Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[logician]

The problem with this thread is assuming that homo sapiens was a planned outcome.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In understanding probability, especially with events that have already occurred, one must understand that the chances that such an event actually occurred are 100 percent. Because it happened.
Any guess at the odds of such a thing occurring isn't about probability - it's just a guess. There is not enough absolute data for the mathematical probabilities.

 

[brbubba]

In understanding probability, especially with events that have already occurred, one must understand that the chances that such an event actually occurred are 100 percent. Because it happened.
Any guess at the odds of such a thing occurring isn't about probability - it's just a guess. There is not enough absolute data for the mathematical probabilities.

Then postulate about the future. It doesn't really matter either way.

 

[Yerda]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this.

If you consider the odds of your birth and they are probably pretty slim. Just for arguments sake, probably less than winning most lotteries. Now let's take that back to the odds of your parents' birth and so forth back to the beginning of the homosapien. Now we obviously know that the odds of successive events are measured through the product of the individual odds for each event. So we multiply all those odds together and we get a number, a very very small number.

Now I would argue that that number is so infinitesimally small that it would be equivalent to zero. So mathematics and statistics would effectively say that the likelihood of our individual existence is zero.

You know, that is one of my favourite things to ponder. The absolute ridiculousness of being is, to me, astounding. It's fun to try and imagine the scale of just how improbable we are.

So since the odds for our individual existence are effectively zero, does that mean that other, potentially supernatural, forces were acting on our behalf???

No. Of all the possible outcomes, I would imagine most are just as close to impossible as this one.

Think of the card analogy. If you select a card from a pack of 52 your chances are slim. If you continue to repeat this the sequence you pick becomes increasingly unlikely. You wouldn't call it impossible no matter how infinitessimal the odds became, would you?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then postulate about the future. It doesn't really matter either way.

It does matter. One can postulate the odds of an event occurring in the future, and as long as that event does not break the laws that govern the universe, it is possible for the event to occur. Even if the odds are seemingly impossibly stacked against it. But again, the odds of something occurring in the past that actually occurred are 100 percent.

 

[brbubba]

It does matter. One can postulate the odds of an event occurring in the future, and as long as that event does not break the laws that govern the universe, it is possible for the event to occur. Even if the odds are seemingly impossibly stacked against it. But again, the odds of something occurring in the past that actually occurred are 100 percent.

It's a hypothetical situation. Whether you postulate about the future or postulate about the present from a past perspective, it doesn't matter.

 

[skydivephil]

The odds of specifying a card being dealt from a random deck of cards of 52 to 1. If i specified it before the event and got it right , you would have something to explain. After the events, there's nothing to explin, some event had to happen. All fo the cards had a 52 to 1 chance and one of them had to come up. So an unlikely event thhat looked at retrospectiely is not vvery interesting. Unikely evenst happen all the time.
the odds of two cards being specified in a sequnece is 2704 to 1 (assume I replace the cards in the deck)
the odds fo three cards being specified ina sequence is 140,608 to 1
we could go on there are millions of cards dealt down probably every day in casinos around the world. That doesnt mean they cant happen, in fac they are guaranteed to happen.
So whether you specify before or after makes all the difference.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What are the odds that a supernatural being exists?

In a scientific sense, zero.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Attempting to 'hypothetically' insert probabilities into present events using a 'past perspective' is an effort in futility. There is a 100 percent chance that the event has occurred.
Statistically, no supernatural influence is needed. You can say the odds were stacked against it, but as long as there is even a .0000000000000001% chance for something to occur, it can occur naturally.

 

[Luminous]

Supernatural is an oxymoron...if the supernatural existed than it would be natural. thus there is no supernatural.

 

[PhosphorylatedHypnoMonkey]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this.

If you consider the odds of your birth and they are probably pretty slim. Just for arguments sake, probably less than winning most lotteries. Now let's take that back to the odds of your parents' birth and so forth back to the beginning of the homosapien. Now we obviously know that the odds of successive events are measured through the product of the individual odds for each event. So we multiply all those odds together and we get a number, a very very small number.

Now I would argue that that number is so infinitesimally small that it would be equivalent to zero. So mathematics and statistics would effectively say that the likelihood of our individual existence is zero.

So since the odds for our individual existence are effectively zero, does that mean that other, potentially supernatural, forces were acting on our behalf???

Your understanding of statistics IS statistically insignificant.

You have contradicted yourself slightly, because you are suggesting that a great "divine power" intervenes, creates us and we all are meant to exist, therefore have fates and all that..

However you are speaking as if time/fate is subjunctive (as in one choice leads to another irreversible choice) and as statistics is the quantification of subjunctive possibilities. You therefore are contradicting yourself when you are saying we both have a choice and our fate is decided for us.

My simple statement is that we can't both have fates AND be able to choose what we do..

Follow my logic?

(Due to my points made above you can't invovle the two in thesis without contradicting, i'm going to disagree with you)

 

[brbubba]

Your understanding of statistics IS statistically insignificant.

You have contradicted yourself slightly, because you are suggesting that a great "divine power" intervenes, creates us and we all are meant to exist, therefore have fates and all that..

However you are speaking as if time/fate is subjunctive (as in one choice leads to another irreversible choice) and as statistics is the quantification of subjunctive possibilities. You therefore are contradicting yourself when you are saying we both have a choice and our fate is decided for us.

My simple statement is that we can't both have fates AND be able to choose what we do..

Follow my logic?

(Due to my points made above you can't invovle the two in thesis without contradicting, i'm going to disagree with you)

It could be any power not directly observable or known to science, but not necessarily unknowable.

Anyway I do get what you are saying, I just don't see how you can't have it both ways. It could be your fate to be born to a certain host at a certain point in time, but your life could still be indeterminant. Or the time could not be fixed but the host could be fixed. Or certain aspects could be fixed and others not fixed. There seems to be infinite possibilities. Although I do see how statistics goes out the window once you start talking about possibilities that are either infinite, implausible or not able to be immediately proven.

 

[logician]

Homo sapiens is at the far end of a twig of a branch of a tree with many branches. Cut off that branch at any point, and we wouldn't be here.

 

[PhosphorylatedHypnoMonkey]

Homo sapiens is at the far end of a twig of a branch of a tree with many branches. Cut off that branch at any point, and we wouldn't be here.

That is a mind-nugget to chew on...

There was a programme on a while ago about what would happen if we all disapeared, Turns out if we all disapeared today in about a hundred thousand years nature would have reclaimed the earth in forest, with little evidence of man's existance.

We are a Blip in the earth's existance.

 

[PolyHedral]

Actually, there's one thing that would survive. There are four human names on the Moon.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I liked the Futurama spin on creation/evolution when the Professor dumped robotic nanomachines into a pond to clean the water, and these robots evolved at a very accelerated rate. And then these robots arrested the Professor for saying he created them, as that was a law against science.
Kinda makes me wonder if life started here when some alien life form dumped some goop into the ocean.

 

[logician]

I liked the Futurama spin on creation/evolution when the Professor dumped robotic nanomachines into a pond to clean the water, and these robots evolved at a very accelerated rate. And then these robots arrested the Professor for saying he created them, as that was a law against science.
Kinda makes me wonder if life started here when some alien life form dumped some goop into the ocean.

Certainly a possibility.

 

[McBell]

I liked the Futurama spin on creation/evolution when the Professor dumped robotic nanomachines into a pond to clean the water, and these robots evolved at a very accelerated rate. And then these robots arrested the Professor for saying he created them, as that was a law against science.
Kinda makes me wonder if life started here when some alien life form dumped some goop into the ocean.

roflmao
to think that perhaps ID is kinda right by thinking that we are the end result of some alien dumping its ships sewer on this planet... :biglaugh:

 

[brbubba]

I liked the Futurama spin on creation/evolution when the Professor dumped robotic nanomachines into a pond to clean the water, and these robots evolved at a very accelerated rate. And then these robots arrested the Professor for saying he created them, as that was a law against science.
Kinda makes me wonder if life started here when some alien life form dumped some goop into the ocean.

Well we are certainly the result of some alien interference whether natural or intelligent who knows.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well we are certainly the result of some alien interference whether natural or intelligent who knows.

Certainly?:areyoucra