1. 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!

Featured Non-sterile Earth in sterile cosmos. Paradox.

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by questfortruth, Jun 11, 2021 at 5:48 AM.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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!

     
    #1 questfortruth, Jun 11, 2021 at 5:48 AM
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021 at 10:58 PM
  2. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,588
    Ratings:
    +628
    Religion:
    Not religious
    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:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,943
    Ratings:
    +14,752
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Organic compounds are everywhere in the universe. Life only survives if those compounds stay viable and the organisms adapt to its environment.

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

    Even if a planet was contaminated by an outside object, man-made or natural, any living matter will need to adopt and become something entirely different than its original form in order to survive.

    I think we contaminate no better or worse than any interstellar object that gets introduced into an alien environment.
     
  4. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    It is the same kind of wishful thinking nonsense, which comes from top journals.
     
    #4 questfortruth, Jun 11, 2021 at 6:53 AM
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021 at 7:01 AM
  5. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,955
    Ratings:
    +7,779
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.


    :rolleyes:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,588
    Ratings:
    +628
    Religion:
    Not religious
    It's not wishful thinking to tell you that you are wrong. Wishful thinking is when you are told that you are wrong along with an explanation as to why, but you still want it to be correct.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,352
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Religion:
    None
    I've already explained to you why this logic is flawed. Your method is simply incorrect. You do not determine the probability of any one of multiple independent events occurring by taking the probability of one event and dividing it by the number of possible occurrences. You need to add all of the individual probabilities.

    It should be perfectly obviously that increasing the number of possible occurrences should increase the overall probability of at least once occurrence happening.

    If I roll one standard 6-sided die, the probability of rolling a 6 will be 1-in-6 or 16.66%.
    If I roll two 6-sided dice, the probability of at least one rolling a 6 will be 1-in-6 plus 1-in-6. 1-in-3 or 33.33%.
    If I roll three 6-sided dice, the probability is 1-in-2 or 50%.
    If I could roll an infinite number of 6-sided dice, I'd be guaranteed to roll a 6 eventually.

    The same basic logic applies to to the probability of life developing on planets. If the odds of life developing on any given planet was 1 in a billion and there were 10 planets, the overall probability would be 10 in a billion (or 1 in one hundred million). If there were a million planets, it would be a million in a billion (or 1 in a thousand). If there were an infinite number of planets, the probability would be infinity in a billion, which would make it a theoretical certainty.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,955
    Ratings:
    +7,779
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Please. You wouldn't recognize a top journal if it came upto you and smacked you upside the head with a quality science paper while wearing a t-shirt that says "Hi, I'm a top journal"
     
  9. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,588
    Ratings:
    +628
    Religion:
    Not religious
    It's all true. I admit it. I only won the "silver medal." You don't have to tease me about it.


    :rolleyes:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    But if the probability of life on Earth p is not zero, then by adding probabilities on N planets, we get
    P=N*p> 100% for large N. That is not possible, because must be P<100 %.
     
  11. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,792
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    Religion:
    Something else
    If the probability of the "godless emergence of intelligent life" is 100% then there is life on every planet.
     
  12. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Not necessary. To the 100% can correspond situation, where life is only on Earth.
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,352
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Religion:
    None
    Calculated probabilities can be over 1 (or 100%), we just recognise that as meaning it is technically a certainty. If I roll 10 six-sided dice, the probability of rolling a six on at least once is 10 in 6. That's over 100% chance so we recognise it as technically a certainty.

    I would suggest you ignore the formal logic for a moment and focus on the basic common sense. Whatever the chance of one event given one opportunity, increasing the number opportunities must increase the overall change of the event occurring. If you buy a hundred lottery tickets, you have more chance of winning that if you only buy one.
     
  14. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Yes, but I feel some new results are coming in my approach. More calculations are needed. But for now, you can watch the funny videos there. Thanks.

    There are N planets. If it is given, that life has emerged on one planet only, then the chances, that it is Earth, are 1/N. If it is given, that life has emerged on two planets only, then the chances are.....
     
  15. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,943
    Ratings:
    +14,752
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    One infinity divided by two, equals two infinities.

    *grin*
     
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,352
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Religion:
    None
    No valid calculations are going to help you prove your predetermined faith-based conclusions. You can't disprove evolution or abiogenesis with raw logic, even if they're not true.
     
  17. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    There are N planets. If it is given, that life has emerged on one planet only, then the chances, that it is Earth, are 1/N. If it is given, that life has emerged on two planets only, then the chances are.....
    1. The total number of combinations C{N,n}=N!/(n! (N-n)!)
    2. Here n=2, and number of combinations, that include Earth is (N-1),
    3. thus, (N-1)/C{N, 2}=(N-1)*2*(N-2)!/(N!)=2/N.
    Thus, the chances grow, I expect, that the general chance is H/N, where H is the number of planets with life (including Earth).

    But that must be multiplied by the probability, that the number of planets with life is H, namely one needs to find the function P(H)<100 %.

    However, it is clear right now, that if we alone in the Universe and Multiverse, then the probability of such an event is less than P(1)/N<100/N. 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.
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,352
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Religion:
    None
    That assumption is begging the question. If we're trying to work out the chances of life developing on any planets, we can't use an assumption that life developed on a specific number of planets.

    Again, you're just trying to twist unnecessary complex and flawed logic to try to fit you preconceived faith-based conclusion.

    The simple fact remains that the probability of life developing on Earth is non-zero. The probability of life developing on any other planet is non-zero. Those probabilities are entirely independent of each other and won't change in either direction regardless of how many other planets we consider or how many other planets also develop life. No amount of convoluted logic is going to change that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,743
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    P[life will emerge on H planets]*
    A[life has emerged on Earth if it has emerged on H planets] =
    B[life on Earth is part of life on H planets].

    P[life will emerge on H planets]=q*N, where q is the probability for life on Earth.

    q*N<100, hence, N<100/q.

    B=q*N*H/N= q*H. The B<100 %. Thus, H<100/q, H<N, and H<N<100/q.
    Well, if N=infinity, the q=0.
     
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    33,298
    Ratings:
    +28,477
    Religion:
    None
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...