. You must have seen this view expressed frequently, by many members. It is my perception that it is the default position of most atheists and many agnostics. I am therefore astounded that you would call the position "strange".

I'm not sure that I've ever investigated the atheist position in such a way. I do genuinely find it strange.

And clearly you have a problem with that. Would it help to tell you that it is chance working within certain constraints, related to the nature of the fundamental particles, forces and constants?

Forces and constants that so too are as they are by, what the atheist position appears to conclude, chance.

This doesn't really change the situation.

I suggest not. Your views, as expressed, do not align with current evolutionary theory. It is, therefore, a valid criticism to say you do not understand evolutionary theory. I think it would be more nuanced to say you appear not to understand some of the conclusions that arise from current evolutionary theory.

They're just ad hominems. You appear to prefer speaking about me moreso than of the topic. It's ok though, I won't take it personally.

The logic you are using here is: I don't like the idea that life has no purpose. That is unattractive, disheartening and a little frightening, therefore I reject the idea that there is no purpose.

The idea you're proposing is that there is no reason, nor rhyme, nor purpose, and that it is all just blind luck that there is intelligent life and order. It's not about me fearing anything, I just think it's an unreasonable conclusion to make, given the order we see in the universe.

I wonder if you fear something about this conclusion you've come to. Perhaps that's why you've mentioned it.

What surprises me is that you seem unaware that you can make your own purpose. You are an independent entity. You decide what is important. You set the goals. Then go for them. Surely that is a much more satisfying purpose than one imposed from without. (Especially if the external purpose is imposed by an omniscient being who apparently knows in advance whether you will succeed or fail and seemingly will do nothing to prevent the failure.)

I would wonder though, why you would feel compelled to even plan out or to make your own purpose for living?

I would guess that you might believe that it is just pure chance, luck, or otherwise just a random result, that has brought you to a position in which you would even be able to contemplate creating your own meaning for life.

Someone could say "well, I want to live a happy life and being happy is what I live for", but I would wonder, does this individual believe that it was just pure blink luck that even brought them to a position in which they would choose such a path. No reason for wanting to be happy. The constants of the universe just by random chance happened to have landed in such a way that we might feel compelled to want to be happy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you know the Monty Hall Problem?

I did a Google search. I suppose I am aware of it now. Why do you ask?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure that I've ever investigated the atheist position in such a way. I do genuinely find it strange.
Forces and constants that so too are as they are by, what the atheist position appears to conclude, chance.
This doesn't really change the situation.

Correct. It seems as if what happens in the universe happens largely by chance. Events are constrained to some extent, but there is no obvious teleology at work. You find this thought strange.

They're just ad hominems. You appear to prefer speaking about me moreso than of the topic. It's ok though, I won't take it personally.

You do not appear to understand what an ad hominem is. Your grasp (and my grasp) of evolutionary theory are pertinent to the arguments we bring to this discussion. Your grasp appears, demonstrably, to be significantly weak in some relevant areas. Making that observation is not ad hominem.
Suppose you had been arrested for shoplifting and I brought that up as evidence that your views here were flawed. That would be an ad hominem. That's not what is happening.
We are only speaking about it so much because you are not willing to acknowledge that your grasp of the topic may be deficient in ways important to the discussion. Or, to offer evidence that we have misunderstood the extent of your knowledge.

The idea you're proposing is that there is no reason, nor rhyme, nor purpose, and that it is all just blind luck that there is intelligent life and order. It's not about me fearing anything, I just think it's an unreasonable conclusion to make, given the order we see in the universe.

I wonder if you fear something about this conclusion you've come to. Perhaps that's why you've mentioned it.

I suggested you might find the idea you refer to "unattractive, disheartening and a little frightening". I find it interesting that of those three characteristics you chose the last one, placed there because it is the least significant, an insignificance that is emphasised by the adjective "little". Then, in what looks like an act of transference, you suggest I might be the one who is fearful. Not frightened, a lesser condition, but fearful.
Yes, that is definitely interesting. I ask you to reflect on it honestly.

I would wonder though, why you would feel compelled to even plan out or to make your own purpose for living?

Because that ability, to recognise there is no pre-existent purpose, coupled with the ability to decide upon purposes is much more interesting than merely eating, sleeping, breeding and occassionally farting.

It is not obligatory, but it makes use of many human attributes, some of which are said to distinguish us from at least some of the other animals on the planet.

I would guess that you might believe that it is just pure chance, luck, or otherwise just a random result, that has brought you to a position in which you would even be able to contemplate creating your own meaning for life

It is hardly guessing. There is no meaningful evidence for a pre-existent purpose other than wishful thinking. Since my chosen purpose is to learn what I can of the universe during my brief incarnation and to help others to do so, then if there actually is a hidden purpose those efforts to learn may eventually reveal that secret to humans or their descendants in a thousand years, a million, or a billion. Not really very long to wait in comparison with eternity.

Someone could say "well, I want to live a happy life and being happy is what I live for", but I would wonder, does this individual believe that it was just pure blink luck that even brought them to a position in which they would choose such a path. No reason for wanting to be happy. The constants of the universe just by random chance happened to have landed in such a way that we might feel compelled to want to be happy.

I have no idea what such an individual would think. Happiness is a rather over-rated state that simply indicates that ones lower Maslow needs have been satisfied. In that respect the desire to feel happy is a good survival trait since it encourages action that are likely to preserve the individual and encourage procreation. Those are not, in my view, sufficient grounds from which to construct a purpose.

In summary, your responses still create the impression of someone who favours there being a purpose to life because you find it impossible/improbable that there could not be one. That an Argument from Incredulity and simply doesn't wash. You have'nt come up with anything else to justify your belief that there is a purpose. The onus is on you to do that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Correct. It seems as if what happens in the universe happens largely by chance. Events are constrained to some extent, but there is no obvious teleology at work. You find this thought strange.
You do not appear to understand what an ad hominem is. Your grasp (and my grasp) of evolutionary theory are pertinent to the arguments we bring to this discussion. Your grasp appears, demonstrably, to be significantly weak in some relevant areas. Making that observation is not ad hominem.
Suppose you had been arrested for shoplifting and I brought that up as evidence that your views here were flawed. That would be an ad hominem. That's not what is happening.
We are only speaking about it so much because you are not willing to acknowledge that your grasp of the topic may be deficient in ways important to the discussion. Or, to offer evidence that we have misunderstood the extent of your knowledge.
I suggested you might find the idea you refer to "unattractive, disheartening and a little frightening". I find it interesting that of those three characteristics you chose the last one, placed there because it is the least significant, an insignificance that is emphasised by the adjective "little". Then, in what looks like an act of transference, you suggest I might be the one who is fearful. Not frightened, a lesser condition, but fearful.
Yes, that is definitely interesting. I ask you to reflect on it honestly.
Because that ability, to recognise there is no pre-existent purpose, coupled with the ability to decide upon purposes is much more interesting than merely eating, sleeping, breeding and occassionally farting.

It is not obligatory, but it makes use of many human attributes, some of which are said to distinguish us from at least some of the other animals on the planet.
It is hardly guessing. There is no meaningful evidence for a pre-existent purpose other than wishful thinking. Since my chosen purpose is to learn what I can of the universe during my brief incarnation and to help others to do so, then if there actually is a hidden purpose those efforts to learn may eventually reveal that secret to humans or their descendants in a thousand years, a million, or a billion. Not really very long to wait in comparison with eternity.

I have no idea what such an individual would think. Happiness is a rather over-rated state that simply indicates that ones lower Maslow needs have been satisfied. In that respect the desire to feel happy is a good survival trait since it encourages action that are likely to preserve the individual and encourage procreation. Those are not, in my view, sufficient grounds from which to construct a purpose.

In summary, your responses still create the impression of someone who favours there being a purpose to life because you find it impossible/improbable that there could not be one. That an Argument from Incredulity and simply doesn't wash. You have'nt come up with anything else to justify your belief that there is a purpose. The onus is on you to do that.

There is no onus where there is no attempt to prove anything. I suppose we will just have to wait and see if such a purpose is ever discovered.