Statistics, God and Estimating

[Robert W]

It is an enormous universe and I'll take your word that ChemEngineer is brilliant.

• Can the universe create itself? I believe the jury is still out on this. Was the BB an act of creation or just a door opening between rooms?
• This leads to if it can't who can create a universe? Again, I believe the jury is still out on this. We can't see past the BB so we have no evidence to go on, only speculation.
• Then well ahead of evolution, who knows for sure that a collection of minerals simply self-created a life form? No evidence for how this happened. There are plenty of theories as to how life could arise from entirely natural forces but we may never know for sure.

I am very fond of your style of reasoning.

Seems a good many posters believe in the big bang, yet a belief based on a guess.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Such silliness ...God is a doctrine ... a lifestyle ...
"Love your brother as we love ourselves" isn't science ...

Not remotely true. There is abundant science throughout the Holy Bible. I pass out slips daily to strangers, as I have stated elsewhere. They confirm the scientific validity of that very claim you deny.

 

[ReinyDays]

I define good and evil.

Let's have it then, what are your definitions? ... if you want to kill your neighbors (post #142), then I'm sure you think that's "good" ... and then your neighbor will hate you and try to kill you ... I'm not sure that's a good way to live with each other ...

Eye for an eye until we're all blind ...

 

[Hafar1014]

I define good and evil.

And I don't need a book to help with that.

I have nothing against those who do, though. If you prefer someone else's value system, knock yourself out.

I look at it this way: God is either everything or He is nothing. You can't have a God that's only in charge of part of the world, that wouldn't make any sense.

God is not in charge of the world or us. We are free beings and make our own choices

 

[Leo123]

Look at the workings of one living cell and explain how that happened by accident. (Added video)

 

[Robert W]

Let's have it then, what are your definitions? ... if you want to kill your neighbors (post #142), then I'm sure you think that's "good" ... and then your neighbor will hate you and try to kill you ... I'm not sure that's a good way to live with each other ...

Eye for an eye until we're all blind ...

You should actually have let him define first and not played a personal role in what he might say.

 

[alang1216]

I am very fond of your style of reasoning.

Thanks, me too.

Seems a good many posters believe in the big bang, yet a belief based on a guess.

I think there is enough evidence to believe in the big bang but not much to determine what it truly was or came before it. That is why, although an atheist, I consider myself agnostic on the existence of a Creator.

 

[Robert W]

Thanks, me too.

I think there is enough evidence to believe in the big bang but not much to determine what it truly was or came before it. That is why, although an atheist, I consider myself agnostic on the existence of a Creator.

I might try to ease you into believing in GOD.

If you happened to find a bag, in weeds, containing $50,000 dollars, would you presume the money created itself?

Keep in mind, I said easing.

Everybody that I talk to believes there really is the universe. Even if they know no science at all. They see it visually at night.

When it is day, they do not see the same universe. Does this mean the universe vanished due to Sunlight or simply vanished?

Here is the thing about GOD, we can see his creations at times and not at other times.

 

[alang1216]

I might try to ease you into believing in GOD.

I wish you luck. It would be great to think I could be an immortal and live forever. Alas, I see no reason to believe that were true.

If you happened to find a bag, in weeds, containing $50,000 dollars, would you presume the money created itself?

Not a great analogy. There are no theories as to how that money appeared naturally. Every instance of creation I know about was either by nature or by man. There are theories as to how the moon was created naturally and since it was obviously not created by man, I'll go with nature. Was there another intelligence involved? Maybe but I see no evidence of it.

Here is the thing about GOD, we can see his creations at times and not at other times.

We see creations but none are signed.

 

[Robert W]

I wish you luck. It would be great to think I could be an immortal and live forever. Alas, I see no reason to believe that were true.


Not a great analogy. There are no theories as to how that money appeared naturally. Every instance of creation I know about was either by nature or by man. There are theories as to how the moon was created naturally and since it was obviously not created by man, I'll go with nature. Was there another intelligence involved? Maybe but I see no evidence of it.


We see creations but none are signed.

I will skip the parts where you did not actually give a good reply.
I will deal with your final statement.

My contention is we never stated they were signed.

Further, even if some of the Bible is wrong, consider that parts of it are right. We LDS accept the correct parts of the Bible.

Let me perhaps wrap this up for us both.

We see the Universe. Astronomers who have proper tools, tell us all that Stars are supersized compared to our Earth and Moon. Even supersized compared to all of our planets. We know what Earth is made of. We seem obligated to ask this. What created Earth, that we examine closely, and can nature simply create such things like planets that we see using telescopes?

Is what we call nature actually GOD?

 

[scruffy]

What created Earth, that we examine closely, and can nature simply create such things like planets that we see using telescopes?

Sigh. I keep trying to tell you, the system evolves towards attractors. You can't see them, they're hard to visualize. But you can sure see the results.

I'll give you an example - why is this one brain area called the hippocampus, highly conserved in evolution? It's involved in navigation, scene mapping, short term memory... surely these functions are different in humans and in goldfish? Turns out, the purpose of this brain area, is where to find food. Which requires all of the above functions. Finding food is an attractor. We only see the resulting behavior. We call it "operant conditioning". It requires an allocentric reference frame, which even honeybees have.

Is what we call nature actually GOD?

In the case of earth, the attractors are closer to basic physics, like thermodynamics. Energy minimization and such. The same principles apply at higher levels, as I've painstakingly shown in this section of the forum in the last 30 days or so.

 

[alang1216]

Is what we call nature actually GOD?

No. You're conflating two very different things. The first is that the universe exists, obviously, but was it created by an intelligence is the question. I don't know the answer, hence I'm agnostic. The second is what we call God, a force/entity/being/etc., an intelligence that is credited in scripture/myth/etc., with taking an interest in the affairs of man. I've looked and studied this God and am 100% convinced he/she/it does not exist and never did, hence I'm an atheist.

 

[ReinyDays]

You should actually have let him define first and not played a personal role in what he might say.

He won't post his definitions ... does that sound "scientific" to you? ...

Physical laws govern the physical world, why things fall to the ground ... spiritual laws govern the spirit world, why honesty is the best policy ... my physics textbook describes gravity, the Bible describes lifestyle ... two completely different things IMEIO ...

Withholding definitions ... that's some else entirely ...

 

[alang1216]

Look at the workings of one living cell and explain how that happened by accident. (Added video)

Evolution is not accidental.

 

[Leo123]

Evolution is not accidental.

The first living cell did not evolve because there was nothing from which to evolve. There was no life.

 

[alang1216]

The first living cell did not evolve because there was nothing from which to evolve. There was no life.

The cells we see today, even the simplest, ones are the result of billions of years of evolution. The first life was VERY simple, just complex enough to be subject to evolution.

 

[Leo123]

The cells we see today, even the simplest, ones are the result of billions of years of evolution. The first life was VERY simple, just complex enough to be subject to evolution.

so, from where did that simple life evolve? There is no proof that the elements arranged them selves into life.

 

[alang1216]

so, from where did that simple life evolve? There is no proof that the elements arranged them selves into life.

No, there is no proof and there probably never will be. Even evidence is very, very scarce but there is NO evidence, certainly no proof, of any other path to life.

 

[Leo123]

No, there is no proof and there probably never will be. Even evidence is very, very scarce but there is NO evidence, certainly no proof, of any other path to life.

Take a look at the video of the cell I posted. There are thousands of organelles doing specific actions. IMO that certainly depicts intellect and programming not happenstance.

 

[Cassandro]

While some might argue that this post belongs in a religion forum, I wish to point out that it is purely scientific, based on modern biochemistry coupled with statistics. The correspondence between science and its Creator continues to unfold.
--------------------------------------------------------------

A great many people get wrapped up in definitions that are erroneous.
Mathematicians have been known to say, "Nothing is impossible unless its probability is zero."
While that sounds plausible, let's look at reality.
Distinguished mathematician, Emile Borel, defined "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 50th or less.
Ten to the 50 is 1 followed by fifty zeroes.

Before reading any further, what volume do you estimate 10 to the 50 small marbles would occupy?
/
/
/
/
/
Ten to the 50 marbles 1 cm in diameter would fill 37,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth.

So who thinks it is possible to select one out of 37,400 billion billion spheres, and from that one enormous sphere full of 1 cm marbles, blindfolded, on your first and only try, get the unique marble?

Titin is the largest protein in the human body, at 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence.

I did the calculation to evaluate the probability of titin's original synthesis from any natural mechanism you can imagine, being 1/20 amino acids selected one at a time taken to the 38,138th power times two other factors which produce a probability for titin's original synthesis of 1 in about 10 to the 72,000th power. Those two other factors are the exclusive selection of L amino acids and not R amino acids, which works out to 1/2 to the 38,138th. Similarly, amino acids can bond by peptide bonds, where the -OH radical links to an -H radical, or a non-peptide bond, where it does not. This constitutes another factor of 1/2 to the 38,138th power.

This is insanely beyond impossible and titin is only one of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body.

Singularity?