circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[Thumper]

It is merely a proof of principle, that an unseen intelligent agency can trump a directly observable materialist mechanism, depending on the circumstantial evidence- even if we can't calculate exact numbers for probability on both sides- we both know that he probably cheated somehow.

The analogy is fallacious I concede- because it utterly grants you a materialistic mechanism capable of the result (we know of no such thing for making random universes)

And it also actively guards against intelligent agency, while we know of no such inter-cosmological security force, preventing any intelligent dabbling!

To try and use you (rather weak) analogy, and apply it back to the creation of the universe -- base on the "circumstantial evidence of having never observed a cosmic royal flush" there is probably no "intelligent agency" at work here.

 

[Thumper]

Which of course is fine as well. I would hope that compelling evidence would be given, and that you would be open to receiving it. In my experience, atheists tend to find excuses to ignore all evidence, such that you could give them a mountain of evidence, but none of it would meet their impossible standards. I hope that isn't you.

Not true, there just has never been any evidence to consider.

It would need to be observable and measurable. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

The standard would be independently verifiable by a disinterested third party. Or, to put it more plainly, pretty much the same evidence it would take to convince you that Shiva and Vishnu exist.

 

[Sapiens]

Gravity is a good case in point. Few would argue that gravity does not exist. Yet no one has proposed why two objects would be attracted to each other. There are no obvious strings, and no pressure in the empty space pulling things together. It is common, yet extraordinary at the same time. Many millions pray to God, and have a sense that someone is listening; that too is common, yet extraordinary.

You are missing the point. Every time I drop a rock it falls in the same fashion and I can count on gravity being predictable enough to orbit a satellite despite its lack of visible strings and measurable pressures. Prayer, on the other hand, can not be predictably counted on and it is not "answered" at a frequency exceeding that which would be expected by purely random processes, So is it not foolish to have a misguided sense that someone is listening? Remember, your god appears to hate amputees, or perhaps loves salamanders more than people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well the odds are 649,739 : 1 for a royal flush, but it still happens. And each deal is a separate probability. Now, what are the "number of stars in the universe"?

right, so 4 in a row = 1.7821971e+23, within the margin of error for current estimates for the number of stars in the universe I believe, point being - practically impossible

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To try and use you (rather weak) analogy, and apply it back to the creation of the universe -- base on the "circumstantial evidence of having never observed a cosmic royal flush" there is probably no "intelligent agency" at work here.

The rocks on a deserted island beach spelling 'HELP' is a similar analogy. I can concede zero evidence of anyone ever being on the island, and grant you 100% a natural mechanism - the waves- capable of producing the result.
And we can both deduce intelligent agency is more probable.

 

[Thumper]

right, so 4 in a row = 1.7821971e+23, within the margin of error for current estimates for the number of stars in the universe I believe, point being - practically impossible

That assumes that each deal affects the odds of the next deal. Only true if you are using 1 deck and don't shuffle between deals. As I said, you don't really understand probability.

Truth is, there can be a billion to 1 probability of a given event and it can still happen twice this afternoon without violating probability theory. It's a meaningless argument.

 

[columbus]

So if you work in the fraud dept at this casino, and this guy sits down at 4 tables and plays a royal flush at each one, you tell your boss it's probably just luck?!

In my case it would be.
Or perhaps malfunctioning casino equipment
The fact is that I have no skill at cards and no interest in learning to cheat, so I couldn't cheat in a casual game much less a casino.
Tom

 

[Thumper]

The rocks on a deserted island beach spelling 'HELP' is a similar analogy. I can concede zero evidence of anyone ever being on the island, and grant you 100% a natural mechanism - the waves- capable of producing the result.
And we can both deduce intelligent agency is more probable.

Has that ever happened (pictures please) or are you just making stuff up again?

 

[columbus]

The rocks on a deserted island beach spelling 'HELP' is a similar analogy. I can concede zero evidence of anyone ever being on the island, and grant you 100% a natural mechanism - the waves- capable of producing the result.
And we can both deduce intelligent agency is more probable.

Only because you are starting with some tacit assumptions.
Beaches around the globe could all read "Help" in Arabic and Chinese and other languages I don't recognize and I wouldn't even guess that they do.
There could be some alien signaling for help by causing humans to set off hydrogen bombs. That could be why we have them, but not recognize what they mean.
Almost anything is possible if you put your imagination to work. That's where Gods and religious beliefs come from.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has that ever happened (pictures please) or are you just making stuff up again?

It's a hypothetical, in both cases the invisible intelligent agency trumps the empirical natural mechanism- where we merely allow the faintest possibility of it's invovlment

Nobody disputes that using random values for the universal constants, you'd need quite a few tries to get space/ time far less life and sentient beings arising from those numbers.

Hawking and other atheists put the probability near infinity to one, hence the need for an infinite probability machine (multiverses)

My point being that it's perfectly possible for such a multiverse to create our universe eventually, this still does not = the most probable explanation unless, like the analogies, we can utterly remove any possibility of intelligent agency being involved. And we cannot do so

 

[Sapiens]

The rocks on a deserted island beach spelling 'HELP' is a similar analogy. I can concede zero evidence of anyone ever being on the island, and grant you 100% a natural mechanism - the waves- capable of producing the result.
And we can both deduce intelligent agency is more probable.

Boy, this really is the morning of crappy analogies ... this one has no other half, so it is not even an analogy, merely a meaningless statement.

 

[Thumper]

Gravity is a good case in point. Few would argue that gravity does not exist. Yet no one has proposed why two objects would be attracted to each other. There are no obvious strings, and no pressure in the empty space pulling things together. It is common, yet extraordinary at the same time. Many millions pray to God, and have a sense that someone is listening; that too is common, yet extraordinary.

The Bagavad Gita says that it doesn't matter which god you pray to, Shiva answers all prayers.

No, wait ... that doesn't happen either. But the outcomes between Christians and Hindu are the same, which would also hold if you prayed to Superman.

In fact, if any one religion had the right belief system and prayer worked, there would be some sort of statistical significant measure we would see, better health, less infant death, something. But alas, there is nothing. Well except we do see less felony crime and less teen pregnancy in highly secular democracies when compared to highly religious ones (all religions). Does that count?

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman." ~ Homer Simpson

 

[Thumper]

It's a hypothetical, in both cases the invisible intelligent agency trumps the empirical natural mechanism- where we merely allow the faintest possibility of it's invovlment

Nobody disputes that using random values for the universal constants, you'd need quite a few tries to get space/ time far less life and sentient beings arising from those numbers.

Hawking and other atheists put the probability near infinity to one, hence the need for an infinite probability machine (multiverses)

My point being that it's perfectly possible for such a multiverse to create our universe eventually, this still does not = the most probable explanation unless, like the analogies, we can utterly remove any possibility of intelligent agency being involved. And we cannot do so

No, any leap to your "most probable explanation" is made up BS based on nothing but your desire that it be so.

 

[rrosskopf]

You are missing the point. Every time I drop a rock it falls in the same fashion and I can count on gravity being predictable enough to orbit a satellite despite its lack of visible strings and measurable pressures. Prayer, on the other hand, can not be predictably counted on and it is not "answered" at a frequency exceeding that which would be expected by purely random processes...

There are people who believe, from their own experience, that prayer can be predictably counted on. I rely on prayer to give me answers to my questions. I am rarely disappointed. Some people are better at praying than others. Studies on prayer are mixed; some show an advantage and others do not.

 

[Sapiens]

It's a hypothetical, in both cases the invisible intelligent agency trumps the empirical natural mechanism- where we merely allow the faintest possibility of it's invovlment

Nobody disputes that using random values for the universal constants, you'd need quite a few tries to get space/ time far less life and sentient beings arising from those numbers.

Hawking and other atheists put the probability near infinity to one, hence the need for an infinite probability machine (multiverses)

My point being that it's perfectly possible for such a multiverse to create our universe eventually, this still does not = the most probable explanation unless, like the analogies, we can utterly remove any possibility of intelligent agency being involved. And we cannot do so

Your error is in using prospective rather than retrospective probability. The probability of a given oak leaf falling in an exact predetermined place is infinitesimally small ... yet, there it is.

 

[rrosskopf]

In fact, if any one religion had the right belief system and prayer worked, there would be some sort of statistical significant measure we would see, better health, less infant death, something. But alas, there is nothing.

Not so. A study done in California found that Mormons live 8 to 10 years longer than the average population.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Only because you are starting with some tacit assumptions.
Beaches around the globe could all read "Help" in Arabic and Chinese and other languages I don't recognize and I wouldn't even guess that they do.
There could be some alien signaling for help by causing humans to set off hydrogen bombs. That could be why we have them, but not recognize what they mean.
Almost anything is possible if you put your imagination to work. That's where Gods and religious beliefs come from.
Tom

Right, or if the gambler played another sequence of 20 cards that appeared random to us, but in fact satisfied a side bet for that exact sequence arising.... we may not know he was cheating until he showed up to collect
.

But we already know that all the information in the primeval atom represented a winning hand, not one of the infinite variety of cold lifeless blobs that would result from altering any of this information infinitesimally

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your error is in using prospective rather than retrospective probability. The probability of a given oak leaf falling in an exact predetermined place is infinitesimally small ... yet, there it is.

correct, and any particular sequence of 20 cards, is just as improbable as 4 royal flushes, right?

So how do we know he's probably cheating?

 

[rrosskopf]

Remember, your god appears to hate amputees, or perhaps loves salamanders more than people.

Meaning what? That we have nothing to learn from living in an imperfect world?

 

[Thumper]

Right, or if the gambler played another sequence of 20 cards that appeared random to us, but in fact satisfied a side bet for that exact sequence arising.... we may not know he was cheating until he showed up to collect.
But we already know that all the information in the primeval atom represented a winning hand, not one of the infinite variety of cold lifeless blobs that would result from altering any of this information infinitesimally

Now we're getting to your real issue - you are arguing from incredulity and trying to rationalize creationism.