Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic 57 Replies latest jw friends

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    Sea Breeze: Why would you routinely make present life choices based on probability; yet make choices about your eternal welfare based on another standard?

    It's true that there are many facets of our lives where we make decisions despite a lack of certainty, in part because human communities are complicated things and because our brains aren't great at making rational and carefully thought out decisions. But for something as important as the existence of a god who is interested in me and my eternal future, I would want to be as certain as possible that I was right. The question is potentially the most important one to answer, and thus it makes sense to apply a more rigid standard to my approach.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    How does the chipmonk know that what is coming in through his senses, and presumably creating a model of the outside world for him to observe, is really coming in from the outside and not just made up in his head?

    Where are the Langoliers when we need them?

  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast

    Here is a thought. I think that the Goldilocks analogy misses one point. To study the amazing set of circumstances allowing life on earth to appear and evolve is really interesting.

    The real deal though is that we happen to exist in a corner of the universe amongst trillions of galaxies where those circumstances exist. There may be more or we may be alone in the universe. It's the fact that we happen to be in those improbable circumstances that gave life a chance.

    We are like an earthworm saying, isn't it incredible that this pile of horse s***t was just there so I may bury my self into it and meet another worm and procreate. If that horse had not shat at that exact moment...

    I'm not sure if that analogy works but it's the reverse logic that I question.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Sea Breeze:

    Your above statement is rooted in the "present"

    Of course. Didn’t you read the thread title: “Probability of Earth and life being how it is”.

    It is difficult (and fascinating) to imagine how an otherwise intelligent human can believe a demonstratable lie like the one you stated.

    It’s your lie that has been demonstrated.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    I also see that Sea Breeze trotted out the 12 ‘facts’ about the ‘resurrection’ again after I preemptively refuted with a previous link to another thread 🤦‍♂️ . So here is the content from the previous thread (note that Sea Breeze has altered the wording but not the import in the list in this thread):

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

    Probably. It is possible that an eclipse at or around the time of his death may have enhanced superstitions that Jesus was in some way divine.

    2. He was buried.

    According to the narrative, he was placed in a tomb, not buried. What actually happened to his body is unknown.

    3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

    Amazing. Sad event made people sad.🙄 This is just padding to get the special number 12.

    4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

    No actual evidence for this apart from contradictory stories from decades later.

    5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

    That people ‘believed’ something isn’t ‘proof’ of anything, and the details of what they believed happened are only available in embellished stories written decades later. Even in the stories, the disciples don’t initially recognise the person as Jesus. 🙄

    6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

    Wow. Superstitious people became convinced of something. Many things were taken as portents at the time so an eclipse, earthquake, or even a shadow could have made them think Jesus was back.

    7. The resurrection was the central message.

    Arguably, but the purported value of the ransom was really the more important aspect. The claim that Jesus was resurrected actually diminishes the value of the ‘sacrifice’, since he supposedly got a massive reward for a comparatively bad weekend.

    8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

    Sect based on superstition spread in a time when superstition was even more rife than it is now. Nothing remarkable about this.

    9. The Church was born and grew.

    Sect based on superstition developed further. Still nothing remarkable about this.

    10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

    Entirely wrong. Sunday became the primary day of Christian worship many years later due to ‘pagan’ influence when Christianity had spread beyond a Jewish religion and the majority of Christians were gentiles.

    11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

    This is a tradition only.

    12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic and opposer).

    Paul’s version of his conversion contradicts the version in Acts, particularly the details about where he went immediately after, indicating that at least one version is unreliable. JWs (and other groups) today tell stories of formerly ‘violent opposers’ who converted, so Paul’s actual conversion to Christianity isn’t remarkable. Paul reports having visions on more than one occasion, at times not even knowing whether he was ‘in the spirit’, (and also alludes to ‘a thorn in the flesh’) which could suggest an underlying psychiatric or other condition (e.g., epilepsy, ergotism, syphillis etc) that could exacerbate superstitious beliefs.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    ballistic:

    How does the chipmonk know that what is coming in through his senses, and presumably creating a model of the outside world for him to observe, is really coming in from the outside and not just made up in his head?

    Chipmunks that don’t behave that way wouldn’t be chipmunks for long.

  • TD
    TD

    Probability (The branch of mathematics) has nothing to do with past events. Once an event has happened, the outcome is certain.

    Even from a purely semantic standpoint, I think the question is unwittingly changed by knowledge of the past event. For example, if 1000 people enter a raffle, the odds of any randomly selected particular one of them winning (all other things being equal) are 1000 to 1.

    However, once the raffle is over and person A has won, some might assert that the 1000 to 1 chance has indeed occurred, at least for person A, but the original question has now subtly been changed..

    The original question: “What are the odds of any randomly selected particular person winning” has now morphed into “What are the odds of person A (the actual winner) winning”

    The odds of the actual winner winning are, or course, 1. Once an event has happened, the outcome is certain.


  • Simon
    Simon

    Every puddle is a marvel - the whole it's in exactly matches the shape of the water!

    No life could ever exist in an environment that didn't suit it, so the environment will always appear to be an amazingly low probability.

    Same as when we are born - the chances of us being "us" exactly is extremely low, and yet billions of people walk the earth.

    It's a trick of math more than anything else.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit