A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

Actually, that's known as Borel's Law and you have mangled it in standard creationist fashion. Nobody who understands it claims that when the odds against something are bigger than that it can't happen. Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Look at the arrangement produced. The odds against that arrangement being produced are much greater than 10⁵⁰, in fact it's a little bigger than 8*10⁶⁷.But there it is. Do you think it's impossible to shuffle a deck of cards?

Well, that statement is strictly true, but in order that it not be misleading we should add the caveat that it's "considered mathematically impossible" by innumerate people rather than by mathematicians.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't think the use of "idiots" is at all appropriate. Anytime of course but more here than some places.Infinity isn't always easy for people to wrap their head around. It is easy to say something quickly and get it wrong. It doesn't require that one be an idiot.

Better?

Thank you for the education regarding Borel's Law. That was interesting reading. I do not have the reference in front of me that spoke on the mathematical impossibility so I cannot refer back to it.Also, the issue of shuffling a deck of cards is interesting. While I can see that a random shuffle would result in a statistically rare order, the number you provided seems incredibly high.However, even if true the examples I have provided still hold. If a random letter generator (not live monkeys because we know that would never work) attempted to reproduce a single Shakespearean sonnet, it would fail even in infinite time. A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.Plus, some keys have to be struck at the same time. You have to hold down the 'shift' key while striking another letter to produce a capital. A random letter generator, programmed to randomly produce capitals, would no doubt produce capitals in the wrong places.It is impossible to produce a Shakespearean sonnet at random even in infinite time.Edited by designtheorist1, : Typos!

You do realise that with infinite attempts, anything with a finite probability is expected to happen an infinite number of times ?

That isn't true. Penrose doesn't says ANYTHING about natural causes in the clip you posted.Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic." Penrose admits this is incredible organization of the early universe.Penrose is an atheist. His view on the organization of the early universe has caused him to reject the usual view of the Big Bang. In his book Cycles of Time, he has proposed the previously debunked Cycle Theory with some twists.While Penrose's Cycle Theory does not work, he is right that the early universe could not have come about by chance.

That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.

That's a funny way of saying "obvious fact". That's a funny way of saying "mathematicians". But not so demonstrable that it can be demonstrated.

Yes I could expect it. I could expect it do do so 0.75⁶¹⁹ of the time, which is a small number but not zero. I could expect this precisely because the generator is random.You just don't understand probability theory. There's no shame in this, but there is something a little bit shameful about lecturing other people on it, this being the case.

quote:

---

Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic."

---

Chance has two distinct meanings. The more common one - which Penrose is using refers to the absence of any constraining regularities. For instance if you let go of a rock and it falls to the ground it is not chance that the atoms making up the rock all happen to follow a quite similar path downwards after you release it. Gravity and the chemical bonds holding the rock together constrain it.Granted that chance is sometimes used to refer to the absence of intelligent guidance but clearly Penrose is not using that meaning - because to do so he would have to deal with the issue of natural constraints - and he does not.

quote:

---

That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.

---

No, it's the result of mathematics.For any probability p the number of expected successes given t trials is p.t (i.e. p multiplied by t).Do you disagree with that ?If not, can you give a finitely low p, where p > 0 and given infinite t p.t < 1 ?

Nope, as others have pointed out many times. You obviously have no clue when it comes to probability. Please don't make probabilistic claims until you understand some basic probability.

So demonstrate already.

I dunno if this is something people have considered but if you use 10th dimensional thinking possibility and chance are very interesting, check this out and see what you thinkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=youtu...Might clear up some of the infinty problemsEdit : I realise this isn't wholly relevant but it helped me greatly when I was trying to broaden my mind and imagination to accommodate some pretty big ideasEdited by GrimSqueaker, : No reason given.