Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[Luminous]

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???

actually according to Statistics, the probability of my existance as I understand it is 100%

 

[Luminous]

the possible numbers of possible truths is so large that it is almost 100% certain that you are agnostic.

 

[brbubba]

Probability is an event X out of sample space S (well, obviously it is more than that, but for simplicity that will do). With discrete sample spaces, this is often relatively straightforward. A deck of cards, the roll of dice, etc, all have an easily definable sample space. Now, with the probability of an egg meeting a sperm, you would have to identify all the possible scenerios which are possible and which differ from the event in question. If you want to take as a given that their are sperm travelling towards some woman's ovaries, then to find the probability that one will meet the egg would mean identifying all possible outcomes. Now, given that this involves not just the sperm and egg, but the real world outside, where the woman could be hit by a car or die of a heart attack, or the entire town could blow up, all possible scenerios involving what happens with the sperm and egg, you are talking about an infinite number of outcomes.

That's absurd. You could say that about a coin toss. For example, I can't calculate the probability of a 50/50 coin toss done on a computer because we'd have to calculate the probability of it being hit by a meteorite.
I found this site that attempts to break down the actual probability.
The chances of you existing

And yes, the site does address Luminous' concern. My statement assumed that the probability of your existence would have been calculated prior to your actual existence.

 

[Oberon]

That's absurd. You could say that about a coin toss. For example, I can't calculate the probability of a 50/50 coin toss done on a computer because we'd have to calculate the probability of it being hit by a meteorite.

It's the difference between the model and reality. When you calculate the probability of a coin toss, what you are really calculating is the probability of head or tails, providing no other factors interfere with the coin toss and the coin doesn't land on its side. In fact, textbooks on probability will often specify this, when using the example of a coin toss.

I found this site that attempts to break down the actual probability.
The chances of you existing

It is a very artificial probability. It essentially says "ignore the vast majority of factors related to whether or not you are born, and calculate the probability based solely on counting sperm." Well, that's great, only it has very little to do with the actual probability of whether or not you are born.

 

[Willamena]

the possible numbers of possible truths is so large that it is almost 100% certain that you are agnostic.

Funny.

 

[logician]

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???

If you go back a billion years, nothing could be predicted a billion years in the future with any level of certainty. However, once events do happen, the probability matrix from the past no longer applies.

 

[Oberon]

However, once events do happen, the probability matrix from the past no longer applies.

This simply isn't true. For example, many studies (e.g. in dendroclimatology or in psychology) deal with statistical significance. In other words, they attempt to determine after the fact the likelihood that what occurred happened by chance. To be more specific, take just about any drug test done. They give patients in one group the real drug, and to the other group they give the placebo. If the real drug group has a higher rate of whatever they are looking for, it could be due to chance. So they try to test for this statistically using t-tests or chi square or ANOVAs, depending on the number of groups and variables being tested/manipulated.

The point is, they determine the likelihood of the events after these events have occured. Probability (and/or statistical) theory is still important even after the event happened, not in a predictive capacity but in being able to determine the likelihood that the events happened randomly.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but is this topic about science, statistics and supernatural or is about the art of tiling?

I guess that this is what happen when you jump to the end of the thread with the latest post, instead of beginning at the beginning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This simply isn't true. For example, many studies (e.g. in dendroclimatology or in psychology) deal with statistical significance. In other words, they attempt to determine after the fact the likelihood that what occurred happened by chance. To be more specific, take just about any drug test done. They give patients in one group the real drug, and to the other group they give the placebo. If the real drug group has a higher rate of whatever they are looking for, it could be due to chance. So they try to test for this statistically using t-tests or chi square or ANOVAs, depending on the number of groups and variables being tested/manipulated.

The point is, they determine the likelihood of the events after these events have occured. Probability (and/or statistical) theory is still important even after the event happened, not in a predictive capacity but in being able to determine the likelihood that the events happened randomly.

The problem being that it cannot account for things which do not happen randomly, such as things that happen as a result of natural laws, etc.

 

[Oberon]

The problem being that it cannot account for things which do not happen randomly, such as things that happen as a result of natural laws, etc.

Could you expand? I am unsure exactly what you mean.

 

[Child of Atom]

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???

I don't believe that's necessarily the case at all. I don't think that statistics can really get an accurate picture of how likely/unlikely individual life forms are without knowing how likely/unlikely our universe is to begin with. Many theoretical physicists are thinking that there could be many universes, perhaps even an infinite amount. If that's the case, then the likelihood of life would increase substantially to an almost certainty.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert at statistics. With my limited knowledge, I'm not so sure that with our universe's size that life is so unlikely as some contend. How did you reach your conclusion that the number would be infinitesimally small? What available data did you use?

 

[justbehappy]

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???

What makes God more likely than zero?

 

[Oberon]

Many theoretical physicists are thinking that there could be many universes, perhaps even an infinite amount.

One impetus for this position is the extremely fortunate properties of our universe. See, esp., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler, Oxford University Press, 1986.

 

[Oberon]

What makes God more likely than zero?

Good question. The probability of God vs. chance given the properties of our universe has been enough to convince even such notable atheists as Athony Flew, but I am still on the fence.

 

[skydivephil]

One impetus for this position is the extremely fortunate properties of our universe. See, esp., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler, Oxford University Press, 1986.

I dont agree , the multuverse is becoming more popular amongst physicicsts becuase cosmological inflation imlies it and there is good evdience for inflation . I dont think Barrow and Tipler are not taken very seriously by most physcists whereas the diea of Guth and Vilenkin etc are taken extremely seriously. Just do a quick citation count and you will see.

 

[brbubba]

What makes God more likely than zero?

Well if time is infinite then the probability of God is 1. However, the probability of all things is 1. But then you have to obey the laws of the universe, but we also don't know all the laws of the universe. So it's clearly a complex problem.

 

[skydivephil]

Well if time is infinite then the probability of God is 1. However, the probability of all things is 1. But then you have to obey the laws of the universe, but we also don't know all the laws of the universe. So it's clearly a complex problem.

An infinite time does not make god probabale. this would only be the case if we knew there was finite probability of occurence. Since we dont know that your statement cannot be supported by probability theory . The problem is not really complex. Its simple, there is no evidence for god, so why believe in him?

 

[brbubba]

An infinite time does not make god probabale. this would only be the case if we knew there was finite probability of occurence. Since we dont know that your statement cannot be supported by probability theory . The problem is not really complex. Its simple, there is no evidence for god, so why believe in him?

Well obviously probability cannot make conjectures on things that we don't have scientific evidence for, although you could come up with a probability on the chances of discovering God's existence in the future. But that would likely be a useless statistic. Furthermore I question that time is infinite. This is all clearly conjecture, not to be confused with science.

However, there is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, which may be only a hop skip and a jump away from God.

 

[painted wolf]

there is anecdotal evidence of the supernatural... much like God... nothing scientifically valid.

wa:do

 

[brbubba]

there is anecdotal evidence of the supernatural... much like God... nothing scientifically valid.

wa:do

Yeah, but that's only because we haven't determined what the criteria for evidence is in the case of the supernatural. The evidence for the supernatural is infinitely stronger than the evidence for God.