God?

[Ragdollmaster]

Yes, that is a subspecies of camel spider. Many of them are longer and more slender, without the cacti-face.

[TheBigCheese]

Infinite possibilities is impossible to achieve. Simply because it's redundant.

Possibilities isn't definite, it's an abstract idea representing anything.

So in turn, saying infinite possibilities is like saying infinite infinities which, excluding the use of parallel dimensions, is impossible.



What?

[Ragdollmaster]

No... One possibility is one possible line of occurrence. Eg, if I had a tree in my backyard, it's a possibility that I could chop it down, or it's a possibility that it could stay there until it dies of old age. But there is an infinite number of possibilities, plural. One possibility is not infinite possibilities.

So saying there's an infinite number of possibilities is like saying that infinity is infinite, not infinite infinities

[TheBigCheese]

I think the problem here is more semantics than science. I won't try to argue my point, since I'm dead tired . Chances are that you're right, at least definition wise.

My logic was:
One possibility = One Timeline of events = Infinite Time
Thus an infinite number of Possibilities would be an infinite number of Infinite Timelines.

[Glabbit]

Eh...
That's a lot of posts since I last looked.
And now I'm confused.
I'd like to say infinitely confused for the lulz but that'd be lying.
PERCEPTION OF INFINITEEEEEEEEE~!
And the universe.

[tokage]

Uh... no. Just no. I'm not even going to bother explaining myself here. EDIT: No wait, actually I am because that's my innate weakness. I should be a teacher...

Moving on, what you said has nearly no relation to what I said, and little relation to what Glabbit even said because he was talking about probability in relation to an infinite timeline, that all possibilities would happen in such a timeline eventually. Seems like you're just saying "Wel dur we exist becuz we do if we culdnt exist than we wuldnt be existing lulz", which unfortunately has no real logical application to this conversation; it's more or less a random manifestation of Captain Obvious in a mostly serious thread. Under your logic, eventual random creation of life could have just as easily occurred by the hand of a sentient creator people tend to call "God", or perhaps a giant fish who can construct matter using one of his nineteen penises. You also may want to read that article you posted, oh great WikiPedia scholar, as the Anthropic Principle states no more and no less than that theories concerning certain subjects like chemistry and astrophysics have to include life on Earth as a variable. BUT; that is the END result of this conversation. We're talking about HOW it got there, so the Anthropic Principle would only have a retrospective application.

Also, no one can be 'right' in this kind of subject, kthxbai. There's only completely illogical theories and slightly illogical theories.

Wow, great. I knew you wouldn't understand my point and defame what I said. You disqualify only yourself by that. It is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments left, if you just try to ridicule your discussion partner. Thanks for that.
I didn't say, we are here because we are here. I only said, the argument "A universe that can sprout life, with all the complex physical laws and everything, has such a small possibility to be created by chance, there has to be a creator" is just plain invalid. Why? Possibilities in stochastics are generalizations of observations. You flip a coin a 10000 times and if the outcomes lie at around 50:50 you say you have the same possibility for heads as for tails. And you can argue through logic that the coin is manufactured in a way that both sides have the same possibility, but that already is an assumption. With the universe, we only have one experiment we observed and the outcome is a human friendly universe. That is a fact. But if you have only one observation it is pretty stupid to argue with possibilities in the first place. Talking about possibilities, if the end result is clear, that is why I brought up the Anthropic principle.
If you can't get that in your head(yepp, I am almost sure you can't, your discussion style implies that), you could at least have the courtesy of not insulting me.

[Ragdollmaster]

I was going to write out a large thesis and disprove your every point, but I'll condense it down for you.

So here's how it went; Glabbit said that if any chance of of life developing exists, no matter how slim, that it will eventually happen; ergo, there doesn't need to be a God or any sentient force because random chance would eventually force it. I basically replied to him with a long argument that I later condensed into the "Infinite Time + Infinite Possibilities != All Possibilities Occurring" theorem; that pretty much stood against all arguments. Then you go "NO GLABBIT IS RIGHT", and say "You yourself said the chance of life developing in a universe is extraordinarily slim. That alone is enough, we just are that universe that developed that way."; this implies that you agree with Glabbit about existence being pure chance and then saying existing is proof that the universe came out by chance. It is, not, because there exist other possibilities, like a sentient creator, or a sentient universe. You used the end result as 'proof' that one possible path, out of potentially hundreds all with the same end result. The rest of your post was talk about stochastics and how the universe exists because it does and if it didn't it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here, which is useless because your parent point is wrong.


I will repeat; existence is not proof that we came about randomly. You cannot use the end result of an experiment as proof when you don't know what the whole experiment was or even the independent variable(s). Now, you can't say anything about stochastics because it's possible that there was no stochastics involved in how the universe unfolded.

So in short, when your post is shortened down to the only real parts you needed, it is this;

Our existence is proof that we came about randomly. We are the result of the universe unfolding.

One out of two, not bad, but it's still a 50%; an F for FAIL. Again, let me say this one more time in case you STILL don't understand; you have provided absolutely no proof for your theory. You cannot use the end result as proof when the end result is the same for multiple theories. Oh, and I find it humorous that you say "If you can't get that in your head(yepp, I am almost sure you can't, your discussion style implies that)", as if I should accept a completely unproven theory with no proof behind it. What's even funnier is the underlying way you almost seem to feel sorry that you weren't able to enlighten me to the ways of idiocy; I feel like I've just turned away a sad Mormon preacher from my door.

[TheBigCheese]

I see what your logic is, Tokage, but it doesn't prove that we didn't have an intelligent creator.

Sure, if we already had confirmed the fact that life is random, then your point would be valid. But we cannot technically say one way or the other why we are here.

The fact of our existance only says that life happened. I cannot lead us to the solution of how.



Also, lol at the hyena. Animals after posts should be mandatory in my opinion.

[tokage]

Haha, you are actually funny, because you still don't get my point and in fact seem to argue at points that were not even stated since Glabbit wrote the post you quoted. Let me repeat in simple words so you can follow.

there's no way that all of existance is just chance.

Invertin claimed that our existence can't be chance.
And Glabbit argued against that

Ptah!
Think of this: if there is any potential of life developing, any potential at all, even if it's below a millionth nanodigit of a percent, then what's the total chance of life eventually developing?
100%! Why? Because the universe won't simply 'end'! Things die, others explode, but all the while new things get created, too, and thus there is an ever-constant chance for life over all eternity!
And since eternity would be infinite, that obviously means that there WILL be life at SOME point.
That life is us.

No, I don't believe in 'god'. I believe in the universe.

His example was not sound.
But in his point he was right: Life could be here because of pure chance.

Now you were going by your

TL;DR: Infinite time + Infinite possibilities != every possibility eventually occurring.

infinite + infinite != all equation, the logical reasoning of which is questionable at least.

But I digress. Even an infinite universe wouldn't have infinite chances, because time doesn't loop in on itself. Every single moment is unique;

Unproved assumptions, wild speculations and really no relation to the possibilities question, right after this:

I hate it when people try to claim their ideas/beliefs are better when in reality they're just using the same logic as nearly everyone else and trying to disguise it with a poor redirection of readers' attention.

When you use said techniques for yourself, it seems to be just OK.
Just a taste of your discussion style that is not very nice to your discussion partners.

Anyway, I replied and supported Glabbit's point, namely 'invertin's statement is not valid' and life could come by pure chance, by arguing chance or possibilities are not a factor because the experiment's outcome was already been determined. Funnily I was saying almost the same you were summing up in your last post:

I will repeat; existence is not proof that we came about randomly. You cannot use the end result of an experiment as proof when you don't know what the whole experiment was or even the independent variable(s). Now, you can't say anything about stochastics because it's possible that there was no stochastics involved in how the universe unfolded.

It is just as possible to use that argument to invalidate invertin's statement. By the way, as I was implying before also, 'stochastics' is a human created mathematical science, it only describes something and has no part in creating something.

Now, to what you did. It seems to me you only read the first half of my posts, understood them wrong and then were scanning the rest for keywords to use in defamatory nonsense to throw at me. Otherwise, I can't explain how you could come up with this:

The rest of your post was talk about stochastics and how the universe exists because it does and if it didn't it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here, which is useless because your parent point is wrong.

...and this:

Our existence is proof that we came about randomly. We are the result of the universe unfolding.

Wow, great technique shorten and then change what your opponent said.
I never said something about it being the proof of anything. That was just you making things up to have something to argue about. Bad style again.
Also it seems to me you lost focus about what the discussion was all about already when replying to Glabbit. In case you can't remember.

there's no way that all of existance is just chance.

There is a way, that is all me and Glabbit said. Nothing 'proof' this, nor 'it can't be another way' there.
What you lack, is the ability to listen to people and understand what they said in context.
And I was right, you didn't get it into your head or at least you couldn't stop insulting me.

[Glabbit]

Woah, that is a nice clear-up there. Thank you, Tokage!

[invertin]

Moral of the story-

I'm wrong. :P

[Glabbit]

To redeem yourself I give you the charge of creating slash finishing one of your animations!

[Ragdollmaster]

Pro-Tip: If no one understands what you're saying, you should clarify yourself more. It seems like no one but you knew what you meant, and it's not because everyone else is thick.

[tokage]

Pro-Tip: If no one understands what you're saying, you should clarify yourself more. It seems like no one but you knew what you meant, and it's not because everyone else is thick.

Have you given up on arguing and are sticking to pure insulting now?

I see what your logic is, Tokage, but it doesn't prove that we didn't have an intelligent creator.

Sure, if we already had confirmed the fact that life is random, then your point would be valid. But we cannot technically say one way or the other why we are here.

The fact of our existance only says that life happened. I cannot lead us to the solution of how.



Also, lol at the hyena. Animals after posts should be mandatory in my opinion.

I never said I wanted to proof that the universe came to existence by pure chance. I am pretty much being on the science part of the discussion. And one of the most fundamental rules of science is there are not really absolute truths, only theories that explain things. Some better than others, and those should be preferred of course. I think that the theory of an intelligent creator is not the best one out there, but if others think otherwise and give sound points I will hear them.

BTW the reason why an intelligent creator is not my favored theory, is Occam's razor, a principle to keep theories as simple as possible. You just don't need the complex assumptions of an intelligent being to explain the universe, there are simpler explanations that do the same job. Of course noone needs to accept that argument in this rather unscientific discussion and it is even debatable if it is really simpler to cut the intelligent creator out.

[Ragdollmaster]

tokage: Why argue if we don't understand each other? It's a waste of time and effort. By the way, that wasn't an insult; if you expect to be taken seriously, by anybody, you should make sure your argument/statement is clarified enough that everyone else knows what the hell is going on. Even if you know what you mean, it doesn't automatically mean everyone else does- or should. Calling people thick because you fail to explain yourself properly is a bad resort; if you had jumped right away to further clarification, which you only do now after two pages of posts, everyone would've been like "Oh, alright, that's what you meant."

As for keeping things simple, nothing about the universe really is; metaphysical speculation isn't as easy as 1+1=2.