• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
Another for you.

A Statistical Monstrosity

“The President of the New York Scientific Society, as recorded in the "Readers' Digest," gave eight reasons why he believed there was a God. The first one was this. Take ten identical coins and mark them one to ten, place them in your pocket, and take one out, there is one chance in ten that you will get number one. Now replace it, and the chances that number two will follow number one are not one in ten, but one in one hundred, and so on, counting ten each time, so that the chances of number ten following number nine are one chance in 10,000,000,000 (ten thousand million). It seemed so unbelievable to me that I immediately took pencil and paper and very quickly discovered he was right. Try it yourself.

That is why George Gallup, the American statistician says: "I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."

Surely no thoughtful person would wish to base his eternal future on a "statistical monstrosity." Perhaps that is why the Bible says in Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." (The Reason Why by R.A. Laidlaw)

While the wonders of our Universe, and the seemingly improbability of life happening, are amazing, how much more amazing is it to believe that a God came about or always existed? You put forth this "statistical monstrosity", but then put God in its place, a being that is infinite. A being that is infinitely more complex and would be infinitely more unlikely than any statistical improbability that science has come up with. Sometimes you gotta take what is more likely, even if that likeliness is extremely unlikely.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Where else do you think you will find that information.
I was hoping there was some kind of evidence for it besides, “it’s true because the Bible says it’s true.” Like you maybe caught a demon on film or something.
why do you need an answer to this personal question. How will it assist the debate.
I’m not sure why it’s a personal question.

I was simply wondering why you are not being consistent in your argumentation.
Not true, can you substantiate such a vague and argumentative statement.
Yes it is true. Check the thread yourself. There’s nothing vague about it.
And it’s not any more or less argumentative than your OP.

You did not ask for substantiated claims. Some people would say that the bible is substantiated - me
Why would I want unsubstantiated claims?

Some people think an old book isn’t true just because it says it is.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
While the wonders of our Universe, and the seemingly improbability of life happening, are amazing, how much more amazing is it to believe that a God came about or always existed? You put forth this "statistical monstrosity", but then put God in its place, a being that is infinite. A being that is infinitely more complex and would be infinitely more unlikely than any statistical improbability that science has come up with. Sometimes you gotta take what is more likely, even if that likeliness is extremely unlikely.

:yes:
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
While the wonders of our Universe, and the seemingly improbability of life happening, are amazing, how much more amazing is it to believe that a God came about or always existed? You put forth this "statistical monstrosity", but then put God in its place, a being that is infinite. A being that is infinitely more complex and would be infinitely more unlikely than any statistical improbability that science has come up with. Sometimes you gotta take what is more likely, even if that likeliness is extremely unlikely.

What you are saying is it is more unlikely that God exists then the probability is that it just happened that way, by chance. To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist”

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life, supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life. The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely, it is virtually impossible. “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’

But that is all the beauty of this. Both chance and design are possible. If you decide that chance is a better option then you should stick your eggs in that basket. A word of warning though, if you are wrong then you are going to be very, very wrong without being able to rectify it. If I am wrong then I have lost nothing, as nothing will be my existence. But we both have free will to make that choice. I will allow you that right, will you allow it to me? I think you will.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
might be able to make him believe in santa while your at it :D

Ah, Santa - an anagram of Satan. The character who is taking away the true meaning of Christmas. I believe in him alright, but not in the same way as our impressionable children do.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
What Are The Odds?
What are the odds that your mom and dad got together and produced you, specifically you: What Are The Odds? | Visual.ly

In other words, it's impossible that your parents produced you.

The problem with most of the statistics/facts you have listed are that they are representative of the current state. Earths rotation was different in the past (million of years ago). The Sun's energy output as well. The length of the day was different (can't remember if it was longer or shorter, but it was different with hours). The Moon's distance was different. The tides were different. The global temperature has been much higher and much lower than it is now. And so on. Essentially, the "Goldielock" factors we have right now weren't always that. Humans could not have existed on Earth 300 million years ago, but today, with current climate, we can. But other life existed 300 million years ago, so they probably concluded that the world was perfectly designed for them!

In other words, the odds you're listing are relating to "confirmation bias" data. We exist, therefore all the things we can find that supports that we exist must have a purpose to be that way since we exist. It's an argument based on a vicious circle.
 

McBell

Unbound
What you are saying is it is more unlikely that God exists then the probability is that it just happened that way, by chance. To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist”

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life, supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life. The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely, it is virtually impossible. “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’

But that is all the beauty of this. Both chance and design are possible. If you decide that chance is a better option then you should stick your eggs in that basket. A word of warning though, if you are wrong then you are going to be very, very wrong without being able to rectify it. If I am wrong then I have lost nothing, as nothing will be my existence. But we both have free will to make that choice. I will allow you that right, will you allow it to me? I think you will.

Wow.
You really took that and ran off into left field with it.

How about you get to the meat of the matter and present the "statistical probability" of god existing?

Don't worry about the statistical probability of it being your particular favoured god, as we know that will jack your number way up, just concentrate on showing the math for any god existing.

And where is the math shown for your alleged "statistical monstrosity"?

Actually, come to think of it, you have not yet presented an actual number...
Why is that?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Wow.
You really took that and ran off into left field with it.

How about you get to the meat of the matter and present the "statistical probability" of god existing?

Don't worry about the statistical probability of it being your particular favoured god, as we know that will jack your number way up, just concentrate on showing the math for any god existing.

And where is the math shown for your alleged "statistical monstrosity"?

Actually, come to think of it, you have not yet presented an actual number...
Why is that?


A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer.

The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should they doubt its validity. The book, The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month.

Odds on that God exists, says scientist | Education | theguardian.com
 

McBell

Unbound
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer.

The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should they doubt its validity. The book, The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month.

Odds on that God exists, says scientist | Education | theguardian.com

Where is his math?

What 200 year old formula was used?
Why would you start with a 50/50 chance?
How do you measure "goodness"?
How do you measure "evil"?
What is the difference between "natural evil" and other evil?
Are they measured differently?


I understand you are big promoter of confirmation bias, but come on, haven't you figure out yet that this is not your choir?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Wow. I have come across some truly appalling apologetics, but this idea of calculating the probability of god existing beginning with the astonishingly silly assumption that the likelyhood god exists is 50/50 may be the dumbest.

If you assume that there is a 50/50 chance that intergallactic universe creating space penguins exist, and factor in the same things Dr Unwin's version of the utterly intellectually bankrupt Bayes theory does - they seem like a sure bet.

There's bad apologetics like the Kalam, which is excusable because it is over a thousand years old - but this is in a class of it's own.


Anyhoo....I'm off to the newsagents to buy lotto tickets, I calculated my chances of winning starting with the assumption of 50/50.............
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Where is his math?

What 200 year old formula was used?
Why would you start with a 50/50 chance?
How do you measure "goodness"?
How do you measure "evil"?
What is the difference between "natural evil" and other evil?
Are they measured differently?


I understand you are big promoter of confirmation bias, but come on, haven't you figure out yet that this is not your choir?

You Sir are such a skeptic - goodness is calculated with a nice-o-meter, and evil with a nasty-o-meter, Santa has both.
 

adi2d

Active Member
What are the odds that your mom and dad got together and produced you, specifically you: What Are The Odds? | Visual.ly

In other words, it's impossible that your parents produced you.

The problem with most of the statistics/facts you have listed are that they are representative of the current state. Earths rotation was different in the past (million of years ago). The Sun's energy output as well. The length of the day was different (can't remember if it was longer or shorter, but it was different with hours). The Moon's distance was different. The tides were different. The global temperature has been much higher and much lower than it is now. And so on. Essentially, the "Goldielock" factors we have right now weren't always that. Humans could not have existed on Earth 300 million years ago, but today, with current climate, we can. But other life existed 300 million years ago, so they probably concluded that the world was perfectly designed for them!

In other words, the odds you're listing are relating to "confirmation bias" data. We exist, therefore all the things we can find that supports that we exist must have a purpose to be that way since we exist. It's an argument based on a vicious circle.


I have to disagree with your odds on what's his names parents having him. He is here so the odds are 1. Odds mean nothing after the event. Just like the universe is here so all those impossibles happened. The difference with the two is we don't know if any of those variables could be different
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Where is his math?

What 200 year old formula was used?
Why would you start with a 50/50 chance?
How do you measure "goodness"?
How do you measure "evil"?
What is the difference between "natural evil" and other evil?
Are they measured differently?


I understand you are big promoter of confirmation bias, but come on, haven't you figure out yet that this is not your choir?

I took it as tongue in cheek. Do you think it could be possible to calculate the probability of a God?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I took it as tongue in cheek. Do you think it could be possible to calculate the probability of a God?

Of course not. No more than it is possible to calculate the probability for things being as they are - as the argument from fine tuning attempts to do.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
What you are saying is it is more unlikely that God exists then the probability is that it just happened that way, by chance. To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist”

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life, supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life. The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely, it is virtually impossible. “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’

I haven't claimed any absolute knowledge Serenity. Neither of us can have absolute knowledge if we are honest, but that's completely off base with what we were discussing. You mentioned how unlikely it was that there should be life on our planet based on complexity. You then inserted a God that is infinitely more complex to take its place. Logically this makes absolutely zero sense. If an infinitely complex God can just exist, then an extremely complex universe can exist with even more likeliness.

But that is all the beauty of this. Both chance and design are possible. If you decide that chance is a better option then you should stick your eggs in that basket. A word of warning though, if you are wrong then you are going to be very, very wrong without being able to rectify it. If I am wrong then I have lost nothing, as nothing will be my existence. But we both have free will to make that choice. I will allow you that right, will you allow it to me? I think you will.

Assuming there is only your God, and hes into punishing people for true honesty (which would make him evil), then sure, your 50/50 scenario that you seem to imply would make sense. The truth however is that many religions damn you for believing in the wrong God. So you actually do lose something if your wrong. Pascals wager hasn't worked for years now man.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
What you are saying is it is more unlikely that God exists then the probability is that it just happened that way, by chance. To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist”

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life, supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life. The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely, it is virtually impossible. “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’

I haven't claimed any absolute knowledge Serenity. Neither of us can have absolute knowledge if we are honest, but that's completely off base with what we were discussing. You mentioned how unlikely it was that there should be life on our planet based on complexity. You then inserted a God that is infinitely more complex to take its place. Logically this makes absolutely zero sense. If an infinitely complex God can just exist, then an extremely complex universe can exist with even more likeliness.

But that is all the beauty of this. Both chance and design are possible. If you decide that chance is a better option then you should stick your eggs in that basket. A word of warning though, if you are wrong then you are going to be very, very wrong without being able to rectify it. If I am wrong then I have lost nothing, as nothing will be my existence. But we both have free will to make that choice. I will allow you that right, will you allow it to me? I think you will.

Assuming there is only your God, and hes into punishing people for true honesty (which would make him evil), then sure. Your 50/50 scenario that you seem to imply would make sense. The truth however is that many religions damn you for believing in the wrong God. So you actually do lose something if your wrong. Pascals wager hasn't worked for years now man.

Of course Serenity, what would make you think otherwise?
 
Last edited:

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
You're wrong. Life needs so many different factors to be sustained. .. probability doesn't really come into it..

That doesn't even make sense. The argument was the odds are too high for life to have formed without some guiding hand. I pointed out that that's not the case. No matter what you think the odds are, with a universe this vast, it's bound to happen.

Yes, I believe you are right.

A little lite reading for you. A bit long but very interesting.

What Are The Odds?

What are the chances that this creation developed into the detail and harmony we see and need for life to continue on earth as it is today? Evolutionists claim that it all just happened by chance. The evolutionist

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there. It's not worth my time to read an article that starts out calling it "this creation" and uses the term "evolutionist". You should really stick to less biased sources.

I talked about the vast number of stars and planets in my last post. To get a little more specific, scientists estimate that there are 20 billion Earthlike planets in our galaxy. That means this galaxy contains that many planets that have the major qualities needed to be a life-sustaining planet like ours. They are about the right size, about the right distance from a star, etc. That doesn't mean they all contain life, but it means there are that many that cut out the biggest factors you'll raise in your calculations of the odds of a planet being life-sustaining.

And that's just in our galaxy. There are 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning probably around 2 sextillion Earthlike planets in the universe. So, even if you take a bunch of your "1 in 10,000" chances and add them up (even assuming they're legitimate odds and possibilities), it's still likely those conditions would exist in a universe as big as ours.
 
Top