What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[Chalnoth]

Not hardly --- and I wasn't aware there's a faith icon for 'Protestant'.

Protestant means Christian, but not Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[Chalnoth]

Also, I am COMPLETELY unsure as to why we accepted your original 10^1032 or whatever it was....

From what I recall, the calculation is related to the number of vacua in string theory, which is around 10^(10^123). This is an estimation, then, of the probability of the physical laws of the universe coming out like our own, if we accept a basic string theory argument. I personally think this is an argument against our current models of string theory, not an argument for special creation.

Anyway, it's a real calculation, but it doesn't say anything about how probable our universe was, just how improbable the theory that lead to the calculation is.

 

[Adriac]

Not just "any other outcome of a thousand lotteries" --- by the same man.

Unfortunately, the odds that one man will win the lottery one thousand times are exactly the same as the odds that one thousand specific individual people will win. Any time you run one thousand lotteries, an event exactly as unlikely has occurred.

Clearly it cannot be impossible.

 

[shernren]

Disclaimer: I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Protestant.

But you said you adhered to sola Scriptura, and that's what I was responding to.

 

[Chalnoth]

Unfortunately, the odds that one man will win the lottery one thousand times are exactly the same as the odds that one thousand specific individual people will win. Any time you run one thousand lotteries, an event exactly as unlikely has occurred.

Clearly it cannot be impossible.

Not exactly. The probability that the same person will win the lottery 1000 times is quite different from the probability that 1000 different people will with the lottery. The same person winning the jackpot 10 times is so unlikely that it might as well be considered impossible, never mind 1000.

But that's the lottery: there aren't that many lotteries. There are other things with even lower probabilities, and yet they happen all the time. For example, Samarium-147 has a half-life of 106 billion years. Thus if you were to observe a single atom, you would likely have to wait much longer than the age of the universe to see that atom decay.

But you never look at atoms alone. Samarium is a metal, and as such will be found in solids. A more reasonable number of Samarium atoms to look at is 10^23. If you're looking at 10^23 Samarium atoms, you'll encounter approximately 20,000 decays each second. So even though the probability to see any one single Samarium atom decay in one second is about 10^-19, if you have enough of them, you'll see decays all the time.

 

[Adriac]

I wasn't clear, and I apologize. It's like this.

The odds of flipping a coin and it coming up heads are exactly the same as the odds of it coming up tails. Thus, the odds of flipping a coin twice and having it come up two heads is the same as the odds of it coming up heads tails. We can clearly see that, although flipping a coin ten times heads in a row would be quite improbable, it is no more improbable than the odds of coming up heads heads tails heads tails tails tails heads tails heads.

The odds that one man (call him Adam) will win the lottery are the same as the odds that someone else, let's say, Beth, will win. Clearly we can see that the odds of Adam winning twice in a row are precisely the same as the odds of Adam winning and then Beth winning. Repeat the process ten, a hundred, or a thousand times, you'll see the same thing. The odds are the same.

If I predict that Adam will win, Beth will win, Charlie will win, and the Dude will win, I will certainly be proven wrong. However, the actual outcome of those lotteries ( Jack, Mary, Frank, Phil ) is precisely as unlikely.

Saying that it is impossible for one man to win the lottery one thousand times is simply incorrect. It is in fact proven to be a possibility.

 

[Chalnoth]

But it's so unlikely that we might as well say it won't happen. We can say it will never happen, and the risk of being wrong is so small that we might as well not care.

Edit: And by the way, if you don't pick the ordering, picking different people to win is actually significantly more likely.

 

[Adriac]

But it's so unlikely that we might as well say it won't happen. We can say it will never happen, and the risk of being wrong is so small that we might as well not care.

It is impossible to predict. That's not what we're talking about. I can tell you any number of lottery winners which will never occur, but when they do the drawing, one of them will. That doesn't make his win any more likely.

Edit: And by the way, if you don't pick the ordering, picking different people to win is actually significantly more likely.

Yeah, I, uh... understand probability

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, the odds that one man will win the lottery one thousand times are exactly the same as the odds that one thousand specific individual people will win. Any time you run one thousand lotteries, an event exactly as unlikely has occurred.

Clearly it cannot be impossible.

That's one thousand times in a row, by the same man.

I would even question the same man winning one thousand times, period.

 

[AV1611VET]

Protestant means Christian, but not Catholic or Orthodox.

Not hardly --- there were Baptists long before there were Protestants.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET View Post
Disclaimer: I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Protestant.

this looks like the old "Baptists aren't Protestants" idea*.

like was pointed out before in reference to being YECist.
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, despite it's protestations it is properly labelled a "duck".


*notes:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/wiki.asp?id=BaptistMyths

or the classic "Trail of Blood" linked to in:
http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/trail.html

i watched a thread like this a few years back on theologyweb** it is a interesting but seriously flawed argument.

Not hardly --- there were Baptists long before there were Protestants.

yup, that is the argument. not only historically inaccurate but besides the point. There were calvinists before Calvin, in fact, lots of them. Calvinists is just a convenient label not a description of an absolute beginning in time. All true Christians have been calvinists since Adam, since God is a calvinist. so there. *grin*

btw, i'd attempt to tie this into the OP, but it would just be an empty gesture...*grin*


post edit addition:

i found the conversation i participated in on this topic is at:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php?t-24766.html
it is 2 years ago. as i remember it hit the important topics in the discussion. it was a fruitful and informative discussion for me, for i had not seen the argument before. it resulted in me reading the books and websites linked to. a worthwhile endeavor.
for those interested here is the link to a discussion about this exact claim:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21737
since it is off topic here, i'll leave things at this point.

 

[AV1611VET]

like was pointed out before in reference to being YECist.
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, despite it's protestations it is properly labelled a "duck".

LOL --- here we go again --- now I'm a Protestant too, huh?

Anything else I am that I don't know of?

Once again --- there were Baptists long before there were Protestants.

 

[Tomk80]

LOL --- here we go again --- now I'm a Protestant too, huh?

Yup, just as you are a YEC.

Anything else I am that I don't know of?

I would not be surprised if this were the case.

Once again --- there were Baptists long before there were Protestants.

Read the links Rmwilliams gave. It's not like he is pulling claims from thin air. In short to your claim, no there weren't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the links Rmwilliams gave. It's not like he is pulling claims from thin air. In short to your claim, no there weren't.

No, thanks. If you guys are gonna ignore Wikipedia, why should I respect your links?

There's a book called The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which puts all this into perspective.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it's off topic so i don't intend to follow up this side rabbit hole

however:

Originally Posted by Tomk80 View Post
Read the links Rmwilliams gave. It's not like he is pulling claims from thin air. In short to your claim, no there weren't.
No, thanks. If you guys are gonna ignore Wikipedia, why should I respect your links?

There's a book called The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which puts all this into perspective.

i wrote earlier

or the classic "Trail of Blood" linked to in:
http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/trail.html

a conversation is only as good as it's participants reading ability.
i QUOTED it as the classic work.
i have read it completely, several times. i have quoted it extensively in a class i taught on the topic of history of the american presbyterian church. i evidenced that i have read and interacted in the conversation.

can you make this claim? to have interacted with your conversation partners? are you here to talk TO us or with us?

 

[AV1611VET]

yup, that is the argument. not only historically inaccurate but besides the point.

I think someone's been in the tulips too long --- you're overlooking two things:

1. We aren't named after John the Baptist.
2. Our name comes from our antagonists - not a person.

There were calvinists before Calvin, in fact, lots of them.

I'll bet --- since a person is a Calvinist regardless of the fact that he's a three-point, five-point, or whatever.

Are those destined for Hell Calvinists?

 

[AV1611VET]

i wrote earlier

Sorry --- that was an oversight on my part.

 

[Tomk80]

I think someone's been in the tulips too long --- you're overlooking two things:

1. We aren't named after John the Baptist.
2. Our name comes from our antagonists - not a person.

Neither points are things Rmwilliams said. It helps if you argue against people's actual positions.

I'll bet --- since a person is a Calvinist regardless of the fact that he's a three-point, five-point, or whatever.

Are those destined for Hell Calvinists?

This also does not actually respond to the argument Rmwilliams was making.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sorry --- that was an oversight on my part.

if you had reputation* or PM** turned on i would have used both to say "thank you". i will renew my efforts to speak kindly and uprightly and not be carried along with the passions of the discussion. Sometimes the media makes it difficult to remember that there are people on the other end of the postings, not just computers.

you are most welcome.

post edit note
* i didn't see the reps hand earlier, it is there now. reps gracefully given.

 

[AV1611VET]

[/list]Neither points are things Rmwilliams said. It helps if you argue against people's actual positions.


This also does not actually respond to the argument Rmwilliams was making.

Frankly, Tom, I'm not really interested. Not one Protestant in a million would agree with him; neither would a fundamental, independent Baptist.

I have no affiliation whatsoever with Protestants --- none --- and if one wanted to even join our church --- he would definately have to drop that label (maybe even be baptized, but I'll have to ask my pastor on that one).