I cringed at both the argument (that creationists use too often) and the simplified explanation of why it's wrong. Good attempt at it, but yeah, even if this was simple enough for the likes of Ray Comfort to understand, they'll still deny the logic behind it.
Careful! "Undirected natural processes" is an oxymoron. Nature derives its direction from the laws, or law-like directions, embued within its components. We neither know the scope of its laws, nor whether what we conceive as laws are the only directives.
@buidseach ...what are you saying, that- the fact that we think is nothing more than illusion? That human emotion, good will, or PAIN /Suffering is all but an illusion...if that is so then does it not also make evil also simply an illusion? (good and evil = to a mineral)
Seriouslwhat are you trying to get at because the more I think about your statement more absurd,deLUSIONAL, and quite frankly dangerous it is begining to sound. Speak up, or accept the sillyness of your statement.
@buidseach your brilliance is stunning! By that same mindset -"we are made of the same stuff"- I conclude your superior intellect is of the same essence as "Fluffyy's" pile of dung.....Sorry, you need to understand basic Chemistry- that although all is made of the same universal chemical Elements, once two or more are combined chemically they completely lose their individual chemical and physical properties...and exist as an a completely different substance...Good for U ! ;o)
conciousness and intelligence are an illusion we are just a bunch of minerals and chemicals, if we do have a conciousness then so does the universe because we are made of the same stuff.
@micometer What do you call a belief that a computer can create itself out of random chance 1x10x 10 with 10,123 zeros behind it when the universe is but ~14 billion yrs old (thats just 9 zero's)? I call that radical faith, U may not like the word "religion", but it certainly is faith. Don't U realize their are 10 to 80th baryons (protons & neutrons in the Universe) and U are talking of a number quite larger than that. U want to believe that & convince others U are right. That IS religion!
just try taking a break from all the noise sometimes. the constant chattering of the intellect is not necessary. take up an art, like music, and go beyond the incessant internal dialogue...
Atheism IS a religion without doubt. It claims a profound belief that there is no Creator, no intelligent designer, despite their very own intelligence. That in enssence NOTHING has created Something, nothing else. It is a strong faith in that despite logic that we know by the Mathematical (LOGIC) calculation (not a hypothesis or theory) in the Penrose Number (that creation by random chance is a virtual impossibility) yet they continue to believe. No question they have a strong faith.
@Survivormanz Pssst: Evolution is the NON-random survival of random mutations. Repeat: NON-random.
Also, your analysis of the odds seems to overlook the sheer vastness of the universe. It's like arguing that no one has ever won Powerball because the odds of an individual ticket winning are so low. The odds of a single ticket winning are 1 in 200 million, but if the lottery commission sells 80 million tickets, then the odds of there being a winning ticket somewhere aren't all that low.
The MOST FLAWED ATTEMPT AT REASONING is that creation came about by chance. Physics & Mathematics has proven your conclusion, but with the opposite result. You see Roger Penrose a good friend and colleague of Steven Hawkin unpurposely figured it out. It is certainly NOT 50-50%, not even close. Penrose "observed the world" around us and has intelligently concluded that it takes an unreasonable "faith" to believe that we are here by coincedence- by mere undirected natural processes.
Here is the "right tool for the job", the "SMOKING GUN", scientific proof: just google "teleological argument and entropy" , also read Robert Spitzer's book : New Proofs for the existence of God.
The video is correct in that there is no information about the probability of events. However this aids the argment of a Creator since Atheists cannot claim any more of a probability of there being NO God since there is no information. Since there are essentially 2 choices and only 1 can be correct this is where the Religion comes in.
Theist Religion says it BELIEVES there is a God
Atheist Religion says it BELIEVES there is No God
Neither can be based on any Scientific Facts or probability.
@Texmurphy51 Looks like someone has never heard of the null hypothesis.
There is no reason to even consider god as a possibility until there is evidence pointing towards that possibility. Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd have to be equally open to the possibility of literally every single magical being ever proposed. That which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Try re-reading your own argument, substituting the word "god" with "unicorns".
@Texmurphy51 Good point, except there IS evidence for the hypotheses you mentioned. There's not enough evidence to definitively say that they are correct and their alternatives are not, but there is evidence. There is NO evidence for god.
Since your argument is based on a false premise, GIGO applies.
Name an experimental result that would conclusively disprove that the universe was made by a Creator.
If you can't, then you've admitted that your Creator explanation is purely symbolic but effectively meaningless. It makes no predictions and can't be falsified because it is completely devoid of any explanatory content. Saying "Goddidit" is like writing "X" after the equal sign of an equation, then patting yourself on the back for being such a math genius.
@Texmurphy51 Dark Matter, unlike a Creator, is an explanatory model that can actually be used to make predictions, which gives it the potential to be falsified. This is science's greatest advantage over religious delusion: it's entire methodology is rooted in aggressively seeking out and correcting its own mistakes. Theism has no such self-correcting feature. It proudly clings to its mistakes instead of fixing them.
@butchkitties Dark Matter needs to be proven yet, I was speaking of Multiverses.
They were created as an occams razor to explain the extreme unlikely event of our universe just popping into existence.
You again keep refering to RELIGION. I have already said Religion is a MYTH. An intellligence creating the Universe has nothing to do with Religion. It is simply another possible explanation.
You wont accept it as a possibility because your Believe System is No God.
@butchkitties Atheism is the rejection of other RELIGIONS not Facts
Atheism is a Philosophy, Belief System with many world wide followers & argues how the Universe was Created. That is a positive claim not simply rejection of another.
NO amount of proof would convince you (Atheists).
Its part of the Belief System
Just as no proof will convince some of Evolution
Any evidence can be argued away
Especially about Creation because its all sheer speculation
@Texmurphy51 Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim "Gods exist" It's no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
@Texmurphy51 You know nothing about science. First off, there are no "sides" in science. What's right is what agrees with the evidence. Secondly, atheism IS simply a rejection of belief in god. To claim with absolute certainty that god does not exist is not really the point, we don't have to show that to not believe in a god...
@Texmurphy51 So that also means Theist dont have to show certainty to BELIEVE in God,(right?)
No, of course that's not right. If you believe god exists, you must show it. I have made no claim, I only refuse the claim that theists have made. This is why I don't like the term "atheist". There's no word given to describe people who refuse to believe in the tooth fairy, after all. You're just playing a semantic game here.
@Texmurphy51 If I claimed that there is absolutely no good, then yes, I would have to prove that assertion. I have made no such claim, however. In analogy, you certainly don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy, to absolute certainty, in order to not believe in the reality of tooth fairies! Well, if can you understand that, you surely understand the position of the average atheist.
not necessary to conclude any thing . I like the sharing of perceptions of every one. I like not be obliged to comply with any external idea of anyone. I call that freedom.
I thank the host of the channel to promote my thoughts.
I thank people to think on such subjects. I am learning to respect other humans seeing that the exposure of thoughts in freedom allows such thing we call society. I appreciate society with its diversity. Enjoy the world while you live.
Wrong things: Intelligence is a human defined concept. So if God, that would not apply such thing like intelligence. Seams more like: Intelligence is a perception of bias. Bias is separated by comparison. Comparison is subject to bias. Doubt is inevitable in such conditions. As very little or none certainty is in place , small space is given for assertions. Result: Folks .... keep observing and learning, there is much more for us all. Most of all : know to respect others ideas. Tks
I agree that probability issue is an oxymoron. The crux of the matter is basically do we exist or not...if we are here(we do exist so thats 100%) then how did we get here. And the true matter of probability is whether this computer can create itself our of mere random chance and if so what is the probability of such an occurrence happening. If that number is higher than the age of the cosmos then the answer is easy, GOD exist and we have an intelligent designer.
It's like saying there's a 50% chance either way that Zjemptv is an atheist or a creationist. when you consider the content of the video, the chances that she is a atheist dramatically increase. If you add a third posibility; that she is simply acting like a super-nerd to impress a demographic of youtuber's, You'll find the likelihood of atheist/creationist are a distant 2nd and 3rd, respectivly.
It's like saying there's a 50% chance either way that Zjemptv is an atheist or a creationist. when you consider the content of the video, the chances that she is a atheist dramatically increase. If you add a third posibility; that she is simply acting like a super-nerd to impress a demographic of youtuber's
@Texmurphy51 "The 2 choice idea is simply to show that Atheism cannot be a "disbelief in God" a Choice must be made since there are 2 possible outcomes."
You're confusing states of nature with beliefs about them. God existing or not is a true dichotomy, but I'm not forced to believe either option. Instead I can believe, or not, both statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" individually. I can disbelieve both due to lack of evidence. Doing this makes me an atheist lacking belief in god.
@Texmurphy51 The only thing that doesn't work is believing both "God exists" and "God does not exist" at the same time, as that obviously is a contradiction. Anyway, the other problem with your argument is that you're assuming an equal probability distribution for no reason what so ever, when in reality, your ignorance of previous probabilities should have caused you to reject the probability argument outright as unsupported nonsense.
@Texmurphy51 The only sense in which you get a "rational" argument if you assign 50% to each option is that this can be an initial state of bayesian reasoning, but as you don't actually have any data on God, it's just pointless to even consider the idea. We know nature exists, we do not know that it can ever be "created" nor do we know that "god" is even possible. It's not at all clear why anyone would even consider such an idea, let alone give it a 50% probability.
@Texmurphy51 Your approach would be great if we could run experiments on possible worlds a large number of times to adjust the 50% probability to reflect data, but as a tool for making decisions without such adjustment it's just worthless. This should be clear if you consider the problem of assigning probabilities to a weighted dice. A logical argument to the effect that the 6 options are equal would not reflect reality, so ignorance is no excuse for choosing an even probability model.
@Texmurphy51 That is, if you chose an even probability model, you'd be making decisions based on nonsense, so we simply can't assign probability models without knowledge of the system we're studying. At least not if we care about the model being a useful tool for prediction and reasoning, and that should be the reason to employ a probability argument to begin with.
I'm gonna have to think about this. I've long been a dupe of the gambler's fallacy so maybe that's got something to do with a blind spot I may have here but I just assumed that the statement "the universe was either created by an intelligent being or it wasn't" implied a 50-50 chance either way, simply because there are 2 choices. If there were 3 choices then maybe I'd divide it up into thirds
@MoeShinola1 Yeah, you could think of this example a computer game might give you "sword of great power" 4% of the time and "rusted sword" 96 % of the time. This is a two choise thing. What then if you didn't know the probabillities just that there were two choises? The odds are still the same but you don't know about them so trying to obtain them 100 times expecting 50 "Swords of great power" is unlikely to work. Seems to me this test is the only way to know the odds, likely giving close to 4.
Looking around, there is actually a much more evidence that there IS an intelligent creator. Probably not that of the bible, but a compromise between pure evolution and intelligent design. Because the most advanced theories we have so far on how the big bang started is that the compressed entirety of the universe blipped into existence at random. THAT'S INSANE! If we scientifically except that SOMETIMES something can come from nothing, we mine as well just give up.
@DepressedAnnnie There is no evidence for intelligent design or creator. The universe is expanding, it must have been smaller in the past. The Big Bang is about the univers after it began, we may never know why or how it began. Matter does come from nothing in Quantum Physics.
@gregrutz That's not what I said though. I will give you that I think I used the wrong word because intelligent design implies creationism. What's that one called where god orchestrated evolution? Either way, it's not that either. You are right about the big bang not explaining how entirety started but does that make the question of where entirety came from any less important. "We may never know" is not a proper defense of atheism especially when you consider we already see the alternative
as fact in every day life. Same way computers can't program themselves, I find it far more likely that even though there is no divine intervention and the universe operates merely by thousands of strict rules, something had to write the code for our world. If you think the universe doesn't function like a computer, that's perfectly logical. I mean in programs like "The Sims" divine intervention happens on a regular basis and that's certainly not happening here.
Wrong. Prior to surveying peoples' houses and gathering data, the probability of the presence of a locomotive are 50%. It is only then when gathering the data that the percentages change.
@Spyez No dummy, just because someone says there are only 2 answers does not automaticly make it 50-50. The probability is UNKNOWN before any data is collected.
You divide the number of choices by 100. That's what you base it on. Take your pseudo-intelligence to the local Middle school; you can impress them there.
Terrible example since a headache is a symptom of myriad of conditions. However, if I have never seen a case of headache or brain cancer, you would have 50%. On another note, I see the word "dummy" is ubiquitous in all of your responses; is this your way of conveying yourself as superior? LOL.
You’d think that the utterly desperate and ridiculous arguments that theists have to fall back on would give them a clue to how utterly desperate and ridiculous their position is. But then I guess thinking isn’t going to be the strong point of someone whose world view requires them to just switch their brain off.
@wownov83 So you believe that you have provided the perfect counter argument? Wow man! You are unusually endowed intellectually ( for a bigot, that is)
The choice of creation versus non creation is a false dichotomy. It presupposes the universe is separate from consciousness and made up of "stuff" or non conscious material.
The universe is a manifestation of consciousness and is the same material you experience in your dreams as it too is a manifestation of consciousness.
Indeed your dreams are fractalized components of a larger dream and so on and so on...
Don't believe it?
You will... It doesn't matter anyway if you don't believe it.
@SirLeeTehPwnzor Or perhaps we can stop being so bloody arrogant and stop assuming that we know how the universe was created.
Instead, we can try and find out how the universe was created.
People who go "yep, big bang's right" are just as bad as the ones who go "yep, god made all this". Both sides believe that their theories are objectively correct. They are not. Hopefully in the future, the truth will be discovered. Until then, creationism is a theory and the Big Bang is a theory.
@Lichtouch No "God gave the order and Big Bang happened."? In the end of the day, I can't actually prove that God created all those things scientifically, or him/her can't prove that it created itself. That's why I don't like to have debates with atheists, even if you/me win, means the other side just got bored of your/my arrogancy and ignorancy and chose to say "ok as you say".
@SirLeeTehPwnzor You listed another theory. It's just as plausible as all the rest and has just as much evidence so far - very little. In the end, these debates aren't necessary. Even if God were real, I and many other atheists would not kneel and pray. I see nothing in any depiction of God worth worshipping. In almost every religion, the deities are far too barbaric and medieval to demand even a shred of respect from me. My objection to God isn't scientific but based in morality.
Religion is a set of choices; god is external or internal, supernatural or natural, metaphysical or physical. Civilization has tried to find god as external, supernatural and metaphysical hasn’t been much of a success. Religion and Reality are fundamentally separate and divergent from each other. The physical world is an imperfect reflection of an individual’s perception of what their idea of reality is. The individual places conceived ideas into what is considered by others as the real world.
I'm a fan of your mind, ZJ, but you're not quite right here. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, there is a 50% chance of any truth claim being true vs untrue. To deviate from a pure agnostic position of 50/50 with regard to a claim carries a burden of evidence. The evidence should be proportional to the strengh of the claim. A claim of certainty, 100% probability requires absolute proof. A claim of certainty of untruth, 0% probability, also requires absolute proof.
The absence of (historic) data regarding mutually exclusive states does not preclude a situation in which one is more likely than the other, it simply means that we cannot assign data-backed values to each states probability.
From the perspective of an observer that is both uninformed and incapable of hypothesis, each state must have a probability of occurance of 0.5; that observation has no guarantee of coinciding with reality, however, and most probably (hoho) almost never does.
@Spookert0n Quite right on both points. We are not in disagreement. Probability estimates, not the truth of a cliam but the degree to which we know that truth, whatever it is. Data may suggest to us a 99% probability that X is true, but X may yet be 100% false. That doesn't mean, of course, that X was 99% true, only that we were 99% certain that it was true. Probability is a measurement of likeliness, not a measurement of actuality.
You are correct, though to be fair you mus conced that a number of those who used the 50% probability arguement actually meant somthing along the lines of:
there is no evidence either way, no reason to believe that either side is true what-so-ever and no way of finding evidence or proof and thus we have no indication of the correct probability, so it might as well be 50-50.
Which is a perfectly reasonable and logicly sound argument.
Excellent explanation of probability. Even simpler for people to grasp is the chance of rain. It's not a 50/50 chance everyday nor with snow, hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfire. Certain factors adjust the likelihood of events. Some people just don't get it. Great job. Do you study statistics?
Actually if you watch:"Abiogenesis" & "The universe from nothing" & .....Well I have all these videos and more in my :science of GOD file".And no it isn't all about there being a GOD,it has all the theorys i could find so far about life ect.
I actually went to your channel to check it out, and what was the first video that popped up in the God and science? Well it was good old casual argument, with its assertions and everything.
I did not bother watching more, since flawd videos like that, tend to kill off my curiousity.
I might check out the abiogenesis that you spoke off, later on.
If only two people play PowerBall, they could very well both lose, and the jackpot would increase for the next drawing 6^) . There is either a return on your $1?/$2?/what?, or there isn't.
@marasu66 You are changing the rules, i was talking about the actually lottery, my logic is correct therefire i dont understand why you are trying to refute it.
@shackupyourstruly For 50/50 chance applying to the lottery there would have to be only two tickets printed: The winning numbers, and the non-winning numbers. Millions of different numbers may be printed but you might buy just one of them. Therefore it isn't just winning or losing, it's the one in a million chance that you get that one card.
I have heard probabilities used as way to make belief in god rational. People would say that there is a 50% chance god exists. They misunderstand how probabilities work.
I like the train-in-my-living-room analogy.
They are forgetting all the other thousands of gods they must include in the calculation. Of course, mathematics cannot be used to prove something beyond the physical realm, so any calculation in inherently flawed.
your example was seriously flawed. you can reduce the odds of a steam train when looking at the physics. size wieght ect. without information on the object a 50-50
odds is a safe place to start. information changes the odds.
So is the god or no god argument in the same way, that is what she is showing you. There are many other factors that must be put into account, and also saying that statistics is not how you determine how things work. Statistics is a matter of consistency based on past observations used to predict future observations. If we've never observed something pertaining to the subject, we cannot use statistics.
@HolyNonbeliever there is the problem both sides of this debate don't agree on the facts. so that leaves us with no useable data to form a statistic that both sides can agree on. let me ask you a question what are the odds of the lights being on in my den right now? you have no information pertaining to this subject yet the odds are 50-50 that your choice would be right.
You are changing the topic. Please, resolve the one before moving on and thinking one of us has won or lost. First off, I do not have information about your lights, therefore it is not a 50/50 chance. It is a null chance, no data to base my calculations on. The point is, if both sides do not agree on information, then they are not facts quite yet. Also, a large group of people could claim they do not agree and make the same argument. So, what are the facts that no one agrees on then?
@HolyNonbeliever I wasn't changing the subject I was making a comparison. the same way ZJ made a comparison with stream trains and the existance of god in his vid. What i find funny it your objections to this line of reasoning .I guess certain logic is only allowed if you support the end results. you will have to excuse me if I don't persue this debate with you. you seem to need a win on this topic and your not going to let logic rob you of it.so with that I withdraw . you win
Wow, it took me a LONG time to stop laughing at the stupidity in your comment. Christians tower over atheists? You mean you actually think you're winning? LMFAO! You are in serious denial, my friend lol. All you Christians have is Ad Hominem attacks, like what you just did. Only attacking the speaker because you're too retarded to attack their arguement.
Besides, I'd rather have "lipstick wearing fags" on my side then your child-molesting priests.
If idiots like this really think there is no God why do they create false evidence for their side and try to hide support for existence of God, and what does that say about probability.
There's a 50% chance the univere was created by a god.
there's a 50% chance it came from a bowl of pasta.
there's a 50% chance it came from a pickle jar.
there's a 50% chance that Escher painted it and went into hiding for 14 billion years.
there'sa 50% chance was a stick of bubble gum that's still expanding,and that's us. OMG, 250% chance that it was either food or people that created the universe
I feel the need to add that a Steam Lokomotive in my livingroom, while creating a problem through it using up more space than there actually is, would be quite awesome.
I feel the need to add that a Steam Lokomotive in my livingroom, while creating a problem through it using up more space than there actually is, would be quite awesome.
It kind of reminds me of people I know who are Christians because they feel that if there is no way to know what is out there (or if anything is out there) they should play it safe and believe. Better to follow Christ and find no afterlife than to end up an atheist at the pearly gates. However they never seem to take into account the other religions and cults that are around and those that have faded into obscurity making it not a 50-50 choice but an absurd argument.
I don't see why it matters. We have a universe. Does its creation matter? X% chance of intelligent creation, Y% chance of it just happened. I'd like to know what happened because I'm curious, but I can tolerate uncertainty. I don't need to know, and I definitely don't need to tell anyone else.
Good job pointing out the 50% flaw. The most important thing for us to know is that we don't know.
I cringed at both the argument (that creationists use too often) and the simplified explanation of why it's wrong. Good attempt at it, but yeah, even if this was simple enough for the likes of Ray Comfort to understand, they'll still deny the logic behind it.
KittenKoder 2 days ago
Careful! "Undirected natural processes" is an oxymoron. Nature derives its direction from the laws, or law-like directions, embued within its components. We neither know the scope of its laws, nor whether what we conceive as laws are the only directives.
thre3eplus 1 month ago
you are great
Laura1123xox 2 months ago
Either:
1. Very masculan woman - hell naw
2. Faggot Gayboy with AIDS
bmxrider222 2 months ago
@bmxrider222 *skeptical Fry face*
Either:
1. Troll.
or
2. Very stupid.
Chayraz2 2 months ago
@Chayraz2 1
bmxrider222 2 months ago
@bmxrider222 Me gusta.
Chayraz2 2 months ago
@Chayraz2 ?
bmxrider222 2 months ago
@bmxrider222 Lol, newfag.
Chayraz2 2 months ago
@Chayraz2 why do you keep watching this robotfaggot
bmxrider222 2 months ago
@bmxrider222 Because I like watching these videos there are Lots of raging christians and subliterates in the comment section that I can troll.
Why do you consistantly fail at grammar?
Chayraz2 2 months ago
damn i wish probability actuall did work that way
riding a unicorn tomorrow ...
sounds like fun
spitzbubezumquadrat 2 months ago
Now I want to have a steam locamotive in my living room. :)
absentmindedprof 2 months ago
@buidseach ...what are you saying, that- the fact that we think is nothing more than illusion? That human emotion, good will, or PAIN /Suffering is all but an illusion...if that is so then does it not also make evil also simply an illusion? (good and evil = to a mineral)
Seriouslwhat are you trying to get at because the more I think about your statement more absurd,deLUSIONAL, and quite frankly dangerous it is begining to sound. Speak up, or accept the sillyness of your statement.
MicaelTru 4 months ago
@buidseach your brilliance is stunning! By that same mindset -"we are made of the same stuff"- I conclude your superior intellect is of the same essence as "Fluffyy's" pile of dung.....Sorry, you need to understand basic Chemistry- that although all is made of the same universal chemical Elements, once two or more are combined chemically they completely lose their individual chemical and physical properties...and exist as an a completely different substance...Good for U ! ;o)
MicaelTru 4 months ago
conciousness and intelligence are an illusion we are just a bunch of minerals and chemicals, if we do have a conciousness then so does the universe because we are made of the same stuff.
buidseach 4 months ago
i have a train in my living room
buidseach 4 months ago
@micometer What do you call a belief that a computer can create itself out of random chance 1x10x 10 with 10,123 zeros behind it when the universe is but ~14 billion yrs old (thats just 9 zero's)? I call that radical faith, U may not like the word "religion", but it certainly is faith. Don't U realize their are 10 to 80th baryons (protons & neutrons in the Universe) and U are talking of a number quite larger than that. U want to believe that & convince others U are right. That IS religion!
MicaelTru 4 months ago
just try taking a break from all the noise sometimes. the constant chattering of the intellect is not necessary. take up an art, like music, and go beyond the incessant internal dialogue...
jamesedwardtheobald 4 months ago
Atheism IS a religion without doubt. It claims a profound belief that there is no Creator, no intelligent designer, despite their very own intelligence. That in enssence NOTHING has created Something, nothing else. It is a strong faith in that despite logic that we know by the Mathematical (LOGIC) calculation (not a hypothesis or theory) in the Penrose Number (that creation by random chance is a virtual impossibility) yet they continue to believe. No question they have a strong faith.
MicaelTru 4 months ago
@MicaelTru The level of your ignorance is laughable at best and staggeringly pitiful at worst.
Atheism is religion like bald is a hair color or how not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You have the internet; go look up what atheists really believe. Or, better yet, go watch/call in to the Atheist Experience.
micometer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@micometer sez "Atheism is religion like bald is a hair color or how not collecting stamps is a hobby"
Black is a color yet it is the absence of all colors, Bald is the absence of Hair & has nothing to do with color.
Hobby is defined as - interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation
Not Collecting stamps gives me great pleasure & relaxation so it IS a Hobby
You see I can use semantic tricks as well as you.
Texmurphy51 2 months ago
@Survivormanz Pssst: Evolution is the NON-random survival of random mutations. Repeat: NON-random.
Also, your analysis of the odds seems to overlook the sheer vastness of the universe. It's like arguing that no one has ever won Powerball because the odds of an individual ticket winning are so low. The odds of a single ticket winning are 1 in 200 million, but if the lottery commission sells 80 million tickets, then the odds of there being a winning ticket somewhere aren't all that low.
butchkitties 4 months ago
The MOST FLAWED ATTEMPT AT REASONING is that creation came about by chance. Physics & Mathematics has proven your conclusion, but with the opposite result. You see Roger Penrose a good friend and colleague of Steven Hawkin unpurposely figured it out. It is certainly NOT 50-50%, not even close. Penrose "observed the world" around us and has intelligently concluded that it takes an unreasonable "faith" to believe that we are here by coincedence- by mere undirected natural processes.
MicaelTru 4 months ago
Here is the "right tool for the job", the "SMOKING GUN", scientific proof: just google "teleological argument and entropy" , also read Robert Spitzer's book : New Proofs for the existence of God.
MicaelTru 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the only reason you have to explain this is cause everyone a dumbass :P
iamtheprototype 5 months ago
The video is correct in that there is no information about the probability of events. However this aids the argment of a Creator since Atheists cannot claim any more of a probability of there being NO God since there is no information. Since there are essentially 2 choices and only 1 can be correct this is where the Religion comes in.
Theist Religion says it BELIEVES there is a God
Atheist Religion says it BELIEVES there is No God
Neither can be based on any Scientific Facts or probability.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Looks like someone has never heard of the null hypothesis.
There is no reason to even consider god as a possibility until there is evidence pointing towards that possibility. Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd have to be equally open to the possibility of literally every single magical being ever proposed. That which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Try re-reading your own argument, substituting the word "god" with "unicorns".
butchkitties 4 months ago
@butchkitties "There is no reason to even consider god as a possibility until there is evidence "
There is no evidence for Dark Matter/Energy yet it is considered possible.
Nor ET life or Multiverses or String Theory or any of a hundred other things.
Unicorns is a Strawman argument because it is a know Myth.
Try Substituting String Theory into YOUR argument & see what happens.
You simply reject Creation because you Belief in No God
Religion is Myth & is your source of prejudice.
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Good point, except there IS evidence for the hypotheses you mentioned. There's not enough evidence to definitively say that they are correct and their alternatives are not, but there is evidence. There is NO evidence for god.
Since your argument is based on a false premise, GIGO applies.
butchkitties 4 months ago
@butchkitties "there IS evidence "
There is no evidence for creation that YOU would accept, thats why you Believe in No God.
The Multiverse Theory is considered because the probability that our Universe was created randomly is extremely high.
With that as "Evidence" I could say Creation is a viable alternative.
Neither can be proven so how can you say Multiverse is better?
I could say it was a false premise also.
Your again are prejudice because you use Religion as a backdrop.
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51
Name an experimental result that would conclusively disprove that the universe was made by a Creator.
If you can't, then you've admitted that your Creator explanation is purely symbolic but effectively meaningless. It makes no predictions and can't be falsified because it is completely devoid of any explanatory content. Saying "Goddidit" is like writing "X" after the equal sign of an equation, then patting yourself on the back for being such a math genius.
butchkitties 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Dark Matter, unlike a Creator, is an explanatory model that can actually be used to make predictions, which gives it the potential to be falsified. This is science's greatest advantage over religious delusion: it's entire methodology is rooted in aggressively seeking out and correcting its own mistakes. Theism has no such self-correcting feature. It proudly clings to its mistakes instead of fixing them.
butchkitties 4 months ago
@butchkitties Dark Matter needs to be proven yet, I was speaking of Multiverses.
They were created as an occams razor to explain the extreme unlikely event of our universe just popping into existence.
You again keep refering to RELIGION. I have already said Religion is a MYTH. An intellligence creating the Universe has nothing to do with Religion. It is simply another possible explanation.
You wont accept it as a possibility because your Believe System is No God.
Atheism = Religion
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 okay, u're right. we are even more then a religion, we are a terrorist group planning to take over the world. ;)
matheuspiassa 4 months ago
@matheuspiassa "we are even more then a religion"
No, your just a Religion that Believes in No God.
If you were simply people who "have no Belief" then you would not go to such an extent to convert other people to your way of thinking.
Not a Stamp Collector does not publish books, put internet videos, have worldwide organizations dedicated to their, "non collecting"
Atheism is one of the many No God Religions,
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Atheism is not a religion. It is merely the rejection of a claim.
Provide some evidence of a deity and I'll change my mind.
butchkitties 4 months ago
Comment removed
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@butchkitties Atheism is the rejection of other RELIGIONS not Facts
Atheism is a Philosophy, Belief System with many world wide followers & argues how the Universe was Created. That is a positive claim not simply rejection of another.
NO amount of proof would convince you (Atheists).
Its part of the Belief System
Just as no proof will convince some of Evolution
Any evidence can be argued away
Especially about Creation because its all sheer speculation
Belief = Atheism=Theism
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim "Gods exist" It's no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
butchkitties 3 months ago
@butchkitties Do Non collectors of stamps organze against collectors?
Do they publish books, websites, magazines talking about collectors?
Do they have youtube videos saying collectors are wrong or idiots?
Your analogy is idiotic.
Atheism is Belief in No God
If atheists gather in an organized form then it is a Religion like any other No God Religion like Buddism.
Faith & Belief in how the Universe was created is what makes a Religion
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Do non-stamp-collectors constantly have their civil rights threatened by stamp collectors?
butchkitties 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Nothing wrong with my analogy. There is something wrong with your understanding of it, however.
butchkitties 2 months ago
@butchkitties "Nothing wrong with my analogy"
Both Theism & Atheism are Beliefs based on incomplete knowledge
One is NOT a Non Belief, this is the Semantic trick you are trying to use with the
Non-Collector idea
If you cant see this logic then I cant help you.
Every Scientific hypothesis is like this, based on incomplete knowledge with opposing sides with different solutions.
Each side thinks they are correct until absolute proof is shown.
Belief your correct is not Science
Texmurphy51 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You know nothing about science. First off, there are no "sides" in science. What's right is what agrees with the evidence. Secondly, atheism IS simply a rejection of belief in god. To claim with absolute certainty that god does not exist is not really the point, we don't have to show that to not believe in a god...
wownov83 2 months ago
@wownov83 sez "You know nothing about science"
Now comes the typical, "I am smarter than you"
Of course there are no sides in Science, so for Atheism to say Science is on their side is idiotic.
"we don't have to show that to not believe in a god"
So that also means Theist dont have to show certainty to BELIEVE in God,(right?)
If you are not certain, then your an Agnostic not an Atheist.(not the same)
Religious Atheist are certain of No God as are Religious Theists are there is
Texmurphy51 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 So that also means Theist dont have to show certainty to BELIEVE in God,(right?)
No, of course that's not right. If you believe god exists, you must show it. I have made no claim, I only refuse the claim that theists have made. This is why I don't like the term "atheist". There's no word given to describe people who refuse to believe in the tooth fairy, after all. You're just playing a semantic game here.
wownov83 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83 sez "If you believe god exists, you must show it (certainty)"
Ha Ha , no you dont, it is a BELIEF, (get it:)
Just as Belief in No God requires no Proof
There is no proof either way
Your use of the Tooth Fairy is a Strawman Argument because it is a KNOW MYTH
What if i said ET life is like the Tooth Fairy so that is proof it does not exist?
Texmurphy51 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 If I claimed that there is absolutely no good, then yes, I would have to prove that assertion. I have made no such claim, however. In analogy, you certainly don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy, to absolute certainty, in order to not believe in the reality of tooth fairies! Well, if can you understand that, you surely understand the position of the average atheist.
wownov83 2 months ago
not necessary to conclude any thing . I like the sharing of perceptions of every one. I like not be obliged to comply with any external idea of anyone. I call that freedom.
I thank the host of the channel to promote my thoughts.
I thank people to think on such subjects. I am learning to respect other humans seeing that the exposure of thoughts in freedom allows such thing we call society. I appreciate society with its diversity. Enjoy the world while you live.
thomasey2 5 months ago
thomasey2 5 months ago
no, it can also be made by intelligent entities, it's plural now
SuperZslayer 5 months ago
Comment removed
SuperZslayer 5 months ago
Dude... that's a dude, dude...
kizzaht 5 months ago
I agree that probability issue is an oxymoron. The crux of the matter is basically do we exist or not...if we are here(we do exist so thats 100%) then how did we get here. And the true matter of probability is whether this computer can create itself our of mere random chance and if so what is the probability of such an occurrence happening. If that number is higher than the age of the cosmos then the answer is easy, GOD exist and we have an intelligent designer.
MicaelTru 5 months ago
Oh God. This was awesome. I laughed a lot.
Vortex289 5 months ago
"50% chance I'm actually a man" Sounds like good odds
notanobelisk 6 months ago
xD at 1:12 bottom right hand corner "fucking trainwreck of an argument is what this is" lol you keep it up girlie <3
Tiffardo 6 months ago
You're smart and stupid. AT THE SAME TIME
bekibooza13 6 months ago
flip this coin, and you ll know if god exists.
if it lands ... there is gravity.
workescapist 6 months ago
you know what esle is probability?
male ? female
so if you re bi-sexual you allways WIN !
yay...
workescapist 6 months ago
@workescapist Being refused entry to both toilets at a public venue is a joke to you?
gamesbok 6 months ago
@gamesbok did i say that? anyways, you do not have to wave a sign arround what your sexual orientation is.
workescapist 6 months ago
It's like saying there's a 50% chance either way that Zjemptv is an atheist or a creationist. when you consider the content of the video, the chances that she is a atheist dramatically increase. If you add a third posibility; that she is simply acting like a super-nerd to impress a demographic of youtuber's, You'll find the likelihood of atheist/creationist are a distant 2nd and 3rd, respectivly.
yellowhue30 6 months ago
It's like saying there's a 50% chance either way that Zjemptv is an atheist or a creationist. when you consider the content of the video, the chances that she is a atheist dramatically increase. If you add a third posibility; that she is simply acting like a super-nerd to impress a demographic of youtuber's
yellowhue30 6 months ago
The percentage of probability is pointless. Atheism is a statment that
1- There is No God is the Belief that it is 100% probable
just as Theism is
2 - There is a God is 100%
The 2 choice idea is simply to show that Atheism cannot be a
"disbelief in God" a Choice must be made since there are 2 possible outcomes.
Observation of the existing world does not tell us how the Universe was Created. Pre Big Bang conditions are not part of our current Universe.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The 2 choice idea is simply to show that Atheism cannot be a "disbelief in God" a Choice must be made since there are 2 possible outcomes."
You're confusing states of nature with beliefs about them. God existing or not is a true dichotomy, but I'm not forced to believe either option. Instead I can believe, or not, both statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" individually. I can disbelieve both due to lack of evidence. Doing this makes me an atheist lacking belief in god.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The only thing that doesn't work is believing both "God exists" and "God does not exist" at the same time, as that obviously is a contradiction. Anyway, the other problem with your argument is that you're assuming an equal probability distribution for no reason what so ever, when in reality, your ignorance of previous probabilities should have caused you to reject the probability argument outright as unsupported nonsense.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The only sense in which you get a "rational" argument if you assign 50% to each option is that this can be an initial state of bayesian reasoning, but as you don't actually have any data on God, it's just pointless to even consider the idea. We know nature exists, we do not know that it can ever be "created" nor do we know that "god" is even possible. It's not at all clear why anyone would even consider such an idea, let alone give it a 50% probability.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Your approach would be great if we could run experiments on possible worlds a large number of times to adjust the 50% probability to reflect data, but as a tool for making decisions without such adjustment it's just worthless. This should be clear if you consider the problem of assigning probabilities to a weighted dice. A logical argument to the effect that the 6 options are equal would not reflect reality, so ignorance is no excuse for choosing an even probability model.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Gnomefro If you cant run experiments to set the odds then to assume Atheism has a higher probability of being true is wrong.
The fact IS that there are only two choices. There either is a God or No God.
With no information no probabilities can be assigned so one must BELIEVE one side or the other.
Atheists Believe in No God, Theist in a God.
AnOrganized Belief System in either of these is a Religion.
The Steam Loco is a Strawman argument because it is an obvious bias against.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 That is, if you chose an even probability model, you'd be making decisions based on nonsense, so we simply can't assign probability models without knowledge of the system we're studying. At least not if we care about the model being a useful tool for prediction and reasoning, and that should be the reason to employ a probability argument to begin with.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
I'm gonna have to think about this. I've long been a dupe of the gambler's fallacy so maybe that's got something to do with a blind spot I may have here but I just assumed that the statement "the universe was either created by an intelligent being or it wasn't" implied a 50-50 chance either way, simply because there are 2 choices. If there were 3 choices then maybe I'd divide it up into thirds
MoeShinola1 6 months ago
@MoeShinola1 Yeah, you could think of this example a computer game might give you "sword of great power" 4% of the time and "rusted sword" 96 % of the time. This is a two choise thing. What then if you didn't know the probabillities just that there were two choises? The odds are still the same but you don't know about them so trying to obtain them 100 times expecting 50 "Swords of great power" is unlikely to work. Seems to me this test is the only way to know the odds, likely giving close to 4.
stiaa04 6 months ago
Looking around, there is actually a much more evidence that there IS an intelligent creator. Probably not that of the bible, but a compromise between pure evolution and intelligent design. Because the most advanced theories we have so far on how the big bang started is that the compressed entirety of the universe blipped into existence at random. THAT'S INSANE! If we scientifically except that SOMETIMES something can come from nothing, we mine as well just give up.
DepressedAnnnie 7 months ago
@DepressedAnnnie There is no evidence for intelligent design or creator. The universe is expanding, it must have been smaller in the past. The Big Bang is about the univers after it began, we may never know why or how it began. Matter does come from nothing in Quantum Physics.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz That's not what I said though. I will give you that I think I used the wrong word because intelligent design implies creationism. What's that one called where god orchestrated evolution? Either way, it's not that either. You are right about the big bang not explaining how entirety started but does that make the question of where entirety came from any less important. "We may never know" is not a proper defense of atheism especially when you consider we already see the alternative
DepressedAnnnie 7 months ago
as fact in every day life. Same way computers can't program themselves, I find it far more likely that even though there is no divine intervention and the universe operates merely by thousands of strict rules, something had to write the code for our world. If you think the universe doesn't function like a computer, that's perfectly logical. I mean in programs like "The Sims" divine intervention happens on a regular basis and that's certainly not happening here.
DepressedAnnnie 7 months ago
Wrong. Prior to surveying peoples' houses and gathering data, the probability of the presence of a locomotive are 50%. It is only then when gathering the data that the percentages change.
Spyez 7 months ago
@Spyez Yes, once you have some data, but the point is that just having 2 answers does not make it a 50-50 deal.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
It is a 50-50 in EVERY case. It is only when data is gathered that it is correctly modified.
Spyez 7 months ago
@Spyez No dummy, just because someone says there are only 2 answers does not automaticly make it 50-50. The probability is UNKNOWN before any data is collected.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
...There is always an initial probability, regardless if data is present or not. Cease your idiocy, pleb.
Spyez 7 months ago
@Spyez And what do you base this ''initial probability' on, dummy.
If there are 4 possible answers is there an equal 25% of each one? NO, You have NO IDEA what the probability is.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
You divide the number of choices by 100. That's what you base it on. Take your pseudo-intelligence to the local Middle school; you can impress them there.
Spyez 7 months ago
@Spyez My head hurts, I have a head ache or I have Brain cancer. 2 answers, so does that mean I have a 50% chance of Brain Cancer!?!
Dummy.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
Terrible example since a headache is a symptom of myriad of conditions. However, if I have never seen a case of headache or brain cancer, you would have 50%. On another note, I see the word "dummy" is ubiquitous in all of your responses; is this your way of conveying yourself as superior? LOL.
Spyez 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "My head hurts, I have a head ache or I have Brain cancer. 2 answers, so does that mean I have a 50% chance of Brain Cancer!?!"
No because there are a hundred other possible answers to your headache.
Not a valid comparison.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
Very well spoken
LifeIsJustARide85 7 months ago
Excellent video. Alas, not many people understand your points, especially politicians and people interested in politics, and never will...
soreeyehalll 7 months ago
@cristianojava Raccoons are ALWAYS more civilized than them bigots.
azzy314159 7 months ago
I lol'd at 1:40. That's fantastic. I love you ZJ.
Tengokuchi 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
is this a girl or boy?
ttoonnyy3775 8 months ago
This video made me laugh so hard. Oh, the idiocy of some people in this world...
Shrillwhip 8 months ago
You’d think that the utterly desperate and ridiculous arguments that theists have to fall back on would give them a clue to how utterly desperate and ridiculous their position is. But then I guess thinking isn’t going to be the strong point of someone whose world view requires them to just switch their brain off.
WildcardHatesYou 8 months ago 2
ZJ, you're a huge bitch.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 So you believe that you have provided the perfect counter argument? Wow man! You are unusually endowed intellectually ( for a bigot, that is)
azzy314159 7 months ago
@azzy314159 No, I don't believe I've provided any counter argument, you pretentious tampon-head.
wownov83 7 months ago
The choice of creation versus non creation is a false dichotomy. It presupposes the universe is separate from consciousness and made up of "stuff" or non conscious material.
The universe is a manifestation of consciousness and is the same material you experience in your dreams as it too is a manifestation of consciousness.
Indeed your dreams are fractalized components of a larger dream and so on and so on...
Don't believe it?
You will... It doesn't matter anyway if you don't believe it.
batfly 8 months ago
ok, if it will make you happy, universe is created by infinite amount of nothingness.
SirLeeTehPwnzor 9 months ago
@SirLeeTehPwnzor Or perhaps we can stop being so bloody arrogant and stop assuming that we know how the universe was created.
Instead, we can try and find out how the universe was created.
People who go "yep, big bang's right" are just as bad as the ones who go "yep, god made all this". Both sides believe that their theories are objectively correct. They are not. Hopefully in the future, the truth will be discovered. Until then, creationism is a theory and the Big Bang is a theory.
Lichtouch 8 months ago
@Lichtouch No "God gave the order and Big Bang happened."? In the end of the day, I can't actually prove that God created all those things scientifically, or him/her can't prove that it created itself. That's why I don't like to have debates with atheists, even if you/me win, means the other side just got bored of your/my arrogancy and ignorancy and chose to say "ok as you say".
SirLeeTehPwnzor 8 months ago
@SirLeeTehPwnzor You listed another theory. It's just as plausible as all the rest and has just as much evidence so far - very little. In the end, these debates aren't necessary. Even if God were real, I and many other atheists would not kneel and pray. I see nothing in any depiction of God worth worshipping. In almost every religion, the deities are far too barbaric and medieval to demand even a shred of respect from me. My objection to God isn't scientific but based in morality.
Lichtouch 8 months ago
What's the probability that the universe was created by an unintelligent creator?
TheMarkTenification 9 months ago
Religion is a set of choices; god is external or internal, supernatural or natural, metaphysical or physical. Civilization has tried to find god as external, supernatural and metaphysical hasn’t been much of a success. Religion and Reality are fundamentally separate and divergent from each other. The physical world is an imperfect reflection of an individual’s perception of what their idea of reality is. The individual places conceived ideas into what is considered by others as the real world.
ttopperr 9 months ago
Humanity is too fideistic: relying on faith rather than reasoning in pursuit of religious truths.
ttopperr 9 months ago
Its cool how all the comments are like maximum length. Lots of thoughts on his videos huh... well except the haters who are like "FAG I HOPE YOU DIE"
electrobot29 9 months ago 2
I'm a fan of your mind, ZJ, but you're not quite right here. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, there is a 50% chance of any truth claim being true vs untrue. To deviate from a pure agnostic position of 50/50 with regard to a claim carries a burden of evidence. The evidence should be proportional to the strengh of the claim. A claim of certainty, 100% probability requires absolute proof. A claim of certainty of untruth, 0% probability, also requires absolute proof.
brindlebriar 9 months ago
@brindlebriar
The absence of (historic) data regarding mutually exclusive states does not preclude a situation in which one is more likely than the other, it simply means that we cannot assign data-backed values to each states probability.
From the perspective of an observer that is both uninformed and incapable of hypothesis, each state must have a probability of occurance of 0.5; that observation has no guarantee of coinciding with reality, however, and most probably (hoho) almost never does.
Spookert0n 9 months ago
@Spookert0n Quite right on both points. We are not in disagreement. Probability estimates, not the truth of a cliam but the degree to which we know that truth, whatever it is. Data may suggest to us a 99% probability that X is true, but X may yet be 100% false. That doesn't mean, of course, that X was 99% true, only that we were 99% certain that it was true. Probability is a measurement of likeliness, not a measurement of actuality.
brindlebriar 9 months ago
In addition to my previous post:
I absolutly adore the train wreck pun in the bottom right corner, thankyou.
Llywellyn94 9 months ago
You are correct, though to be fair you mus conced that a number of those who used the 50% probability arguement actually meant somthing along the lines of:
there is no evidence either way, no reason to believe that either side is true what-so-ever and no way of finding evidence or proof and thus we have no indication of the correct probability, so it might as well be 50-50.
Which is a perfectly reasonable and logicly sound argument.
Llywellyn94 9 months ago
You don't still use music like this in your videos anymore do you?
Mglosk 9 months ago
"UNdirected natural process's over billions of years"?
UM so all this stuff like in a video games just created itself?
By our definitions GOD would be infinite and all powerfull and all knowing and all that other crap...But to a character in a video game so would we...
So I guess GOD is the controller & we are just here to entertain him/it/her/....SO PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!!!
iwanttocrashmybike 10 months ago
Excellent explanation of probability. Even simpler for people to grasp is the chance of rain. It's not a 50/50 chance everyday nor with snow, hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfire. Certain factors adjust the likelihood of events. Some people just don't get it. Great job. Do you study statistics?
ufjazzman97 10 months ago
Actually if you watch:"Abiogenesis" & "The universe from nothing" & .....Well I have all these videos and more in my :science of GOD file".And no it isn't all about there being a GOD,it has all the theorys i could find so far about life ect.
iwanttocrashmybike 10 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike
I actually went to your channel to check it out, and what was the first video that popped up in the God and science? Well it was good old casual argument, with its assertions and everything.
I did not bother watching more, since flawd videos like that, tend to kill off my curiousity.
I might check out the abiogenesis that you spoke off, later on.
Turha101 10 months ago
@Turha101 They are all in the order that I found them,people will believe whatever they want.Hope it entertains you.
Type you later:)
iwanttocrashmybike 10 months ago
"50% chance you will ride a unicorn to work tomorrow."
Oh man, I hope so!
AvatarZ 10 months ago
Youa re aplying the probabilty of 1 topic to all topics, which you cant do because eveything has a different probablity.
card969 11 months ago
@card969 well said
tehEricar 10 months ago
I'll play the lotto. There's a 50% chance I'd win the jackpot.
shackupyourstruly 11 months ago
@shackupyourstruly actually the 50% probabilty doesnt apply to the lottery considering millions of people play.
card969 11 months ago
Sure! I either win, or I don't. 50-50 chance
shackupyourstruly 10 months ago
@shackupyourstruly that isnt how probabilty works, if only you and 1 other person playes then yes you would be correct.
card969 10 months ago
If only two people play PowerBall, they could very well both lose, and the jackpot would increase for the next drawing 6^) . There is either a return on your $1?/$2?/what?, or there isn't.
marasu66 10 months ago
@marasu66 You are changing the rules, i was talking about the actually lottery, my logic is correct therefire i dont understand why you are trying to refute it.
card969 10 months ago
@shackupyourstruly For 50/50 chance applying to the lottery there would have to be only two tickets printed: The winning numbers, and the non-winning numbers. Millions of different numbers may be printed but you might buy just one of them. Therefore it isn't just winning or losing, it's the one in a million chance that you get that one card.
MIDNAq1LINK 10 months ago
@shackupyourstruly wtf? No there isn't. How do you figure? Fucking genius right here guys.
tehEricar 10 months ago
dude you are so anoying you think you know everything n you obviously see yourself better then others when were all the same
xxIVIooIVIoofarmzxx 11 months ago
what is the probability that you are a guy!!
Harryhicy 11 months ago
your a slut dick shit nigger penis wank tit fuck who cunt analprobe rape prick silly slag motherfucking bitch harlem chinese....
... hey cool, a reddit user.
thisusernameistaken2 11 months ago
I have heard probabilities used as way to make belief in god rational. People would say that there is a 50% chance god exists. They misunderstand how probabilities work.
I like the train-in-my-living-room analogy.
They are forgetting all the other thousands of gods they must include in the calculation. Of course, mathematics cannot be used to prove something beyond the physical realm, so any calculation in inherently flawed.
LtStJebus 11 months ago
too much output not enough input. lol
ReligionlessFAITH 11 months ago
I lol'd at 1:40
evargas314 11 months ago
Comment removed
mclockwork777 1 year ago
@mclockwork777 it's actually a guy
TiteProducts 11 months ago
hhaha! Omg this made my day.
iTzSHAKiKi 1 year ago
"Very few of them would have a train in their house." Yep, very few. I figure about 37 at any given time. ;-)
pburto 1 year ago
Also arent there like many other possible scenarios ppl who use this argument have ignored
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
Nice job. Remember too that oftentimes assigning probabilities is a very subjective undertaking when we do not have objective data.
allegrobas 1 year ago
your example was seriously flawed. you can reduce the odds of a steam train when looking at the physics. size wieght ect. without information on the object a 50-50
odds is a safe place to start. information changes the odds.
NotViper6 1 year ago
@NotViper6
So is the god or no god argument in the same way, that is what she is showing you. There are many other factors that must be put into account, and also saying that statistics is not how you determine how things work. Statistics is a matter of consistency based on past observations used to predict future observations. If we've never observed something pertaining to the subject, we cannot use statistics.
HolyNonbeliever 1 year ago
@HolyNonbeliever there is the problem both sides of this debate don't agree on the facts. so that leaves us with no useable data to form a statistic that both sides can agree on. let me ask you a question what are the odds of the lights being on in my den right now? you have no information pertaining to this subject yet the odds are 50-50 that your choice would be right.
NotViper6 1 year ago
@NotViper6
You are changing the topic. Please, resolve the one before moving on and thinking one of us has won or lost. First off, I do not have information about your lights, therefore it is not a 50/50 chance. It is a null chance, no data to base my calculations on. The point is, if both sides do not agree on information, then they are not facts quite yet. Also, a large group of people could claim they do not agree and make the same argument. So, what are the facts that no one agrees on then?
HolyNonbeliever 1 year ago
@HolyNonbeliever I wasn't changing the subject I was making a comparison. the same way ZJ made a comparison with stream trains and the existance of god in his vid. What i find funny it your objections to this line of reasoning .I guess certain logic is only allowed if you support the end results. you will have to excuse me if I don't persue this debate with you. you seem to need a win on this topic and your not going to let logic rob you of it.so with that I withdraw . you win
NotViper6 1 year ago
There wasn't a 50% chance that I wouldn't respond to this video.
AmosTheTalented 1 year ago
@zwap12
Wow, it took me a LONG time to stop laughing at the stupidity in your comment. Christians tower over atheists? You mean you actually think you're winning? LMFAO! You are in serious denial, my friend lol. All you Christians have is Ad Hominem attacks, like what you just did. Only attacking the speaker because you're too retarded to attack their arguement.
Besides, I'd rather have "lipstick wearing fags" on my side then your child-molesting priests.
ButItSureIsFun6949 1 year ago
What the fuck is that stupid bitch talking about?
Maybe hit puberty to fast? Whats with the gay freak show?
Honestly.... get a life fugtard.
Mesuekie 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mesuekie 1 year ago
They did not teach us this in maths in high school. I think they suck.
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
If idiots like this really think there is no God why do they create false evidence for their side and try to hide support for existence of God, and what does that say about probability.
daddyg321 1 year ago
This is why Christians tower over athiests because of faggots like this wearing fucking lipstick?? and fucking earings???? FAG
zwap12 1 year ago
Another excellent video...but what's the probability that people who believe in talking snakes are going to understand it?
davidls11 1 year ago
you're probability right,... but there's a 50% chance you're probability wrong about all this.
Sephuskal 1 year ago
Be right back, I think I hear a steam whistle downstairs. I knew this redevelopment plan was poorly thought out!
callerindarkness 1 year ago
lmao @ fucking trainwreck of an argument this is
cinnamondouche 1 year ago
Very nice. Thanks so much for this.
marneedear 1 year ago
There's a 50% chance the univere was created by a god.
there's a 50% chance it came from a bowl of pasta.
there's a 50% chance it came from a pickle jar.
there's a 50% chance that Escher painted it and went into hiding for 14 billion years.
there'sa 50% chance was a stick of bubble gum that's still expanding,and that's us. OMG, 250% chance that it was either food or people that created the universe
arachnophile01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why am i watching this :?
yseGhost 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel the need to add that a Steam Lokomotive in my livingroom, while creating a problem through it using up more space than there actually is, would be quite awesome.
TheNarfhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel the need to add that a Steam Lokomotive in my livingroom, while creating a problem through it using up more space than there actually is, would be quite awesome.
TheNarfhead 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheNarfhead 1 year ago
Good point.
It kind of reminds me of people I know who are Christians because they feel that if there is no way to know what is out there (or if anything is out there) they should play it safe and believe. Better to follow Christ and find no afterlife than to end up an atheist at the pearly gates. However they never seem to take into account the other religions and cults that are around and those that have faded into obscurity making it not a 50-50 choice but an absurd argument.
vivahst 1 year ago
I don't see why it matters. We have a universe. Does its creation matter? X% chance of intelligent creation, Y% chance of it just happened. I'd like to know what happened because I'm curious, but I can tolerate uncertainty. I don't need to know, and I definitely don't need to tell anyone else.
Good job pointing out the 50% flaw. The most important thing for us to know is that we don't know.
qwexas 1 year ago