Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

Originally posted by Welfhard

Again I'm stunned at the idea that one cannot be theistic and and evolution-ist at the same time. Most of the catholic church consider evolution to be a work of god and they have the bible.

I would be willing to concede if evolutions exists, then God created it....however, I am not aware of the bible stating anywhere that God's work was not finished. The bible says creation was complete on the sixth day, and he rested on the seventh. There is much speculation about whether these were literal days or not....and that is a good topic for debate on another thread.....but whether 6 days, 6 thousand years, or 6 million years, it's still referred to in past tense. I see nothing new under the sun being created, except that which humans create. I believe Our creative ability is a God given design feature. It makes us unique and truly gives us dominion over the earth and all living things.

reply to post by John Matrix



John here's an option I've considered...

However concerning the earth’s age…..I really don’t know old it is…nor do you! So this thread is “opinion.”

Second I believe that the earth was created BEFORE ‘space’ (the openness and all that’s in it.)

Source: Genesis 1: Verse 1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

So let’s summarize…..

Before the Genesis Story - There was nothing in “time.” All things existed ONLY in “eternity.” Therefore there was no past, present or future.
Verse 1-5: Day 1-Time starts: The earth and the place it resides…what we call ‘space’…are made, although completely “empty.” Also, a pilot of “light” is made.
Verse 6-10: Day 2-The hydrologic cycle created around the earth’s atmosphere.
Verse 11-13: Day 3-More work on the earth only, vegetation, plants, etc. Note: still no sun, so those plants couldn’t have existed over a long time, so 24 hours, a day, makes sense.
Verse 14-19: Day 4-The sun and moon are made and set in motion. Does this also explain the making of other stars, plantes, universes, too?

Granted the sequence above presents more questions than answers…

Hypothetical Rationale:
Imagine with me we go back to the ‘beginning’ in the freshly-washed stainless steel car…we bring a doctor with us…he does not know where or when we are going. We have him examine a man and woman…on the DAY AFTER…they were created…

His assignment…to determine the AGE of the two. After a physical examination he determines 25 for the man and 22 for the woman, we ask him, “how did you come to this conclusion?” He explains through “visual observation and the development of their physical bodies.”

Now, we know that in reality they were 1 DAY old….yet all the visual evidence points to the fact that they were adults, appearing in their 20’s….granted this is hypothetical…but could the earth, the universe, etc…have been created the same way????????

WITH APPARENT AGE???

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by John Matrix


Another thing that intrigues me...is JC believed the CREATION story, referred to the Penetuch's books/story as literal...

OT

reply to post by Maslo


Here's a simple real illustration of the CLT...

There are many people of average height in the world, and a smaller number of very tall and very short people. The more extreme the height, the rarer the people with that height.

On the other hand, we could imagine a species in which there was a certain average height and every added inch dropped the probability by a constant amount. The way the heights were distributed wouldn't be a smooth curve (which happens to be called a Gaussian distribution, or a bell curve, or a normal distribution) as it is in the picture, but instead sort of a pyramid. But we never see that.

This isn't confined to biology either. Everything from the frequencies of photons emitted by a laser to the velocity components of a gas molecule do the same thing. That same smooth bell curve happens all throughout the sciences. It's inescapable. Why?

The answer is a mathematical fact called the central limit theorem. In slightly imprecise nonmathematical language it says the following: any time you have a quantity which is bumped around by a large number of random processes, you end up with a bell curve distribution for that quantity. And it really doesn't matter what those random processes are. They themselves don't have to follow the Gaussian distribution. So long as there's lots of them and they're small, the overall effect is Gaussian.

This is of dramatic importance in the sciences, and aside from that it happens to be a good thing to watch for - you'll start seeing it everywhere.

source: scienceblogs.com...

Why do we SEE it everywhere?
Isn't it related to 'order'?
Isn't it related to levey's continuum?
Aren't we all DATA?
Isn't the universe anapplication of DATA?

I know I'm stretching new ground here, but it is a logical jump...I'll keep building the bridge, want to join me?

OT thanks you in advance!

reply to post by Maslo



Might yahweh be the "SUMMATION of probability'?

OT

reply to post by John Matrix

I would be willing to concede if evolutions exists, then God created it....however, I am not aware of the bible stating anywhere that God's work was not finished. The bible says creation was complete on the sixth day, and he rested on the seventh.

But of course the creation story in the bible is much older than the bible itself originating in much older religions. According to chronology of the Old Testament, these events occurred somewhere between 6-7 thousand years ago which is ironic because this particular creation myth is even older than that coming from ancient Sumer. The Sumerians told an almost identical story except with different names and more gods.

Why an all powerful being would need to rest is beyond me, rest is a fairly mortal-esque thing to do.

The bible says creation is finished yet life is continuing to change with new forms emerging as old ones go extinct and new mutations emerge every single day. Every baby conceived has in excess of hundreds of new mutations each, so clearly the gene pool still changing.

Also animals have creativity as well. Creativity is a mark of intelligence and as such the worlds smarter animals have a profound ability to have novel thoughts and moments of insight. Octopuses encountering unfamiliar mazes, crows and puzzles, hell even elephants can paint pictures of themselves and other animals. Creativity isn't something you either have or you don't; it's a thing of degree, even people some have it more than others.

I shouldn't have to point out to you how far from the facts the bible is, particularly in the older books written by apparently more ignorant authors.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker


So now you're saying that...

Normal Distribution = Jesus.

Why?

reply to post by Welfhard


Perhaps the mathematical odds against evolution might be helpful in stimulating the logical side of your mind:

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.

SOURCE: www.faizani.com...

Some things are self evident. That we have a creator is self evident. To argue against this fact is not science, because it ignores the obvious and places faith in the impossible.

Do the math.







[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Maybe Max Born was right? He said, “The conception of chance enters into the very first steps of scientific activity in virtue of the fact that no observation is absolutely correct. I think chance is a more fundamental conception than causality; for whether in a concrete case, a cause-effect relation holds or not can only be judged by applying the laws of chance to the observation.”

The greatest thing I've ever heard on the subject of chance...

"There is no chance, that chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.

Honestly, nothing can ever prove nor disprove the existence of something like a deity. We can disprove the existence of man made concepts of deities as real entities, but not disprove the actuality of an entity with deity like properties. On the other hand, it's not logical to assume an eternal deity but deny an eternal universe claiming one can exist but the other can not. Deities are a man made definition of creation, not an experienced or observed phenomenon that leaves a visible mark across the universe for all to see the deity in question.

If an infinite god is a possibility, then an infinite universe is more likely.

reply to post by John Matrix


I did the math and you are right!

OT

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by OldThinker

Maybe Max Born was right? He said, “The conception of chance enters into the very first steps of scientific activity in virtue of the fact that no observation is absolutely correct. I think chance is a more fundamental conception than causality; for whether in a concrete case, a cause-effect relation holds or not can only be judged by applying the laws of chance to the observation.”

The greatest thing I've ever heard on the subject of chance...

"There is no chance, that chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.

Honestly, nothing can ever prove nor disprove the existence of something like a deity. We can disprove the existence of man made concepts of deities as real entities, but not disprove the actuality of an entity with deity like properties. On the other hand, it's not logical to assume an eternal deity but deny an eternal universe claiming one can exist but the other can not. Deities are a man made definition of creation, not an experienced or observed phenomenon that leaves a visible mark across the universe for all to see the deity in question.

If an infinite god is a possibility, then an infinite universe is more likely.

The proof for the existence of a divine creator resides in his intelligent design, which is everywhere you look. The signature of the master Artist/Designer is self evident in everything from galaxies to constellations, from our solar system to the rocks and dust of the earth, from single celled organisms to DNA. Our consciousness bears His signature in our innate understanding of right and wrong. Our intellect bears His signature with our ability to create things from imagination.

It is a strong delusion that holds you from seeing what others see as self evident.

We know nothing happens by chance, and all has purpose.

But you want us to believe it was all an accident, a random chance series of billions upon billions upon billions of natural processes working over billions of years to bring about spontaneous generation of life, then mutations leading to speciation, and speciation leading to higher forms of life.

Sorry, but evolution is not science, and science is not evolution, and evolution is not self evident. Creation is self evident. You deny the Artists/Designers signature as proof. That does not mean the proof does not exist. It means you refuse to believe because you have accepted a strong delusion.

Originally posted by sirnex
....... Deities are a man made definition of creation, not an experienced or observed phenomenon that leaves a

visible mark across the universe for all to see

the deity in question....

to see?

Man, please just look around...

Romans 1:20 (New International Version)
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Why would it say, "so we are without EXCUSE?"

Because its so obvious friend......

Please look around, I beg you...






OT

I mean, let's be absolutely honest with ourselves and look around our universe. What do we ACTUALLY see around us? We see everything following specific laws of physics and not breaking those laws. We don't see anything else, no matter how much one wants to pretend they do.

As for morality, it's purely subjective and not something man is naturally born with. According to the society and culture you live in, you LEARN right from wrong as dictated by that society and culture. What's right in one culture is absolutely wrong in another culture. This is how the world works and has worked since the dawn of civilization. You can't argue that morality is a natural understanding across all of mankind, as it simply is not so and demonstratively shown as such.

What I am trying to get across is that chance does not exist nor does probability, as those two terms indicate extant causes not recognized or perceived. You can't look at something not knowing the cause for it and label it chance, probable, or random. That's just self defeating, it's like giving up in your argument. We exist as life on this planet because of natural laws of physics as they exist in our universe, not because of chance, randomness or probabilities as those are man made terms of not knowing causes or understanding those causes.

If you say a creator is self evident, then can you honestly tell me some objective evidence with no other cause for it existing besides the universe. Can you HONESTLY and TRUTHFULLY tell me that life can't exist per the laws of physics despite our lack of full understanding of those laws and the processes at work.

Can you honestly tell me that no effect requires a cause and can you point out anything as such?

The religious types love to state, just look around, it's self evident, but they refuse to acknowledge that for every effect there is a cause and for every cause there is an effect. Whether we understand the processes involved or not doesn't change a lick that effects are preceded by causes and unless you can show that mankind is the exception, you can't use it in an argument to prove a deity.

Originally posted by platipus
i believe there has to be a god if not how did everything in the universe come to be, even with that big bang nothing to something sounds a bit absurd.

What's your level of familiarity with science?

Second line.

If nothing from something seems absurd, then how does something exist like a god?

If god is accepted as always have existed, then why is it such a hard stretch to accept a universe that has always existed?

Originally posted by sirnex
I mean, let's be absolutely honest with ourselves and look around our universe. What do we ACTUALLY see around us? We see everything following specific laws of physics and not breaking those laws.

oh really, quarks, too?

OT

A lil' more here....www.abovetopsecret.com...

PS: Thx for the lengthly reply, I'll get to it tomorrow...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by platipus
i believe there has to be a god if not how did everything in the universe come to be, even with that big bang nothing to something sounds a bit absurd.

What's your level of familiarity with science?

Second line.

I'll answer the question...

I have been blessed to be in the top 99.9999 of my profession...

Google MASTER BLACK BELT IN LEAN SIX SIGMA...no po-dunk hillbilly over here, altho I do like "PONE"

OT

Originally posted by sirnex
If nothing from something seems absurd, then how does something exist like a god?

If god is accepted as always have existed, then why is it such a hard stretch to accept a universe that has always existed?

Good questions, I dunno, maybe? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by sirnex
.......If you say a creator is self evident, then can you honestly tell me some objective evidence with no other cause for it existing besides the universe. Can you HONESTLY and TRUTHFULLY tell me that life can't exist per the laws of physics despite our lack of full understanding of those laws and the processes at work.

??

Why the CAPS?

What am I lying here?

Come on now?????

You reject the scriptures friend, that's it, bottom line, sorry

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


The scriptures call for something that is not only invented by man, but also something that is not seen in the universe as we know it. If I am to go by what we can see, then of course I reject the scriptures. It makes no sense to believe everything man has to say about everything, including any musings on possible deity like entities for whom he has no proof of other than his word.

I won't get into great detail over the issue's of misinterpreting quantum physics and the use of the misinterpretation to prove the existence of one god out of many. Not being able to comprehend a theory or what it's implications are does not make it out to be something that it is not. Meaning, QM does not make a valid argument for god and actually goes against any evidence for deities.

Misunderstandings don't make valid arguments. I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed one bit to 'misinterpret' scripture to show that satan is more good than the old testament god without getting an earful no matter the amount of times god kills compared to him.

Let's put the question back up there rather than skirting around it crying how I reject scripture.

.If you say a creator is self evident, then can you honestly tell me some objective evidence with no other cause for it existing besides the universe. Can you HONESTLY and TRUTHFULLY tell me that life can't exist per the laws of physics despite our lack of full understanding of those laws and the processes at work.

It's not a hard question to answer if it is something so self-evident. You should have no issues into pointing at one thing (just one thing is all I ask) the is self-evident of being created by god and not by any other processes with the exception of the universe.




[edit on 21-9-2009 by sirnex]