It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jamie1
As a scientist, I must point out that the size of the data set does not mean small probability events are "destined" to happen.
That's incorrect and misleading. Nor does low probability mean that there is a God.
The entire premise of arguing philosophical beliefs based on a twisted and false application of statistical probabilities, for most of which we have insufficient data to even estimate, is dumb.
It's pathetic click-bait written by a non-scientist religious pundit with an agenda.
originally posted by: ColeYounger
originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: ColeYounger
I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?
Maybe for these religious people who foam at the mouth, and get offended at the very mention of no-god. Are they that weak and insecure?
I will readily admit that there's no shortage of judgemental, hypocritical phonies who call themselves Christians.
BUT...the atheists are the ones who claim superior logic, reasoning and intelligence. Why can't they simply accept
the idea that someone may believe in a creator? Why are they so offended? Why do they get so worked up?
They rant and rave about religious people being intolerant, yet they absolutely freak out if someone believes in something
different than they do. It's hilarious!
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Okay... Maybe I am just dense so can someone explain how the increase or decrease in the amount of planets which we think may sustain life in the galaxy influences the probability of an intelligent designer?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: KnightLight
All we know is that there was a beginning to the current space/time model of physics, called the Big Bang. That's it.
originally posted by: American-philosopher
wait if its intelligent design there is a reason why you don't live on the sun. I mean would you say to an architect why didn't you design this building with wings on it??
why have limits architect?
originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'm not God, but even I can imagine creatures living in the broiling atomic heat of a sun, composed of a constantly recycling matrix of hydrogen and helium, absorbing energy, "feeling" and transmitting information back and forth via matrix resonances and subatomic spins.
Why is your God so weak and limited?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Jamie1
I think it is a dumb premise as well but I am trying to figure out how those that think it makes sense are rationalizing the argument.
Usually I can at least understand how someone came to their conclusion even if I disagree with them but not in this case.
originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?
BUT...the atheists are the ones who claim superior logic, reasoning and intelligence. Why can't they simply accept
the idea that someone may believe in a creator? Why are they so offended?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Jamie1
As a scientist, I must point out that the size of the data set does not mean small probability events are "destined" to happen.
No, the saying, given a large enough space and enough chances, any probability greater than 0% will happen is 100% true. Otherwise the probability would be 0%. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is a large enough data set with enough chances (which is what I think you are getting at), but the size and age of it certainly do help the odds.
One more thing. In math, data sets can be infinite.
That's incorrect and misleading. Nor does low probability mean that there is a God.
The entire premise of arguing philosophical beliefs based on a twisted and false application of statistical probabilities, for most of which we have insufficient data to even estimate, is dumb.
Yes, yes it is. Which was my whole point.
originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Anyone who tells me it's more likely it's god and not random, and anyone who says it's more likely random and not god isn't using statistics. One may feel more likely to you, but it's based on suppositions.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.
By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there. There is no presented evidence in the OP or from those scientists though to say that they are correct. So their opinions are just that, opinions. And you (well wsj) are using an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting them.
By the way, Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" as a derisive comment about it because he didn't believe the theory was true.
John Lennox is a Christian apologist. It isn't surprising that he'd argue in favor of design.
Your argument is weak, the data is strong. Going from a 1 with 24 zeros down to a few thousand places in the universe where conditions are right for life doesn't leave much room for Dawinism to perform it's hokus pokus. The downward curve is very dramatic as more and more of the complex precise combinations of prerequisites required to have a life sustaining planet become known.
First off, learn scientific notation. It is 1 * 10 ^24 or 1 e 24 not 1 with 24 zeros (this just shows how unscientific this article is for using such stupid notation). Second off, the amount of places that can sustain life hasn't been reduced to a few thousand places in the universe. That wasn't even said in the article, you just made that number up in your head. We have no idea what the exact conditions are for life, not to mention the exact number of planets or life habitable locations in the universe. In fact the number of known planets that can support life has increased, not decreased. You apparently haven't been staying up to date with science, namely astronomy.
Using probability to prove god is ridiculous since if the odds aren't 0%, then it WILL happen given a large enough space and large enough timespan. Heck, it can even happen more than once. Which means that according to probability there could totally be another earth somewhere out in the universe with humans on it having this same conversation. The universe is SO vast that even the smallest probabilities are destined to happen at some point.