What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Calilasseia · **#481** by **Calilasseia** » Sep 17, 2017 10:34 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Poppycock.

Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.

Greyman · **#482** by **Greyman** » Sep 17, 2017 11:08 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.

More to the point: each possible outcome of that experiment has the same probability. The event of "all showing heads" isn't any more significant than any other particular sequence of heads and tails.

Shrunk · **#483** by **Shrunk** » Sep 17, 2017 11:28 pm

Greyman wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.
More to the point: each possible outcome of that experiment has the same probability. The event of "all showing heads" isn't any more significant than any other particular sequence of heads and tails.

Zadocfish2 · **#484** by **Zadocfish2** » Sep 17, 2017 11:31 pm

Greyman wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.
More to the point: each possible outcome of that experiment has the same probability. The event of "all showing heads" isn't any more significant than any other particular sequence of heads and tails.

That's an aspect of probability I think more people should get.

Just A Theory · **#485** by **Just A Theory** » Sep 18, 2017 5:17 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

I love me a good ol' Texan Sharpshooter Fallacy in the morning!

BlackBart · **#486** by **BlackBart** » Sep 18, 2017 5:29 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

If the probability of anything is greater than zero we can't rule out sheer chance. That's what sheer chance is. Derp! So even if I get 18 holes in one on the day I win the lottery three times there's still no need to postulate there's a big giant in the sky who really, really loves me.

Now, if you had an actual example of something that had zero chance of occurring? That might be impressive. You'd have to show your working though (LOL).

Fallible · **#487** by **Fallible** » Sep 18, 2017 6:19 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

BlackBart · **#488** by **BlackBart** » Sep 18, 2017 6:24 am

So, to reiterate, omnipotent doesn't mean omnipotent, a sentient being invented sentient beings and things with only a small chance of happening don't happen by chance. Is that about right?

:teef:

Fallible · **#489** by **Fallible** » Sep 18, 2017 6:27 am

Yes. I'd say you are ready to graduate ftom Bovine University.

BlackBart · **#490** by **BlackBart** » Sep 18, 2017 6:29 am

With a degree in Scatology? :awesome:

Fallible · **#491** by **Fallible** » Sep 18, 2017 6:34 am

What else! Go forth, God's special (needs) soldier, and spread the Good News.

BlackBart · **#492** by **BlackBart** » Sep 18, 2017 6:38 am

I shall go forth and spread it like an eight year old who's been given a catering pack of Nutella. :awesome:

Fallible · **#493** by **Fallible** » Sep 18, 2017 6:49 am

Leave no white shirt unsullied!

Wortfish · **#494** by **Wortfish** » Sep 19, 2017 1:00 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Poppycock.

Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.

Actually, it would be regarded as either a miracle or a biased coin.

Shrunk · **#495** by **Shrunk** » Sep 19, 2017 1:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Poppycock.

Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.

Actually, it would be regarded as either a miracle or a biased coin.

So every single time someone tosses a coin 140 times and comes with some combination of heads and tails, the coin is biased?

Because, as was pointed out already, every single result is just as improbable as 140 heads in a row.

surreptitious57 · **#496** by **surreptitious57** » Sep 19, 2017 5:56 pm

Wortfish wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied
all rational explanation. But what you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events
occurring within a specific time period

Such an outcome is possible but the chances of it happening are so remote that it can be regarded as a miracle

Anything with a probability greater than 0 cannot be a miracle no matter how close to 0 it may be. All probabilities
exist between 0 and I and so for something to be deemed a miracle it would have to have a probability less than 0

surreptitious57 · **#497** by **surreptitious57** » Sep 19, 2017 6:10 pm

Wortfish wrote:
I believe if the odds are less than 1 in 10 - 40 then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance

What event happens below those odds that would deem it a miracle rather than simply random
That figure is greater than 0 so then anything happening between it and 0 can not be a miracle

Wortfish · **#498** by **Wortfish** » Sep 19, 2017 11:39 pm

Sendraks wrote:
This is irrelevant when it comes to an omnipotent entity. An omnipotent deity can do whatever it likes. An omnipotent deity can choose not to change the rules once it has set them up but, being omnipotent, there is no reason why it should have set the rules up in a particular way.

Interesting that a non-believer knows the meaning of omnipotence. As I wrote, an omnipotent being can do what is intrinsically possible.

You're again conflating human made processes with how the universe simply is but, failing to see that you're simply trying to assume that a) there is something behind those processes and b) you're anthropomorphising onto it. Basically, you don't even recognise you're simply projecting humanity onto things.

The universe can be thought of as a machine, as a self-organising system. That isn't an anthropomorphisation.

Either god cannot do anything or god willingly allows evil to happen.

Theists do believe God allows evil to happen. But that doesn't mean God can do evil. Big difference.

Wortfish wrote: Likewise, having created a universe, God cannot destroy it.

Why not?

Because a benevolent God does not destroy his own creation. That would be out of his character.

So God isn't omnipotent. Because to be omnipotent is absolute.

God is absolutely omnipotent in his own transcendent realm, but not within the natural realm he created.

How do you know? How do you know that God wasn't created by another entity more powerful than God is simply testing to see how well God is working out?

I don't discount the possibility that our universe was created by a science student....but I find that idea a little improbable.

Ah, so God is omnipotent but, chooses not to use his power, so that natural processes which cause great suffering and harm, happen.

It's called freedom of action.

Wortfish · **#499** by **Wortfish** » Sep 19, 2017 11:42 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
I believe if the odds are less than 1 in 10 - 40 then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance

What event happens below those odds that would deem it a miracle rather than simply random
That figure is greater than 0 so then anything happening between it and 0 can not be a miracle

It's the figure scientists tend to use to rule out the possibility of chance.

Just A Theory · **#500** by **Just A Theory** » Sep 19, 2017 11:42 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied
all rational explanation. But what you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events
occurring within a specific time period

Such an outcome is possible but the chances of it happening are so remote that it can be regarded as a miracle

Anything with a probability greater than 0 cannot be a miracle no matter how close to 0 it may be. All probabilities
exist between 0 and I and so for something to be deemed a miracle it would have to have a probability less than 0

Do you even read what you're typing?

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Poppycock.

Want an event with a probability of less than 10-40? Try 140 coin tosses in sequence, that all land "heads".

But if such an event did occur, then it would be down to chance.

Actually, it would be regarded as either a miracle or a biased coin.

So when you wrote that event with a probability of less than 10-40 would be regarded as a miracle or a biased coin, what you really meant to say was that it's actually not a miracle and just a biased coin.

I believe we call this one an "own goal" Wortfish.

What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Who is online