science vs religion?

[Repox]

So now you want me to waste my time trawling back through a thread... Right. You know what you said and you know my replies (and the replies of others). Ok

#39
I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical.

Now show the theory, show the maths

Doing and proposing are two different things. I may solve the problem with statistics, but I won't post it here for idiots to attack. I don't like your crude tactics.

 

[Repox]

Doing and proposing are two different things. I may solve the problem with statistics, but I won't post it here for idiots to attack. I don't like your crude tactics.

 

[Polymath257]

yes, if you view it as cause and effect.

Which is impossible: a contradiction.

 

[ChristineM]

Doing and proposing are two different things. I may solve the problem with statistics, but I won't post it here for idiots to attack. I don't like your crude tactics.

You mean you don't like facts that upset you, fair enough

 

[Repox]

You mean you don't like facts that upset you, fair enough

You mean you don't like facts that upset you, fair enough

No, I don't like rude and untruthful comments. I never said I had the solutions, nor I have done the math. I simple made a proposal. You can continue with your rude and dishonest remarks, but it will get you nowhere.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I don't like rude and untruthful comments. I never said I had the solutions, nor I have done the math. I simple made a proposal. You can continue with your rude and dishonest remarks, but it will get you nowhere.

Yet you told an untruthful comments. You said

"I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

So show the maths or admit you told an untruth.

 

[Repox]

Well, no . . . to be concise.

Here's a thought experiment or two:

If we use a simple ratio, comparing the amount of physical space that supports human life to the amount of space in the universe that probably doesn't support human life, what percentage of the universe would you calculate that supports human life?

Considering that the universe is still expanding, that number may be so small, and getting smaller. . . Maybe even approaching zero. A nearly zero percent proportion of space that supports human life.

We could also use statistics. Let's say aliens from another dimension decided to take random scoops of space from our universe, and sift through it to look for signs of intelligent life. They scoop sections the size of our solar system a thousand times in random coordinates around the universe.

Based on our limited knowledge, there is a good chance that they will find zero signs of life in their 1000 random samples, and statistically conclude our universe doesn't support life at all.

Obviously, these are only thought experiements . . . and there is no current way to know that any of those assumptions are actually true. . . But intuitively it feels right to say that based on our current knowledge, almost the entire universe is probably incredibly hostile to human life. Heck, most of our own planet's surface is incredibly hostile to human life.

So when I see the links you posted, explain how amazingly fine-tuned the universe is, I think of these thought experiments.

If the universe were designed for life, it was very poorly done. And because (back to our original topic) we only have a single instance of this, it is impossible to know what changes specific variables would ultimately produce.

Perhaps the entire universe would be teeming with a multitude of intelligent life forms swimming in a universe sized bath of self-sustaining nutrients. . . Vast civilizations teeming with alien civilizations in intergalactic warfare? Absolutely nothing? Who could say?

But looking at the probability of the variables that produce humans on planet earth is a terrible way to go about statistical inference or design arguments.

Again, I hate repeating myself here, but we only have a single instance of a universe, and we are stuck inside it. There is no way to claim that the variables that "support life" in our universe is improbable or impossible, because there are no better or worse examples to compare it to.

But even if I were to grant evidence of design, we'd have to conclude, based on the evidence we have so far, that it was so poorly executed it may as well have been accidental anyway.

I think it all depends on what God's purpose was for the universe. If you think it was for humans, and we are the only advanced species in the universe, then, God did it for us. However, why wouldn't God created other planets for humans or advanced civilizations? It may have been for another purpose. I have a theory which can't be proven, but nevertheless may explain it.

The original purpose of the universe was to create a prison for Satan, God's rebellious and evil angel. Perhaps, the vast and endless space of the universe is for Satan to have temper tantrums and other such bizarre behavior exhibited in heaven. Maybe it is intended to simulate eternal heaven where Satan roamed before being expelled. There must be a purpose in the design, otherwise, it is truly a mystery.

If it was for a prison for Satan, why did God create paradise on earth? That is a really perplexing question. My theory it was to allow Satan another opportunity to reconcile differences with God, but it didn't work out as intended. Then, some would say, God is not perfect if He created such calamities. My best answer is God gave creatures free will. Therefore, God is not to blame for bad choices. That is, of course, a sort of philosophical debate for which we need academics. It is interesting, most academics believe in determinism, not freewill. I think it enables them to avoid consequences for denying God.

 

[Repox]

Yet you told an untruthful comments. You said

"I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

So show the maths or admit you told an untruth.

Learn to read. I said "proposing a theory." I made no mention of a resulting theory, or evidence thereof. Give it up.
Even if I had the math, I wouldn't post it. I am not required to submit to rude and insulting remarks.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.

I'd say that to some extent all this has already been done, the fine tuning of universal constants is hardly controversial these days- even according to atheists like Hawking; the odds of chance are down to essentially infinity to one, hence the number of multiverses required to accidentally spit this one out eventually..

if you take any object and attempt to explain it's existence without creative input, and your last resort is an invisible infinite probability machine... that's about as good a test as we can ever get for intelligent design being required. The only thing standing in the way at this point, would be a personal distaste for that explanation. and no amount of proof can get around that

 

[Polymath257]

Learn to read. I said "proposing a theory." I made no mention of a resulting theory, or evidence thereof. Give it up.
Even if I had the math, I wouldn't post it. I am not required to submit to rude and insulting remarks.

OK, so you announce you are proposing a theory, but don't actually present the theory, nor anything to back up your claims. And then you get defensive is someone suggests maybe you didn't prove you case. So you really have absolutely nothing.

Got it.

 

[Polymath257]

I think it all depends on what God's purpose was for the universe. If you think it was for humans, and we are the only advanced species in the universe, then, God did it for us. However, why wouldn't God created other planets for humans or advanced civilizations? It may have been for another purpose. I have a theory which can't be proven, but nevertheless may explain it.

The original purpose of the universe was to create a prison for Satan, God's rebellious and evil angel. Perhaps, the vast and endless space of the universe is for Satan to have temper tantrums and other such bizarre behavior exhibited in heaven. Maybe it is intended to simulate eternal heaven where Satan roamed before being expelled. There must be a purpose in the design, otherwise, it is truly a mystery.

If it was for a prison for Satan, why did God create paradise on earth? That is a really perplexing question. My theory it was to allow Satan another opportunity to reconcile differences with God, but it didn't work out as intended. Then, some would say, God is not perfect if He created such calamities. My best answer is God gave creatures free will. Therefore, God is not to blame for bad choices. That is, of course, a sort of philosophical debate for which we need academics. It is interesting, most academics believe in determinism, not freewill. I think it enables them to avoid consequences for denying God.

OK, then.......

 

[Repox]

OK, so you announce you are proposing a theory, but don't actually present the theory, nor anything to back up your claims. And then you get defensive is someone suggests maybe you didn't prove you case. So you really have absolutely nothing.

Got it.

Another one who can't read. Read about the scientific method. There are several stages for proving a theory. Just because a theory is not formalized doesn't mean it can't be proposed. In short, the design of the universe was not an accident. I think it must be atheist, they can't stand the idea that God created the universe.

Here is what I posted on this thread. "At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know."

That is all there is because it has not been formalized.

If you research the problem you will find many studies saying the same thing in different terms. My proposal is more specific for focusing on basic elements or subatomic particles which can be identified as key variables for initiating reactions associated with the basic design for the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Another one who can't read. I never said I had a workable theory. I proposed the idea. Look the word up. Why is everyone jumping on me. I think it must be atheist, they can't stand the idea that God created the universe.

You didn't even propose an idea. You gave a vague concept that many others have also had, but with no details. You are being 'jumped on' because you claim so much more than what you actually have. Ultimately, you have NOTHING.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical.

12 pages later and I'm not seeing this theory. I must have missed it. Can you please link me back to where you posted it?

 

[Repox]

12 pages later and I'm not seeing this theory. I must have missed it. Can you please link me back to where you posted it?

It is post #198. Check above on post #272 for a repeat.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is post #198. Check above on post #272 for a repeat.

I saw those. So you meant 'conjecture' or 'proposition' rather than 'theory?'

 

[Repox]

OK, then.......

I saw those. So you meant 'conjecture' or 'proposition' rather than 'theory?'

If you look up the definition of theory, you will find several definitions. "One being an idea or belief about something arrived at from speculation." One can theorize about many things. In science it relates to proposing an idea for how particular phenomena functions, or a set of relationships explaining what may not have been previously known.

 

[ChristineM]

Learn to read. I said "proposing a theory." I made no mention of a resulting theory, or evidence thereof. Give it up.
Even if I had the math, I wouldn't post it. I am not required to submit to rude and insulting remarks.

You said, and i quote again "I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

To propose : put forward.

Correct you are not required, but you made a statement, now refusing to provide proof of your claim only makes it look like your claim was lie. Was it a lie?

 

[Polymath257]

You said, and i quote again "I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

To propose : put forward.

Correct you are not required, but you made a statement, now refusing to provide proof of your claim only makes it look like your claim was lie. Was it a lie?

Of course it is a lie. He doesn't know enough mathematics and statistics to actually do anything like that. He is just another that has a vague intuition and wants someone else to do the hard work while he takes credit *if* anything works out out and claims a conspiracy if it doesn't. Such are a dime a dozen in some areas.

 

[Repox]

You said, and i quote again "I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

To propose : put forward.

Correct you are not required, but you made a statement, now refusing to provide proof of your claim only makes it look like your claim was lie. Was it a lie?

Oh, I see, not able to make me submit with insults and stupid remarks, you call me a liar. Give it up.

Here is an exercise for you brain deficiency problem. Look up the meaning of the words "propose" and "theory." If you are honest you will have to admit I used them correctly.