Losing The Faith

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

If all was truly random, you could still exist. Just because it took a form that you don't see as the usual "random" doesn't mean it isn't in progress.

And reason itself wouldn't count, because like I said, it could be chaos in the guise of order, actual random things happening in a way that could be seen as reactionary, which would be imperceptible if it happened the right way.

The likelihood of billions of years happening perfectly like that isn't worth discussing, but it's a fun thing to think about.

But if it is truly random, how do you manage to exist 2 seconds in a row time after time after time?

Like I said, chance.

No reason is asked, none is required.

[CVT Temp]

That thought of mine gets even worse when you add the possibility of Order and Chaos, nihilist randomness and determinist systems, being two ends of a continuum of possible systems the universe might be.

More than slightly headache inducing, but fun.

Reason still technically works in the totally random universe, at least in principle.

[Norsklow]

But if it is truly random, how do you manage to exist 2 seconds in a row time after time after time?

Like I said, chance.

No reason is asked, none is required.

If the dice keep popping double sixes, it isn';t chance. Somebody is cheating!

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Like I said, chance.

No reason is asked, none is required.

If the dice keep popping double sixes, it isn';t chance. Somebody is cheating!

That sir, is chance, regardless of your bias that it must fit the image of differing answers every time.

That thought of mine gets even worse when you add the possibility of Order and Chaos, nihilist randomness and determinist systems, being two ends of a continuum of possible systems the universe might be.

More than slightly headache inducing, but fun.

Reason still technically works in the totally random universe, at least in principle.

No it doesn't, there is no reason for reason itself.

I'm not talking random matter popping in and out of existence, I'm talking full on chaos.

EDIT: Wait, explain that.

[Norsklow]

If the dice keep popping double sixes, it isn';t chance. Somebody is cheating!

That sir, is chance, regardless of your bias that it must fit the image of differing answers every time.

No. They merely need to be random enough to be random - if not, they are not random.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Like I said, chance.

No reason is asked, none is required.

If the dice keep popping double sixes, it isn';t chance. Somebody is cheating!

No, it's still just chance. It's no more unlikely than dice going double sixes and then a four and a three and then a two and a five. There's a one in 46656 chance of getting double sixes three times in a row, just like getting any other conceivable combination of the three rolls.

[Norsklow]

If the dice keep popping double sixes, it isn';t chance. Somebody is cheating!

No, it's still just chance. It's no more unlikely than dice going double sixes and then a four and a three and then a two and a five. There's a one in 46656 chance of getting double sixes three times in a row, just like getting any other conceivable combination of the three rolls.

Please keep thi going for a few more generations.

[Typhlochactas]

I'm an atheist and I don't consider it a religion, hence my non-participation in your poll.

[Tlaceceyaya]

No, it's still just chance. It's no more unlikely than dice going double sixes and then a four and a three and then a two and a five. There's a one in 46656 chance of getting double sixes three times in a row, just like getting any other conceivable combination of the three rolls.

Please keep thi going for a few more generations.

I did the math, and that's about the same odds as the number of grains of sand on the earth. I must point out that that is still not impossible. Just improbable, and improbability is not evidence of an extremely improbable creator.

[CVT Temp]

Please keep thi going for a few more generations.

Every possible sequence of rolls is equally unlikely, at least for a single die. For multiple die, some degeneracy occurs, which complicates things, but for a single die, every sequence is just as likely as every other. The only thing that changes with several sixes in a row, or some other sequence which humans happen to find significant, is that the likelihood of alternative explanations increases. The likelihood of random chance producing any given sequence is always the same.

[CVT Temp]

You can't use the shear unlikelihood of something to happen by chance as an argument that it didn't happen by chance. In order to show that something didn't happen be chance, you have to show that some alternative is more likely than pure chance. If the alternatives are even more unlikely than pure chance, then the fact that pure chance is not likely to produce that effect is meaningless.

[Norsklow]

Norsklow wrote:
Tlaceceyaya wrote:
No, it's still just chance. It's no more unlikely than dice going double sixes and then a four and a three and then a two and a five. There's a one in 46656 chance of getting double sixes three times in a row, just like getting any other conceivable combination of the three rolls.


Please keep thi going for a few more generations.

I did the math, and that's about the same odds as the number of grains of sand on the earth. I must point out that that is still not impossible. Just improbable, and improbability is not evidence of an extremely improbable creator.


CVT Temp
Diplomat


Norsklow wrote:
Please keep thi going for a few more generations.


Every possible sequence of rolls is equally unlikely, at least for a single die. For multiple die, some degeneracy occurs, which complicates things, but for a single die, every sequence is just as likely as every other. The only thing that changes with several sixes in a row, or some other sequence which humans happen to find significant, is that the likelihood of alternative explanations increases. The likelihood of random chance producing any given sequence is always the same.

Yet observation hath shewn that you don't ever get 100 times the red outcome in succession on a roulette wheel.

[CVT Temp]

Yet observation hath shewn that you don't ever get 100 times the red outcome in succession on a roulette wheel.

You're reifying the significance of 100 red. Every other sequence of 100 colors is equally unlikely. Each one has a 1 in 2¹⁰⁰ chance of happening. The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely. There are trillions of other sequences of 100 color bets that no one has ever seen either.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Norsklow wrote:
Tlaceceyaya wrote:
No, it's still just chance. It's no more unlikely than dice going double sixes and then a four and a three and then a two and a five. There's a one in 46656 chance of getting double sixes three times in a row, just like getting any other conceivable combination of the three rolls.


Please keep thi going for a few more generations.

I did the math, and that's about the same odds as the number of grains of sand on the earth. I must point out that that is still not impossible. Just improbable, and improbability is not evidence of an extremely improbable creator.


CVT Temp
Diplomat


Norsklow wrote:
Please keep thi going for a few more generations.


Every possible sequence of rolls is equally unlikely, at least for a single die. For multiple die, some degeneracy occurs, which complicates things, but for a single die, every sequence is just as likely as every other. The only thing that changes with several sixes in a row, or some other sequence which humans happen to find significant, is that the likelihood of alternative explanations increases. The likelihood of random chance producing any given sequence is always the same.

Yet observation hath shewn that you don't ever get 100 times the red outcome in succession on a roulette wheel.

Observation doesn't matter in mathematical probability.

Observation shows you never won the lottery, that doesn't mean you won't buy a winner someday.

[Infinitive]

The probability of all 122 constants has been calculated: assuming there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (which is a probable number- definitely not too small), the odds of life arising are on one planet in 10 to the 138th power planets. That's a 1 with 138 zeros after it! There are only 10 to the 70th power ATOMS in the universe. So, the odds of an Earth-like planet even existing are basically NIL.
Also, think about it: Do you have the FAITH, in contradiction of all of the evidence, to believe, that despite so much as a simple message declaring "I am happy" or "Take out the trash" never being observed to form without an intelligent cause, that an Amoeba, which has the information of 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica, in it's DNA arose from NOTHING? I just have a hard time believing that. Besides, spontaneous generation poses a chicken-egg dilemma: DNA needs proteins for its production, but proteins ARE produced by DNA.
For those who cite quantum physics as a threat to my argument for a First Cause: As everyone knows, matter cannot be made or destroyed under any natural event. However, matter WAS made during the Big Bang, which means it must have been a SUPERNATURAL event. Simple logic. Besides, to question the law of causality is to question science itself (science is a search for causes), and without science, the theist, atheist, and pantheist alike have nothing but faith to put their conclusions on. Not very scientific for those who claim to only work with science.
For those who profess that the big bang was from a previous, eternal universe; a finite number of bangs doesn't solve the problem (What caused the first one?), and an infinite number of finite events is actually impossible. It simply violates logic, because the sequence of events has ended as of today (no Big Bang is happening now), but an infinite sequence has no end. Besides, if the bangs began an infinitely long time ago, the energy for each crunch and bang would have run out. If you lit a candle an infinitely long time ago, the candle would be out by now. It's the same thing with the universe: besides, there is a much stronger argument for a finite universe.
Even if we wake up tomorrow and decide the Big Bang never happened, the universe must still be finite, and this is why:
1: The universe will end.
2: Everything that will end must have begun.
3: Therefore, the universe must have begun.
The universe WILL end, as the Law of Entropy dictates that order will decrease in a closed system (which the universe is) until it reaches complete disorder, which means that energy will no longer be usable. This would mean the end of motion, and in the universe's case, the end of time. Since time, space, and matter are interdependent, this also means the end of space and matter along with time, basically entailing the end of the universe, proving my first premise.
Some may claim that something can end without beginning- however, this violates logic. Something without a beginning must be infinite, as a finite system must have both ends. However, something without an end CANNOT be infinite. Since the universe has an end, it cannot be infinite, and therefore must have a beginning.
However, since the only two options, pertaining to the law of causality, are either an eternal universe or an an uncaused, supernatural force that used its immense power to create the universe. The eternal universe has been scientifically disproven, so the only other option, due to the process of elimination, is the supernatural force. This is the argument in logical form:
1: Either the universe is eternal or something outside of it is. (Logical premise based on Law of Causality)
2: The universe is not eternal. (Logically and scientifically proven premise)
3: Something outside of the universe is eternal. (Conclusion based on process of elimination)
Here's the atheist's problem- since the Big Bang is a supernatural act, MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE. As I just proved in my last post, this removes any doubts of Jesus' divine nature. Until someone refutes me, in which case I will gladly consider your argument and adjust mine accordingly.

[Norsklow]

Yet observation hath shewn that you don't ever get 100 times the red outcome in succession on a roulette wheel.

You're reifying the significance of 100 red. Every other sequence of 100 colors is equally unlikely. Each one has a 1 in 2¹⁰⁰ chance of happening. The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely. There are trillions of other sequences of 100 color bets that no one has ever seen either.

The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely.

So far so good. But one little thing:

It's not human observation. It's fact. It never happened.

And for it to work in Liger's place: it must happen continuously, without interruption!

[CVT Temp]

It's not human observation. It's fact. It never happened.

Neither have quadrillions of other sequences that are nowhere near as pretty or pattern-based.

brrbbrrbrbrrbrbrrbrrbbbbrbrbrbbrbrrrbbrbbrrrbbrbbrrbrbbrbrrrbrbrbbrbrbrbrbrrbrbrbbrrbbbbrrbrbrrrbrbr

That one has probably never happened either. The fact that it's less pretty is irrelevant.

Also, how do you know that 100 red has never happened?

[Norsklow]

It's not human observation. It's fact. It never happened.

Neither have quadrillions of other sequences that are nowhere near as pretty or pattern-based.

brrbbrrbrbrrbrbrrbrrbbbbrbrbrbbrbrrrbbrbbrrrbbrbbrrbrbbrbrrrbrbrbbrbrbrbrbrrbrbrbbrrbbbbrrbrbrrrbrbr

That one has probably never happened either. The fact that it's less pretty is irrelevant.

Also, how do you know that 100 red has never happened?

They keep records at Monte Carlo. IIRC the longest streak ever was 38 or something.

In order to accept the Ligerplace Hypothesis we must explain the uninterrupted occurrence of the impossible.

[CVT Temp]

They keep records at Monte Carlo. IIRC the longest streak ever was 38 or something.

In order to accept the Ligerplace Hypothesis we must explain the uninterrupted occurrence of the impossible.

I'm not defending his idea. I'm just talking about probability and probabilistic fallacies in general.

[Norsklow]

They keep records at Monte Carlo. IIRC the longest streak ever was 38 or something.

In order to accept the Ligerplace Hypothesis we must explain the uninterrupted occurrence of the impossible.

I'm not defending his idea. I'm just talking about probability and probabilistic fallacies in general.

I realised that. I did not call it the CVT Hypothesis.

[Ceannairceach]

My guess is that if you question your faith and need help to regain it, you probably shouldn't have it.

*Shrug*

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The probability of all 122 constants has been calculated: assuming there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (which is a probable number- definitely not too small), the odds of life arising are on one planet in 10 to the 138th power planets.

The universe is infinite, therefore infinite theoretical planets.

That's a 1 with 138 zeros after it! There are only 10 to the 70th power ATOMS in the universe. So, the odds of an Earth-like planet even existing are basically NIL.
Also, think about it: Do you have the FAITH, in contradiction of all of the evidence, to believe, that despite so much as a simple message declaring "I am happy" or "Take out the trash" never being observed to form without an intelligent cause, that an Amoeba, which has the information of 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica, in it's DNA arose from NOTHING?

Meh

I just have a hard time believing that. Besides, spontaneous generation poses a chicken-egg dilemma: DNA needs proteins for its production, but proteins ARE produced by DNA.
For those who cite quantum physics as a threat to my argument for a First Cause: As everyone knows, matter cannot be made or destroyed under any natural event. However, matter WAS made during the Big Bang, which means it must have been a SUPERNATURAL event. Simple logic.

Something that goes beyond nature is as probable as nature coming from nothing. If you can have a supernatural entity from nothing, you can have matter and all from zilch.

Besides, to question the law of causality is to question science itself (science is a search for causes), and without science, the theist, atheist, and pantheist alike have nothing but faith to put their conclusions on. Not very scientific for those who claim to only work with science.
For those who profess that the big bang was from a previous, eternal universe; a finite number of bangs doesn't solve the problem (What caused the first one?), and an infinite number of finite events is actually impossible.

Time is infinite, and very real.

It simply violates logic, because the sequence of events has ended as of today (no Big Bang is happening now), but an infinite sequence has no end. Besides, if the bangs began an infinitely long time ago, the energy for each crunch and bang would have run out. If you lit a candle an infinitely long time ago, the candle would be out by now. It's the same thing with the universe: besides, there is a much stronger argument for a finite universe.
Even if we wake up tomorrow and decide the Big Bang never happened, the universe must still be finite, and this is why:
1: The universe will end.
2: Everything that will end must have begun.
3: Therefore, the universe must have begun.

You have no proof for those assertions.

The universe WILL end, as the Law of Entropy dictates that order will decrease in a closed system (which the universe is) until it reaches complete disorder, which means that energy will no longer be usable.

Energy is what spreads infinitely, order is unaffected.

This would mean the end of motion, and in the universe's case, the end of time. Since time, space, and matter are interdependent, this also means the end of space and matter along with time, basically entailing the end of the universe, proving my first premise.
Some may claim that something can end without beginning- however, this violates logic. Something without a beginning must be infinite, as a finite system must have both ends. However, something without an end CANNOT be infinite. Since the universe has an end, it cannot be infinite, and therefore must have a beginning.

No proof for any of that.

However, since the only two options, pertaining to the law of causality, are either an eternal universe or an an uncaused, supernatural force that used its immense power to create the universe. The eternal universe has been scientifically disproven, so the only other option, due to the process of elimination, is the supernatural force. This is the argument in logical form:
1: Either the universe is eternal or something outside of it is. (Logical premise based on Law of Causality)
2: The universe is not eternal. (Logically and scientifically proven premise)
3: Something outside of the universe is eternal. (Conclusion based on process of elimination)
Here's the atheist's problem- since the Big Bang is a supernatural act, MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE. As I just proved in my last post, this removes any doubts of Jesus' divine nature. Until someone refutes me, in which case I will gladly consider your argument and adjust mine accordingly.

How the blind milk fuck did you get to Jesus?

Notes in blue.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

You're reifying the significance of 100 red. Every other sequence of 100 colors is equally unlikely. Each one has a 1 in 2¹⁰⁰ chance of happening. The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely. There are trillions of other sequences of 100 color bets that no one has ever seen either.

The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely.

So far so good. But one little thing:

It's not human observation. It's fact. It never happened.

And for it to work in Liger's place: it must happen continuously, without interruption!

It's literally not impossible, its IMPROBABLE.

No matter if it hasn't happened before, it is literally not outside of reason and science for something like that to happen.

Chances are REALLY FUCKING SMALL, but the chance still EXISTS.

[Norsklow]

1: The universe will end.
2: Everything that will end must have begun.
3: Therefore, the universe must have begun.

Blarney.
1. hypothesis.
2. proof required
3. pending validation of 1,2. (without considering whether statement 3 is true or not)

[Infinitive]

Also, I forgot to address the problem of Muslim and pantheistic martyrs; first of all, while I stressed the creation of the universe as disproving atheism, it equally disproves pantheism, as the pantheistic god has no ability to make choices, and the creation of the universe was obviously a choice. So Hindu and Buddhist martyrs are discounted.
Muslim martyrs are a bit more of a problem; their belief is just as sound with the scientific evidence as Christian beliefs are, but I can still use logic to take on this challenge.
I actually am glad you noticed the lack of proof that the Christian martyrs had more behind them than Muslim martyrs. However, I do have proof, which begins with this- the time period.
While Muslim martyrs certainly BELIEVE what they die for, they did not live along Muhammad as the disciples lived among Jesus, which automatically gives the disciples more credit, as people could verify their miracle claims- which they did. In fact, not only do Muslim martyrs not have eyewitness testimony to back their claims up- Muhammad's followers didn't see any miracles of his either. No miracles are mentioned in the Koran, and other sources claiming miracles have been discredited by Muslims themselves. Besides, Islam spread because Muhammad conquered Arabia- Christianity spread DESPITE Rome outlawing it. Why would you believe a religion despite being killed for it- because you have eyewitnesses to back you up or you are an eyewitness yourself. Besides, I never said the Muslim martyrs were LYING- I said they were mistaken, and the martyr argument was to disprove the idea that Christianity was a lie, not to disprove it being WRONG. I already proved the dilemma that exists when you say the disciples were mistaken, so the only option left is that Jesus IS God. I hope you consider this argument.