Summations Only

There are also millions of others believing in different gods, millions unsure and millions believing in none. This is evidence of nothing other than people seem to believe in different things and are confused.Even if 100% of everyone on the planet believed in exactly the same God, it is not evidence of the existence of God.If 100% of white, English children under the age of 10 believed in Father Christmas - which is highly probable - he still wouldn't exist. In most cases, it's rather the reverse. Atheists, like everyone else, are usually born into families that believe in something or other, so they do too. They only later discover that it's all a nonsense.Then, of course, we've looked everywhere for evidence and never, ever found any at all - just a bunch of superstitions and outright lies. So it's time to shit or get off the pot, as my granddad used to say. Given the amount of verbal contortion presented so far, I have little hope of any evidence based revellation. But give it your best shot.

You seem to have forgotten a few things.Burning bushes
Pillars of salt
Manic bears
Lazarus
Floods
Plagues
Famines
Parting of Seas
Virgin births
Resurrections
Walking on water
Loaves and fishes
Water and wine
etc etc etc Haven't you picked up the vibe yet? We're all sick of this priestly teasing - we've lost patience with it; get on with your claim before we all go elsewhere.

I occasionally - but not very often - feel sorry for modern day creationists.Once upon a time all they had to do was learn their book then make up fantasies about what it means. These days they need PhDs in molecular genetics, evolutionary theory, geology, big physics and advanced maths. Soon they'll have to add chemistry too.Then they have to create their own versions of each discipline - it's an extraordinary feat.They are very special people, these modern creationists.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Well obviously we'll never be able to live up to your intellectual standards, but why not have go anyway?God knows, we can hardly disappoint you any more than we already have and evidence isn't harmed by being looked at in awe by those unable to understand it.Otherwise, do us all a favour and crawl back up your own backside, you seem to enjoy it up there.

Yup, next thread really needs to be on something, anything, except the evidence.I'll give you some credit though, you're a different kind of troll.

Which is the creationist argument.But the counter argument is that we don't know how many balls and of what colour are in in the bag, so we don't know whether we should be surprised or not.Only if we had perfect knowledge of what's in the bag (and to extend the argument whether there is only one bag), can we faint with surprise when the ball emerges.

It's definately their best argument and the only one worth spending time on. But possibly only because we know so little about the universe(s).

The calculations are above my pay grade, but there's a article in last week's New Scientist that basically says we actually know very little of the basic functioning of the universe, we're a bit stuck and are awaiting the next big idea.For example, to get back to trivial statistics, inorder to know whether the 3 sixes that have just turned up on the 3 dice is an occasion for excitement we need to know how many times the dice have been thrown.Darren Brown once filmed himself tossing ten coins all day until ten heads turned up. In the film shown it was one take and an amazing feat. (Try youtube)And as you say, we have no idea whether the conditions at the time of the dice roll preordanes the outcome. (Or at least I don't). But isn't a rare occurrence simply a rare occurrence? The explanation need only be chance. Surprising, but still chance.

And that is why the Derran Brown film is instructive - his ten heads in a single take feels like magic because we know that the odds of him achieving it on the first throw are tiny.But even so, if he did achieve it on the first throw, it would still be just chance, remarkable, but still chance.

Well of course I understand that and totally agree - that's simple statistics but it's not what I'm trying to get at. You said this earlier: You can't say that something happens only rarely then demand an explanation other than chance if the long odd chance comes up. (We are assuming independent probabilities here - pulling a ball from a bag.)The Darren Brown trick is the creationist position - all they see is the first toss of the coins and all 10 coming up heads and think that it must be a miracle.They know the odds but don't know that he's been throwing those coins for 10 hours.Maybe the universe has been throwing "coins" for a near infinite time - we couldn't know. And there are other explanations.Having said that, I still think it's the creationist's best argument and so far I don't find the solutions particularly persuasive.

Well no, you just misunderstood what I was trying to say. This is what I said and how you replied Obviously, it's true that three sixes can turn up on any throw with an equal chance and equally obviously, if you only have one throw, it's unlikely that it's going to happen and anyone would bet against it.Whether I am excited about seeing three 6s though, is a different situation. If I'd watched someone for an hour trying to roll three 6s, then saw it happen I wouldn't be surprised, if it turned up first time I would. Correct. My suggestion is that there's no reason to believe that there was only one roll of the dice/toss of the coins.

So that leaves us with the element of surprise and what to do with it when we experience it.If we have only one dice roll and astronomically high odds of a given outcome, but that outcome happens, what are we supposed to make of it?If we accept that chance is simply chance and the improbable outcome happens, we are surpised - because it was highly unlikely - but are we entitled to go looking for supernatural explanations?Logically the answer is no, because we're dealing with probability. But our experience tells us to be very suspicious.On the other hand, experience also tells us that no supernatural event has ever been shown to occur so it's more probable that we don't know enough about the situation to put probabilities on this stuff.Needs more work.

Agreed.

Put it the other way - did it have a supernatural cause?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Quite apart from a 'first cause' being a logical paradox of its own, mathematicians are proving - to themselves at least - that the universe can indeed manufacture itself.Then, of course, we have the total non-sequitur that the God of the first cause knows or cares about us and needs worshipping as a result - now that is just totally implausible.