How I understand Creationism in a logical way

[Mr Tansill]

The numerical value would depend on the context. It would not be the same in a game with two possible outcomes as it would in one with a googolplex possible outcomes.

But, practically speaking, in any given context, no matter what the size of the set involved is, there comes a point where the probability of something is so low that it is effectively negligible.

Practically speaking, it is perfectly rational to say that a monkey sitting down at a computer and typing out the works of Shakespeare by randomly hitting keys is impossible.

I'm not sure if that would still be fair to say if there were a googolplex monkeys with a googolplex computers over a span of a googolplex years. At some point the size of the set would be large enough that my claim would not hold. But given the number of monkeys, computers, and years that actually exist, it does.

If you're curious about monkey's and improbable events, check out this site: https://libraryofbabel.info/

Browse to Hexagon:

15h1hfduau99x4pwac660xzehyfbrhlnhptc8rgyrw2ujx9r9njs6f5rvzfk7ddykfl92v8w16jwq6yl84lytm5rcyjdtbow5xy5xqufwj2m2i929jtsa48jrnatkyzz43068x7i49c6tv4kwuzs9qwelafsvqaekfxxujz5dtrl80jgdlvd85b5vaoznnkm9ehgoe1ag4v46paliok3ylewn70e9biy6sa5u1dsm4cewonrnucqesywd9g056ojic3yrss8ynokk2yc72fdm7oor5tzv65d0d8y9iln9zmcpyv14kc42pctysldb408lri1khq49ygai8x3mgzkfp8fva6r79ubghl0mkdw0aesff89rdp3zv63w6aouu8uto6jpkhjktkrylmdu06lre9vxamc0bmprmkwbhm80q85sc23k2oh4uwwnup457jeoisldyzj2cro6yfzy5nvzq85mqbw9z5330o5uxt1f84hrcdrwxvzcqiuy7ugg9lse5h5ajaowetuj69en150u6qk52k1g0p9v7srp0p9hwq6f3b2722mb2ox42w6rdgmhntpbm9l3dooze6za4bnjyyz7ltjcktd6n0lh83hlhc6af79o219mgxoxrky8yxlk0wf9ief4wy0cfhht0sd67dy1w058kh60c8z8v34h6xlddey5kjmpf5o8eyrxtab21wcq84g06b0amh8vm7zhf8os6mi1tica2a4nkies3lr800ypo5bq8qeve8sviyfug90hkttfof2hjmc9t422d9umrv05jsvna0obmjzjrfbat4zwhg31inu59kcjfr4zcmzgotgrih7l7c804pvc5kv95kzbhg4ttfcjz3sj4ti44s0bgts9pop8q8j7yn2vmqtpjymzoplgwmgwhpng91mtjaea50dti9ttgdcwddm4efrbzwtn5lpr6g7m79pgqjc3emgtnnacypnjm0ivo0bvoy21iroyo4rklbio57dc8e22d26rfhmrfgd7fzrsbdfuy8g8zubfb09ik1xgt6fp4sce98h4rgbb7wt2huy8ywot4l3la1qgayq5eovr23wuoq2fzvsq7ktboeobk5vbefldpjew0qkrtvtzsonk9lrcwcee6nny6mm3mwdrjkv9m8rcbmhq5xuqbmcbvaecb83h4m8adbcxn56bt2gs7peflw1ugblubnuuu7tmjukf5kd2jt50xz9jl5omjl7mulzg93v6331iy09c1t9w3vg6xm550bpyivw2exvkgdfbq8r2c8aka0lbvjqtiqtoy2r2peabarsgfkgxvcnrwk1a77p9jxnx9zrzey6t6jpy8eth6mwzgj3mzmv3bb4s268smgeyocvu0f3qmqpibsxq4nrd3sbsknlegehl4a7uzrmnnl21gupuraqvcpjsoitujeg7i3cburb6noq5t0m85r0hinvpxa4moe2v7kji8wi9h9ehd4w09nuphelc49fdg4ds7ogatjesm5xk8v3qb2c4lvm550nk5blvz7lxxki7zkvzjw9yrgyqa32hqbe1su6zr0zt5so5gpmkzzapta55t2i5lo6tivoze8ih4e9j8zooq5ha6pifovu7xveokz796fa4d7s56td4k7bs0v74r0vvaymwy8spsq6db7ybutnrafqqg6ao02jeuyuf537tozajnaz4k19tp4ch917u0y1k84cfxy1f1diqc7vi6r5dss327fsooziinde09bbo7mhfqzmfb4hqxzi6iix70s70oiieovmgijuzjpgwjocxvjs277nv16nthcpcvcpve8sxk8ws6crjnakw8xjg2a6wdaj7l6lel0v1siod5ukwip50i2okn8ykspqsbbhw7k9nfqlffmtz6hfkz2zh9honkui7w5ngkok9gahb0sp0b7u90ti1105zhfwo5ta0rvwtib8kpsj5zmh7p3n2vshbwx5rppjks0mo0oaub6er1l9r7uth4zdmvkhj37krcls7987fv8l1x8qjwjnd280ehc06sofx6s87ckfvvcbpfghebx1vshur5tmizb390i97dwhvgl9u3ppyhcey1jk16jybdf5n67hr39fqxlf4lytupdapk4d8f2in1sqgq09ddtuoy99om4blz6azhgd7ucgmcje7c2ftoc2ebca4kq2ew2z1xh3x9fgqqiqakali12rl03qgjdvjyj73tmgb6pifbc6qsid8eteld9hepicec6d5a0m9j94c5jvy4lcm4uvpvhfgcet7vsz0xzdakd6jorzd26fgs6b2bx3xdskry3lou06019jryezun3vpoyvn34pq8f351d5l5uoyva58i96kg2htcxjfgh3ugzbp9bfsiet472vsi8b9h77ia8a7ewctoxcf6ltebrey395o5fi4ska7xi4154kacers4jecvkjh0i3couyotu8wzoiq0ta8f9tnuh7e9lqz0zqcsxqnv9j07a6ws3vdam356ik1h1bgvcb7sfnrkltlaaimrieb8ul4ioavhjvipsczmr942px692lxfa109fgvunsahu7cit2dtmnqsex6zdaicfd90ylynutoccu5rbu6882itj4sny1r2qagh4lseu9niwkzxxhxejqvghufsh9j57osji53xzljkipv0gr16sqtzwpi7he206w0sp3cafftr0dtmnc5dprhi8w463frrbv7dr4dofilvk7xaec7aktr7tgjhb5pzglfrh9hjwpxslbwj8lrvinkfgthcz9ygrvf14q07j8z4gmtmifvlbum9xsvsih3fbq1o9kirxzzc1oqpo62j4dcg87ut0oqc5giaft3jcqe7556qv9blffnweopppk9a7qtwiq0cu592v8ty4cf01ljllbpzbnwxga0abr8stmgvug8sd2n1eskf8oh700jpbzacpxyzxlli7yw3rd6n9r2mp2k4hgn3o2izf4n6i2ofs9fyazzjoernahmbg53uv2i12v79jff1ffgub59bhcgpbt2ffxfp3juog7xa6im59601kamoamgdijw1q8ey2lw80vfonn8d5oovmuqbrbu9t874qj5ojsv589zu6ich2i006ppmn0jimmtoixmfdkibnp80dspt36j2a3b3gbvukfzwnn0d7d7t5jcz1yyb41oulbxdbn6bh92hbw032mnfhq3xnkroaqy51gecw6mwcdehrnltq2n6hadaz8aa

Wall 2
Shelf 3
Volume 18
Page 268

Tell me if you notice something interesting.

 

[lilymc]

I don't claim to know the answer. I am a deist agnostic, which means there may very well be a God, but that god does not interfere/intervene in human affairs, and there is not enough evidence to support such a conclusion.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe that God does not intervene in human affairs?

 

[Muwahid]

But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.

I don't agree with this logic.

If we assume time to be infinite then it would be essentially a guarantee at some point conditions for life are met.

Probability is a weak argument for that reason.

The only universal truth is that something/some force must facilitate existence, and this "thing" cannot be subjugated to the laws of this universe itself. Just by using logic we can deduce an eternal entity; what it is, we can only rationalize.

Probability, teleological arguments, all weak...

 

[Superfluous Man]

I don't agree with this logic.

If we assume time to be infinite then it would be essentially a guarantee at some point conditions for life are met.

We can't assume time to be infinite. Time is inseparable from space, matter, and energy, all of which must go back to an original timeless uncaused first cause.

Also, the conditions for life include physical constants, all of which are fine-tuned to permit human life. Are you saying that with infinite time, all of the physical constants would fluctuate over that time, so that at some point they would be what they are?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.

Even assuming that this probability could really be calculated (which I seriously doubt), it proves nothing. If each of four bridge foursomes played ten hands, the odds against their receiving the exact cards they were dealt is 10^1,152 to 1. Yet no one would think that there was some kind of supernatural explanation for it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?

Obviously! I never once said improbable occurrences are equal to impossible occurrences.

I have said, perhaps three or four times, maybe more, that improbable =/= impossible and proceeded to elucidate what I am saying, but what I am saying is manifestly too subtle or complex for you to grasp in your current frame of mind. And so I gave up. At least on the direct approach. I was trying a different approach. As I said:

OK, here's what we'll do. Forget probability. Throw that out (for the time being). We'll start at the top instead of the bottom.

Were the words "forget probability" not clear enough?

I rather think they were. And you are just stonewalling, because you think that gives you the rhetorical advantage. But you are wrong. You think you have me in a corner that I can never escape from, your logic is airtight, and you don't want me to weasel out. You don't want me to, as I put it, "start at the top instead of the bottom" or indeed talk about absolutely anything else until we resolve "Probability". But I am not trying to rhetorically crush you. You may (or may not!) have a need to "win this argument" and "be right," but I do not. Indeed as anyone can see I have repeatedly put myself and my own position in an unfavorable light, self-deprecated, etc. This is not a battle that you are in.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Even assuming that this probability could really be calculated (which I seriously doubt), it proves nothing. If each of four bridge foursomes played ten hands, the odds against their receiving the exact cards they were dealt is 10^1,152 to 1. Yet no one would think that there was some kind of supernatural explanation for it.

No one would think that for any combination of cards that is not special. But if they were dealt some special hand, such as one that was predicted beforehand with perfection card-for-card, we would know with certainty that it was by design and that it would be perfectly fair to call that combination impossible by way of mere random chance. Since human life is special, and makes this universe that does support our existence qualitatively different than all of the 10^1,000 possible universes that lack human life, and we all know this, take it for granted, and couldn't possibly convince ourselves otherwise, try though we might, that analogy doesn't hold.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?

Look, let me try as succinctly as possible, because I know how important that is to you, explain my whole thinking from top to bottom in one post. Can I do it? Let's find out.

1. People have many different ideas about how things work. About what is real.
2. How do we determine which is correct? There are many ways, and at least a few different good ways.
3. One good way turns out to be the empirical scientific method: hypothesize, test, replicate results, conclude, repeat.
4. There are other good ways of determining truth too, for example logical deduction, but we won't get into them now.
5. The method of 3., the empirical scientific method, only works if a hypothesis is testable. More precisely: disprovable. If one cannot devise a test to disprove his hypothesis, one is stuck in the hypothesis stage. Hypothesis alone -- a.k.a. bald assertion -- is one method for determining truth, but not (IMHO) a very good one.
6. For many of the elements of the secular origin hypotheses (plural) which have become current and popular the past hundred to two hundred years, no one has yet devised a test to disprove them. *They have never been tested.* Very important. Some of the elements, it is difficult to see how they could be tested. They may not be testable. Thus they are stuck in the rut described in 5.: hypothesis alone. They are thus not technically a part of the method known as the empirical scientific method. They are not part of that truth-seeking project.
7. They are just stories.
8. How do we determine the truth of stories, or bald assertions, if we can't use the empirical scientific method? Hark back to 2. and 4.: there are other ways.
9. One way is to assess probabilities, harnessing what we do know of reality. The less probable a story is, the less likely it is to be true. For example, let's say a murder takes place and Mr. Monk deduces that the killer is 6'5" from a crease in the blinds or something -- a very good lead! Because a very small percentage of people are that tall. Now why assume that is true rather than another possibility that the killer was wearing stilts? Because although few people are 6'5", even fewer go around wearing stilts! It's a possibility, but it's extremely far-fetched.
10. Assessing probabilities cannot positively disprove any possibilities, just as induction cannot prove anything. There are possibilities at every turn of the case; nothing Mr. Monk says is technically airtight. For every one explanation, there are ten other extremely ludicrous ones, such as that advanced aliens came down and did it and then framed someone.
11. Clearly probability assessment is one useful truth-seeking tool. It does not, indeed cannot, ever disprove anything (this is your repeated point, which I have repeatedly agreed with). This inability does not, however, make it completely irrelevant (this is my point, which.... never mind). It serves particularly well for reconstructing the past.
12. In conclusion.... what's the conclusion? I haven't really had one up to now, but every line of reasoning needs a good conclusion. Hmm, lets see, how about: Every method has its weaknesses. Perhaps we can best get at truth by being willing to apply all of them, as best we can, each to the realm and situation to which it is best suited.

I was too stoopit to understand his point. Something about using probability to predict the past.

I am sure you were not the only one to not understand. I hope you understand now.

 

[jllundqu]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe that God does not intervene in human affairs?

Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

I am left with four possible conclusions:

1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
4. There is no god.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

I am left with four possible conclusions:

1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
4. There is no god.

It seems like your #3 is just another way of saying either #1 or #2.

 

[jllundqu]

It seems like your #3 is just another way of saying either #1 or #2.

I can see that, but I would add that #3 leaves more to the unknown than the monotheistic #1/#2 possibilities. For in the Christian worldview, THAT sort of all knowing, all powerful being would either be 1 or 2. In a deist sense, god or gods may simply be a supernatural force beyond our current understanding as we have no way of understanding the infinite... and we don't claim to know through some bogus revelation like the quran, torah, or bible.

 

[Muwahid]

We can't assume time to be infinite. Time is inseparable from space, matter, and energy, all of which must go back to an original timeless uncaused first cause.

Also, the conditions for life include physical constants, all of which are fine-tuned to permit human life. Are you saying that with infinite time, all of the physical constants would fluctuate over that time, so that at some point they would be what they are?

Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.

Eternity exists without the confines of time (i.e, God is eternal) whereas infinity requires a timeline, one which never ends. Eternal is philosophical, infinity is mathematical. And if it never ends, regardless of statistics, it's a near guarantee that there will be conditions for life, an infinite amount of times. In other words if time just keeps going on infinitely then in perhaps another 14 billion years conditions for life elsewhere will arise again, etc.

The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.

** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life

For this reason, I don't use any theistic arguments which relate to probability, if it's possible within the confines of our natural law, then I assume it could have happened by chance.

The atheist has a far more troubling dilemma which is explaining existence in an absolute sense. Something they cannot do while invoking the laws of nature.

 

[wizardwatson]

Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.

Eternity exists without the confines of time (i.e, God is eternal) whereas infinity requires a timeline, one which never ends. Eternal is philosophical, infinity is mathematical. And if it never ends, regardless of statistics, it's a near guarantee that there will be conditions for life, an infinite amount of times. In other words if time just keeps going on infinitely then in perhaps another 14 billion years conditions for life elsewhere will arise again, etc.

The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.

** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life

For this reason, I don't use any theistic arguments which relate to probability, if it's possible within the confines of our natural law, then I assume it could have happened by chance.

The atheist has a far more troubling dilemma which is explaining existence in an absolute sense. Something they cannot do while invoking the laws of nature.

The bible doesn't say "God is infinite". Even creation isn't "infinite". Saying something is "infinite" doesn't really mean anything. "Eternity" and "forever" just means without end. Just like something having a beginning can be eternal, so also, something eternal is always finite since it has a beginning.

 

[Muwahid]

Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

I am left with four possible conclusions:

1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
4. There is no god.

The argument from evil is a very weak argument. It suggests that because there is evil in the world, one of three of his attributes are negated (Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscience) if he knows about the evil and doesn't stop it but can, he is not omnibenevolent, if he knows but can't stop it, despite wanting to, hes not omnipotent, or if he doesn't know but would stop it if he knew, he's not omniscient

The problem with this argument is it's actually circular in reasoning. Meaning you must assume your own premise (that God or God's promise doesn't exist) in order to make it true.

Because God promised to compensate pain and suffering with something infinitely better, how can we say he isn't omnibenevolent?

People gravitate towards this argument because of their own visceral and anthropocentric reactions. To God, death is not a bad thing, it's the next stage for us. When we see death we think it's an evil because of how it affects us on an emotional level. But for that child who died of cancer, we may cry, but that child becomes one of the birds of paradise living in eternal bliss. This isn't omnibenevolence? Omnipotence? Omniscience?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.

I agree. Eternity does not entail time being infinite, which was what you said.

The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.

But we can't assume that. Space may or may not be infinite. But time (at least time that has already past) is definitely finite. The universe had a beginning.

** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life

This would mean that time will continue on infinitely. But it does not allow for an infinity of time already past, which is what your argument would require in order to be valid.

 

[Muwahid]

The bible doesn't say "God is infinite". Even creation isn't "infinite". Saying something is "infinite" doesn't really mean anything. "Eternity" and "forever" just means without end. Just like something having a beginning can be eternal, so also, something eternal is always finite since it has a beginning.

Nothing you said is correct.

Eternity cannot have a beginning, because a beginning relies on temporality (relies on time)
Infinity can have a beginning (but no end) because infinity is defined within the constructs of space and time (which is why I said it's a mathematical concept)

So a ray in physics is infinite with a beginning point

x~~~~~~~>

A line is infinite in both directions

<------------>

Their magnitude is the same, however they both rely on the construct of time. This is why eternity is such a distinct difference from infinite. Eternity has no beginning, has no end, was not created.

 

[Muwahid]

I agree. Eternity does not entail time being infinite, which was what you said.

But we can't assume that. Space may or may not be infinite. But time is definitely finite. The universe had a beginning.

This would mean that time will continue on infinitely. But it does not allow for an infinity of time already past, which is what your argument would require in order to be valid.

If time continues forever (which theoretically it could), do you agree conditions for life will arise an infinite amount of times just as a function of mathematics?

In which case your only contention is that the 15~ bil years we've been around isn't sufficiently long enough for conditions to arise?

If that's what you're saying I see your point, but in terms of statistics, the percentage of chance doesn't relate to time, it relates to an average. To suggest we can't be an outlier of an average, in my opinion is just a weak argument.

 

[jllundqu]

The argument from evil is a very weak argument. It suggests that because there is evil in the world, one of three of his attributes are negated (Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscience) if he knows about the evil and doesn't stop it but can, he is not omnibenevolent, if he knows but can't stop it, despite wanting to, hes not omnipotent, or if he doesn't know but would stop it if he knew, he's not omniscient

The problem with this argument is it's actually circular in reasoning. Meaning you must assume your own premise (that God or God's promise doesn't exist) in order to make it true.

Because God promised to compensate pain and suffering with something infinitely better, how can we say he isn't omnibenevolent?

People gravitate towards this argument because of their own visceral and anthropocentric reactions. To God, death is not a bad thing, it's the next stage for us. When we see death we think it's an evil because of how it affects us on an emotional level. But for that child who died of cancer, we may cry, but that child becomes one of the birds of paradise living in eternal bliss. This isn't omnibenevolence? Omnipotence? Omniscience?

My point was about god not intervening in worldly affairs and there is no evidence that he can, does, or has in the past.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

There is tremendous human suffering in the world.

1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
4. There is no god.

5. Suffering is not that bad. It's good for us! "Man up!" "To live is to suffer." Without challenge, without adversity, there is no meaning. Without meaning.... well, what would there be?

A good parent will let his kids suffer all the time. It's good for them! Now you may say God seems to be taking this to an extreme sometimes, but that's because He's working on a larger scale.

 

[jllundqu]

Christopher is pompous and inflammatory, but watch his video until the end... pretty entertaining and thought provoking: