Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The likelihood of a life permitting universe

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How many "universes" are there?

Also.... I don't really see how people can ever connect "probability" to issues of metaphysics....

Metaphysics deals with what IS...
Probability deals with guesses of what will be due to not fully understanding what is or how it leads to what will be.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:03:02 PM, mortsdor wrote:
How many "universes" are there?

For if there were enough, it would not only become Probable that one such as ours would exist... It would become a practical certainty... right?

No reason whatsoever ours can't be the One in a Trillion that would exist...

One of them would have to be that one.

Also.... I don't really see how people can ever connect "probability" to issues of metaphysics....

Metaphysics deals with what IS...
Probability deals with guesses of what will be due to not fully understanding what is or how it leads to what will be.

I really find it rather distasteful when any philosopher starts talking about what is likely/probable.

I feel like those terms don't belong in such discussions...

I would leave it to what seems to be the case, and what does not..
What seems Unavoidable and why, and what is evidenced and why it should be accepted.

I have a hard time understanding how people could put numbers on metaphysical possibilities to ever to claim to Probabilities.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

And cosmological speaking, if the universe is a series of Big Bangs to Big Crunches, who is to say we haven't done this cycle more than a few billions times? Just because your understanding of time is limited in scope doesn't mean the rest of the universe's is.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 7:00:33 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:03:02 PM, mortsdor wrote:
How many "universes" are there?

For if there were enough, it would not only become Probable that one such as ours would exist... It would become a practical certainty... right?

No reason whatsoever ours can't be the One in a Trillion that would exist...

One of them would have to be that one.

That does not logically follow. If there is a chance 1:100 then cash it in we won the lottery for being the one universe.

Existences alone does not logically follow that the existence is necessary to exist.

The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds.



Also.... I don't really see how people can ever connect "probability" to issues of metaphysics....

Metaphysics deals with what IS...

or what is possible in modal logic. metaphysics is a broad term and applies to the nature of being.

Probability deals with guesses of what will be due to not fully understanding what is or how it leads to what will be.

Probability is not guesses. And it does not stem from a lack of understanding.

Rolling a six sided dice has a 100% chance of rolling a number between 1-6. And 0% it will roll 7-infinity. That seems pretty well understood. The probability is 1 out of 6 that a 2 will be rolled.

It is not guesswork. It is a measure of likelihood, confidence, of an event. This is from an understanding not from ignorance.


I really find it rather distasteful when any philosopher starts talking about what is likely/probable.

Maybe you should understand what the terms mean. I suggest you read up on "Inductive logic", which by the way is what science is.


I feel like those terms don't belong in such discussions...

They completely belong. Because there are very few things that can be deductively concluded.


I would leave it to what seems to be the case, and what does not..

What seems to be the case? That attitude would put a stop on all inquiry. Why investigate a case when we just accept what seems to the case.

What seems Unavoidable and why, and what is evidenced and why it should be accepted.

I don't understand what you saying here.


I have a hard time understanding how people could put numbers on metaphysical possibilities to ever to claim to Probabilities.

Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If an infinite amount of Universes existed, there's still no reason to expect any of these Universes to have different fundamental laws.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Not only ignorant, but dishonest, as well. For example, where did you get that ratio of trillions to one?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Your ignorance of probability theory is what is hilarious.

You have a sample size of 1 (this universe) from an unknown population. Please, show us how you arrived at your calculation of the odds. Lol.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:30:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:00:33 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:03:02 PM, mortsdor wrote:
How many "universes" are there?

For if there were enough, it would not only become Probable that one such as ours would exist... It would become a practical certainty... right?

No reason whatsoever ours can't be the One in a Trillion that would exist...

One of them would have to be that one.

That does not logically follow. If there is a chance 1:100 then cash it in we won the lottery for being the one universe.

Existences alone does not logically follow that the existence is necessary to exist.

The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds.

When I said One of them would have to be that one... I did't really mean HAVE TO...
like necessarily...

I meant, chances are (since he was talking about probabilities)

so, if there's a 1/trillion chance of a universe that supports life,
But there's a hundred billion trillion universes in the multiverse...

chances are there's a good number that support life, and there's no reason ours isn't one of that number.

so the whole "probability" argument in that regard is just flawed since we don't know the context in which the known universe exists.

Also as to your point,
Existences alone does not logically follow that the existence is necessary to exist.
Umm... given that things happen for Reasons, if something happened, there's reasons it happened and didn't Not happen.... Eventually that causal chain bottoms out in what Simply Is...

So, yeah things happen of necessity, relating to what IS.

why things, at bottom, are the way they are... who the hell knows.

Also.... I don't really see how people can ever connect "probability" to issues of metaphysics....

Metaphysics deals with what IS...

or what is possible in modal logic.

metaphysics is a broad term and applies to the nature of being.

Metaphysics is a broad term and applies to the nature of WHAT IS.

yeah, Being...
Being = what IS.

I don't get how people talk about what could possibly be as though they have any special point of view from which they can make such judgments.

We can talk of what seems to be and why we accept it... Beyond that I think things get silly.

Probability deals with guesses of what will be due to not fully understanding what is or how it leads to what will be.

Probability is not guesses. And it does not stem from a lack of understanding.

Rolling a six sided dice has a 100% chance of rolling a number between 1-6. And 0% it will roll 7-infinity. That seems pretty well understood. The probability is 1 out of 6 that a 2 will be rolled.

The way in which the die Lands is dependent upon how it's rolled, what it's rolled upon, the density of the fluid through which the die moves, etc....
It's utterly DETERMINED by these things, saying it's a 1/6 chance it lands a given way is only due to our lack of knowledge/ability to analyze the particular circumstances at hand.
It's really 100% chance that it lands a particular way, we just don't have all the info available/analyzed.

It is not guesswork. It is a measure of likelihood, confidence, of an event. This is from an understanding not from ignorance.

It's from a Limited understanding. If it were a FULL understanding we could supply a certain answer.


I really find it rather distasteful when any philosopher starts talking about what is likely/probable.

Maybe you should understand what the terms mean. I suggest you read up on "Inductive logic", which by the way is what science is.

I have appreciation for using probabilistic approaches, based upon experimental information, in science.

I don't have such an appreciation for such terms in philosophy where the terms of Probability seem to be abused and taken beyond their scope.

I feel like those terms don't belong in such discussions...

They completely belong. Because there are very few things that can be deductively concluded.

My assumption of The World is indeed based upon Inductive reasoning... But it's rather impossible to put Numbers to it.

It is NOT a 99% chance that the world exists as it seems... (or any other % number)
Rather the world simply VERY MUCH SEEMS to exist... and, for pragmatic reasons, There is good reason to assume that it exists as it seems to (that is, to act as though it does).

I would leave it to what seems to be the case, and what does not..

What seems to be the case? That attitude would put a stop on all inquiry. Why investigate a case when we just accept what seems to the case.

No, it wouldn't.

What seems Unavoidable and why, and what is evidenced and why it should be accepted.

I don't understand what you saying here.

What seems unavoidable would be those things that would seem to characterize the manner in which we think... Those things I'd think you'd term A Priori.

As to why things should be accepted/assumed, I'd root it all in a pragmatic approach to attaining nice feelings :)
[ for example, holding your Hand over a flame in that apparent 3-D reality does very Much seem like it will end with you getting not so nice feeling, so (until it seems otherwise) best not to be holding your hand over a flame. ]


I have a hard time understanding how people could put numbers on metaphysical possibilities to ever to claim to Probabilities.

Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:37:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?

A flipped coin DOES NOT have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads...

Rather, the manner in which it lands is Completely Determined by the manner in which it's flipped, the properties of the fluid in which it travels, and the properties of whatever it may bounce off of.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:39:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

there are several hilarious things at play. Christianity period for one
the fact that you pulled that "trillions to one" nonsense out of your behind
the fact that you obviously subscribe to the absolutely defeatist notion that just because science can't fully explain something yet ------ GOD DID IT -- pitiful
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Please perform the following:

1. Take a dice and roll it 25 times. Write down the number each time
2. Note that the odds of you rolling the number you just did is one in over 170581728179578000000
3. Start a new thread telling everyone that there is no way you could have rolled that number without God.

Let me know if that works out.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:51:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:30:15 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:00:33 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:03:02 PM, mortsdor wrote:
How many "universes" are there?

For if there were enough, it would not only become Probable that one such as ours would exist... It would become a practical certainty... right?

No reason whatsoever ours can't be the One in a Trillion that would exist...

One of them would have to be that one.

That does not logically follow. If there is a chance 1:100 then cash it in we won the lottery for being the one universe.

Existences alone does not logically follow that the existence is necessary to exist.

The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds.


When I said One of them would have to be that one... I did't really mean HAVE TO...
like necessarily...

I meant, chances are (since he was talking about probabilities)

so, if there's a 1/trillion chance of a universe that supports life,
But there's a hundred billion trillion universes in the multiverse...


Are you an atheist? Because atheist reject God, and accept crud like a multiverse which has absolutely no evidence for. Why? because it logically can not be detected. And if there is evidence of something from outside this universe affecting this universe, it could just as easily be attributed to God.

chances are there's a good number that support life, and there's no reason ours isn't one of that number.

so the whole "probability" argument in that regard is just flawed since we don't know the context in which the known universe exists.

To make such a claim about the probability of the universe having life or even existing, would require a knowledge of the whole universe from a perspective from outside the universe. A task that can't be done from inside the universe.



Also as to your point,
Existences alone does not logically follow that the existence is necessary to exist.
Umm... given that things happen for Reasons, if something happened, there's reasons it happened and didn't Not happen.... Eventually that causal chain bottoms out in what Simply Is...

So, yeah things happen of necessity, relating to what IS.

why things, at bottom, are the way they are... who the hell knows.

Also.... I don't really see how people can ever connect "probability" to issues of metaphysics....

Metaphysics deals with what IS...

or what is possible in modal logic.

metaphysics is a broad term and applies to the nature of being.

Metaphysics is a broad term and applies to the nature of WHAT IS.

yeah, Being...
Being = what IS.

I don't get how people talk about what could possibly be as though they have any special point of view from which they can make such judgments.

We can talk of what seems to be and why we accept it... Beyond that I think things get silly.


Probability deals with guesses of what will be due to not fully understanding what is or how it leads to what will be.

Probability is not guesses. And it does not stem from a lack of understanding.

Rolling a six sided dice has a 100% chance of rolling a number between 1-6. And 0% it will roll 7-infinity. That seems pretty well understood. The probability is 1 out of 6 that a 2 will be rolled.

The way in which the die Lands is dependent upon how it's rolled, what it's rolled upon, the density of the fluid through which the die moves, etc....
It's utterly DETERMINED by these things, saying it's a 1/6 chance it lands a given way is only due to our lack of knowledge/ability to analyze the particular circumstances at hand.
It's really 100% chance that it lands a particular way, we just don't have all the info available/analyzed.

It is not guesswork. It is a measure of likelihood, confidence, of an event. This is from an understanding not from ignorance.

It's from a Limited understanding. If it were a FULL understanding we could supply a certain answer.

No. that's not correct. I know this seems counter intuitive. But where do you think the wave pattern in a double slit test comes from? The universe really is probabilistic. Even knowing all the conditions, angles, air resistance, ect.. will still leave a margin of error from chance.



I really find it rather distasteful when any philosopher starts talking about what is likely/probable.

Maybe you should understand what the terms mean. I suggest you read up on "Inductive logic", which by the way is what science is.

I have appreciation for using probabilistic approaches, based upon experimental information, in science.

I don't have such an appreciation for such terms in philosophy where the terms of Probability seem to be abused and taken beyond their scope.

I feel like those terms don't belong in such discussions...

They completely belong. Because there are very few things that can be deductively concluded.

My assumption of The World is indeed based upon Inductive reasoning... But it's rather impossible to put Numbers to it.

It is NOT a 99% chance that the world exists as it seems... (or any other % number)
Rather the world simply VERY MUCH SEEMS to exist... and, for pragmatic reasons, There is good reason to assume that it exists as it seems to (that is, to act as though it does).

I would leave it to what seems to be the case, and what does not..

What seems to be the case? That attitude would put a stop on all inquiry. Why investigate a case when we just accept what seems to the case.

No, it wouldn't.

What seems Unavoidable and why, and what is evidenced and why it should be accepted.

I don't understand what you saying here.

What seems unavoidable would be those things that would seem to characterize the manner in which we think... Those things I'd think you'd term A Priori.

As to why things should be accepted/assumed, I'd root it all in a pragmatic approach to attaining nice feelings :)
[ for example, holding your Hand over a flame in that apparent 3-D reality does very Much seem like it will end with you getting not so nice feeling, so (until it seems otherwise) best not to be holding your hand over a flame. ]


I have a hard time understanding how people could put numbers on metaphysical possibilities to ever to claim to Probabilities.

Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?

It's not that hard. Probabilities with no other information can be determined weather two conditions are mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, contingent, blah blah

Then odds or probability could be calculated. This kind of calculation with out data is called "a priori", knowledge after data is called "a posteriori"

But when we are talking about how many universes there are, or possible universes, we don't have data on that. If the odds are about the universes existing you could certainly argue the logic behind the odds proposed "a priori"
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:51:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a muuuuurical, this hole in the pavement is just the right size and shape for the puddle that's in it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 10:00:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:37:52 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?

A flipped coin DOES NOT have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads...

Rather, the manner in which it lands is Completely Determined by the manner in which it's flipped, the properties of the fluid in which it travels, and the properties of whatever it may bounce off of.

In the real world not every coin flip is 50/50. because not every flip is fair.

Here is a pdf on it.
http://statweb.stanford.edu...

But you seem to be advocating that if every condition was known and then repeated the result would be the same. This just isn't true or seemingly so.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 10:06:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:44:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Please perform the following:

1. Take a dice and roll it 25 times. Write down the number each time
2. Note that the odds of you rolling the number you just did is one in over 170581728179578000000
3. Start a new thread telling everyone that there is no way you could have rolled that number without God.

Let me know if that works out.

Amen, without god none of us would be here rolling dice and taking chances.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 10:11:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 10:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:44:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Please perform the following:

1. Take a dice and roll it 25 times. Write down the number each time
2. Note that the odds of you rolling the number you just did is one in over 170581728179578000000
3. Start a new thread telling everyone that there is no way you could have rolled that number without God.

Let me know if that works out.

Amen, without god none of us would be here rolling dice and taking chances.

Great argument.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 10:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Where did you read that?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:51:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Are you an atheist? Because atheist reject God, and accept crud like a multiverse which has absolutely no evidence for.

So much nonsense, so few words.

When something is rejected, it is usually because that something is a something as opposed to a nothing. Gods have not shown themselves, so we can conclude gods are nothing, that is, until they decide to become something in order for them to be rejected.

What non-believers actually reject are the claims made by followers of religions simply because the claims can never be verified. They are indistinguishable from myth and superstition.

As well, the multiverse theory has no evidence as you correctly state, however it is not simply accepted by non-believers, primarily because most of the math is well beyond their comprehension and they mostly understand the thirty thousand foot view.

It is a theory of mathematics and theoretical physics, it is not of a religion, hence the issue of belief in god is not relevant.

Why? because it logically can not be detected. And if there is evidence of something from outside this universe affecting this universe, it could just as easily be attributed to God.

Or, a dragon, or a centaur, or a unicorn, or a leprechaun, or Santa.

It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy, contradiction and dishonesty to leap to a mythical character if no immediate answer presents itself. It is biased and ignores all other alternative explanations.

To make such a claim about the probability of the universe having life or even existing, would require a knowledge of the whole universe from a perspective from outside the universe. A task that can't be done from inside the universe.

The concept of outside the universe is redundant and irrelevant simple because by definition, all that there is MUST be part of our universe, there is no outside of it.

No. that's not correct. I know this seems counter intuitive. But where do you think the wave pattern in a double slit test comes from?

Because, photons exhibit wave patterns.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:41:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

1) What evidence is there for your conclusion?
2) Is it possible for a type of life that is alien to our universe to arise in those universes?
3) Is it possible that there are other universes, possibly infinite?
4) Is it possible for a universe to be different than ours?
5) Is life supposed to be important for a universe?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 1:19:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

Is it? How many universes have you have sampled to come to this conclusion?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 6:33:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 11:11:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:51:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Are you an atheist? Because atheist reject God, and accept crud like a multiverse which has absolutely no evidence for.

So much nonsense, so few words.

When something is rejected, it is usually because that something is a something as opposed to a nothing. Gods have not shown themselves, so we can conclude gods are nothing, that is, until they decide to become something in order for them to be rejected.

What non-believers actually reject are the claims made by followers of religions simply because the claims can never be verified. They are indistinguishable from myth and superstition.

As well, the multiverse theory has no evidence as you correctly state, however it is not simply accepted by non-believers, primarily because most of the math is well beyond their comprehension and they mostly understand the thirty thousand foot view.

It is a theory of mathematics and theoretical physics, it is not of a religion, hence the issue of belief in god is not relevant.

Why? because it logically can not be detected. And if there is evidence of something from outside this universe affecting this universe, it could just as easily be attributed to God.

Or, a dragon, or a centaur, or a unicorn, or a leprechaun, or Santa.

It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy, contradiction and dishonesty to leap to a mythical character if no immediate answer presents itself. It is biased and ignores all other alternative explanations.

To make such a claim about the probability of the universe having life or even existing, would require a knowledge of the whole universe from a perspective from outside the universe. A task that can't be done from inside the universe.

The concept of outside the universe is redundant and irrelevant simple because by definition, all that there is MUST be part of our universe, there is no outside of it.

No. that's not correct. I know this seems counter intuitive. But where do you think the wave pattern in a double slit test comes from?

Because, photons exhibit wave patterns.

Multiverse is like faires and santa claus.

That's it to it. God has more evidence than multiverse.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 7:28:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 10:00:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 8:37:52 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:19:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Have you taken any math classes that deal with formulating probabilities? Do you know why a coin is 50/50?

A flipped coin DOES NOT have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads...

Rather, the manner in which it lands is Completely Determined by the manner in which it's flipped, the properties of the fluid in which it travels, and the properties of whatever it may bounce off of.

In the real world not every coin flip is 50/50. because not every flip is fair.

Here is a pdf on it.
http://statweb.stanford.edu...

But you seem to be advocating that if every condition was known and then repeated the result would be the same. This just isn't true or seemingly so.

Yeah you should read your PDF pal... Holding conditions the same they literally claim to get the same results "100%" of the time.

The fact that at the borders of our conceptual framework (like wave patterns of photons and particular locations of electrons) we can at best manage to explain it in terms of probability Does Not mean that that is the full extent to which it can possibly be explained.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 8:53:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:51:46 PM, bulproof wrote:
It's a muuuuurical, this hole in the pavement is just the right size and shape for the puddle that's in it.

Yep. It's astounding
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 9:06:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But when we are talking about how many universes there are, or possible universes, we don't have data on that.

Indeed... This was my critique of the op...

That is, that we can't claim to know the broader context in which the universe exists so his "probabilities" are worthless
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 9:53:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 6:33:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Multiverse is like faires and santa claus.

In other words, you don't anything about Mulitverse other than what you picked up on a religious website?

That's it to it. God has more evidence than multiverse.

LOL. Funny stuff,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 4:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 9:53:49 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/23/2014 6:33:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Multiverse is like faires and santa claus.

In other words, you don't anything about Mulitverse other than what you picked up on a religious website?

That's it to it. God has more evidence than multiverse.

LOL. Funny stuff,

Hypocrit. Its okay for you to accept a cuase for the universe with no evidence at all but not theist?

I'll just borrow from the atheist handbook.

The default position is that the multiverse is not real or does not exist.

What scientific objective evidence do you have the multiverse exist.

The multiverse is incoherent and illogical. Just like when scientist discovered another galaxy they asked if it was another universe. We know thats foolish now. When primitive people see a plane they call it somekind of bird. To descri e something outside this universe as entities known from with in this universe is just as primitive.

Multiverse is a subjective wishful thinking assumption that holds no water.

Like faires, santa cluas, leprecauns, pink unicorns, mermaids, this is a story atheist parents tell thier kids to explain the world.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 4:27:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To note:

I brought up a multiverse as a possibility, but that's not to say it's the way it necessarily is. Rather just to point out the flaw in the op's claim regarding the supposed unlikelihood of our universe existing.
We cannot claim to know the context in which our universe exists (and there are plausible contexts in which any supposed "unlikelihood" would evaporate) so it's rather silly to make claims regarding it's likelihood when you have no real means of evaluating such.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 4:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 5:57:12 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
is trillions to one, cosmologically speaking. Yet there are still people on this forum who think WE believers are ignorant. Hilarious.

We honestly don't know the odds and in fact looking at stats in reverse like that makes everything look like a miracle.