Do you think less of theists intelligence?

Please answer this one question before you answer anything else: If not chance, what else?

Why is it no longer possible to suggest that it occured by chance? Sure, it's pretty damn amazing that it happened, but it's STILL chance.

I would be amazed, considering just how small the chances are. However, what else could we write it off as? If I guessed it the first time, we would write it off as chance, if I did it 500 times, it suddenly becomes something else? No, it's still chance.

Wrong. You keep bringing up the idea that the scientific mind is going to look to something else than chance to explain the improbabilities of the universe. Being scientific means looking to science for answers, when something improbable happens and there is no real explanation for it, scientists look to chance, not something beyond it.

Why would it be unreasonable to suggest that it was random chance? That all it is.

Why, because the odds are so minute? At no point does chance become something else.

No, you started acting like I believed it was a good idea to fix a sparkplug by throwing a wrench at it

No I never said that it could be changed via throwing a wrench at it, I said that maybe it didn't need to be changed and throwing a wrench at it could fix it.

Somethings require finesse that throwing a wrench at just can't do (Or can they!?)

I beg to differ. A reasonable person will realize that chance exists are miniscule levels. Somethings are so improbable that we have never seen them before, but the chance for them to occur still exists. A reasonable person is never going to say "Oh this is to improbable, it has to be something more mysterious than chance."

 

As I pointed out earlier, you simply don't understand the subject of discussion, you don't know anything of probability theory or chance games and it is pointless to argue with you any further on this topic.

 

Dude, you have yet to answer the fundamental question that I've posed to you in every single post.

If not chance, what else?

This has nothing to do with chance games or the probability theory. Nothing at all. I've just argued that at a certain point in the analysis of statistics you cannot say that actions were just to improbable to occur by chance themselves.

My only question, since the beginning of this discussion, is why WOULD IT BE BEYOND REASON?

You've completely avoided that question the entire discussion while bashing my points as invalid when most of your argument has been citing theories that A) You only have a limited grasp of and B) Aren't exactly used to answer my question.

 

Who knows what else?
If it was known, then would there be need for discussion?

But to say that chance explains any happening, no matter how improbable, for as long as we don't have an alternative theory to explain the cause of event is indeed fallacious statement.

Oh yes, it does.
Do you know the roots of Probability Theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

If you face the empirically observed fact, an event that you can't explain by any imaginable or known to you method you can't simply write it off as a coincidence, especially if it is highly improbable to have happened that way.

There are things that are simply too improbable to happen by chance and if it happens you look for cause that has little to nothing to do with random chance.

May be because it simply doesn't happen that way.

Nope, I haven't avoided it at all.

Your points are invalid.

I will mightily disappoint you on that assumption

What is your question?

 

Alright, thank you for answering my quesiton Jumbuli.

So your answer to my quesiton of: If not chance, what else?

Is, and let me get this correct: Idunno

The reason that the probability theory or games of chance are not related is because my question, while dealing with chance, isn't about the study and analysis of statistics. My quesiton was about, if something happens that is extremely improbable, what else, besides chance, can we attribute it too.

Now we just disagree on the idea of what we can attribute it too. I say that chance is chance, we cannot attribute it to god/intelligent shmuck in the sky or anything else except chance.

You say that we do not know.

Therefore, judging whether or not my points are invalid is subjective. If we believe what you believe, then they are. If we believe what I believe, they aren't.

I guess we cannot go anywhere from here.

P.S: It's funny, not to long ago you made the statement that the theory of evolution was a crock of shit. Now you're talking about the theory of probability like it's a god-send I'm curious, do you know what the word theory means?

 

And I answered that I don't know. If anyone claimed to know I would be glad to hear what if anything they knew. I would embrace it with open mind but one that was also reasonable.

I never said that chance is not a chance (in case you assume we have an argument there).

I don't attribute it to anything, I just say the cause is unknown.
Do you notice the difference?

No, if you don't know what the cause is you can't attribute it to anything you know of, including the chance.

Yes, sometimes when facing facts we do not know what the cause is.

No, it is not so.
If we both don't know something and you write it off as random chance happening then your point is invalid and such judgement of your points is indeed objective.

Forget about what I or you chose to believe, be reasonable instead.

Not unless your arguments make sense.

Of course it is.

It may not be God-send, but I can tell you it's testable and practically correct.

Of course I do

 

Unfortunately Jumbuli, we cannot progress from here. No matter what logical argument either of us present, we will both disagree with each other.

We've settled the chance argument.

You believe that at a certain point it is no longer chance, but something else (Unknown).

I believe that it's always chance and only chance.

I believe the theory of evolution has plenty of evidence for it

You believe it doesn't

I could present information, that in my eyes, is proof enough, and you'll disagree with it.

You could present information, that in your eyes, does something, and I'll probably disagree with it.


Always a pleasure arguing with you.

 

i feel ridiculous having to explain this but here it is:

1=2, because it was a reply to Okiefreak with whom i was in debate about coincidences thus that reply was applicable to coincidences, not all improbable situations/happenings in the universe. the topic of the conversation --which was about the appearance of the first protein--- assumed that the 'something' in '...if something is highly improbable...' only included random events -- coincidences. maybe i should have typed it all out cause obviously you people are not able to sustain continuity after a few posts.

the example in the form of the first protein was maybe not the best example. i myself don't consider it as a fully coincidental happening, since the first protein's appearance was naturally dependent on the environment and the environment was dependent on the climate, which was dependent on the characteristics of the planet, it's declination, etc. so one could argue that the appearance of that protein was already somewhat determined with earth's angle in relation to its orbit, or the settling of environmental conditions, or something similar not directly related to it. so it's not fully coincidental but Okiefreak dealt with it as such and wrote it off as intelligent design and my following arguments were in line with the introduction of the term 'chance' or coincidence and against it (the coincidence) being of intelligent origin.

 

And I am telling you that at certain point you can't reasonably write off something highly improbable as if it happened by a random chance, simply because you don't know or can't imagine any other explanation.

You also can't use the alleged error in judgement of your opponent to justify fallacious assumption of your own.

Both of you , actually, lack the scientifically valid explanation and knowledge of the cause of event and simply base your assumptions on nothing but religious belief.

At least ID advocates admit that their beliefs are based on religion, while Random Chance proponents have audacity to claim that their's is scientifically valid assumption, and that they found out the cause to be none other but a random chance happening , no matter how improbable it might be.

 

I saw Santa just a second ago, he drove past my house in his Ford Fiesta.

This is the thread in which we make up big, big lies and try and convince the world there true, right?

I hate to say it but I usually sympathize internally when someone tells me they are religious. And I don't mean that nastily, just wish I could give 'em a big shake or something.

I mean if I was to say Jesus came to my house for a cuppa and a biscuit, would anyone believe me? But if I was to write it down, perhaps someone would be 2000 years?

In fact, they bloody would. That is the fallacy of religion, just chuck in the odd tyrant and hymn and you're all set.

I do though, respect people like, and believe different things however.

 

False Compromise:

If one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.)

Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.

"Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."

Pleasure is always mine. :cheers2:

 

QUOTE]


It's always fun attempting to impose logic where none exists. You remind of General Custer from Little Big Man.

 

This is a mere digression and further confirms my opinion that you have no understanding of subject of discussion.

 

Jumbuli, the subject matter is not what is misunderstood. We just disagree on the base concept of chance, it's analysis and prediction.

Take for example, your laboratory, number-guessing game.

The probability theory suggests that if you guessed the 800-digit number sequence 500 times in a row, that we can draw conclusions and predict future outcomes based on present statistics.

Now, what I say, is that you got lucky, it's chance. That's all.

You say, while chance is involved, there might be something else factoring into the equation, we don't know what it is.

What is that "something else" to you? What kind of factors are you thinking of?

If it's just you guessing numbers, and coincidentally getting them correct, then there is nothing else besides CHANCE.

If it's you and something else that increases your chance of guessing a correct number by 10%, then it's not just chance.

Part of intelligent and coherent debate is understanding and defining the argument and terms involved. Citing a theory and then saying "oh you're wrong" without actually proving me wrong, does not make your argument intelligent and coherent.

 

Or you could just say what you think and move on. Intelligent debate, it just seems like you're both bashing your heads against the wall for a thread :banghead:

 

Yeah, but we can instead say "HEY YOU, MY BELIEFS ARE THIS, BELIEVE THEM OR YOU'RE DUMB!"

 

Yeah but if everyone did that, everyone would be wrong except me.

 

:cheers2:

Nah, you're not lazier and far from stupid, bro. With respect, I just question the intellectual enthusiasm and individualism of someone who picks up a single book and says, "these are the answers". The journey is one of learning and understanding, it shouldn't stop when you read the bible - know what I mean?
Rationalism is a science by the means that it's active and changeful. I think Yeshua (or Jesus) had a beautiful mind, but his alone didn't answer the questions we all ask.

 

Why do so many people talk as if, you either believe in a single book and doctrine or you don't believe in God at all? Many people dont have any religion and still believe in God.

 

i don't know how the first protein came to be, so no beliefs involved or held.