NationStates Jolt Archive

A creationist argument often quoted to me runs along these line:

"The Universe can't simply have just come into being, as it's too wonderful. The chances are impossible. Therefore, it must have been created."

Now, I dont know about you, but it seems to me that a being which can create a Universe as varied and miraculous as our's would need to be more miraculous than its creation in itself, which would make the creator even more improbable to "just exist" as the universe itself.

So I ask, in your opinion, would God, if He existed, or the Universe be more improbable?
Thoughts?

Ps. Im not interested in turning this into a "Does He/ Doesn't He exist" thread. Im agnostic, so Im more interested in the arguments than the outcome.

I find the existance of a god very improbable. Without evidence it's too improbable for me to beleive in it.

Dohnut: Someone saying "It can't have happened without a God. It just doesn't feel probable enough" is like someone saying "That coin just can't come down heads, it just doesn't feel probable enough." The truth of this one is with no actual incontrovertible evidence for either side it's a 50/50 game.

If something exist without being created ...

What is less probable, that things things never created is just matter and energy, and have some rules ( universe ) or that this things have will and is powerfull and with feeling and can create things from nothing ..... ?


In a question like that, always the easy side is the more probable : the universe


psd : who said this universe is wonderfull ?
the universe is just as it is ( wonderfull or not is just a oppinion )

What frame of reference are we using? Your question seems to be a bit unclear. Assuming the existance of God, as you say....so are we deciding whether God's creation of the universe is more improbable than His existence in the first place?

Please clarify. Me is confused. :confused:

What frame of reference are we using? Your question seems to be a bit unclear. Assuming the existance of God, as you say....so are we deciding whether God's creation of the universe is more improbable than His existence in the first place?

Please clarify. Me is confused. :confused:

Ok, some impromptu and rather odd editing happened whilst writing that. (Ie. I wasn't thinking and got distracted). Ignore that line. Ill Delete it.

You want us to prove the existance of god. Why don't you prove that there is no deity? Both Science and Religion rely on both facts and theories. Can you prove that the dinos really did look like that? Do you know as a fact? Were you there? What if they are all pink with purple pokadots? You couldn't prove otherwise. You can't deny the existance of something without actual facts and expect others to do the same. To me, us evolving from monkeys is improbable. The existance of aleins is improbable. The lack of aliens also seems improbable. You keep your big bang and I'll keep my god. Attack me and prepare to be sent to that wellknown hot place.

You want us to prove the existance of god. Why don't you prove that there is no deity? Both Science and Religion rely on both facts and theories. Can you prove that the dinos really did look like that? Do you know as a fact? Were you there? What if they are all pink with purple pokadots? You couldn't prove otherwise. You can't deny the existance of something without actual facts and expect others to do the same. To me, us evolving from monkeys is improbable. The existance of aleins is improbable. The lack of aliens also seems improbable. You keep your big bang and I'll keep my god. Attack me and prepare to be sent to that wellknown hot place.

Re-read my post. I dont want you prove/disprove the existence of God. I was asking for thoughts regarding His nature.

You want us to prove the existance of god. Why don't you prove that there is no deity? Both Science and Religion rely on both facts and theories. Can you prove that the dinos really did look like that? Do you know as a fact? Were you there? What if they are all pink with purple pokadots? You couldn't prove otherwise. You can't deny the existance of something without actual facts and expect others to do the same. To me, us evolving from monkeys is improbable. The existance of aleins is improbable. The lack of aliens also seems improbable. You keep your big bang and I'll keep my god. Attack me and prepare to be sent to that wellknown hot place.
My, aren't we a little defensive?

If God created the Universe who created God?

If God does not need a creator, why does the universe?

Trying to be as intellectually honest as possible, I would have to say: both are equally improbable.

A creationist argument often quoted to me runs along these line:

"The Universe can't simply have just come into being, as its too wonderful. The chances are impossible. Therefore, it must have been created."

.


It's only "wonderful" because we think it is. Assuming we do!
I believe desert dwellers have no word for green?

Wouldn't it be more likely we were created to appreciate the universe?

Now who or what shall we create to have ourselves appreciated?

I would define god as particles/energy and a universal consciousness. If god exists, then god is the mechanism of the big bang, and everything within that bang. If god exists, then we too are god, because the god-energy is within every atom that we are. I'll have none of this "god is an old, benevolent, hairy bloke" nonsense. :D

It's only "wonderful" because we think it is. Assuming we do!
I believe desert dwellers have no word for green?

Wouldn't it be more likely we were created to appreciate the universe?

Now who or what shall we create to have ourselves appreciated?

Hmmm.. Never thought of it like that. Not sure of the relevance or accuracy of that second line. Depends where they dwell, and who they have dealings with. Especially in modern times. But I agree with the principle

Anyway, we need to create a race of super-intelligent amphibians to love us, cherish us, and bring us tributes. ;)
Knew that biology course would come in handy one day.

See, lots of people who disagree with Creationists make the mistake of thinking that the Creationist arguement about probablity is bunk because they say something like this.

Person A draws 2 cards at random, they are the six of clubs, and the four of diamonds. Person thinks "the odds against that are 26/1. It must be supernatural!".

Thats the view I often see from opponents of Creationismim. In actual fact the Creationist view of evolution is more like this

Person B gets a pack of cards and picks cards out randomly from diffrent points in the pack. He lays them out in the order he picks them. The order creates a pattern, where he lays down each suit in its exact order and then followed by the next suit. He picked them out compltely randomly, yet they fitted a perfect order.

Now you see, its more likely that there would be order if there is order guiding it as opposed to chaos. I am sure you can agree.

Person B gets a pack of cards and picks cards out randomly from diffrent points in the pack. He lays them out in the order he picks them. The order creates a pattern, where he lays down each suit in its exact order and then followed by the next suit. He picked them out compltely randomly, yet they fitted a perfect order.

Except, of course, for the fact that this is a completely incorrect analogy. The order we see only seems to be "perfect" to us because it is all that we know. The only way your little analogy would work is if the pattern was derived from the cards. In other words, there was no such thing as suits or orders until after the person dealt it out, and the suits and the order were derived from whatever came of it.

Now you see, its more likely that there would be order if there is order guiding it as opposed to chaos. I am sure you can agree.

The Chances of dealing a pack of cards randomly and placing them in suit/pip order are EXACTLY the same as having the cards drawn in any other "random" order.

A creationist argument often quoted to me runs along these line:

"The Universe can't simply have just come into being, as it's too wonderful. The chances are impossible. Therefore, it must have been created."

Now, I dont know about you, but it seems to me that a being which can create a Universe as varied and miraculous as our's would need to be more miraculous than its creation in itself, which would make the creator even more improbable to "just exist" as the universe itself.

So I ask, in your opinion, would God, if He existed, or the Universe be more improbable?
Thoughts?

Ps. Im not interested in turning this into a "Does He/ Doesn't He exist" thread. Im agnostic, so Im more interested in the arguments than the outcome.

The probability of anything existing where nothing previously existed is very very small. God, Big Bang or otherwise. One of the concepts about God though, is that there was never a time He didn't exist. In addition, He is infinite by nature and figuring out the probability of the infinitely infinite, is... well... infinitely problematic.

See, lots of people who disagree with Creationists make the mistake of thinking that the Creationist arguement about probablity is bunk because they say something like this.

Person A draws 2 cards at random, they are the six of clubs, and the four of diamonds. Person thinks "the odds against that are 26/1. It must be supernatural!".

Thats the view I often see from opponents of Creationismim. In actual fact the Creationist view of evolution is more like this

Person B gets a pack of cards and picks cards out randomly from diffrent points in the pack. He lays them out in the order he picks them. The order creates a pattern, where he lays down each suit in its exact order and then followed by the next suit. He picked them out compltely randomly, yet they fitted a perfect order.

Now you see, its more likely that there would be order if there is order guiding it as opposed to chaos. I am sure you can agree.
How many possible patterns can arise from a deck of cards? I haven't crunched the numbers, but there are probably alot. The card trick wouldn't be all that impressive to me.

Now the odds against a universe that can support human life seem more impressive, but we can't really see how impressive they are. We don't know if there are multiple universes (which would improve the odds that one of them would support human life), we don't know that universes incapable of supporting life are as likely to form as those that do, you get the idea. Without understanding more about how universes are formed you can't accurately determine the odds.

The probability of anything existing where nothing previously existed is very very small. God, Big Bang or otherwise. One of the concepts about God though, is that there was never a time He didn't exist. In addition, He is infinite by nature and figuring out the probability of the infinitely infinite, is... well... infinitely problematic.

This same argument is generally voiced about the universe itself by those who follow the big bang argument. ie. that the universe was here, from the beginning. Everything was in one dimensionless point, and that dimentionlessness includes time. Therefore, the same infinitely infinite problems apply, as there could be no "before" or "after" until after the expansion to create the dimensions with which we are familiar, and so we cannot study it, or interpret it, as the physics are infinitely different.

universe

n 1: everything that exists anywhere


Given this definition, how can there be other universes? The concept is "all" containing.

universe

n 1: everything that exists anywhere


Given this definition, how can there be other universes? The concept is "all" containing.

Maybe the definition is wrong if there are other universes... ever considered that?

universe

n 1: everything that exists anywhere


Given this definition, how can there be other universes? The concept is "all" containing.

*shrug* So our language doesn't accurately describe the concept that there may be other somewheres which don't occur in what we understand to be four-dimensional space. Your point is...?

This same argument is generally voiced about the universe itself by those who follow the big bang argument. ie. that the universe was here, from the beginning. Everything was in one dimensionless point, and that dimentionlessness includes time. Therefore, the same infinitely infinite problems apply, as there could be no "before" or "after" until after the expansion to create the dimensions with which we are familiar, and so we cannot study it, or interpret it, as the physics are infinitely different.

Can't really argue with you on that. Either way, measuring the infinite is highly problematic...

To be honest as I said in another thread we don't know how many times the universe has been created.... It might of been created billions of times over, so it might not be improbable at all. It only seems improbable form our own perspective.

The playing card analogy is bunk. As someone said the chances of getting the suits out in ascending number order would be just as likely as getting them out randomly. We see it as extroidinary because we place a significance ourselves on the order that they come out.

universe

n 1: everything that exists anywhere


Given this definition, how can there be other universes? The concept is "all" containing.

Interesting, as God, by definition, must exist outside of and without regard to the universe.

universe

n 1: everything that exists anywhere


Given this definition, how can there be other universes? The concept is "all" containing.
Some physicists have theorized that our universe is one of many. We can't escape our universe to look at any others which might or might not exist. The possible existence of other universes is supported by some mathematical models.

Maybe the definition is wrong if there are other universes... ever considered that?

That's the whole point the word universe by definition encompasses everything that exists on every plane, in every sphere, in every dimension that is possible. There is, by definition, nothing that is outside the universe.

That's the whole point the word universe by definition encompasses everything that exists on every plane, in every sphere, in every dimension that is possible. There is, by definition, nothing that is outside the universe.

Yeah... so what you're saying is "Use a different word, please." What's your relevant point?

That's the whole point the word universe by definition encompasses everything that exists on every plane, in every sphere, in every dimension that is possible. There is, by definition, nothing that is outside the universe.
Noah Webster wasn't a physicist. Dictionary definitions can't overrule math.

Some physicists have theorized that our universe is one of many. We can't escape our universe to look at any others which might or might not exist. The possible existence of other universes is supported by some mathematical models.

The problem is, by definition, as soon as you find something as yet undiscoverd, it is part of this universe. That's the whole point of the word.

The problem is, by definition, as soon as you find something as yet undiscoverd, it is part of this universe. That's the whole point of the word.

Your point-missing is painful! PAINFUL!

The problem is, by definition, as soon as you find something as yet undiscoverd, it is part of this universe. That's the whole point of the word.
Um, no. You see, we can't escape our universe (as defined by physicists, not the dictionary). Likewise objects in other universes can't interact with ours. Other universes would be separate from ours.

Noah Webster wasn't a physicist. Dictionary definitions can't overrule math.

It's not about overruling math. If mathimaticians are incapable of understanding the linguistic concept, that's their problem. They just want to put edges or boundries on the universe, but the word by definition, doesn't have them.

A creationist argument often quoted to me runs along these line:

"The Universe can't simply have just come into being, as it's too wonderful. The chances are impossible. Therefore, it must have been created."

Now, I dont know about you, but it seems to me that a being which can create a Universe as varied and miraculous as our's would need to be more miraculous than its creation in itself, which would make the creator even more improbable to "just exist" as the universe itself.

So I ask, in your opinion, would God, if He existed, or the Universe be more improbable?
Thoughts?

Ps. Im not interested in turning this into a "Does He/ Doesn't He exist" thread. Im agnostic, so Im more interested in the arguments than the outcome.

Well, look at it this way: Let's say you see the Mona Lisa, but not Da Vinci. Would it be logical to say that since the Mona Lisa is so wonderful, you couldn't possibly conceive of an artist wonderful enough to paint it, so therefore the Mona Lisa must have come into existence on its own?

Of course, this argument falls apart once you take into account that we know the Mona Lisa was created, but it follows the same train of logic you're taking. What if you presuppose that God is as wonderful as the universe, rather than more wonderful? Does that make the original argument any stronger for you?

Um, no. You see, we can't escape our universe (as defined by physicists, not the dictionary). Likewise objects in other universes can't interact with ours. Other universes would be separate from ours.

If physicists want to define a concept with boundries, why don't they create their own word for it? Oh wait, I'm asking for mathimaticians to be creative sorry ;) :p :rolleyes:

PR is right here.

If we could measure the existence of another dimension, as it were, that dimension would be part of our existence, and would thus be part of our universe.

u·ni·verse Audio pronunciation of "universe" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)
n.

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic. See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics. See population.

By this definition, outside the universe does make sense.

PR is right here.

If we could measure the existence of another dimension, as it were, that dimension would be part of our existence, and would thus be part of our universe.

Wait, be still my beating heart... did I just read those words... we agree about something Dem?? Isn't that like only the second time that has happened?

Sorry, just couldn't resist making an idiot of myself. ;)

u·ni·verse Audio pronunciation of "universe" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)
n.

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic. See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics. See population.

By this definition, outside the universe does make sense.

Yes, but go back on look at the roots of the word. It was created to be an all encompassing descriptor.

If physicists want to define a concept with boundries, why don't they create their own word for it? Oh wait, I'm asking for mathimaticians to be creative sorry ;) :p :rolleyes:

Ouch... mathematics is probable one of the most creative studies known to mankind ever in the history of everthing. It's whole concept is abstract. Even the numbering system is abstract. You doof.... Besides I think you'll find that "universe" is their own word for it.

It's often said to be "Our universe" anyway rather than "The Universe".

Ouch... mathematics is probable one of the most creative studies known to mankind ever in the history of everthing. It's whole concept is abstract. Even the numbering system is abstract. You doof.... Besides I think you'll find that "universe" is their own word for it.

It's often said to be "Our universe" anyway rather than "The Universe".

How about 'omniverse' or 'multiverse'? (I'm terribly sorry but i thought maybe a neologism might help us out here...)

"The contents of inter galactic space"? What about the stuff ouside intergalactic space? Could it be more universes? :rolleyes:

How about 'omniverse' or 'multiverse'? (I'm terribly sorry but i thought maybe a neologism might help us out here...)

Universe just means one anyway by definition dosn't it... If you were refering to more than one I would agree with you and say Multiverse.

Yes, but go back on look at the roots of the word. It was created to be an all encompassing descriptor.

if there exists another place where the laws of physics are different, what would you call that?

It is not another dimension. You can mathematicaly model dimensions.

i am talking about something beyond the dimensions in our realm of existance.

Universe just means one anyway by definition dosn't it... If you were refering to more than one I would agree with you and say Multiverse.

Yep, that's what i meant. :)

The next light second... Actually, How samll can you cut time down to? What is the next moment?

Ouch... mathematics is probable one of the most creative studies known to mankind ever in the history of everthing. It's whole concept is abstract. Even the numbering system is abstract. You doof.... Besides I think you'll find that "universe" is their own word for it.

It's often said to be "Our universe" anyway rather than "The Universe".

Oh lighten up a little... that was a joke based on obviously inaccurate stereotypes said in an entirely tongue in cheek manner... get a sense of humor.

Besides, when it comes to the issue of whether or not "The Universe" contains everything, I don't actually believe that either, but that is what the definition of the word means. I believe God in His infinity is infinitely beyond anything we can conceive of, including the universe or infinity. I was just having a little fun with the word and people's tendency to want to be able to put everything into neat little conceptual boxes, when reality just doesn't fit into any.

Yep, that's what i meant. :)

Good I'm glad we agree and damn the rest of them who don't. It can be our word for it anyway. :)

if there exists another place where the laws of physics are different, what would you call that?

It is not another dimension. You can mathematicaly model dimensions.

i am talking about something beyond the dimensions in our realm of existance.


I guess we'd need a new word to define it, but, by definition it would still be part of the Universe.

I guess we'd need a new word to define it, but, by definition it would still be part of the Universe.

Stop this please, get back to the thread. Going by my posted definitions, other universes can exist. Let's not get bogged down in nit-picking over an inefficient language when talking about abstract ideas, unless you want to invent an enirely new language that is up to the job of describing 4-dimensional infinities in layman's terms

I guess we'd need a new word to define it, but, by definition it would still be part of the Universe.

by your definition.

If there are multiple universes with independent laws of physics, then we say we live in one universe out of the multiverse

Oh lighten up a little... that was a joke based on obviously inaccurate stereotypes said in an entirely tongue in cheek manner... get a sense of humor.

Besides, when it comes to the issue of whether or not "The Universe" contains everything, I don't actually believe that either, but that is what the definition of the word means. I believe God in His infinity is infinitely beyond anything we can conceive of, including the universe or infinity. I was just having a little fun with the word and people's tendency to want to be able to put everything into neat little conceptual boxes, when reality just doesn't fit into any.

That was a joke? Jeez you should get out more.... ;)

So you believe god is...?

A) A bloke in a beard.
B) Nature incarnate.
C) All energy and matter in the uni/multiverse.
D) Confused.
E) All of the above.

Stop this please, get back to the thread. Going by my posted definitions, other universes can exist. Let's not get bogged down in nit-picking over an inefficient language when talking about abstract ideas, unless you want to invent an enirely new language that is up to the job of describing 4-dimensional infinities in layman's terms

Okay, sorry for the diversion :(

Forgive me? :confused:

Anyway, I don't think there is any way to measure the probability of the infinite. That was my main point before I digressed.

The probability of the universe existing or god existing is not calculable because we cannot conceive of an existance beyond our dimensions, and equally are unable to know what came before the Big Bang or before god.

So we can't calculate the odds.

So we don't know which is more probable.

Original thread....

A creationist argument often quoted to me runs along these line:

"The Universe can't simply have just come into being, as it's too wonderful. The chances are impossible. Therefore, it must have been created."

Now, I dont know about you, but it seems to me that a being which can create a Universe as varied and miraculous as our's would need to be more miraculous than its creation in itself, which would make the creator even more improbable to "just exist" as the universe itself.

So I ask, in your opinion, would God, if He existed, or the Universe be more improbable?
Thoughts?

Ps. Im not interested in turning this into a "Does He/ Doesn't He exist" thread. Im agnostic, so Im more interested in the arguments than the outcome.

God. Well more so.

That was a joke? Jeez you should get out more.... ;)

So you believe god is...?

A) A bloke in a beard.
B) Nature incarnate.
C) All energy and matter in the uni/multiverse.
D) Confused.
E) All of the above.

The reality is, some parts of E would be true, but IMO it is impossible for man to conceptualize anything sufficient to encompass God. We can know some characteristics in a limited way, but nothing will ever be sufficient to describe what God is.

The reality is, some parts of E would be true, but IMO it is impossible for man to conceptualize anything sufficient to encompass God. We can know some characteristics in a limited way, but nothing will ever be sufficient to describe what God is.

If we cannot descirbe what he is how do we know he exists?

If we cannot descirbe what he is how do we know he exists?

please don't start this argument. It inevitebly leads to a flame-war. I did state in the beginning. I dont want a Does/doesnt exist argument.

please don't start this argument. It inevitebly leads to a flame-war.

ok ok....

Assuming that god exists I can say, without doubt, that I think God is definatly more improbable. We've measured the universe and looked at it from different angles, broken it down real small, and all sorts of things. We've come up with good theorys of how we got here and how it got here, and then to say that it's all driven by one omnipresent figurehead is like.... well... improbable. To the extreme.

please don't start this argument. It inevitebly leads to a flame-war. I did state in the beginning. I dont want a Does/doesnt exist argument.

it's a valid point. If you can't define it, you can't calculate probabilities

it's a valid point. If you can't define it, you can't calculate probabilities

It should have been stated, "If we can't define Him, how CAN we know he exists". Not, How DO we know He exists. Otherewise, its a fair point, and one I'd gladly see expanded.

And btw, I agree.

It should have been stated, "If we can't define Him, how CAN we know he exists". Not, How DO we know He exists. Otherewise, its a fair point, and one I'd gladly see expanded.

And btw, I agree.

it's simple. If god cannot be defined then it is just a word, like flingle.

And therefore we assume it does not exist, as it is a word without meaning.

Flingle exists is a pointless statement.

It should have been stated, "If we can't define Him, how CAN we know he exists". Not, How DO we know He exists. Otherewise, its a fair point, and one I'd gladly see expanded.

And btw, I agree.

Thanks for agreeing. I was asking the question based on the assumption that he did exist because that was what you said at the start.... Otherwise I would have said 'can'.

it's simple. If god cannot be defined then it is just a word, like flingle.

And therefore we assume it does not exist, as it is a word without meaning.

Flingle exists is a pointless statement.

Not pointless to Fingle ;)

If we cannot descirbe what he is how do we know he exists?

The same way you can't see the wind, but you know that it is there. You see its effects, you can measure some parts of it, but you never see the whole picture. With God, as an infinite being, it would never be possible to describe Him in a way that encompasses everything the He is.

Maybe another way to look at it... I can read your posts and so I know you exist, but I certainly can't define the totality of who you are.


Sorry... didn't see the flame war post before I responded.

I don't believe in flaming personally, and would never be intentionally insulting, but I do realize that others don't always use the same restraint. I don't really need to debate this further. Personally, I think measuring the totality of existance and origin and trying to limit it with scientific explanation, while helpful in some respects, is a lesson in futility if you are trying to explain existance or origins through it. Not suggesting we shouldn't study that which we can observe, just that we have to recognize that we are not infinite in the same way the universe is.

The same way you can't see the wind, but you know that it is there. You see its effects, you can measure some parts of it, but you never see the whole picture. With God, as an infinite being, it would never be possible to describe Him in a way that encompasses everything the He is.

Maybe another way to look at it... I can read your posts and so I know you exist, but I certainly can't define the totality of who you are.

but you can define wind quite easily.

And you can define things about posters.

Can you define ANYTHING about god?

*snip*

No, its relevant, and not flaming. But i would call it innacurate. As there is nothing to "see" with the wind, so measuring the effects of wind is its full picture.

The same way you can't see the wind, but you know that it is there. You see its effects, you can measure some parts of it, but you never see the whole picture. With God, as an infinite being, it would never be possible to describe Him in a way that encompasses everything the He is.

Maybe another way to look at it... I can read your posts and so I know you exist, but I certainly can't define the totality of who you are.

Thats fair I suppose. Although I did say 'describe' not 'define'.... And I'm sure that either of us could descibe to some degree the other.... How accurately you descibe him is up to you but I would like some sort of description other than "undescribable". Either way, I've been down this road before on these threads and they never work out... Mostly because people find it acceptable to say that "God is" and leave it at that. If you believe in him fine, thats up to you. Feel smug in the knowledge that all us sinners will go to hell. Either way, I still think if you can't describe what he is to some order of degree then you can't say whether GOD or 'the universe' is more improbable.

Actually I just had a thought.... Wouldn't everyone have to say that God is more improable. If you don't beleive in him then god is more improbable than the unverse, if you do, then god created the universe, so the universe is more probable surely?

The Chances of dealing a pack of cards randomly and placing them in suit/pip order are EXACTLY the same as having the cards drawn in any other "random" order.

No, there is only a limited number of "orderd" sequences, where as there are far more "chaotic" ones.

No, there is only a limited number of "orderd" sequences, where as there are far more "chaotic" ones.

your analogy is flawed, let it die.

No, there is only a limited number of "orderd" sequences, where as there are far more "chaotic" ones.

Yes but the chance of pulling that single ordered sequence is equal to the chance of pulling out a single unordered sequence. The same chance as pulling out any other unordered sequence.... we're not talking about any unordered sequence. We're talking about....errr... a unique unordered sequence.....

Am I making sense to anyone?

Yes but the chance of pulling that single ordered sequence is equal to the chance of pulling out a single unordered sequence. The same chance as pulling out any other unordered sequence.... we're not talking about any unordered sequence. We're talking about....errr... a unique unordered sequence.....

Am I making sense to anyone?

no, you are not making sense, but I think I know what you mean to say.

It is, however, irrelevant, as the analogy is flawed

Yes, you are making sense. That is what i meant to begin with.

Yes the card augument is flawed as it asumes order to begin with, but the probablility thing is a point. And yes.... having re-read the start of the thread I can see that I repeated the exact point which it made. God would have to bemore improable regardless of whether you beleived in him or not....

sigh....

Thats fair I suppose. Although I did say 'describe' not 'define'.... And I'm sure that either of us could descibe to some degree the other.... How accurately you descibe him is up to you but I would like some sort of description other than "undescribable". Either way, I've been down this road before on these threads and they never work out... Mostly because people find it acceptable to say that "God is" and leave it at that. If you believe in him fine, thats up to you. Feel smug in the knowledge that all us sinners will go to hell. Either way, I still think if you can't describe what he is to some order of degree then you can't say whether GOD or 'the universe' is more improbable.

Actually I just had a thought.... Wouldn't everyone have to say that God is more improable. If you don't beleive in him then god is more improbable than the unverse, if you do, then god created the universe, so the universe is more probable surely?

I haven't done the math, but my guess is that both are virtually infinitely improbable so I don't know that classifying one as more or less improbable is a particularly useful construct.

As for describing God, I can describe many things about God, many of His characteristics. However, in doing so there is always an infinity beyond what I describe in the length, breadth and depth of who God is. Describing His characteristics will not make it any easier to determine how probable His existance is.

Also, any description I would make, is more than certain to contain misunderstandings, incomplete understandings and inaccurate understandings as a result of my human fallability, much like our current descriptions of the universe are certainly full of inaccuracies we have yet to discover.

No, its relevant, and not flaming. But i would call it innacurate. As there is nothing to "see" with the wind, so measuring the effects of wind is its full picture.

Only because we don't have the right glasses on, kind of like infrared light that can only be seen with a specific light filter, I am certain that in time, we will be able to see the energy that moves the particles in the air (wind).

The seeing part isn't the main issu issue. Rather, it is the recognition that our knowledge is incomplete on any and every subject as everything can be examined at a progressively and infinitely smaller level.

Only because we don't have the right glasses on, kind of like infrared light that can only be seen with a specific light filter, I am certain that in time, we will be able to see the energy that moves the particles in the air (wind).

The seeing part isn't the main issu issue. Rather, it is the recognition that our knowledge is incomplete on any and every subject as everything can be examined at a progressively and infinitely smaller level.

It is not the energy that moves the particles of air that creates the wind. It is the movement of the body of air itself, caused by differences in temperature and pressure. These differences can be measured, as well as the affect the wind has on, well, anything. Therefore, wind is an extremely oversimplified, often uneducated analogy to God.

Secondly, and more importantly, regarding the main issue:

There is a difference between scientific teaching and religious dogma.

In religion, you start with a given (we'll call it a theory, for lack of a better word), and any new evidence found is attributed to that theory, or if it doesn't fit, considered somehow mistaken, or stretched to fit.

In science, you collect evidence. This evidence is used to create a hypothesis (which we will also call a theory). As more evidence is gathered, the theory is molded and changed or replaced to more accurately fit the evidence.


Therefore, religious studies are backwards to science. And scientific studies are backwards to religion.


This does not mean that they cannot coexist. It means that in the context of science, creationism has no place. And evolution is the best we have. Though it has it's flaws, it does manage to explain biology extremely well, and fits the evidence as well.

It is not the energy that moves the particles of air that creates the wind. It is the movement of the body of air itself, caused by differences in temperature and pressure. These differences can be measured, as well as the affect the wind has on, well, anything. Therefore, wind is an extremely oversimplified, often uneducated analogy to God.

Secondly, and more importantly, regarding the main issue:

There is a difference between scientific teaching and religious dogma.

In religion, you start with a given (we'll call it a theory, for lack of a better word), and any new evidence found is attributed to that theory, or if it doesn't fit, considered somehow mistaken, or stretched to fit.

In science, you collect evidence. This evidence is used to create a hypothesis (which we will also call a theory). As more evidence is gathered, the theory is molded and changed or replaced to more accurately fit the evidence.


Therefore, religious studies are backwards to science. And scientific studies are backwards to religion.


This does not mean that they cannot coexist. It means that in the context of science, creationism has no place. And evolution is the best we have. Though it has it's flaws, it does manage to explain biology extremely well, and fits the evidence as well.

Last time I checked both pressure and temperature are expressions of energy. However, you are correct, the wind is not nearly infinite enough to be a complete analogy to God. The reality is, there is nothing that makes a good analogy to the infinite, they all break down eventually.

As for the issue with religion and science, you are correct about the diffrence in methodology, but either requires a similar faith. I'm not sure why evolution got brought up, but in any case, I would, of course disagree that it explains biology well. Of course, I don't expect a believer such as yourself to agree with me. So for the sake of not taking this thread off on another tangent, let's just agree to disagree. Okay? :)

Last time I checked both pressure and temperature are expressions of energy. However, you are correct, the wind is not nearly infinite enough to be a complete analogy to God. The reality is, there is nothing that makes a good analogy to the infinite, they all break down eventually.

As for the issue with religion and science, you are correct about the diffrence in methodology, but either requires a similar faith. I'm not sure why evolution got brought up, but in any case, I would, of course disagree that it explains biology well. Of course, I don't expect a believer such as yourself to agree with me. So for the sake of not taking this thread off on another tangent, let's just agree to disagree. Okay? :)

Well, I did assume the title of the thread meant that this was a topic concerning creationism... and the only alternative I have heard about is evolution. But, since it's not about teaching evolution in school, I guess I didn't really have a point.

Anywho, about the wind thing. Of course temperature and pressure are measures of energy. My point is, the temperature and pressure are trying to reach an equilibrium through the wind. This energy is transfered slowly from the area of higher energy to the area of lower energy (in other words, the energy itself does not transfer as fast as the wind, because some of the energy is lost in transit). Therefore, in the future we will not be able to see the wind through "glasses". We will once again see the affects of the wind (the transfer of energy) if we invent "glasses" to see energy.


Now, I know it wasn't meant to be literal, but my point is we will never be able to "see" the movement of air, only the effects that movement has.


Anyways, the subject of the thread has been lost, so I'll stop my rambling.

The exsistance of god is imposible to prove of disprove by its very nature
The way creationists take one small point of weakness and try to use it to disprove thing is silly and a waste of time. Science does not have the ability to make clames of the supernatural

Person B gets a pack of cards and picks cards out randomly from diffrent points in the pack. He lays them out in the order he picks them. The order creates a pattern, where he lays down each suit in its exact order and then followed by the next suit. He picked them out compltely randomly, yet they fitted a perfect order.

Now you see, its more likely that there would be order if there is order guiding it as opposed to chaos. I am sure you can agree.


Hahaha. That's quite funny actually. I'm a magician and there is actually a trick that does exactly that. A deck of cards is desplayed to be in a random order. The magician then procceds to pull out the 2 of spades, followed by the 3 and so on, all the while shuffling and cutting the deck. To all those watching, it seems extremely improbable, and yet, it can be recreated over and over with near perfect accuracy. (Trick is called "Reasembled Deck")
(No gimmiks either, just 1 totally normal deck of cards)