• 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!

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not every question or problem is a paradox.
Not every probability calculation is cromulent,
especially so regarding phenomena poorly
understood, eg, pathways to abiogenesis.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The reason for sterility is so that earth microbes etc are not confusing the issue of measurement on other planets.

It seems space is far from sterile
Infinity is not a number, so you cannot divide 100% by infinity. Clearly someone who is an expert in mathematics would not make such a mistake like that. :eek:

Planets cannot be harbingers of life unless whatsoever it produces adapts and survives.

I think the problem is that you didn't receive a "gold medal" in school, so you probably just don't understand how to divide by infinity.

If I roll three 6-sided dice, the probability is 1-in-2 or 50%.

If the probability of the "godless emergence of intelligent life" is 100% then there is life on every planet.

Humans, I have improved the thread- Now it is simple, reread p-se.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I did not reply to the re written post but the original, i have no reason to waste more time
It is surely not a waste of anything!

Indeed, whatever the probability A is, that life emerges on Earth, there was a possibility, that life on Earth is the only one life in all reality. The probability B of such an outcome is less than Q=1/N. However, the Earth is a biologically isolated system (because of large distances). Thus, it is the true probability of life on Earth A=B, which inequality form A<Q does not depend on the outside world.

I am a loser in many areas of life. So, please, keep giving a chance to losers!
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It is surely not a waste of anything!

Indeed, whatever the probability is, that life emerges on Earth, there was a possibility, that life on Earth is the only one life in all reality. The probability of such an outcome is less than Q=1/N. However, the Earth is a biologically isolated system (because of large distances). Thus, it is the true probability of life on Earth, which inequality does not depend on the outside world.


I am afraid some one beat you to it. Ever hear of the Drake equation???
at least he used read data without making any guesses to massage his ego.
Drake-Equation-1280x720.jpg

Since the equation was formulated fx and ne have been considerably refined following thousands of new discoveries.

And of course you are omitting the hypothesis that life or more likely organic molecules were seeded here, in which case there is a possibility of organic molecules being present throughout the universe.


 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I am afraid some one beat you to it. Ever hear of the Drake equation???
at least he used read data without making any guesses to massage his ego.
View attachment 51422

Since the equation was formulated fx and ne have been considerably refined following thousands of new discoveries.

And of course you are omitting the hypothesis that life or more likely organic molecules were seeded here, in which case there is a possibility of organic molecules being present throughout the universe.

Science is only then Science when a genius can falsify it. I have new results!
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Humans, I have improved the thread- Now it is simple, reread p-se.
Well you should really stop the dishonest practice of editing your posts after they've been replied to as well. It all seems to be part of your inability to accept that you could ever be wrong about anything but it makes you look so much worse than admitting mistakes ever could, especially if you actually learned from them.

I can't tell what you've changed in the OP but it's still applying logic in ways I've already explained are flawed but that you keep entirely ignoring. If you don't want your ideas challenged, stop posting them.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Friends, new information:

The definite event with one living planet has a probability A1 of less than Q. The definite event with two living planets has a probability A2 less than Q^2, and the event with H living planets has a probability AH less than Q^H, more exactly: the probability is AH=Q^H (1-Q)^{N-H}. This function has a maximum at Q=q=H/N. Then AH<q^H (1-q)^{N-H}. Thus, for given N the most probable is the event with H=1. The definite two-planets event is for example: "life on Mars and life on Earth."
In the limit N=infinity, all probabilities A1,A2,A3,...,AN turn to zero.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
NASA tries not to violate the sterility of space by sterilizing its probes before launch. The Earth is not sterile, which means that the sterility of space is violated (after all, the Earth is a part of it). Is God to blame for the violation? God is "guilty" before satan because God has violated his plans. After all, sterility is death, and Death is satan's name.



It can also be proved that the probability of the godless appearance of life on Earth is exactly zero percent. If we take the totality of an infinite number of lifeless planets (which are suitable for life), then this does not help the idea that life appeared on Earth. The general rule of sterility does not allow this. The exception to the law of sterility is a real (God's) miracle.

Even if the probability of the godless emergence of intelligent life is 100 percent, then provided that life arose on only one planet out of an infinite number of planets N, then the probability of the emergence of life on Earth (before it arose) is 100 percent divided by N=infinity, and we get zero.

The definite event with one living planet has a probability A1 of less than Q. The definite event with two living planets has a probability A2 less than Q^2, and the event with H living planets has a probability AH less than Q^H, more exactly: the probability is AH=Q^H (1-Q)^{N-H}. This function has a maximum at Q=q=H/N. Then AH<q^H (1-q)^{N-H}. Thus, for given N the most probable is the event with H=1. The definite two-planets event is for example: "life on Mars and life on Earth."
In the limit N=infinity, all probabilities A1,A2,A3,...,AN turn to zero.

Reviewer: "Ever hear of the Drake equation???"
Science is only then Science when a genius can falsify it (the Popper's falsifiability criterion). I have new results!

Therefore, the infinite multitude of lifeless planets does not increase the chances of life on Earth. These calculations are of value for both theists and atheists, for both Darwinism and Creationism.

The origin of this note is on Russian Forum: Answers.Mail.Ru.

Ответы Mail.ru: Доказательство Бога для церковных бабушек, просто о возникновении жизни?

Wherewith Google translation you can enjoy covering some key objections to my results.
Russians are good ones because they worked together with the USA
to stop the Holocaust just some 77 years ago. Like blood-brothers!


The probability of life being anywhere is obviously slim, since we don't find it anywhere but on earth (assuming that UFOs are not from space). That doesn't mean that in the vastness of space it is impossible for life to have evolved on earth.

DNA shows that all life on earth is related, and therefore, it did not spontaneously occur many times. So, even on this planet, where the conditions for life are ideal, it is next to impossible for life to have evolved.

However, that doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

We happen to be life and be on earth. So, we can have that discussion about the origin of life. So, only places where life has evolved is there a discussion about the probability of this evolution.
 
Top