The "1/Infinity" argument falls apart as since infinity doesn't technically exist and is only a mathematical value and has no real representation, this argument is based on an impossible ideology so therefore is not valid.
The "Red vs Blue" argument falls apart because you assume that Blue (Intelligent Design" is 100% definite which you cannot as you don't know that for certain intelligent design was true, so this argument is not valid either.
thank you. U are apsolutly right but you arguments never toouch anybody who DONT WANT to belive.Faith isnˇt mathematics and you should read Kuran its full of mathematics
God could have created the universe in an infinite number of ways. But he only created it in this one way. Therefore the odds of him creating the universe are 1 over infinity, or zero. Using your logic God could not have created the universe.
As for the marbles, one can guess where they came from, but we don't know where they cam from, do we (what the marbles have to do with your argument is not clear).
Why do you think God could only have made the universe in one way, or nature in many?
1 over infinity is small...not zero mathematically speaking. this fact only seems special because we are here to talk about it. If one of those other ways did not occur, then we would not have this problem about bitching for god. I challenge you to find something that is either 100%, is truth, or is unbiased....exactly WOW @ this part "god made the universe exactly as he wanted" why did you pull universe out of your ass? "no mistakes" well ....REALLY? come on man your better than that.
take a pencil and paper ... can you handle that? On the left side write 1 over the symbol for infinity. Then put 'equals' and on the right side, 0. Now multiple both sides by infinity. The left side becomes 1 and the right side stays zero, because anything times 0 is 0. Congratulations, you've just proven that 1 equals 0. Have fun with your newly invented form of math. Do you see NOW that 1 divided by infinity is not equal to 0??
ok just tell me this where did your god come from and dont give me one off your crap answers like that has nothing to do with the argument just because you have no answer to prove that your god or so called "all mighty being" is real. and on a different note i think the world would be better off without religion of any kind because that is what holds humans back from reaching are full potential.
Beyond each of these previous counters I have submitted, I must ask the question: what does it mean to exist? If we are talking about the trillions of atoms, billions of cells, and hundreds of chemicals which make up the physical world again in which we reside, the question is, how do we "know" that we exist? Yes, I can say that I, like you, am "alive," which is to say, I breath, eat, and reproduce. Do I "exist" though? Is it not equally probable that this "existence" is merely a grand lie?
In our overly-simplistic "black and white" terms, and the formation of a simple dichotomy contrasting God or not-God we are presupposing that first, our faulty logic and tentatively reliable mathematics and science, we can pretend to know even the "finite universe" in which we subside, and second, that we exist in the only universe of its kind. Is it not illogical to presume that we can experience everything in this universe from the fleshy sacks in which we reside?
If we are limited by what we can see, touch, smell, taste, and hear, then what is to say that there aren't experiences we do not have, from dimensions we are not capable of experiencing, in this so-called "finite" singularity we call this universe? Isn't it equally probable that the top number is infinite as well, and our perception distorts this to make it appear to be only one? If this is the case, you might choose to revise your previous equation to read "infinity/infinity," or one.
I have a question concerning the "zero probability" argument; you posit that the universe, mathematically speaking, could have occurred in an infinite number of ways, forming the denominator under the number of ways it could have occurred (1, the way it is now). I have to ask, how many dimensions are you capable of seeing in, that you arrive at "1" ultimate arrangement? Quantum physics argues that our perspective is distorted by our finite sensoriperceptive nervous capabilities are.
You can't argue this way. It amounts to "given that we exist it must have been god" I think.
If you arrive at the answer that the probability of the universe existing in this form is zero, you logic is obviously flawed.
A counter: Given that god could have intervened in an infinite number of ways, the probability of him intervening in this way is zero. Same logic, opposite answer!
In fact, using logic like that, you can prove an infinite number of possibilities proving anything you want
The second argument is worse then the first. I'm sorry but positing an all powerful, all knowing, super intelligent god as the creator of somethng as flawed and imperfect as the universe will never be a better explanation than the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.
Your first argument fell down the second you said 'our existence is impossible'. Obviously our existence is not impossible because... well... we're here. And that's not even taking account of the fact that there is not an infinite amount of ways the universe 'could have turned out'. There might be a really really big number of ways, but there are not infinite ways.
And 'God' did not make the universe without mistakes. There are lots. That is why the argument from design is a bad one.
you have obviously taken a few philosophy courses. However, there is one assumption people make when asking these questions that is very presumptuous. You are assuming that our logic gives us the capacity to understand the answer. When you narrow it down to physical forces or god you are leaving out the possibility of the unknown, and possibly, the unknowable.
firstly, there are not an infinite no of ways the universe could have turned out, see matter from the big bang can only be turned into elements, ( E=MC2). these then interact and react with each other, thus creating compounds! some planets like the others in our solar system were unlucky, looks like earth won the lottery dosn't it, but look up at the night sky, then ask how many stars in this galaxy alone and understand that 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 has to hapen!
There are an infinite number of ways I could respond to your first argument, but i guess I'll pick this one: "what you said is really stupid". Oops, I forgot, by your logic, my comment does not exist.
2nd argument = stupid. No matter how it turned out, the people living in the scenario would obviously be living in that scenario, therefore probability is completely excluded from any theories you could have.
1st argument = bullshit. Our earth could have turned out an infinite amount of ways. But it turned out the way it has. So it's impossible? Idiot. Anyways next argument.
If each snowflake is unique and there are an infinite amount of them, then , by the tenants of your first argument, any one of them could not exist.(?)
And the second argument would be akin to two snowflakes being identical so the source of snowflakes is looked upon as the premise to justify the chance of the two flakes? And these arguments are to be spoken about logically, rationally, with God? I'll I can really say is hmmmmmm and scratch my head
Interesting thought, but the space of possible snowflakes is not infinite, and moreover, there are not infinite snowflakes. If by assumption there are infinite snowflakes, then their existence is not in question, because you have assumed they exist. In the case of the universe, we only have one, but we have an infinite design space. This distinguishes your analogy from my position.
The second argument suggests that if a snowflake's design matches what a creator wanted, it was probably created.
The alterity of what you call "design" is "(infinite) space". If there is an alterity of 'infinite design space' this is what you call God and simultaneously call finite design. If Im incorrect here please point to (some x) neither god nor a design. <- this duality is also synonymous with what you are calling (the tenants of being) random (in the red blue argument)
The balance of your argument fall to the side of god, ad hoc. The symbol ∞ is used finitely, as is the word infinite but the semantic inferences are ongoing , like ur use of God & space inferred as ongoing but used finitely. This is a common theological application yet with the scape goat being that which lays outside of the application of the argument itself (by (ur)definition), namely God.
Opposition begs an answer whether God is: finite & singular, infinite and singular; One of many & finite, One of an infinity and infinite. It is of course another common theological application to (now) apply a logical argument Here:
i just wanna argue ur first point. it was pretty smart but theres a simple way to argue it.
if the second dimention is just lines, the third dimention is every possible way the lines ever cld happen. the fourth dimention is time, and the fifth dimention is every possible timeline that could have ever happned. then the possibility that universe as we know it has happned in the fifth dimention jumps to 100 percent. and since were only 3 dimentional beings we can only perceive one possible outcome
One more thing while on the topic. If you believe that some sort of intervention was required for our existence, then what is your explanation for that 'intervention'? (be it spiritual, physical, whatever.)
I do not believe in god. But that first equation you said was seriously pretty intelligent. I would really like to know where you heard that, and if it's your own, then kudos to you xD
actually, there arent a million ways. the only conclusion available for the massive amounts of cosmic microwave background radiation found apsolutly anywhere in the universe points to only one conclusion. a big bang.
My point being that you make the assumption there is only one way the universe could come out and that if it had happened any other way the universe would not exist. I would like to add that I'm trying to disprove god, and I'll be the first to tell you I don't have any answers for life's big questions, but I don't impose my beliefs on others by using statistics with fuzzy assumptions.
1/inf in basic math is equal to 0. Where do you get the one? Is it just the one outcome of the universe? Is it the outcome that an intelligent life form is created? If it's the one outcome of the universe well then it's equally inprobable that we wouldn't exist. If it's intelligent life then you cannot assume a one in your equation.
so the argument is that since it is so unprobable that we exist, there must be a god, right? You use the idea of infinity in your argument. Well statistically speaking anything is possible on an infinite scale.
I think you need to put down your flawed mathamatical pricipals (IF a probability exists then it is probable that it will be), and google CRITICAL RATIONALISIM, esp. relating to Karl Popper. He basically says that anyone one can prove any theory if they belive in it strongly enough (often siting Marx and Freud as an example) and instead of working hard to prove things, like using equations(logic) to prove the exsitance of god(something you yourself define as illogical)...
...a theory needs to stand the test of FALSIFIABILITY, don't write sums so you can prove the existance of god write them to CHALLENGE your faith, you will either prove yourself wrong OR your faith will be stronger for it
we shouldn't be aruging about the existance of god! no matter how many arguments either side presents people will stick to their core values. as for my personal belifs, i do belive in god
I am sorry, but I could not watch anymore of this nonsense and had to give up at the 4 minute mark. Instead of applying arcane theories and selective logic to support your case, how about opening your eyes instead? Everything in this Universe points to underlying natural laws. Physics, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry..the list goes on. THESE are real arguments where the TRUTH may be found and not in jars of coloured marbles. The tooth fairy and Easter bunny are more real than God.
The suggestion is that since we live in a universe with parameters that allow us to live in it (physical constants), we should not be surprised to be living in it. Without these parameters in place, we would not be able to even question our existence (not to mention that there is a possibility of there being a large number of universes:M-Theory) . We are getting to a point in science where we keep closing in on the "god of the gaps". Occam's Razor seeks to limit error in predictions, god adds it
I don't see how all this is relevant to the arguments in the video. The notion of fine-tuned parameters does not play a role in the arguments, nor does an explanatory gap.
I suggest that you brush up on some of steven hawking's work, he clearly addresses the ways in which the universe could have formed and why we should not be surprised to be living in a universe that has the parameters to let us exist. Study some physics and you will soon see why there is no need to bring up god to explain the world around you
Instead of addressing his argument you simply accuse him of ignorance. That's ad hominem.
And appeal to what authority??
"...brush up on some of steven [by the way, it's spelled Stephen, not steven] hawking's work." you appeal to the authority of Stephen Hawking, and again, you ignore the argument. For all you know, neotropic knows hawking better than you do.
I'm a physics graduate student so i doubt he knows more than i do. But thats not the point. His arguments are just so weak to anyone who understands what he is trying to say. But it sounds like the anthropic principle and Occam's Razor are all one needs to blow this fool out of the water
You should stick to physics. Logical analysis is not your strong suit. lol. In all seriousness, maybe you should explain in what way physics counters the arguments, or in what way the arguments are "just so weak". The application of the anthropic principle and Ockham's razor is also something that needs to be explained.
Do not try to pigeon hole these arguments. To the best of my knowledge, I originated both of them.
"But it sounds like the anthropic principle and Occam's Razor are all one needs to blow this fool out of the water."
Go ahead then.
So far you have not addressed the arguments at all. All you have done is called them weak and him a fool. Are you still wondering why you have been accused of Ad Hominem?
Make a video if you have to. Camera's are pretty cheap these days.
Matter is innert and uncreative.The stone or sand cannot produce any life.Life comes ONLY from life.Look around you.There is not even one example of life coming from matter.So called scientists with all their knowledge are not able to produce one single alive cell,by mixing chemicals.Life and matter both come from life and the source of life is God.
Red/Blue: this is too similar to the design argument
here are the refutations
the universe coming to this moment randomly has a finite probability
therefore it is possible, improbability however great cannot be discarded
M-Theory (the most thorough idea of how the universe began) suggests an infinite number of universes in which case we are simply 1 of the ones that turned out like this
and of course god had infinite possibilities when creating the universe rendering this argument useless
Zero Probability Argument: probability is irrelevant.
If I picked a ball from an infinitely large lottery machine, I would end up with a ball and it would have a number on it (forget the impossibility of fitting however many numbers on the ball) but they go from 1 upwards
my point is that this argument is simply not applicable to this case
not only that but your argument makes such a common assumption: that this creator can only be God
In addition to the point that 1/inf = 0, your zero probability argument is based on two assumptions which atheists do not hold to. It first assumes the universe was created and, then, assumes the universe is non-deterministic.
In other words, your argument is premature. You need to first address creationism and determinism, then prove 1/inf = 0 before proceeding with this argument.
Red-Blue argument - this falsely implies a knowledge of the concept of ideal design within the creation pos-facto.
"Our universe is exactly what we would expect to see if God exists."
That statement is pretentous and ethnocentrist. Interestingly also, it would contradict another tenant that it's admitted the argument presumes - that God is a perfect, and therefore infinite being.
If God is and infinite being then 'marbles' of all colors exist within his jar, not just 'blue' ones.
So, either God is infinite or not. If he is not, then the argument would fall apart because it's possible he made a mistake with his creation.
If he is infinite, then he could create the universe however he wants to, and therefore the universe simply being as it is shows no evidence of the existence of a creator.
Not to mention that the entire argment hinges on probability, in which case there is no real proof. It's possible that our blue marble IS the one taken from a jar of reds.
Zero Probability Argument - The problem is that this takes the origin of the universe and the origin of human life as the same singular event.
The origin of human life is a single event that happened on this singular planet. If the origin of the universe were singular, it would imply the existence of other concurrent events outside the universe, at least some of which failed to produce a universe. We don't know, but if this happened then the 'creation by design' theory is wrong.
Now to take the origin of human life rightly as a separate event.
Many scientists have theorized that the universe is of infinite size. If this is true, the amount of singular earth-like events is also infinite. Therefore, if the origin of intelligent life is anywhere on the probability table, then the probability of intelligent life existing SOMEWHERE in the universe is exactly one hundred percent. If this is the case, then the creation by design hypothesis is possibly wrong. cont . . .
Now, if the universe is not of infinite size, then some events must occur outside the universe - some of which may be universe creation events, some of which may be unsuccessful (see above). If this is true, then the creation of the universe is possibly a random event.
So, whether the universe is infinite, singular or neither, the origin of life is potentially random, on one level or another.
This is basic theoretical astronomy, something that people could learn at a community college.
Theists and probability do not mix well, as can be seen in this video. Do you know that the probability of the molecules in the air around you being in the exact configuration that they're in right now with those specific molecules in the configuration out of all of the possible places they could be in the Universe is so infinitesimally small that it couldn't happen? Wait, but it did, you say? But I thought that things that were extremely improbable could never happen, according to you?
1/infinity does not equal 0 any more than 1/meaning=42. Both statements are meaningless, as neither meaning nor infinity is a number. The the limit as x approaches infinity of 1/x approaches 0, but that is a very different thing. Moreover, if there are an infinite number of ways the universe could be, are there not an infinite number of natures god could have, and thus an infinite number of ways he could "want" the universe to be? If so, how is theism more likely?
Alright, I'll give you that one, but the second point was the more fundamental criticism. If there are an infinite number of states the universe can exist in, why would the same not be true of god? You claim that theism is more likely because it has fewer potential resultant universes, but if the nature of the universe is determined by the nature of god then does not an infinite number of possible gods imply an infinte number of possible universes?
1st argument: there's no proof this universe could have been different. string theory proposes such, but it also proposes that every potential universe will exist. also, it's useless to make probabilistic arguments after the fact. (e.g. wow, i just dealt out a full deck in this specific combination! the chances of this were 1 in 8x10^67. therefore, something must have made me deal them out like this)
also, inserting a god does nothing to actually solve the problem.
inserting god does nothing to help us solve the "problem of existence". there has to be something which is the natural state of existence.
ignoring the false dichotomy, let's limit ourselves to either the universe or god. any argument applied to one can be equally well applied to the other.
we actually KNOW the universe exists, and we can make accurate predictions about it every day. as for god, he's just a plug-in for the unknown. this is much the same role he's played throughout history.
yes, court cases use probabilistic arguments very often. and, often, the arguments are misapplied. for an example, go to ted(dot)com and search "how juries are fooled by statistics".
each alternative must be evaluated according to other possibilities and the given data.
what is the chance that the universe just plain exists?
what is the chance that the universe must have had a creator to cause its existence (who, conveniently, "just exists" in all of his own complexity and improbability)?
i think the problem with the first argument is the assumption that the universe could have, as a matter of fact, been created in an infinite number of ways...conceptually that appears to be the case but i think its a leap of logic to assume it's inherently true...i could be incorrect though.
There is not just 2 possibilities to how the universe was made. Not just either God, or evolution, how about multiple Gods, or the power of our own mind, The universal consiousness, the universe could have been designed by an intelligent alien, or mutliple aliens, or what about humans thousands of years in the future who created a universe experiment with new humans and we are in it, there are many 'possibilities' !!
Given that the universe exists, it would HAVE to be in SOME arrangement of particles and laws by the time it got around to us. To notice that it did wind up in SOME arrangement of particles and laws is merely to notice that a certainty had occurred. Certain events don't need any explanation at all, let alone a supernatural one.
OK, the deal with the probability thing is that the infinitely numerous infinitely small probabilities end up adding up to one, you moron. I honestly laughed out loud at how dumb that was. The "card" counter is valid. Every hand is unlikely, but the probabilities of each hand add up to one, meaning no matter what you'll get some cards. Every possible universe is infinitely unlikely, but there are infinitely many possible universes. In that model we're guaranteed to have a universe.
I do not like the infinite improbability argument. Even looking from only 200 years ago, the chance of me having a blue pen that says Boston Scientific in the exact position it is right now is stupidly small, essentially 1/inf. The same thing applies to a specific pebble on a beach, a cloud of a specific shape at a specific time, or essentially any specific thing that has actually happened over all history. This does not mean that it could not (and did) happen without a miracle.
You realize that if the universe were a "red marble" you'd still be saying all of this, we would have just had a different outcome with different consequences living in a different world, you'd just have to say that all other possibilities are "impossible" and you'd have the same argument. If we ended up all being blue living on a red planet with five arms you'd still say it was gods doing, so i dont even see the point of the argument.
Red-blue. Two separate hypotheses. God makes the universe exactly one way versus many possible ways. Again, you don't know that without a god there are many ways. Further, if we pool all possibilities (joining the hypotheses!), as you did, you could argue that since there are many more ways that the universe could have been created than the one way god created it, the probability that a god created it is infinitesimal!
"God made the universe exactly as he wanted." (I'll let is slide that he kicked A&R out of eden; did the flood, gets mad etc etc, which clearly show he is not omnipotent and DOES make mistakes.) "The Universe is exactly what we would expect to see if god exists." Oh, I can't let it slide. From that you can argue anything. It's an argument that we should have kept slaves. It's an argument that what we have is the "right thing". Also, you get the same result if there is no god(s)!
"Randomly created by physical principles it could have turned out in at least two ways". No, you snuck in an assumption there that there is some kind of non-deterministic effect. I realize that some physicists like this idea but it's bogous: where did the randomness come from? It could be that everything is deterministic - that solves the problem, but in that case there is only one universe, possibly with several parts simultaneously (multiverse).
Then you combine the two hypotheses. For god there was one way. For no-god there are many ways. You are crossing hypotheses. You can't combine probabilities from different hypotheses, they don't a common a priori. IF you fuse the hypotheses (god versus one or more universes) then you get the result I said above, that the probablity of god is 50% or less depending on the number of universes.
Pick any integer at random? Ok, start counting. Every time you increment your counter, flip a coin. If it is heads, the count is your result. Every positive integer has some probability of being given. You meant a flat distribution - but didn't say that!
The probability of any number occuring on any continuous distribution, no matter how 'biased', is 1/inf or 0. Even though there is no probability for it, outcomes happen all the time.
About your 'algorithm', it is impossible to define a random number without a range and is limited by precision. You could likely make a 0 to 1 # generator with quantum entanglement, and extract it to any range of integers, but it could not be read to the required precision.
You have more education than I thought. Argument 1 has two flaws. We don't know whether there is or could have been more than one universe, we only observe one. So "infinite ways" is an unsupported assumption. Second, flip many coins and you will get a "rare" pattern of heads and tails. The probability of one such set of flips may be tiny, but it happened. So it isn't impossible, any set of flips is a solution. The probability that we are here is 1, not 0 so no mystical being need be involved.
If there is some restriction on the possible universes, the onus is on you to demonstrate why (scientifically speaking, i.e. in terms on natural laws) there is such a restriction.
You cannot build a 'powerful' argument if one of your premises has no support at all. We only know that there is one universe; the actual number is completely unknown. So any argument built on that has no basis. You CANNOT say that there are an infinite number for sure. You CANNOT argue probabilities because we don't know the initial set of possibilities. You are trying to convert the case that we exist (P=1) into that we don't (division by infinity). Your own premise shows it's not zero.
You take a very arrogant stance in saying that your arguments have not been defeated when you're the one making the original argument. It is up to an outside consensus to determine if your arguments have been defeated, not you.
I agree it's up to those who understand the debate, as they would be the ones making up the consensus. But that still means it's not up to you, therefore you have to standing to say whether your argument still stands or has fallen.
You would have to take out every single humanistic concept that is reflective of religion, chance and a concept of God being a unipotent powerful being. There is another concept, of time. Thus you have no humanistic logic thus not influencing the argument now.
Thus, now God creating the universe seems like a contradiction. Using my biased viewpoint as them being the same will show why they are a contradiction.
This makes more sensibility in my mind for the moment. Everything is chaotic in the universe so it is now difficult for me to say without using humanistic logic if there is an intelligence, my argument is middle ground.
the universe was created in one way for a certain reason; there was only one outcome, even if the scenario is recreated and replayed the outcome is still going to remain consistent to the previous event, the only way the universe would have different outcomes is through an intervening force, God, but if this were true God would still create the universe to match his will, so there is still only one possible outcome...
First off, the mathematic equations and laws to which you refer do not, and cannot apply to the quantum mechanics on which the universe is built on. but to indulge in your theory...
Uh, I just heard the first argument which is logically false. Immediately. Infinite possibilities, treated mathematically like you did, are equal in value. Therefore every possibility's likelihood is against infinite, therefore Nothing could ever happen because there's just Too Many Ways For It To Happen. This is an old and long debunked argument.
no. i have no reason to believe. i'm open for real hard evidence. if you give it to me yes i'd probably be freaked out from it but i'd except that there was an all powerful god who writes on a 3rd grade level(the bible) and probably was high when he wrote it. i've only been given enough evidence from the bible to know what a contradiction is. i'm up for any suggestion. if it means science or superstition given evidence. i don't believe everything science hands out either.
i just gave you some arguments. i didn't mention the bible. find a problem with the arguments or go away and admit you don't know what's wrong with them (assuming there is something wrong with them).
the arguements are nothing but maybes. there arguements i give you that for it is the title of the video. but why do you have to think so hard if he's such a big miracle worker. if thats the case where are the big miracle. mysterious ways don't cut it. that just means he does nothing and you hold onto him anyway.
1. Again the observable universe is not infinite but is indeed finite, therefore comprised of finite parts which can be arranged in a finite number of arrangements, the argument fails because its assumptions are flawed.
2. We are given sufficient evidence for cosmic inflation via collision of two multidimensional membrains as postulated by M-theory. There is no naturalistic evidence for any of the gods of human religion, therefore the argument fails.
The people who insist that logic itself is the all-inclusive law and therefore must explain our existence, seem to overlook the fact that logic itself has limitations: All our logical explanations/formulas can NOT explain to a blind man the EXPERIENCE of "Blue", or "Hot", or "Excitement"... Logic is merely OUR system of cataloguing experiences in a way that allows us to make connections among them and retrieve them when useful. Logic is "just one more item in creation".
CORRECTION: Just "Blue" was for the blind... the "Hot" and "Excitement" are just additional examples of experience we cannot describe in logical terms - though we can use logic to catalogue them in memory, and retrieve them when needed.
Surely the first two parts are mutually exclusive, defying logic and the possibility of any kind of rational conclusion? Oh, wait, God alters logic. That's convenient.
The probability that the universe would turn out the way it did is 1/1, we know this because it in fact did turn out the way it did. The probability of it happening AGAIN, well that's a different story that is pointless to even talk about unless you have a lot of letters behind your name.
There is something that you have failed to consider. You assert that there are an infinite number of possible ways the universe could have turned out. But you can't prove that assertion. Consider any 'constant' in the recipe of the universe. Tell us the probability distribution for that variable and the limits of viability.
It is not up to me to do so. I am arguing that God created the universe. If this is true, then there is no mystery as to why the universe turned out the way it did. But atheists must explain this. They must provide a mechanism of selection. They must explain why some values for constants are acceptable, and others are not.
You asserted that there are infinite possibilities. If the set of 'constants' are actually determined by fundamental principles they are not variables to be tuned by god and you argument is invalid.
Why does there need to be a "mechanism of selection"?
You ignored the question. That number wasn't the result of an algorithm picking a random number from the set of integers, nor was it unbiased. I can't debate with you if you can't comprehend the argument (or even try to).
Your mistake is that having said the universe could exist in an infinite number of configurations you then consider the way it is, divided by the number of ways it could be and say that the probability is zero. But you have not considered all the other possibilities or put any limits on it. So the universe must exist in some form. Sum of all probabilities = 1, by your definition.
The presumed small probability of this particular configuration is missing the point. Pick any big number and you can call it improbable (my point). Unless you can show why the universe must have this form your argument fails.
Others have explained to you why it is invalid to say 1/inf = 0. Your calculation is inf x 1/inf = 0 which is false.
pknvdw i have noticed from reading through the comments that a lot of people have tried to explain to neotropic basically the same thing. He ignores the point. He also doesnt understand the difference between infinite and finite... From seeing some of his comments, he probably has taken a few math courses in school and now thinks he understands the theory.
My argument is not from improbability, it is from impossibility. Can you write such an algorithm? If so, tell me how it works (in plain English if you like, or in pseudo-code, or just send me the program).
I am not arguing that stupid point, most random number generators run off of a clock... Either why your "zero probablility guess" is false. There may be an infinite number of ways our universe could be, planck's const could be 7E-34, etc. However, there are also an infinite number of possibilities for any given unviverse to come to be. Thats what you are ignoring.
ASSUME you have a genuine random number operator. How do you write the program? I am not making a point about how random number generators are in actual fact non-random. If you think I am, then you have missed the point. Assume you have a random operation to select a random number from 0 to n. How do you write the program?
Are you retarded or something? I am not talking about a random number generator, that was pknvdw. I just made the point that there is no known way to make a random number generator (maybe with further advances in quantum mechanics and quantum computing). However, you have never proved my points wrong, your fixated on that random number generator...
If you have 0 through n possible inputs from you random operator, then you could use a wide variety of eq. or just have the quantum operation be you generator. Mostly, it depends on it you want the range of your output to be? 0 and 1s? -infinity to +infinity? 99 to 310? that would determine the algorithm.
I have already stipulated that you are allowed the use of a genuine random number generator in your program. It can pick a random number from 1 to n. Now tell me how to build a program to select a member from an infinite set in a non-biased way.
if you have a random operation ranging from 0 to n, the algorith will only be used to determine what you random output series will range from. 0 to 99, 0 to 1, etc. If you have a random operator ranging from 0 to 9 and want only 1's and 0's. you would do Random output = u(Random Operator - 5). The random operator makes the output completely random.
The "random number generator" is essential to the argument. The question is, how do you select an item at random from an infinite set? You haven't answered the initial challenge.
no, you keep dodging my initial arguement! I never talked about the random number generator until recently. And the random number gen is not essential to the arguement. I stated why you are wrong, and you clearly have nothing to counter with other than changing what I initially tried to explain to the random number gen.
You cannot choose at random from an infinite set, its impossible since the set grows without bounds. From a finite set, no matter how large is not impossible. PLEASE RESPOND TO WHAT I INITIALLY ARGUED I HAVE PLAYED BY YOUR RULES LONG ENOUGH. ILL RESTATE MY ARGUEMENT:
"You cannot choose at random from an infinite set, its impossible" Good. This is what my argument is based on. The universe could have come out infinite ways. So it's selection was not possible (unless you come up with a mechanism for biasing the selection algorithm, or something like that).
There may be n possible ways the universe could have been. However, there are also n possible ways to explain why the universe came to be the way it is (God is one, the Flying spagetti monster is another, etc... all work perfect thanks to you allowing supernatural possibilities).
That argument doesn't make sense. Or if it does, you haven't spelled it out clearly enough. If the selection of the universe is not possible -as my argument suggests- how does the introduction of multiple possible mechanisms help? The only mechanism that can do the trick is God (this is what I argue).
God is 1 of the n possibilities for our universe comming to be. That leaves n-1 other possibilities. That means 1/n for you and (n-1)/n for me... Now if we were betting on something like, say a horse race, you would never win. Your arguement is flawed to the nth degree.
This response ignores my argument entirely. I argue that the only possible way this universe could have come about is God. If this is right, then I have a 100% chance of winning the horse race -no matter how many other possibilities you come up with (no matter what n is) I win, because I demonstrated that the only possible mechanism responsible for the universe is God.
yes, but we dont have any proof that god is right and the spagetti monster isnt? So he is just one of the n. Thats n number of possible answers and n number of possible universes. Possible answers/Possible solutions=% on the midterm, lol.
My argument only demonstrates that God is necessary as a mechanism to start the universe. FSM would be ruled out by occam's razor. Plus there is no evidence for any additional properties of God beyond those that are required by this argument.
This highlights how difficult it is for the human mind to understand concepts like infinity and highly unlikely events.
ergo, the success of the lottery amongst the proles
paddym27 6 months ago
1 divided into infinity is not zero. it is an incredibly small number, as difficult to express as infinity is.
It is clear that just because there are an unlimited number of events, it does not make each of them impossible.
paddym27 6 months ago
There is infinite different possible gods and possible ways god(s) to come exists therefore there is no God(?) Just using your logic.
Singlerity 6 months ago
The "1/Infinity" argument falls apart as since infinity doesn't technically exist and is only a mathematical value and has no real representation, this argument is based on an impossible ideology so therefore is not valid.
The "Red vs Blue" argument falls apart because you assume that Blue (Intelligent Design" is 100% definite which you cannot as you don't know that for certain intelligent design was true, so this argument is not valid either.
MrNowYouSeeMe 9 months ago
thank you. U are apsolutly right but you arguments never toouch anybody who DONT WANT to belive.Faith isnˇt mathematics and you should read Kuran its full of mathematics
doorsahi 1 year ago
God could have created the universe in an infinite number of ways. But he only created it in this one way. Therefore the odds of him creating the universe are 1 over infinity, or zero. Using your logic God could not have created the universe.
As for the marbles, one can guess where they came from, but we don't know where they cam from, do we (what the marbles have to do with your argument is not clear).
Why do you think God could only have made the universe in one way, or nature in many?
gmrecneps 1 year ago
Yes, but where are the leprechauns?
Decibel33 1 year ago
1 over infinity is small...not zero mathematically speaking. this fact only seems special because we are here to talk about it. If one of those other ways did not occur, then we would not have this problem about bitching for god. I challenge you to find something that is either 100%, is truth, or is unbiased....exactly WOW @ this part "god made the universe exactly as he wanted" why did you pull universe out of your ass? "no mistakes" well ....REALLY? come on man your better than that.
algon45 1 year ago
take a pencil and paper ... can you handle that? On the left side write 1 over the symbol for infinity. Then put 'equals' and on the right side, 0. Now multiple both sides by infinity. The left side becomes 1 and the right side stays zero, because anything times 0 is 0. Congratulations, you've just proven that 1 equals 0. Have fun with your newly invented form of math. Do you see NOW that 1 divided by infinity is not equal to 0??
holzpusher 1 year ago
ok just tell me this where did your god come from and dont give me one off your crap answers like that has nothing to do with the argument just because you have no answer to prove that your god or so called "all mighty being" is real. and on a different note i think the world would be better off without religion of any kind because that is what holds humans back from reaching are full potential.
Geasskiller1 2 years ago
Beyond each of these previous counters I have submitted, I must ask the question: what does it mean to exist? If we are talking about the trillions of atoms, billions of cells, and hundreds of chemicals which make up the physical world again in which we reside, the question is, how do we "know" that we exist? Yes, I can say that I, like you, am "alive," which is to say, I breath, eat, and reproduce. Do I "exist" though? Is it not equally probable that this "existence" is merely a grand lie?
hcgtrplaya92986 2 years ago
In our overly-simplistic "black and white" terms, and the formation of a simple dichotomy contrasting God or not-God we are presupposing that first, our faulty logic and tentatively reliable mathematics and science, we can pretend to know even the "finite universe" in which we subside, and second, that we exist in the only universe of its kind. Is it not illogical to presume that we can experience everything in this universe from the fleshy sacks in which we reside?
hcgtrplaya92986 2 years ago
If we are limited by what we can see, touch, smell, taste, and hear, then what is to say that there aren't experiences we do not have, from dimensions we are not capable of experiencing, in this so-called "finite" singularity we call this universe? Isn't it equally probable that the top number is infinite as well, and our perception distorts this to make it appear to be only one? If this is the case, you might choose to revise your previous equation to read "infinity/infinity," or one.
hcgtrplaya92986 2 years ago
I have a question concerning the "zero probability" argument; you posit that the universe, mathematically speaking, could have occurred in an infinite number of ways, forming the denominator under the number of ways it could have occurred (1, the way it is now). I have to ask, how many dimensions are you capable of seeing in, that you arrive at "1" ultimate arrangement? Quantum physics argues that our perspective is distorted by our finite sensoriperceptive nervous capabilities are.
hcgtrplaya92986 2 years ago
I talked to gawd, and he said my cock could fly.
BendoGecko 2 years ago
You can't argue this way. It amounts to "given that we exist it must have been god" I think.
If you arrive at the answer that the probability of the universe existing in this form is zero, you logic is obviously flawed.
A counter: Given that god could have intervened in an infinite number of ways, the probability of him intervening in this way is zero. Same logic, opposite answer!
In fact, using logic like that, you can prove an infinite number of possibilities proving anything you want
mahoolahoo 2 years ago
really great video, intelligent arguments, mathematically correct.
and ohiostate18, you can calculate equations with infinity its called calculus.
GaaraSama123 3 years ago
The second argument is worse then the first. I'm sorry but positing an all powerful, all knowing, super intelligent god as the creator of somethng as flawed and imperfect as the universe will never be a better explanation than the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.
Two powerfully awful arguments for god.
rhettboy 3 years ago
Your first argument fell down the second you said 'our existence is impossible'. Obviously our existence is not impossible because... well... we're here. And that's not even taking account of the fact that there is not an infinite amount of ways the universe 'could have turned out'. There might be a really really big number of ways, but there are not infinite ways.
And 'God' did not make the universe without mistakes. There are lots. That is why the argument from design is a bad one.
rhettboy 3 years ago
you have obviously taken a few philosophy courses. However, there is one assumption people make when asking these questions that is very presumptuous. You are assuming that our logic gives us the capacity to understand the answer. When you narrow it down to physical forces or god you are leaving out the possibility of the unknown, and possibly, the unknowable.
thatsfuckingstupid 3 years ago 3
firstly, there are not an infinite no of ways the universe could have turned out, see matter from the big bang can only be turned into elements, ( E=MC2). these then interact and react with each other, thus creating compounds! some planets like the others in our solar system were unlucky, looks like earth won the lottery dosn't it, but look up at the night sky, then ask how many stars in this galaxy alone and understand that 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 has to hapen!
Therealmiracleworker 3 years ago
There are an infinite number of ways I could respond to your first argument, but i guess I'll pick this one: "what you said is really stupid". Oops, I forgot, by your logic, my comment does not exist.
gooner13for4 3 years ago
LOL At the first argument. You can't calculate equations with infinity, it does not have a defined value!
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
The cards argument DOES apply stupid person.
closedgl 3 years ago
2nd argument = stupid. No matter how it turned out, the people living in the scenario would obviously be living in that scenario, therefore probability is completely excluded from any theories you could have.
closedgl 3 years ago
1st argument = bullshit. Our earth could have turned out an infinite amount of ways. But it turned out the way it has. So it's impossible? Idiot. Anyways next argument.
closedgl 3 years ago
If each snowflake is unique and there are an infinite amount of them, then , by the tenants of your first argument, any one of them could not exist.(?)
And the second argument would be akin to two snowflakes being identical so the source of snowflakes is looked upon as the premise to justify the chance of the two flakes? And these arguments are to be spoken about logically, rationally, with God? I'll I can really say is hmmmmmm and scratch my head
dospook 3 years ago
Interesting thought, but the space of possible snowflakes is not infinite, and moreover, there are not infinite snowflakes. If by assumption there are infinite snowflakes, then their existence is not in question, because you have assumed they exist. In the case of the universe, we only have one, but we have an infinite design space. This distinguishes your analogy from my position.
The second argument suggests that if a snowflake's design matches what a creator wanted, it was probably created.
neotropic9 3 years ago
The alterity of what you call "design" is "(infinite) space". If there is an alterity of 'infinite design space' this is what you call God and simultaneously call finite design. If Im incorrect here please point to (some x) neither god nor a design. <- this duality is also synonymous with what you are calling (the tenants of being) random (in the red blue argument)
dospook 3 years ago
The balance of your argument fall to the side of god, ad hoc. The symbol ∞ is used finitely, as is the word infinite but the semantic inferences are ongoing , like ur use of God & space inferred as ongoing but used finitely. This is a common theological application yet with the scape goat being that which lays outside of the application of the argument itself (by (ur)definition), namely God.
dospook 3 years ago
Opposition begs an answer whether God is: finite & singular, infinite and singular; One of many & finite, One of an infinity and infinite. It is of course another common theological application to (now) apply a logical argument Here:
dospook 3 years ago
i just wanna argue ur first point. it was pretty smart but theres a simple way to argue it.
if the second dimention is just lines, the third dimention is every possible way the lines ever cld happen. the fourth dimention is time, and the fifth dimention is every possible timeline that could have ever happned. then the possibility that universe as we know it has happned in the fifth dimention jumps to 100 percent. and since were only 3 dimentional beings we can only perceive one possible outcome
armoredchicken 3 years ago
which is the one we know an love
armoredchicken 3 years ago
One more thing while on the topic. If you believe that some sort of intervention was required for our existence, then what is your explanation for that 'intervention'? (be it spiritual, physical, whatever.)
Please reply I'm interested to see what you say.
ICreamsodAI 3 years ago
I do not believe in god. But that first equation you said was seriously pretty intelligent. I would really like to know where you heard that, and if it's your own, then kudos to you xD
ICreamsodAI 3 years ago
actually, there arent a million ways. the only conclusion available for the massive amounts of cosmic microwave background radiation found apsolutly anywhere in the universe points to only one conclusion. a big bang.
4thDimensionFilms 3 years ago
i see your mum in the back ground, God is shit. Chuck Norris would win in a fight between the two.
sheldonlt 3 years ago
correction: NOT trying to disprove god...sorry for the mistake
phlaxguy 3 years ago
My point being that you make the assumption there is only one way the universe could come out and that if it had happened any other way the universe would not exist. I would like to add that I'm trying to disprove god, and I'll be the first to tell you I don't have any answers for life's big questions, but I don't impose my beliefs on others by using statistics with fuzzy assumptions.
phlaxguy 3 years ago
1/inf in basic math is equal to 0. Where do you get the one? Is it just the one outcome of the universe? Is it the outcome that an intelligent life form is created? If it's the one outcome of the universe well then it's equally inprobable that we wouldn't exist. If it's intelligent life then you cannot assume a one in your equation.
phlaxguy 3 years ago
so the argument is that since it is so unprobable that we exist, there must be a god, right? You use the idea of infinity in your argument. Well statistically speaking anything is possible on an infinite scale.
phlaxguy 3 years ago
I think you need to put down your flawed mathamatical pricipals (IF a probability exists then it is probable that it will be), and google CRITICAL RATIONALISIM, esp. relating to Karl Popper. He basically says that anyone one can prove any theory if they belive in it strongly enough (often siting Marx and Freud as an example) and instead of working hard to prove things, like using equations(logic) to prove the exsitance of god(something you yourself define as illogical)...
Tangentube 3 years ago
...a theory needs to stand the test of FALSIFIABILITY, don't write sums so you can prove the existance of god write them to CHALLENGE your faith, you will either prove yourself wrong OR your faith will be stronger for it
Tangentube 3 years ago
we shouldn't be aruging about the existance of god! no matter how many arguments either side presents people will stick to their core values. as for my personal belifs, i do belive in god
angielovesdogs 3 years ago
...can't believe how someone in 2008 still believes in God.. :D
Unbeliever07 3 years ago
Amen to that
theragingnoob 3 years ago
oh yah perhaps alah is making you say that
Endrance88 3 years ago
I am sorry, but I could not watch anymore of this nonsense and had to give up at the 4 minute mark. Instead of applying arcane theories and selective logic to support your case, how about opening your eyes instead? Everything in this Universe points to underlying natural laws. Physics, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry..the list goes on. THESE are real arguments where the TRUTH may be found and not in jars of coloured marbles. The tooth fairy and Easter bunny are more real than God.
wazzel2u 3 years ago
Turtles all the way down..
haerverk 3 years ago
The suggestion is that since we live in a universe with parameters that allow us to live in it (physical constants), we should not be surprised to be living in it. Without these parameters in place, we would not be able to even question our existence (not to mention that there is a possibility of there being a large number of universes:M-Theory) . We are getting to a point in science where we keep closing in on the "god of the gaps". Occam's Razor seeks to limit error in predictions, god adds it
freethought23 3 years ago
I don't see how all this is relevant to the arguments in the video. The notion of fine-tuned parameters does not play a role in the arguments, nor does an explanatory gap.
neotropic9 3 years ago
I suggest that you brush up on some of steven hawking's work, he clearly addresses the ways in which the universe could have formed and why we should not be surprised to be living in a universe that has the parameters to let us exist. Study some physics and you will soon see why there is no need to bring up god to explain the world around you
freethought23 3 years ago
Appeal to authority and an ad hominem. Thanks for playing.
neotropic9 3 years ago
Where is the ad hominem?? and appeal to what authority??
freethought23 3 years ago
Think about it, freethought.
Why would you be accused of ad hominem?
"Study some physics..."
Instead of addressing his argument you simply accuse him of ignorance. That's ad hominem.
And appeal to what authority??
"...brush up on some of steven [by the way, it's spelled Stephen, not steven] hawking's work." you appeal to the authority of Stephen Hawking, and again, you ignore the argument. For all you know, neotropic knows hawking better than you do.
That's called appeal to authority.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
I'm a physics graduate student so i doubt he knows more than i do. But thats not the point. His arguments are just so weak to anyone who understands what he is trying to say. But it sounds like the anthropic principle and Occam's Razor are all one needs to blow this fool out of the water
freethought23 3 years ago
You should stick to physics. Logical analysis is not your strong suit. lol. In all seriousness, maybe you should explain in what way physics counters the arguments, or in what way the arguments are "just so weak". The application of the anthropic principle and Ockham's razor is also something that needs to be explained.
Do not try to pigeon hole these arguments. To the best of my knowledge, I originated both of them.
neotropic9 3 years ago
"But it sounds like the anthropic principle and Occam's Razor are all one needs to blow this fool out of the water."
Go ahead then.
So far you have not addressed the arguments at all. All you have done is called them weak and him a fool. Are you still wondering why you have been accused of Ad Hominem?
Make a video if you have to. Camera's are pretty cheap these days.
:)
NomosCharis 3 years ago
"Camera's are pretty cheap these days."
I got two for five dollars apiece a couple weeks ago.
neotropic9 3 years ago
Wow!
I didn't know they were THAT cheap.
:)
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Matter is innert and uncreative.The stone or sand cannot produce any life.Life comes ONLY from life.Look around you.There is not even one example of life coming from matter.So called scientists with all their knowledge are not able to produce one single alive cell,by mixing chemicals.Life and matter both come from life and the source of life is God.
Vedantka 3 years ago
nice cat
BeFreeIV 3 years ago
Red/Blue: this is too similar to the design argument
here are the refutations
the universe coming to this moment randomly has a finite probability
therefore it is possible, improbability however great cannot be discarded
M-Theory (the most thorough idea of how the universe began) suggests an infinite number of universes in which case we are simply 1 of the ones that turned out like this
and of course god had infinite possibilities when creating the universe rendering this argument useless
Orygyn 3 years ago
Zero Probability Argument: probability is irrelevant.
If I picked a ball from an infinitely large lottery machine, I would end up with a ball and it would have a number on it (forget the impossibility of fitting however many numbers on the ball) but they go from 1 upwards
my point is that this argument is simply not applicable to this case
not only that but your argument makes such a common assumption: that this creator can only be God
Orygyn 3 years ago
In addition to the point that 1/inf = 0, your zero probability argument is based on two assumptions which atheists do not hold to. It first assumes the universe was created and, then, assumes the universe is non-deterministic.
In other words, your argument is premature. You need to first address creationism and determinism, then prove 1/inf = 0 before proceeding with this argument.
LogicSolver 3 years ago
Red-Blue argument - this falsely implies a knowledge of the concept of ideal design within the creation pos-facto.
"Our universe is exactly what we would expect to see if God exists."
That statement is pretentous and ethnocentrist. Interestingly also, it would contradict another tenant that it's admitted the argument presumes - that God is a perfect, and therefore infinite being.
If God is and infinite being then 'marbles' of all colors exist within his jar, not just 'blue' ones.
Justice1337 3 years ago
So, either God is infinite or not. If he is not, then the argument would fall apart because it's possible he made a mistake with his creation.
If he is infinite, then he could create the universe however he wants to, and therefore the universe simply being as it is shows no evidence of the existence of a creator.
Not to mention that the entire argment hinges on probability, in which case there is no real proof. It's possible that our blue marble IS the one taken from a jar of reds.
Justice1337 3 years ago
Zero Probability Argument - The problem is that this takes the origin of the universe and the origin of human life as the same singular event.
The origin of human life is a single event that happened on this singular planet. If the origin of the universe were singular, it would imply the existence of other concurrent events outside the universe, at least some of which failed to produce a universe. We don't know, but if this happened then the 'creation by design' theory is wrong.
Justice1337 3 years ago
Now to take the origin of human life rightly as a separate event.
Many scientists have theorized that the universe is of infinite size. If this is true, the amount of singular earth-like events is also infinite. Therefore, if the origin of intelligent life is anywhere on the probability table, then the probability of intelligent life existing SOMEWHERE in the universe is exactly one hundred percent. If this is the case, then the creation by design hypothesis is possibly wrong. cont . . .
Justice1337 3 years ago
Now, if the universe is not of infinite size, then some events must occur outside the universe - some of which may be universe creation events, some of which may be unsuccessful (see above). If this is true, then the creation of the universe is possibly a random event.
So, whether the universe is infinite, singular or neither, the origin of life is potentially random, on one level or another.
This is basic theoretical astronomy, something that people could learn at a community college.
Justice1337 3 years ago
Theists and probability do not mix well, as can be seen in this video. Do you know that the probability of the molecules in the air around you being in the exact configuration that they're in right now with those specific molecules in the configuration out of all of the possible places they could be in the Universe is so infinitesimally small that it couldn't happen? Wait, but it did, you say? But I thought that things that were extremely improbable could never happen, according to you?
hollabackitsobi 3 years ago
The first is null, because all possible universes are equally inlikely, therefor you can not say 1/infinity = 0, because
1(infinity)=infinity
ThedamnedInfidel 3 years ago
oh dear.....
jimmy976uk 3 years ago
One question towards the first arguement, what is the percentage margin of error by men calculating this algorith?
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
So far I understand the logic that 'var x' will equal to 0 but where does the 'var i = "god"' come in?
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
1/infinity does not equal 0 any more than 1/meaning=42. Both statements are meaningless, as neither meaning nor infinity is a number. The the limit as x approaches infinity of 1/x approaches 0, but that is a very different thing. Moreover, if there are an infinite number of ways the universe could be, are there not an infinite number of natures god could have, and thus an infinite number of ways he could "want" the universe to be? If so, how is theism more likely?
TheApatheticDespot 3 years ago
replace "infinity" with "aleph-null".
neotropic9 3 years ago
Alright, I'll give you that one, but the second point was the more fundamental criticism. If there are an infinite number of states the universe can exist in, why would the same not be true of god? You claim that theism is more likely because it has fewer potential resultant universes, but if the nature of the universe is determined by the nature of god then does not an infinite number of possible gods imply an infinte number of possible universes?
TheApatheticDespot 3 years ago
1st argument: there's no proof this universe could have been different. string theory proposes such, but it also proposes that every potential universe will exist. also, it's useless to make probabilistic arguments after the fact. (e.g. wow, i just dealt out a full deck in this specific combination! the chances of this were 1 in 8x10^67. therefore, something must have made me deal them out like this)
also, inserting a god does nothing to actually solve the problem.
ATL45 3 years ago
"it's useless to make probabilistic arguments after the fact. "
Really? Juries do it all the time (not to mention historians, geologists, and any scientist studying past events).
"also, inserting a god does nothing to actually solve the problem."
Really? The argument suggests otherwise.
"there's no proof this universe could have been different."
It's conceivable it could have been different, therefore its possible that it could have been (conceivability is the only evidence for possible)
neotropic9 3 years ago
inserting god does nothing to help us solve the "problem of existence". there has to be something which is the natural state of existence.
ignoring the false dichotomy, let's limit ourselves to either the universe or god. any argument applied to one can be equally well applied to the other.
we actually KNOW the universe exists, and we can make accurate predictions about it every day. as for god, he's just a plug-in for the unknown. this is much the same role he's played throughout history.
ATL45 3 years ago
yes, court cases use probabilistic arguments very often. and, often, the arguments are misapplied. for an example, go to ted(dot)com and search "how juries are fooled by statistics".
each alternative must be evaluated according to other possibilities and the given data.
what is the chance that the universe just plain exists?
what is the chance that the universe must have had a creator to cause its existence (who, conveniently, "just exists" in all of his own complexity and improbability)?
ATL45 3 years ago
i think the problem with the first argument is the assumption that the universe could have, as a matter of fact, been created in an infinite number of ways...conceptually that appears to be the case but i think its a leap of logic to assume it's inherently true...i could be incorrect though.
awhelnaw 3 years ago
grow a pair already and think for yourself
mharris666 4 years ago
I made those arguments up myself you cock nobbler.
neotropic9 4 years ago
ya and they mae you sound like a ignorant pussy, go prey to god to strie me down with his lighting
oh ya you cant, because he doesnt exist!
mharris666 4 years ago
wait, if your an athiest what are you doing posting a video lie this?
mharris666 4 years ago
It's called playing the devil's advocate (or God's advocate, as it were).
neotropic9 4 years ago
and he's an atheist, if you checked his channel or his other videos you would know this.
awhelnaw 3 years ago
I understand that, but why is making a video that supports the idea of a god when hes an atheist
mharris666 3 years ago
he answers that a couple comments below...hes playing devils advocate...u should check out his other videos, theyre very good
awhelnaw 3 years ago
There is not just 2 possibilities to how the universe was made. Not just either God, or evolution, how about multiple Gods, or the power of our own mind, The universal consiousness, the universe could have been designed by an intelligent alien, or mutliple aliens, or what about humans thousands of years in the future who created a universe experiment with new humans and we are in it, there are many 'possibilities' !!
babygirlmwa 4 years ago
Given that the universe exists, it would HAVE to be in SOME arrangement of particles and laws by the time it got around to us. To notice that it did wind up in SOME arrangement of particles and laws is merely to notice that a certainty had occurred. Certain events don't need any explanation at all, let alone a supernatural one.
myshkinyt 4 years ago
OK, the deal with the probability thing is that the infinitely numerous infinitely small probabilities end up adding up to one, you moron. I honestly laughed out loud at how dumb that was. The "card" counter is valid. Every hand is unlikely, but the probabilities of each hand add up to one, meaning no matter what you'll get some cards. Every possible universe is infinitely unlikely, but there are infinitely many possible universes. In that model we're guaranteed to have a universe.
IMPERATORTIBERIVS 4 years ago
I do not like the infinite improbability argument. Even looking from only 200 years ago, the chance of me having a blue pen that says Boston Scientific in the exact position it is right now is stupidly small, essentially 1/inf. The same thing applies to a specific pebble on a beach, a cloud of a specific shape at a specific time, or essentially any specific thing that has actually happened over all history. This does not mean that it could not (and did) happen without a miracle.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
You realize that if the universe were a "red marble" you'd still be saying all of this, we would have just had a different outcome with different consequences living in a different world, you'd just have to say that all other possibilities are "impossible" and you'd have the same argument. If we ended up all being blue living on a red planet with five arms you'd still say it was gods doing, so i dont even see the point of the argument.
SyntaxMage 4 years ago
wrong
daughtry4eva 4 years ago
touche
neotropic9 4 years ago
I see a pussy!!
Pegases0 4 years ago
Red-blue. Two separate hypotheses. God makes the universe exactly one way versus many possible ways. Again, you don't know that without a god there are many ways. Further, if we pool all possibilities (joining the hypotheses!), as you did, you could argue that since there are many more ways that the universe could have been created than the one way god created it, the probability that a god created it is infinitesimal!
farvision 4 years ago
I am arguing by abduction.
neotropic9 4 years ago
"God made the universe exactly as he wanted." (I'll let is slide that he kicked A&R out of eden; did the flood, gets mad etc etc, which clearly show he is not omnipotent and DOES make mistakes.) "The Universe is exactly what we would expect to see if god exists." Oh, I can't let it slide. From that you can argue anything. It's an argument that we should have kept slaves. It's an argument that what we have is the "right thing". Also, you get the same result if there is no god(s)!
farvision 4 years ago
"Randomly created by physical principles it could have turned out in at least two ways". No, you snuck in an assumption there that there is some kind of non-deterministic effect. I realize that some physicists like this idea but it's bogous: where did the randomness come from? It could be that everything is deterministic - that solves the problem, but in that case there is only one universe, possibly with several parts simultaneously (multiverse).
farvision 4 years ago
Then you combine the two hypotheses. For god there was one way. For no-god there are many ways. You are crossing hypotheses. You can't combine probabilities from different hypotheses, they don't a common a priori. IF you fuse the hypotheses (god versus one or more universes) then you get the result I said above, that the probablity of god is 50% or less depending on the number of universes.
farvision 4 years ago
Pick any integer at random? Ok, start counting. Every time you increment your counter, flip a coin. If it is heads, the count is your result. Every positive integer has some probability of being given. You meant a flat distribution - but didn't say that!
farvision 4 years ago
I mentioned that the selection was to be non-biased. The method you have described is biased towards lower numbers.
neotropic9 4 years ago
Ok, by 'non-biased' you meant 'equally probable'. Fair enough.
farvision 4 years ago
The probability of any number occuring on any continuous distribution, no matter how 'biased', is 1/inf or 0. Even though there is no probability for it, outcomes happen all the time.
About your 'algorithm', it is impossible to define a random number without a range and is limited by precision. You could likely make a 0 to 1 # generator with quantum entanglement, and extract it to any range of integers, but it could not be read to the required precision.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
Take a course in probability and statistics.
Until then your arguments will be just silly.
farvision 4 years ago
You assume I don't have training in probability and statistics.
neotropic9 4 years ago
You have more education than I thought. Argument 1 has two flaws. We don't know whether there is or could have been more than one universe, we only observe one. So "infinite ways" is an unsupported assumption. Second, flip many coins and you will get a "rare" pattern of heads and tails. The probability of one such set of flips may be tiny, but it happened. So it isn't impossible, any set of flips is a solution. The probability that we are here is 1, not 0 so no mystical being need be involved.
farvision 4 years ago
If there is some restriction on the possible universes, the onus is on you to demonstrate why (scientifically speaking, i.e. in terms on natural laws) there is such a restriction.
neotropic9 4 years ago
You cannot build a 'powerful' argument if one of your premises has no support at all. We only know that there is one universe; the actual number is completely unknown. So any argument built on that has no basis. You CANNOT say that there are an infinite number for sure. You CANNOT argue probabilities because we don't know the initial set of possibilities. You are trying to convert the case that we exist (P=1) into that we don't (division by infinity). Your own premise shows it's not zero.
farvision 4 years ago
You take a very arrogant stance in saying that your arguments have not been defeated when you're the one making the original argument. It is up to an outside consensus to determine if your arguments have been defeated, not you.
brandishwar 4 years ago
No, it's up to the people who understand the debate. Truth is not democratically decided.
neotropic9 4 years ago
I agree it's up to those who understand the debate, as they would be the ones making up the consensus. But that still means it's not up to you, therefore you have to standing to say whether your argument still stands or has fallen.
brandishwar 4 years ago
Here's the thing -- you can take a step in infinite number of ways. Tet, taking a step is not impossible. (reduction to the absurd)
You assume that this universe turned out exactly as if there was a god. Why?
So you argue using logic for a god that can defy logic?
jesokingcryst 4 years ago
You would have to take out every single humanistic concept that is reflective of religion, chance and a concept of God being a unipotent powerful being. There is another concept, of time. Thus you have no humanistic logic thus not influencing the argument now.
Thus, now God creating the universe seems like a contradiction. Using my biased viewpoint as them being the same will show why they are a contradiction.
SuperJewNinjaAttack 4 years ago
This makes more sensibility in my mind for the moment. Everything is chaotic in the universe so it is now difficult for me to say without using humanistic logic if there is an intelligence, my argument is middle ground.
SuperJewNinjaAttack 4 years ago
...so then the equation becomes 1/1, or a preset universal outcome, and this provides a counter argument to the first argument.
taucarkly 4 years ago
the universe was created in one way for a certain reason; there was only one outcome, even if the scenario is recreated and replayed the outcome is still going to remain consistent to the previous event, the only way the universe would have different outcomes is through an intervening force, God, but if this were true God would still create the universe to match his will, so there is still only one possible outcome...
taucarkly 4 years ago
First off, the mathematic equations and laws to which you refer do not, and cannot apply to the quantum mechanics on which the universe is built on. but to indulge in your theory...
taucarkly 4 years ago
Uh, I just heard the first argument which is logically false. Immediately. Infinite possibilities, treated mathematically like you did, are equal in value. Therefore every possibility's likelihood is against infinite, therefore Nothing could ever happen because there's just Too Many Ways For It To Happen. This is an old and long debunked argument.
sroHex 4 years ago 3
someone else trying there hardest to keep there belief.
metalimpaler2 4 years ago
I could make the same claim about you. Why don't you consider the arguments seriously?
neotropic9 4 years ago
no. i have no reason to believe. i'm open for real hard evidence. if you give it to me yes i'd probably be freaked out from it but i'd except that there was an all powerful god who writes on a 3rd grade level(the bible) and probably was high when he wrote it. i've only been given enough evidence from the bible to know what a contradiction is. i'm up for any suggestion. if it means science or superstition given evidence. i don't believe everything science hands out either.
metalimpaler2 4 years ago
i just gave you some arguments. i didn't mention the bible. find a problem with the arguments or go away and admit you don't know what's wrong with them (assuming there is something wrong with them).
neotropic9 4 years ago
the arguements are nothing but maybes. there arguements i give you that for it is the title of the video. but why do you have to think so hard if he's such a big miracle worker. if thats the case where are the big miracle. mysterious ways don't cut it. that just means he does nothing and you hold onto him anyway.
metalimpaler2 4 years ago
1. Again the observable universe is not infinite but is indeed finite, therefore comprised of finite parts which can be arranged in a finite number of arrangements, the argument fails because its assumptions are flawed.
2. We are given sufficient evidence for cosmic inflation via collision of two multidimensional membrains as postulated by M-theory. There is no naturalistic evidence for any of the gods of human religion, therefore the argument fails.
studio7manga 4 years ago
The people who insist that logic itself is the all-inclusive law and therefore must explain our existence, seem to overlook the fact that logic itself has limitations: All our logical explanations/formulas can NOT explain to a blind man the EXPERIENCE of "Blue", or "Hot", or "Excitement"... Logic is merely OUR system of cataloguing experiences in a way that allows us to make connections among them and retrieve them when useful. Logic is "just one more item in creation".
Sefardi123 4 years ago
CORRECTION: Just "Blue" was for the blind... the "Hot" and "Excitement" are just additional examples of experience we cannot describe in logical terms - though we can use logic to catalogue them in memory, and retrieve them when needed.
Sefardi123 4 years ago
Paraphrasing your argument:
1. It is impossible that we exist
2. We do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
???
Surely the first two parts are mutually exclusive, defying logic and the possibility of any kind of rational conclusion? Oh, wait, God alters logic. That's convenient.
daichi2097 4 years ago
In addition - using your 1/infinity logic.
Number of possible states for the universe = infinity.
Number of states different to the one in which we exist (X) = infinity - 1
Probability that one of these X states could exist (P) = X/infinity = 0
Probability that our universe would turn out as it did = 1 - P = 1 - 0 = 1
Therefore, God or no God, this is the only possible way the universe could have turned out.
daichi2097 4 years ago
The probability that the universe would turn out the way it did is 1/1, we know this because it in fact did turn out the way it did. The probability of it happening AGAIN, well that's a different story that is pointless to even talk about unless you have a lot of letters behind your name.
macman13 4 years ago
There is something that you have failed to consider. You assert that there are an infinite number of possible ways the universe could have turned out. But you can't prove that assertion. Consider any 'constant' in the recipe of the universe. Tell us the probability distribution for that variable and the limits of viability.
pknvdw 4 years ago
It is not up to me to do so. I am arguing that God created the universe. If this is true, then there is no mystery as to why the universe turned out the way it did. But atheists must explain this. They must provide a mechanism of selection. They must explain why some values for constants are acceptable, and others are not.
neotropic9 4 years ago
You asserted that there are infinite possibilities. If the set of 'constants' are actually determined by fundamental principles they are not variables to be tuned by god and you argument is invalid.
Why does there need to be a "mechanism of selection"?
pknvdw 4 years ago
I like your cat in the back ground. Cats are cool. I made a video for my cat. You just can't help but to love them unconditionally.
creole60 4 years ago
yep
neotropic9 4 years ago
A random integer selection algorithm?
Here is the result: -
837365926593640284645530293846
The probability of producing that specific number is 1/10³º
How amazing that I should get that result, how could that happen?
pknvdw 4 years ago
You ignored the question. That number wasn't the result of an algorithm picking a random number from the set of integers, nor was it unbiased. I can't debate with you if you can't comprehend the argument (or even try to).
neotropic9 4 years ago
Your mistake is that having said the universe could exist in an infinite number of configurations you then consider the way it is, divided by the number of ways it could be and say that the probability is zero. But you have not considered all the other possibilities or put any limits on it. So the universe must exist in some form. Sum of all probabilities = 1, by your definition.
pknvdw 4 years ago
The presumed small probability of this particular configuration is missing the point. Pick any big number and you can call it improbable (my point). Unless you can show why the universe must have this form your argument fails.
Others have explained to you why it is invalid to say 1/inf = 0. Your calculation is inf x 1/inf = 0 which is false.
pknvdw 4 years ago
pknvdw i have noticed from reading through the comments that a lot of people have tried to explain to neotropic basically the same thing. He ignores the point. He also doesnt understand the difference between infinite and finite... From seeing some of his comments, he probably has taken a few math courses in school and now thinks he understands the theory.
mickelsd 4 years ago
It's not an argument from improbability, it is an argument from impossibility. Get it?
neotropic9 4 years ago
My argument is not from improbability, it is from impossibility. Can you write such an algorithm? If so, tell me how it works (in plain English if you like, or in pseudo-code, or just send me the program).
neotropic9 4 years ago
I am not arguing that stupid point, most random number generators run off of a clock... Either why your "zero probablility guess" is false. There may be an infinite number of ways our universe could be, planck's const could be 7E-34, etc. However, there are also an infinite number of possibilities for any given unviverse to come to be. Thats what you are ignoring.
mickelsd 4 years ago
ASSUME you have a genuine random number operator. How do you write the program? I am not making a point about how random number generators are in actual fact non-random. If you think I am, then you have missed the point. Assume you have a random operation to select a random number from 0 to n. How do you write the program?
neotropic9 4 years ago
Are you retarded or something? I am not talking about a random number generator, that was pknvdw. I just made the point that there is no known way to make a random number generator (maybe with further advances in quantum mechanics and quantum computing). However, you have never proved my points wrong, your fixated on that random number generator...
mickelsd 4 years ago
Actually you could make a random number generator if you have the input be an operation which heavily depends on quantum theory.
mickelsd 4 years ago
If you have 0 through n possible inputs from you random operator, then you could use a wide variety of eq. or just have the quantum operation be you generator. Mostly, it depends on it you want the range of your output to be? 0 and 1s? -infinity to +infinity? 99 to 310? that would determine the algorithm.
mickelsd 4 years ago
I have already stipulated that you are allowed the use of a genuine random number generator in your program. It can pick a random number from 1 to n. Now tell me how to build a program to select a member from an infinite set in a non-biased way.
neotropic9 4 years ago
if you have a random operation ranging from 0 to n, the algorith will only be used to determine what you random output series will range from. 0 to 99, 0 to 1, etc. If you have a random operator ranging from 0 to 9 and want only 1's and 0's. you would do Random output = u(Random Operator - 5). The random operator makes the output completely random.
mickelsd 4 years ago
how do you pick a number from an INFINITE set?
neotropic9 4 years ago
The "random number generator" is essential to the argument. The question is, how do you select an item at random from an infinite set? You haven't answered the initial challenge.
neotropic9 4 years ago
no, you keep dodging my initial arguement! I never talked about the random number generator until recently. And the random number gen is not essential to the arguement. I stated why you are wrong, and you clearly have nothing to counter with other than changing what I initially tried to explain to the random number gen.
mickelsd 4 years ago
Okay. Explain your argument again -clearly- and I will tell you if it has anything at all to do with the argument that I was making.
neotropic9 4 years ago
You cannot choose at random from an infinite set, its impossible since the set grows without bounds. From a finite set, no matter how large is not impossible. PLEASE RESPOND TO WHAT I INITIALLY ARGUED I HAVE PLAYED BY YOUR RULES LONG ENOUGH. ILL RESTATE MY ARGUEMENT:
mickelsd 4 years ago
"You cannot choose at random from an infinite set, its impossible" Good. This is what my argument is based on. The universe could have come out infinite ways. So it's selection was not possible (unless you come up with a mechanism for biasing the selection algorithm, or something like that).
neotropic9 4 years ago
There may be n possible ways the universe could have been. However, there are also n possible ways to explain why the universe came to be the way it is (God is one, the Flying spagetti monster is another, etc... all work perfect thanks to you allowing supernatural possibilities).
mickelsd 4 years ago
That argument doesn't make sense. Or if it does, you haven't spelled it out clearly enough. If the selection of the universe is not possible -as my argument suggests- how does the introduction of multiple possible mechanisms help? The only mechanism that can do the trick is God (this is what I argue).
neotropic9 4 years ago
God is 1 of the n possibilities for our universe comming to be. That leaves n-1 other possibilities. That means 1/n for you and (n-1)/n for me... Now if we were betting on something like, say a horse race, you would never win. Your arguement is flawed to the nth degree.
mickelsd 4 years ago
This response ignores my argument entirely. I argue that the only possible way this universe could have come about is God. If this is right, then I have a 100% chance of winning the horse race -no matter how many other possibilities you come up with (no matter what n is) I win, because I demonstrated that the only possible mechanism responsible for the universe is God.
neotropic9 4 years ago
yes, but we dont have any proof that god is right and the spagetti monster isnt? So he is just one of the n. Thats n number of possible answers and n number of possible universes. Possible answers/Possible solutions=% on the midterm, lol.
mickelsd 4 years ago
My argument only demonstrates that God is necessary as a mechanism to start the universe. FSM would be ruled out by occam's razor. Plus there is no evidence for any additional properties of God beyond those that are required by this argument.
neotropic9 4 years ago
God would be eliminated due to lack of evidence in the material world. You let the supernatural in, not me.
mickelsd 4 years ago