Is it possible to calculate the odds of the universe happening?
I was just arguing with a Christian who said the odds are so massive a number that it would be impossible for it to happen by chance..
He claimed physicists calculated the odds, but couldn't say who, or source the work.
After a bit of Googling, I can only find creationists who have done these biased, inaccurate calculations to suit their argument, but none from physicists.
So, my question is, is it even possible to do such a calculation?
>>70651457
There is no way of knowing
>>70651457
>is it even possible to do such a calculation?
No, because before the universe 'happened' concepts like time and entropy did not exist, so either everything has to happen, or nothing can happen. Obviously something did, we just have no idea why, but we know a bit about the how after the original event
>>70651733
We have an idea of what happened before the singularity too though, don't we?
I thought M-theory was making some pretty good advancements?.
The odds are basically infinity/infinity
>>70651862
We have an idea of the conditions that existed prior to the big bang. As far as we know, given those conditions a universe will form every time.
>>70651733
>concepts like time
this is retarded. This is like saying the universe is finite, yet you can travel into one point in space for eternity.
>>70652061
It's finite and expanding.
>>70651897
So 1/1 aka 100%?
>>70651457
no it's not possible, because only once man has charted every physical element in the universe only then can we have probably numbers to work with.
And that wont happen soon either.
>>70652272
Functionally, yeah.
>>70651862
>I thought M-theory was making some pretty good advancements?
It's still pretty speculative, check out Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose, it's a pretty dense read and heavy on the math (also pricey, it's only available in hardcover), but it's the best explanation I've read so far
>>70652167
Yes the human universe is finite, but you cannot constrain forever inside your mortal mechanics.
>>70651457
What happens when you roll a die an infinite number of times?
>>70652167
We don't know, and most likely never will m8, but you can make big assumptions from monkies taking gathering data wile not being able to leave their solar system
>>70651457
Yes. 100%. Because it exists.
>>70652416
>What happens when you roll a die an infinite number of times?
You get every possible combination an equal amount of times
>>70651457
Yes, and the calculation has already been completed by scientists. The odds of the universe happening are:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10...+infinity+...
I won't provide a proof here, but the odds converge to -1/12.
>>70652585
>>70652019
>conditions that existed prior to the big bang
>prior to
>the big bang was the beginning of time itself
does not compute
>>70651457
Roman catholic here. I understand that our universe is just the other end of a black hole. There is math behind how likely it is our universe is how it is. Something to do with how fast were expanding vs the force of gravity.
>>70652767
The big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it today, not the beginning of anything that ever was. Time is simply a form of measurement.
>>70652682
What? Poland doesn't do 'central limit' theorem
wow so many retards here dont even grasp the question OP is asking
wouldn't it be one in one as it has already happened?
>>70652822
And to add onto this, we still don't understand dark matter/energy and how much impact they truly have in the calculations, or if there are even more forces we don't even know about.
50%
either it happened, or it didnt
>>70652585
not true, you get 3 and 4 twice as often as you get 6 and 6
>>70652767
There is no proof the big bang ever happened
it's just a theory some fucktards fedora atheists came up with and said "Yeah, we'll go with that."
>>70651457
Lawrence Krauss
>>70652767
Big bang is just a theory and if it happened it was just the beginning of this universe, not the beginning of time or of reality or of existence.
>>70653025
>Time is simply a form of measurement.
Are you literally this fucking incompetent? Seconds, minutes, hours, etc are forms of measurement. Time is not you absolute fucktarded dumbass. Time is an innate, absolute existence.
>>70653221
>>70653221
>There is no proof the bible ever happened
>it's just a story some fucktard sand niggers came up with and said "Yeah, we'll go with that."
>>70653290
>Lawrence Krauss
A Universe From Nothing was a bit of a flakey book annon, fine for a review on pop-sci.com maybe
>>70653120
>more forces we don't know about
Kind of but really they're the same. The Higgs Field, the cosmological constant, the ether, quintessence, dark matter, and dark energy are all actually the same thing. Some possibilities are the Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything, Quantum Gravity, and Loop Quantum Gravity. Also there's gravitons but we already kinda know those exist.
Also wormholes are real. A blackhole is so superdense with intense gravity that it rips open a hole in 4 dimensional space (and no spacetime is not real, time is not a dimension) and creates a wormhole which ends in a whitehole (the opposite of a blackhole) on the other side.
>>70651457
Well there is a time frame calculated in which it's estimated that another bing bang could happen,
>Estimated time for random quantum fluctuations and quantum tunnelling to generate a new Big Bang.[92]
Because the total number of ways in which all the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined is 10^{10^{115}},[93][94] a number which, when multiplied by 10^{10^{10^{56}}}, disappears into the rounding error, this is also the time required for a quantum-tunnelled and quantum fluctuation-generated Big Bang to produce a new universe identical to our own,[93] assuming that every new universe obeyed the same laws of physics and contained at least the same number of subatomic particles. Specifically, this is the time for the entire life cycle of the universe from Big Bang to final energy state to rebirth, to have repeated the same number of times as all possible combinations of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
that time is ((((10)^10)^10)^56) time unit (doesn't even matter what time unit you use since the scale is gigantic it would make little to now difference)
So that blows the christian argument to some degree i suppose?
>>70651457
tell him that his argument is fucking stupid even if the odds were 1 to google^google^google the only scenario when you could be talking about that possibility is when it alredy happened
>>70653709
Your logic implies that there are infinity non-existences that could form an existence and therefore that a small fraction of those, still being infinity, will form existences and so we'll obviously be in one that formed existence. This is valid if there are indeed infinity such non-existences but if there's only one such non-existence then his logic is right and yours is wrong.
>>70651457
when it's possible, it will happen at some point
that's everything you need to know
>>70653823
that would make sense only if the odds were 1 to infinity
>>70651457
No, it is literally impossible to calculate that. To be honest, this almost goes off into the philosophical domain, and as any person with a modicum of brains knows, that's all a heap of shit.
Either he was knowingly lying and trying to bullshit you into thinking he's clever, or he was getting confused and thinking about the Drake equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
t. third year physics student
>>70651457
Yes, 0 for didn't happen. 1 for did.
Yes or no binary statistic.
50% shot
>>70653296
>Big bang is just a theory
Scientists predicted the big bang echo will be found. And then they found it, Cosmic microwave background.
So yeah, not just "a theory".
>>70651457
Finely tuned universe.
> biased, inaccurate calculations
Those who do not believe, no amount of evidence will ever convince them. They will learn the hard way.
>>70651457
Even if the odds of the Universe forming were infinitely small, it would eventually HAVE to happen.
>>70654302
>0 you win lottery, 1 you don't, therefore you have 50% chance of winning lottery
>>70651457
Yes. So called atheist 'scientists' do it all the time when trying to disprove God. For example, the "it is more likely that the universe popped into existence five minutes ago than God existing or having anything to do with it." This is based on the incorrect assumption that God is extremely intricate and therefore requires a designer himself, which is stupid and wrong in two ways.
If you were debating the cosmological argument, or the fine-tuning argument of the universe, then yes it is possible to calculate some of the odds of this particular universe existing and not some other type. Obviously, without the addition of a designer God these odds are astronomical and are impossible to have occurred by chance. The concept of the multiverse is flawed and even if it were true it would require an even more mind-boggling complex cause to have created it.
But just speaking in generic terms about what are the chances of the universe occurring is probably unknowable.
>>70654148
Claiming that it's essentially impossible for us to exist, yes.
Claiming that it's unlikely and that our existence is evidence against said origin, no.
>>70654476
>implying evidence=proof
Are Russians really this incompetent? Too busy fucking bears to do some basic logic?
>>70654580
Not true. infinity/infinity can be approximately equal to 0, it can be approximately equal to 1, it can be approximately equal to infinity.
The fact that we are discussing it means it happened eventually, no matter the odds. I mean this particular "fine tuned" universe existing. The question is pointless.
What is much more interesting is that it can be argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated universe then a real one, and whether the difference even matters if the simulated universe is a perfect simulation...
And additionally, why do I lack this apparent craving for an idea of creator so many of my fellow humans seem to experience.
>>70654580
Start at zero, and count to one, including all the numbers in-between.
Once you get to 1, there's your chance of the universe happening.
>>70655097
yeah I alredy made that arguments here >>70653709
>>70655283
tthat implies that the odds are 1 to infinity but that's not true
>>70655097
The point of the argument is that if we can determine the chance of it forming by chance is infinitesimal or extremely small, that is evidence that it did not form by chance. Russians once again displaying their lack of basic competence.
>>70655510
Why not? If Jupiter didn't exist in our solar system.... Our planet would have never developed life due to the meteor barrage.
That's just 1 factor. The same applies to the laws of physics; gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics. An incredible small decimal of a decimal of fraction off.... And planets, chemical reactions, the all of reality would have never have formed a cohesive thing.
The universe could have just as easily been quasars blinking in and out of existence for all of eternity, or something so fundamentally against the laws of nature as to escape grasping by organic structured organ producing thoughts.
>make quantum computer that calculates all odds of the universe happening
>it runs multiple simulations of the universe
>Each simulations begins when a new possibility is created
>it's ended when the possibility is not fulfilled
>mfw we are living in one of those simulations
>the universe probably begun a week ago and could stop existing any moment without us noticing
>>70655510
I think there was a miscommunication. When I say, count from 0 to 1, I include all the decimals in between. ALL of them.
>>70656014
even if when you add up all those factors you multiplied that number by itself number of times equal to that number it would be still infinitely small compared to infinity
>>70655542
no if the chance is extremlly small there is still the possiblity it froming by a chance
>>70656332
no, that's still infinite ammount of numbers
>>70654606
Read it like this: there is an equal chance for something to exists or not.
There are more factors when you want to determinate whether you will win at lottery.
But if there are no factors it's always 50/50.
>>70651457
Even if it were possible or impossible. Still does not prove there is a God.
>>70656777
except the presumption of this threads was that there are factors
>>70651457
>Irish
>Not Catholic
nice proxy m8
>>70656473
Are you insinuating that given an infinite amount of time, where values are constantly fluctuating in order for an infinite chance to happen... Reality couldn't have settled into a permanent state?
If the only constant in reality is change... That's still a characteristic of reality, as much as the laws of physics.
>>70651457
He was talking about Grant Jeffrey and his book Creation.
Look it up
>>70651457
I think the mathematician creationists, that guy, and you have this entire approach all wrong, proving god exists or does not is pointless. Faith is by nature speculative, otherwise, it would be called knowledge. Divinely inspired knowledge may or may not be possible, it also may or may not be accurate, the important thing is not to prove that god exists to others, but rather to prove that god does or does not exist to yourself.
>>70657321
There can be endless amount of factors to determinate that. Every factor can give you different outcome.
Lets use simple set of infinite number to show how real is universe with endless factors.
is_universe_real = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1...
Behind a single digits can be many factors. It focuses on how value changes with unending supply of them.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series ]
>>70658307
how the fuck did you come up with the number 50%
>>70657522
well you just use the L'hopital's rule mang :D
>>70651457
You really can't look at this stuff from our perspective. Yeah, it's unlikely to happen. It's incredibly unlikely that a guy would decide to create a website that years and years later the two of us would be on at this particular time to talk to each other.
These things are unlikely, but not impossible. moot made 4chan, and here we are. It could be that there was some design that brought us to this moment, but not likely.
The only reason we can wonder about why we're both coincidentally here is because we are. The only reason we can wonder about how the world happened to be is because it did. It doesn't prove design or lack thereof, it's just that the only time these questions are asked if it came to be, for whatever reason.
>>70651457
While it is hypothetically possible to do such a calculation, I think we'd need to have a theory of everything as well as an understanding of the universe before it became to be as we know it today.
>>70658541
1/2 is 50%...
Also check the link.
>>70651457
100 percent. The universe had to happen.
>>70658710
oh, I get what you are saying
still I don't entirely trust it
I need to run that through my brain
>>70659295
I don't like 50%. It's more like:
>Why universe exists?
Because it can.
>>70654615
>This is based on the incorrect assumption that God is extremely intricate and therefore requires a designer himself, which is stupid and wrong
How is it stupid and wrong?
Someone post that proof with the refrigerator
>>70651457
In terms of probabilities? It's 1. It's here, so we know the probability of the universe existing is 1.
>>70654482
>>70654482
>>70654482
This, the universe is finely tuned. Every calculation, measurement, and calibration that is proved in physics cannot happen on its own. That's like saying a junk yard blew up for infinity and a finely tuned, perfectly calibrated, perfectly measured, and perfectly timed car dealership came out of it.
Also the silly belief that if you shake a box of the perfect materials for infinity out comes a perfectly calibrated mechanical clock or smart phone with all apps and OS installed.
At this point, anyone that believes this has to have more faith then the average theist. They have to call this not a scientific belief but a religious belief at this point.
>>70663188
>That's like saying a junk yard blew up for infinity and a finely tuned, perfectly calibrated, perfectly measured, and perfectly timed car dealership came out of it
You just quoted the moronic banana man Ray Comfort.
>>70663188
Well... given that there is nothing and everything can happen some agreements must be reached in order for anything to exists.
Even human life seems like a natural consequence of laws of physics and these laws are such an agreement.
>proved in physics
I assume they escaped laws they are binded to. We need quotation to believe that.
>>70663188
>Also the silly belief that if you shake a box of the perfect materials for infinity out comes a perfectly calibrated mechanical clock
Exactly, doubles of truth.
>>70651457
>I want to be right!
Why?
I mean, wouldn't it be awesome for there to be a heaven and be there snorting cocke, touching butts and partying about without a care in the world and that was only your breakfast?
>>70665344
I didn't say anything about being right or wrong, nor did I mention God.
My question was, is it possible to ever calculate the odds of the universe happening.
>>70660192
God transcends and is outside of space and time; he is without cause (the prime mover). The prime mover existed before the creation of the material universe. Any God that exists before the material must be immaterial. This is why Christians believe God to be a disembodied mind. A disembodied mind is the simplest of all things. It has no substance, no dimension, no weight, no moving parts, no duration. It is, at its core essentially no different from nothing, and yet out of it all things arise.
>>70665875
Very poetic. But it's a bunch of horseshit.
>>70651457
Shit tier argument from relgious persons perspective.
Regardless of how small the chance is, if an intelligent species appear, the answer will always be the same; "Isn't it amazing how we came to be against all the odds?"
It's the only possible answer, because if the universe did not happen and no-one is there to ponder about it, there won't be any speculations about how small the odds are we existed.
Besides, wether or not the universe exist or not doesn't prove any existence of the supernatural.
And finally:
We won't be around for long. On the grander scale of it, the universe will just have popped in and out of existence in the blink of an eye.
>>70665824
Sure: It doesn't happen.
>>70666185
>I want to be right
>Wah, wah...
>>70666749
But it has happened.
--------------------WARNING---------------
---ACTUAL INTELLECTUAL HONESTY HERE---
--------------------WARNING---------------
Every human is equipped with the ability to test if there is a God or not.
You pray.
So you go like: I believe -because you can only prove things you believe on- you are there God. Please, accept me as a son. Send somebody to instruct me on your ways, I will thoroughly test this person and see if he is able to do miracles proper of a God. I contest that there is no requirement of my part, since I am not aware of any of your laws and requirements and thus am liable for nothing.
BOOOM!
SO HARD!
I BLED TYPING IT.
>>70666830
Better than not caring that I'm wrong, like you.
>>70667063
The problem with that is, there are plenty of retards who will do it and then find meaning in some random event and attribute it to the prayer.
>>70667262
>find meaning in some random event
>send a person who does miracles
>so I can find meaning in random events
>miracles proper ofa god no less
I take it you mistook me for a potato?
I hope your doom is certainly near.
I know gods called Graham
if that helps
>>70651593
>I was just arguing with a Christian
>>70651457
>>70651733
>>70651862
>>70652061
>>70652272
>>70652307
>>70652350
>>70652372
>>70652443
I'm in the weird part of the Internet again! Lol!
>>70651457
odds of the universe happening: 1/1
it's a dead cert.
if youre looking for science from priests, you get religion.
There was infinite time for the universe to come into being. Anything that could happen, has, is and will happen, including whatever instability in the singularity made it 'explode' into our universe. In my opinion, this is not the first or last universe. Previous universes expanded, and after billions of years became full of black holes and no living suns. A looong time later, this all becomes one singularity again, and the cycle continues.
>>70667925
Problem is: I don't trust you.
And look, I can simply do this:
>>70667063
>>70651457
There are many different universes, all inside of a bubble, expanding faster and faster everyday.
Each universe has a different amount of dark mater and dark energy which sets the laws of that certain universe.
The big bang was most likely created from one of these multiverse tearing apart and creating two, like a cell under mitosis
>>70667080
Right here >>70665824 you denied wanting to be right and now you admit to it, which makes you a liar. If you were just a seeker of truth then I would discuss more with you. But as it stands why would anyone waste their time trying to convince you of the truth when you can't even be truthful to yourself or to others? You just want to be right... Yawn.
>>70667988
>There was infinite time
Nope.
Time began when the big bang happened
> Previous universes expanded....becomes one singularity again
Nope.
The rate of the universe is accelerating outwards. Gravitational forces "ment" to hold the universe togheter is not strong enough and soon enough the universe will expand into a thin, thin,,,, nothingness.
I know it's beeing memed alot but multiverse theory wraps up nicely these questions. If an infinite or at least very large amount of multiverses co-exist then suddenly one of them being made with constants that allow our life isn't that surprising.
>>70651457
Easy, it is/was 100% and the universe will keep happening and it's odds will continue to be 100% until some force we are not privy to but are directly affected by causes that probability to drop, at which point the universe as we know it will cease to exist.
Gosh, does anyone in this thread even quantum physics?
>>70668433
No, I said my initial question wasn't about being right or wrong, I was simply asking if anybody knew of anybody who had done, or any existing accurate calculation for the odds of the universe existing.
You brought up being right or wrong out of nowhere, so I answered, in general, yeah, I like to be right, whereas you don't seem to care whether you're wrong. You just say:
>hurr durr, God doesn't need a cause because he's eternal and made of nothing so can't be created or destroyed and there's no way for anybody to confirm or debunk that so hurr durr, must be right
It's bullshit.
And my initial question had nothing to do with God anyway.
>>70668476
You're right. Time began with the Big Bang. But can you tell me what the absence of time is like? Is it sort of like infinite time? We can't really comprehend that.
Outside the 'bounds' of our expanding universes could be the 'bounds' of the previous universe, still expanding.
In the expanse of time, do you not think it is not possible for enough supermassive black holes to combine to create a supersingularity that then 'explodes', creating what seems to be a clean slate?
Christians constantly lie or repeat other people's lies. You shouldn't discuss with people who don't honestly care for the truth because they think Jesus is the only real truth.
>>70656329
If the purpose of a simulation is just to see if the big bang happens there is no reason to have it than start simulating a 4chan image board.
And you are also implying people would give AI to whatever it is simulating. When we want to simulate say the speed of a plane against the air current we just plug in numbers into some equations. We don't create a fucking 3d simulation with all 5 senses being simulated.
God you're fucking retarded.
>>70663188
> muh bible proofs
> muh junkyard hurricane postulate
> muh clock analogy
> muh science is a shitty religion assertion
all this sophistry.
consider:
imagine a radically different intelligent species on another planet.
they would consider their own form of life to be simply logical and right
some fucknut would likely claim, just as you have, that since they exist, therefore they were created by a god, because, "What are the odds that silicon and argon would come together in just the right conditions to create Blzzxvllpbpt Culture? Clearly it must be the result of Glzzldpkts' squamous tentacles as written in The Holy Jgglilrrcktzi! "
then any doubters would be dissolved in a deadly solution of water and nitrogen, heatred to a lethally high temperature of 38 degrees C as decreed by the priests of Glzzldpkts as written in the perfect and sacred texts of The Holy Jgglilrrcktzi.
>>70663188
No sources on the "science than"
Also you are forgetting the part about how the sky is made of water with the ferment shenanigans in genesis and how all animals in the past were vegateriains
>inb4 passages that are not scientific are metaphors!
>>70669167
Oh look, a truthful person.
>>70668863
>there's no way for anybody to confirm or debunk that so hurr durr, must be wrong.
>>70668636
What if our brains are quantum entangled with the other multi-verse versions of ourselves? #multiverseafterlife
>>70669389
There's absolutely no reason to believe it
>>70651457
Because no time existed before the universe existed, it has a 100% chance of happening.
>>70669369
Have you ever seen those retards who say the first law of thermodynamics disproves evolution? They must have been told dozens of times that earth is not a closed system and the sun is our source of power but they still repeat the same crap because they hope some people will fall for it. Their goal is nothing short of christian totalitarism.
>>70651457
hawking did it once (kinda)
google it
>>70669663
Hawking is a mediocre physicist at best.
Also, reminder that all we know is the OBSERVABLE universe.
It is not something ridiculous to suggest that the I universe is much much bigger than we understand at the moment
>>70651457
OP the answer is yes. This is what Carrol Chen and other cosmological models attempt to do. The field is cosmology and its very real.
You can look it up but it requires extensive physics knowledge.
>>70669508
I provided you with a logical reason to believe it to be true. In rebuttal you provided nothing more than "horseshit". Great argument there.
>>70669202
You're a simple minded idiot. Thats not what hes saying at all.
Think more of a very advanced and sophisticated simulation made to mirror the effects of the creation of the universe with possible life. Of course there is no way to prove or to disprove this theory.
An interesting thing about this is one theoretical physicist has discovered an almost exact replicate of a computer code while studying string theory.
>>70651457
Astronomical odds being against something happening, doesn't mean it can't/won't happen, it simply means that it's occurance is astronomically rare. What are the odds that you are you, exactly as you are? Infinitesimal. But it happened nonetheless because the odds allow for it to have happened.
>>70668064
can you trust your own senses?
can you trust your own existence?
or are you a navel gazing Descartesian
an who traps himself in a daisy chain of illogic at every turn?
if you exist, and your senses are not a self-defeating pointless irrational bewildering epistemological circle jerk, then the universe exists.
if the universe exists, then the chances of the universe "happening" is 100%.
also, if you dont trust me, fuck you, i dont trust you.
i suspect you are a delusion of my fever addled brain, so i can stab you over and over, without consequence, because you dont exist.
self-indulgent descartesian "philosophy" is nothing but narcissistic sophistry.
like jacking off to a video of yourself jacking off .
>>70669843
>Hawking is a mediocre physicist
Enlighten me, smart man.
>>70669973
No you didn't, you provided me with an unfalsifiable logical fallacy
>>70669147
>>70669147
>>70669147
Am I autistic or is this a possibility?
>>70669147
>In the expanse of time, do you not think it is not possible for enough supermassive black holes to combine to create a supersingularity that then 'explodes', creating what seems to be a clean slate?
Nah man.
The universe will expand into basically nothingness.
Note:
I'm really just copy/pasting what the astronomy smartfucks say will happen.
And really: Who are you gonna trust? Your own opinions made from basic understanding and a 1 hour documentary from history channel, or the knowledge of smart fuckers who have dedicated better parts of their lives to studying this shit?
>>70651457
Yes
the odds are extremely low, but we have calculated the chance that the big bang just happens from pure quantum fluctuations. It happens on average every 10^10^10^56 years.
>>70669843
> Hawking is a mediocre physicist at best.
but he is a badass battle rapper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16k
>>70670336
If it is a logical fallacy then it should be easy to falsify. Go right ahead and try.
>>70670370
I trust the Physics Jew, truly, but even they conclude that they have absolutely no concrete idea. Don't tell me that I didn't do my research, though.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
Even if it's a fringe idea, it has backing in the physics community
The answer is 42. How do you not know that?
>>70651457
Not unless you can find out if the universe is embedded in something like a multiverse and it has a mechanism of spontaneously generating universes.
If there is literally nothing outside our universe, then you would need to start looking at immaterial causes.
But there is an almost nil chance of ever finding out if there is anything beyond our universe.
>>70670141
Philosophical wankery will get you nowhere.
Can you trust your hands to help you not pee your own mouth like you deserve daily? Yes? Then we can trust our senses, thank you.
>>70670628
Unfalsifiable logical fallacy is a two part thing when I meant it, God as you described him is unfalsifiable, but you're talking about the Christian God, Christianity is easy to falsify, and has been debunked and torn to shreds by so many people it would be silly me paraphrasing them, when you're clearly aware of it.
>>70652061
That is entirely true however. Imagine moving your finger in a line along a ball. You can continue tracing it for eternity, yet never come to an end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcPNiworbo
>Holographic universe.
>>70670141
if we can trust our senses then the universe exists, thus the chances of it existing is 100%.
you just blew your own bullshit apart.
and yes i can trust my hands to guide my cock during urination, but apparently you can not locate your own penis.
get off my nuts sonny.
my dickrides are reserved for the ladies.
perhaps bruce jenner will give you a buggering.
why are you trying to start a battle of wits when you are so clearly unarmed?
What if the entire universe is a complex quantum computer simulation. God is just some really smart programmer or group of programmers. We are like video game characters that have self awareness. We can speculate as to what is outside of our universe but we can never truely leave it for the reality where the computer is. For all we know this entire simulation exists simply to discover the best form of government.
If you were religious, you caould say that we are sim programs that learn and adapt and create our own A.I. personalities. When we die, our program is stored as is and after the simulation ends "God/programmer" picks through and deletes the ones he doesn't like. The ones that had no real use or only caused problems for the simulation, or just became shitty worthless people/A.I.
Maybe those chosen do get put into the next simulation he creates.
>>70671481
fuck, i replied to the wrong post. i meant to excoriate this faggot:
>>70670938
your sophistry is a failure on every level, and making an argument then reversing yourself to claim victory is retardation of Bernie Sanders proportions.
>>70656329
gib proof peder
My theory is that the universe itself is infinite and has and will exist forever. While the odds of a bing bang happening at any one point in space and time tends towards zero, because the universe it is infinite, Bing bangs have occurred and infinite number of times. Because of this, everything that could ever happen has occurred an infinite number of times and is occurring an infinite number of times every second. Some of these other "dimensions" are identical to ours, some differ by the most insignificant of margins, and some are utterly different and incomprehensible to us. One thing is certain however, our universe has the best memes.
>>70651457
It's pretty simple really. Take what there was before the universe and multiply it by what exists now.
>>70671094
Moving the goal posts again. I provided you with a logical argument, you called it a logical fallacy. Now you are saying that it was not the argument I presented which is logically incorrect, but rather the historical basis of Christianity itself, which means that you are saying the reasoning I presented to you is not in question and is therefore sound. So why call it horseshit if you can find no fault with the reasoning?
>>70671930
>It's pretty simple really.
There's nothing remotely simple about that...
>>70671930
So... (matter of the universe)^2 ?
>>70671653
Descartes rides again
"what if everything we see is just a daydream in the mind of something bigger than us?"
ohh snap!!
i never even considered that shit!!
wow, youre a genius!
you independently developed the same awesome sophistry that Plato wrote down 4000 years ago, which was then the subject of a shitty fanfic by descatres, and is independently discovered by every stoner to ever smoke too much weed
Duuuude... why do they call them fingers when i never seen 'em "Fing"?
you are a genius.
you must be in the 3rd ot 4th week of your intro to philosophy class at divinity school!
such rigorous thought the world has never seen!
i bet all the bitches are trying to get their hands on your cock.
>>70671939
I can find fault in the reasoning, leaving out Christianity and the Jeebus bullshit, you're leaft with our definition of God, and it's unfalsifiable (that's a fault) and, there's absolutely no evidence to support it at all, whatsoever, anywhere.
>>70671653
>universe is made specially for humans
The universe is incomprehensibly massive. There's shit happening on the other side of the universe that we will never see or measure in any way.
They say there are more stars than grains of sand on the planet. Do you really image some supersmart programmers would bother designing innumerable grains of sand just so that they could observe a molekule worth of mass worht of humans on one of those grains?
>>70671823
You don't even know what the fuck you're smoking at this point, I said: test if there is a god, not that there is no universe.
The fuck are you snorting? Pee?
>>70672477
>D-don't believe, share m-my curse p-pls
No, I will believe, and I will believe the right way, and I will have sex in heaven while you rot.
>>70672250
tfw athists can't into logic or humour
>>70672443
Your mistake. The ability to falsify a hypothesis is a requirement of the scientific method, and while that does pretain to the argument in question, it doesn't make the argument in and of itself a logical fallacy.
>>70672477
>Do you really image some supersmart programmers would bother designing innumerable grains of sand just so that they could observe a molekule worth of mass worht of humans on one of those grains?
And just why couldn't they if they wanted to? Why should they do stuff according to how you see things?
>>70673039
Like I already said, it was 2 parts, the definition of your God is unfalsifiable, the story surrounding it (Christianity/Catholicism) is a logical fallacy.
>>70672369
>mfw
>>70672477
Well of course the programmer would have other worlds in the sim too, thats the point of a huge universe. I'm just saying from our perspective.
Of course, there's still the question of, who created the programmer(s)/computer.
>>70673205
>I get to define what the story is or how the definition is
Kek
>>70673328
No, not at all, I'm going from the Bible, the Bible is jam packed full of logical fallacies.
>>70673205
Every human is equipped with the ability to test if there is a God or not.
You pray.
So you go like: I believe -because you can only prove things you believe on- you are there God. Please, accept me as a son. Send somebody to instruct me on your ways, I will thoroughly test this person and see if he is able to do miracles proper of a God. I contest that there is no requirement of my part, since I am not aware of any of your laws and requirements and thus am liable for nothing.
>>70651457
>X is unlikely
>it's more likely that Y then X.
somehow adding a conditional made it more likely?
>>70673471
Well I prayed an hour ago for you to stop commenting and you still are, so I guess it confirms there is no God.
>>70673578
>Well I prayed
Meaning? Why should you be listened to? Can you prove that you have humanity's best interest at heart?
>>70673467
>the Bible is jam packed full of logical fallacies.
The bible isn't an argumentative text. It is more of a historical and philosophical text.
>>70673578
He actually thinks we are going to fall for the "every person is equally human" meme.
>>70673726
So if my prayer is answered, God wanted it to happen, if it's not answered then God didn't want it to happen - By that logic, prayer has a 100% success rate, dirty underhanded tactics.
>>70673828
Depends who you're talking to, a lot of people still take Genesis literally.
>>70673911
You're selectively answering whatever pleases you wether it has or not anything to do with the conversation.
God owes you nothing, so your prayer has no effect.
Do the prayer I said if you are even human, WHICH I DENY.
And then God will show you the way.
And If you aren't? Well, you are one of mankinds enemies, so hurry up and die, you're wasting my resources from my planet from my universe that God gave my species, and not yours.
>>70674176
Troll somebody else
>>70673467
The bible is packed full of historical accounts of supernatural occurrences, which by their very definition go against the laws of physics and nature. Therefore there is nothing illogical in the accounts themselves, as they are stated to be supernatural in nature. You may doubt that it is a true and honest account, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy, just a lie or a tall tale. If you belief that the bible is a myth or a lie that's fine, but it is simply a belief and an unfalsifiable one. Therefore you are going against the scientific method and commited the same sin you accuse everyone else of committing.
>>70674349
>hurrr it's a troll
No, it isn't.
>God makes world
>God makes humans
>God makes humans VERY happy and buttsex able among many many things
>Satan gets buttmad and jelly
>And sends idiots like this one to twarth scriptures and create false religions and shit like that
And when he's comfronted about it?
>you's trolling!
Die already you pile of shit, you're wasting my oxygen, it was made for my kind, not for yours.
>>70674618
God is tired and rests, Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6, God is never tired and never rests, Is 40:28
>>70674679
Go back to /b/
>>70675075
You don't get to order me arround, spirit nigger.
>>70672793
> you replied to me with your "test to see if god exists" sophistry.
now youre squirming like a faggot impaled on a fire hydrant
if you cant bring the bantz, dont tug on my ball sac
also your "test" presupposes a god who acquiesces to DEMANDS from whiney little mexicans like yourself.
if i were an all powerful deity and some beaner started demanding i prove myself to him, i would laugh my ass off and then rain blessings down upon everyone around that little quim, and then take a huge metaphorical shit on his existence.
i would be all:
Pow! Miracle! your brother in law (who you hate) just won $500k in the lottery!
Bam! Miracle!! your ex girlfriend who you dumped over some petty bullshit just inherited a diamond mine !
Zonk! Miracle! the kid you bullied in school discovers the "panacea" which cures any disease in anyone, except a tiny statistically irrelevant number of persons who cant take the magic elixir. and youre that guy
Kersplat! Miracle! the world economy just turned around, and nearly everyone is doing great, except for a tiny number of jobs that have become redundant, so 2 or 3 people in the whole planet have to get laid off. and youre one of them.
Bampf! Miracle! the gun you put in your mouth, to end your suffering... misfire! you have to keep on living with your IBS, herpes, full blown aids, micro-penis, weeping boils and poverty, in my infinite mercy.
>>70674176
Nice sophistry. Great to know this kind of methodology is alive and well today. If it works, it's true. If it doesn't it's still true but you're doing it wrong.
Shove it up your ass, you holier than thou cocksucker.
>>70675784
>if i were
But you aren't so you don't get to be opinionated on the matter, you get to do what others order you to do, which is the only thing you're good for and we cool, k?
Because I have already done this and it is k.
>>70675940
You keep answering the same bullshit as if it made any sense, we never told you to experiment requesting things I said TO HUMANS, NOT TO YOU VERMIN SUBHUMAN, to ask God to send them somebody to be able to teach them his doctrine and perform his miracles.
And what you're answering is some nonsense because you're have a butt itch because you want my dick inside or something, and you can beg baby, but my penis is not for your ilk.
>>70676757
The only thing you can smell is your foul stench, shit head.
Look, kiddo, I understand that you want to fool mankind, k? But I don't like that, so fuck you.
>>70651457
100%
11 dimensional paradigm includes all possibilities
>>70675012
There is a difference between what you percieve as inconsistencies in the bible, which may or may not be there, and the entire premise of the existence of God being either false or logically inconsistent, which was your argument to begin with.
Ex 31:17 is saying that men should do as God did and work for six days and rest on the seventh, so that as to be replenished. In Genesis it says God rested on the 7th day, not that he was tired. But since Exodus is referring to men and God, they mention that on the day of rest, you will be replenished, which relates to man but not to God. It is like a story for children to learn and understand the meaning of the teaching. It is poetic language used to make them understand the larger point that it is they that should rest and be replenished.
>>70651457
>instance that can literally only ever happen or not happen once
>it happened that one time
DAE THINK THE PROBABILITY IS NOT 100%?? IT JUST DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT
>>70677066
>God being either false or logically inconsistent, which was your argument to begin with.
No, I'll repeat it for the third time now. God by your definition is unfalsifiable. I said the bible (one of the main reasons Christians/Catholics believe in God) is inconsistent and full of fallacies.
And seeing how you're pleading poetic, metaphorical on that last one, here's another.
God is all powerful, Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26, God is not all powerful, Judg 1:19
>>70677481
Why can a universe being formed "literally" only happen/not happen once? There could have been infinite chains of universes being formed and destroyed, making the odds massively in favour of it happening.
That's why I don't think the calculation could ever be done, because we simply have nothing to work the odds on.
>>70676927
> U R serbint ob Satan!!
http://timecube.rubbermallet.org/
cant make an argument, time to start screaming like a bitch.
>>70677892
That's why I suggested that it's actually not even realistic to approach matters of faith through mathematics earlier. There are way too many known unknowns and potential unknowable unknowns to properly create a formulae for it.
>>70651457
Why the fuck is this /pol/-related?
>>70678361
The political is largely religious and vice versa, faith is a powerful ideological driving force for billions of people on this planet.
>>70652272
>doesnt know the hospital rule
Kids and neets ITT
>>70676429
Different guy you deluded fucking idiot. You're so busy praying for a few brain cells to rub together so you can continue the coversation that you forgot to use your cow eyes to check who's responding to you.
>>70651897
Or exactly 1:1 since it exists.
>>70668863
>It's bullshit.
Translation: I don't understand the argument so it must be wrong.
>>70677645
>God is all powerful, Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26, God is not all powerful, Judg 1:19
>The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
Jesus, did you ever learn pronoun - noun agreement? "he" refers to Jeremiah, not God.
>>70651457
Guys, I accidentally the universe...
>>70678944
Correction: "they" refers to "men of Judah."
>>70678734
It's not an argument, it was a faith based assumption with zero evidence, why should I entertain it?
>>70677892
because there were heaps of random sequences that happened to form our universe
if you consider all those then there's an extremely extremely small chance of our world, e.g. our solar system, ever happening ever again
hard to explain with my hungover uead mate
>>70678967
The big bang was an inflation, not an explosion.
>>70678641
Always so quick to jump to ad hominem attack with the religious, is this about the infuriating nature of atheism being patently unable to directly refute religion other than on a basis of emotionally based thinking. I myself do not particularly owe allegiance to any particular faith, but is it not odd how you attack people simply for having a different belief system than your own while simultaneously claiming that you are superior to them simply for believing, as they do, in a hypothetical universal origin that has only circumstantial evidence and cannot be proven while simultaneously being completely unable to either disprove or successfully corroborate either of your ideas? Atheism and religious belief both share a common problem, for all that you say that you know about the other person's views, neither of your capable of reliably or empirically demonstrating that you are right, so both of you are invested in matters of faith by the simple nature of the unprovability of the ideas you subscribe to.
Whats the chance of it happening? Well it was going to happen someday since it had forever to try and happen. But the chance of it happening is uncertain
>>70651457
It's possible to calculate the odds of things like an earth-like planet happening, but not the entire universe. We don't even know how or why it exists do there's no data to compare.
>>70679306
Take a joke Einstein.
>>70651457
If you can accept the probability that a mystical being was created/existed and then created the universe, then justifying the probability that the big bang occured is easy
>>70679307
Why are you acting like Atheism and quantum physics are synonymous?
>>70679191
>it was a faith based assumption with zero evidence
Define evidence.
Also, the argument is fundamentally logically sound and based on empirical premises (i.e.-everything that with potential must have actualizing agents to make it actual).
>>70679733
No, I just generally don't find people who tend to lambast people with accusations of praying who are not fedora tipping beta male orbiters and it amuses me to rile them up.
>>70679825
>Define evidence.
Observable, testable, demonstrable... I mean we have red shift and cosmic microwave background, we can see that the universe is expanding outwards...
I wouldn't call stories that don't even add up, written by people who got the stories from other people who wrote stories that didn't add up *evidence*
>>70651457
Yes, its 100%.
Probability is poorly understood by most laymen, once an option has collapsed into a discrete state its absolute
>>70651457
It's basically two infinities cancelling each other
