Are We Truly In The End Times?

[the Catfishman]

yes

[theseoafs]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

[eric42434224]

Signs point to yes

[bosk1]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

No.  The probability does not change no matter how many times the deck is shuffled.  It is not different than flipping coins in that regard.  The odds of heads is 1 in 2 no matter how many times you flip the coin.  The fact that 3 flips in a row came up tails does not make it more or less likely than 1 in 2 that the next flip will be heads.

The other above posts that suggest factors that might alter the statistical probabilities are in varying degrees valid.  But let's not shift the scope from the fact that what H presented was merely an analogy, and like any analogy, it has its limitations.

[eric42434224]

My sources say no.  The relative frequency of occurrence of an event, observed in a number of repetitions of the experiment, is a measure of the probability of that event.

[theseoafs]

@bosk: I'm not saying it becomes more probable for the deck to be organized in that particular way if you try more times (which is, of course, incorrect); I'm saying that, given an infinite number of attempts, it is an effective certainty that at one point the deck will be organized that way.

[GuineaPig]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

No.  The probability does not change no matter how many times the deck is shuffled.  It is not different than flipping coins in that regard.  The odds of heads is 1 in 2 no matter how many times you flip the coin.  The fact that 3 flips in a row came up tails does not make it more or less likely than 1 in 2 that the next flip will be heads.

The other above posts that suggest factors that might alter the statistical probabilities are in varying degrees valid.  But let's not shift the scope from the fact that what H presented was merely an analogy, and like any analogy, it has its limitations.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards are 1 in 649,350.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards, if you do it 500,000 times, are a much better 53.7%.

[eric42434224]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

No.  The probability does not change no matter how many times the deck is shuffled.  It is not different than flipping coins in that regard.  The odds of heads is 1 in 2 no matter how many times you flip the coin.  The fact that 3 flips in a row came up tails does not make it more or less likely than 1 in 2 that the next flip will be heads.

The other above posts that suggest factors that might alter the statistical probabilities are in varying degrees valid.  But let's not shift the scope from the fact that what H presented was merely an analogy, and like any analogy, it has its limitations.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards are 1 in 649,350.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards, if you do it 500,000 times, are a much better 53.7%.

It is decidedly so.
The amount of times you do the experiment absolutely affects the probability.  This is a fact of statistical probabilities.

EDIT:  Perhaps this misunderstanding of statistical probabilites is where some who insist on "fine-tuning" are coming from.  The statistical probability that the conditions occur to allow for life, when taken on an individual basis, is astronomical.  When we know that chance will occur everwhere there is a star in our universe, the probability increases big time.

[Omega]

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

I've committed no fallacy (if you were to insist that I did, at least name the fallacy, please, rather than just throw the word around "fallacy" like a hot potato).

The problem here is that the fact that our universe is finely-tuned to allow for the formation of life is a readily self-evident truth. In other words, when you deny that our universe is fine-tuned, you are acting irrationally just as you would be acting irrationally if you were to deny that the Earth is round or that the Earth is supportive of life. When one says that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the formation of life just means that the universe is supportive of the formation of life; that the universe allows for life to form. For obvious reasons, you would be irrational to deny that. At face value, the term "fine-tuning" bears no allusion either implicitly or explicitly to any sort of God. When one uses the term "fine-tuning," all one means is that small deviations from the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting, or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting vales is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison to the range of assumable values. This is a completely uncontroversial observation of the universe.

The question isn't if our universe is fine tuned to allow for the formation of life. That is already painfully obvious. The real question is why is our universe finely-tuned to allow for the formation of life? Is the fine tuning do to:

A.) chance?
B.) necessity?
C.) design?

One can then, through inductive and deductive reasoning, eliminate both the possibility of the fine-tuning of our universe being attributed to either chance or necessity (which I haven't done yet, so make sure to read this before you type something along the lines of "wow lol Omega you like havent even succeeded in doing that lol FAIL").

[eric42434224]

 
Omega, you just dont get it.  It is clear that your position is 100% set in stone in your mind, and you have a statistical probability of 0% of listening, and being open to, other peoples opposing opinions.

[Omega]

Oh, and, as for the card example, you guys are sidestepping a serious issue: the problem with that analogy is that there wouldn't be "just" 52 possible possibilities that could be randomly selected and result in a royal flush, etc; there would be an infinite amount of possibilities in a given set that would have to be randomly pulled to result in an analogous "royal flush," if you will.

If that didn't make much sense, the following scenario would be more appropriate:

Picking from of an infinite amount of numbers in a set, you end up with the same number (say, 77) every time you pull a number from the infinite set. To try to attribute that to chance would be a joke at best and downright suspicious at worst.

[eric42434224]

Oh, and, as for the card example, you guys are sidestepping a serious issue: the problem with that analogy is that there wouldn't be "just" 52 possible possibilities that could be randomly selected and result in a royal flush, etc; there would be an infinite amount of possibilities in a given set that would have to be randomly pulled to result in an analogous "royal flush," if you will.

If that didn't make much sense, the following scenario would be more appropriate:

Picking from of an infinite amount of numbers in a set, you end up with the same number (say, 77) every time you pull a number from the infinite set. To try to attribute that to chance would be a joke at best and downright suspicious at worst.

My sources say no.
The amount of possible combinations in a deck of cards is not infinite.

[theseoafs]

He's saying that a more apt example would be drawing numbers from an infinite set, which I actually agree with.

[gmillerdrake]

INSERT P/R DTF'R NAME you just dont get it.  It is clear that your position is 100% set in stone in your mind, and you have a statistical probability of 0% of listening, and being open to, other peoples opposing opinions.

Omega is by far not the only participant in the P/R threads that displays this trait.......Myself, I'm probably on a 98% to 2% ratio...as long as that 2% agrees with me. 

[bosk1]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

No.  The probability does not change no matter how many times the deck is shuffled.  It is not different than flipping coins in that regard.  The odds of heads is 1 in 2 no matter how many times you flip the coin.  The fact that 3 flips in a row came up tails does not make it more or less likely than 1 in 2 that the next flip will be heads.

The other above posts that suggest factors that might alter the statistical probabilities are in varying degrees valid.  But let's not shift the scope from the fact that what H presented was merely an analogy, and like any analogy, it has its limitations.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards are 1 in 649,350.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards, if you do it 500,000 times, are a much better 53.7%.

Incorrect.  Unless you change the hypothetical such that the outcomes of individual hands are no longer independent events (such as creating a discard pile, for example), the odds do not change from one hand to the next, no matter how many times you deal.  That's basic probability and statistics.  To argue otherwise is mathetmatically incorrect.

[theseoafs]

bosk, you're misunderstanding the concept at hand.

On a smaller scale:
The probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%.
The probability of getting heads sometime over the course of two coin flips is 75% (even though the probabilities of the two coin flips themselves were 50%).

This is the phenomenon we're talking about.

[eric42434224]

He's saying that a more apt example would be drawing numbers from an infinite set, which I actually agree with.

But in his example, the desired set to be drawn is finite as one.  The set and order of "things" needed to allow for life are not a finite one.

[eric42434224]

bosk, you're misunderstanding the concept at hand.

On a smaller scale:
The probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%.
The probability of getting heads sometime over the course of two coin flips is 75% (even though the probabilities of the two coin flips themselves were 50%).

This is the phenomenon we're talking about.

Bosk, this ^ is basic statistical probability.  I think you are referring to Classical interpretation, but we are talking about the Frequentist view....which is the accepted view of statistical probability.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_probability

[eric42434224]

INSERT P/R DTF'R NAME you just dont get it.  It is clear that your position is 100% set in stone in your mind, and you have a statistical probability of 0% of listening, and being open to, other peoples opposing opinions.

Omega is by far not the only participant in the P/R threads that displays this trait.......Myself, I'm probably on a 98% to 2% ratio...as long as that 2% agrees with me. 

Most do not continue with the exact same responses, in the very same threads, even when confronted with the behavoir by several members....repeatedly.  When the overwhelming majority here present something as FACT, we can back it up.  I dont say that Bosk is wrong on his statistical probability view because of my own reasoning, or that it is self-evident.  I show him proof.  If I dont have proof, and it is merely an educated opinion, I dont say it is a fact.  I dont see others doing that here.

[j]

Let's say you have an infinite amount of time to shuffle cards. Each time you shuffle the cards, you hand them to somebody. If that is the case, then it is an effective certainty that you will eventually hand somebody a deck organized ace-to-king, ordered by suit. The fallacy would be for that person to assume that the cards were organized that way specifically for him, wouldn't it?

No.  The probability does not change no matter how many times the deck is shuffled.  It is not different than flipping coins in that regard.  The odds of heads is 1 in 2 no matter how many times you flip the coin.  The fact that 3 flips in a row came up tails does not make it more or less likely than 1 in 2 that the next flip will be heads.

The other above posts that suggest factors that might alter the statistical probabilities are in varying degrees valid.  But let's not shift the scope from the fact that what H presented was merely an analogy, and like any analogy, it has its limitations.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards are 1 in 649,350.

The odds of getting a royal flush from 5 randomly drawn cards, if you do it 500,000 times, are a much better 53.7%.

Incorrect.  Unless you change the hypothetical such that the outcomes of individual hands are no longer independent events (such as creating a discard pile, for example), the odds do not change from one hand to the next, no matter how many times you deal.  That's basic probability and statistics.  To argue otherwise is mathetmatically incorrect.

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

-J

[gmillerdrake]

INSERT P/R DTF'R NAME you just dont get it.  It is clear that your position is 100% set in stone in your mind, and you have a statistical probability of 0% of listening, and being open to, other peoples opposing opinions.

Omega is by far not the only participant in the P/R threads that displays this trait.......Myself, I'm probably on a 98% to 2% ratio...as long as that 2% agrees with me. 

Most do not continue with the exact same responses, in the very same threads, even when confronted with the behavoir by several members....repeatedly.  When the overwhelming majority here present something as FACT, we can back it up.  I dont say that Bosk is wrong on his statistical probability view because of my own reasoning, or that it is self-evident.  I show him proof.

I get it. I guess I was trying to say that it is hard to move anyone off their position in the P/R forum....or anywhere for that matter. I'll use myself as an example. I believe in God and Christ....I don't let that stand in the way of certain scientific 'facts' but at the same time no amount of 'scientific' speculation or evidence can or will sway my faith. Just as I assume that the agnostic or athiest forumers aren't going to let any amount of scripture or personal testimony sway their beliefs.
  I'd say that there is pretty good banter and discussion all in all in these P/R threads between the 'two' sides....but I'll admit that there are times and certain individuals that seem to intentionally go out of their way to try and make us spiritually minded forumers feel inferior or 'stuiped' for our beliefs......there's a chance the dialouge is misunderstood due to the impersonal nature of typed text and the inability to gauge ones true intent and the way they're presenting their statment...but it sure doesn't feel like it at the time.

[bosk1]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

[eric42434224]

I dont think many people will move off their position in this forum either, but that is not what I think most here expect.  What we/I have a problem with is that we/I will listen, evaluate, debate a persons opinion....and though we/I may not agree with it, in most cases will concede that their position is a valid and/or possible opinion...but is that reciprocated?   Some here do not seem to have that capability.  It appears that some, when their opinion is formed, cant seem to understand how it is not accepted as fact by everyone.  And another thing, a persons reasoning should be enough, on its own, to present something as fact, or "self-evident.  In P/R, you should support your position with something other than your own position.

[theseoafs]

Bosk, I guarantee you that we are 100% correct about this. Look back at my post if you're still confused.

bosk, you're misunderstanding the concept at hand.

On a smaller scale:
The probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%.
The probability of getting heads sometime over the course of two coin flips is 75% (even though the probabilities of the two coin flips themselves were 50%).

This is the phenomenon we're talking about.

In other words, for n trials, the greater the probability will be of getting heads at some point over the course of n flips, but the probability of getting heads during one specific trial will always be 50%. As n approaches infinity, the probability of getting heads sometime will eventually become effectively 1. This is a statistical fact.

[eric42434224]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

No, Bosk, you are factually incorrect.  There is no wiggle room on this one.  It is proven math.  You need to stop looking at each attempt individually in the larger set of attempt.  The probability, when you know the amount of times the attempt occurs, goes UP....when you look at the entire amount of attempts.  You are correct that each attempt will follow its individual probability....but when you know you will be doing it multiple times, the result will be different.
My Brother had the same arguement with me once.  Individual attempt yes the probability will be the same.....but the probability of the set of larger attempt is changed by the amount of attempts.


EDIT:  I will try to put this in laymans terms like the example above.  You think the chances of flipping a coin once are 50/50 to get heads once, right?  That is correct.
Now, I tell you that you get to flip that coin 1 million times.  Do you think that the chances you will get heads once is 50/50?
No it is essentially a statistical guarantee you will see heads once.

[GuineaPig]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

OK, quick explanation.  The odds of it happening in one instance are 1 in 649,350.  Alternatively, the odds of it not happening are 649,349 out of 649,350.

So, the odds of it not happening ever over 500,000 attempts (assuming same conditions each time) is (649,349/649,350)^500,000 = 0.463.

Therefore, the odds of it happening in those 500,000 attempts is roughly 53.7%.

It's the same principle behind the seemingly counter-intuitive birthday problem: that with 23 people in a room (assuming equal spread of births), the odds are about 50% two share the same birthday, despite individually the odds only being 1/365.

[gmillerdrake]

And another thing, a persons reasoning should be enough, on its own, to present something as fact, or "self-evident.  In P/R, you should support your position with something other than your own position.

I think that's where the frustration may lie (with me at least) is that it's essentially impossible to supply evidence in support of my beliefs due to the fact that a LARGE portion of my beliefs are based in Faith....I can't give you a sample of 'faith' or a picture of it. And the examples I could provide (present day miraculous healing, personal testimony, etc) are dismissed rather quickly in these threads.  On the other hand, there is an overabundance of scientific study out there on any range of things that one can source to support a point. Whether it's true or accurate is a whole other issue, the fact remains its tangible. There lies the seperation between the two 'sides' and ways of thinking I'd guess.....I can get by on faith and belief as you I assume like to have the proof ready and available for study.

[kári]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

Bosk (and others) I think you are confused. The probability of heads in a coin toss is 50%. This is true, and you are correct in saying that it does not change however many times you do the experiment. So when we do one coin toss, the probability of getting heads once is 50%. However, if we do 10 coin tosses, the probability of getting heads at least once is higher than 50%.
You can calculate it like this: the probability of never getting heads in 10 coin tosses is equal to 100% - P(always getting tails) .. right?
(P is for probability)
P(always getting tails) = 50% * 50% * ... 50% (10 times) = (50%)^10 = about 1%. So the chance of getting heads, at least once, in 10 coin tosses is 100% - 1% = 99%. HOWEVER the probability of getting heads the 11th time after the 10 coin tosses is still 50%. As said, that does not change.

[eric42434224]

And another thing, a persons reasoning should be enough, on its own, to present something as fact, or "self-evident.  In P/R, you should support your position with something other than your own position.

I think that's where the frustration may lie (with me at least) is that it's essentially impossible to supply evidence in support of my beliefs due to the fact that a LARGE portion of my beliefs are based in Faith....I can't give you a sample of 'faith' or a picture of it. And the examples I could provide (present day miraculous healing, personal testimony, etc) are dismissed rather quickly in these threads.  On the other hand, there is an overabundance of scientific study out there on any range of things that one can source to support a point. Whether it's true or accurate is a whole other issue, the fact remains its tangible. There lies the seperation between the two 'sides' and ways of thinking I'd guess.....I can get by on faith and belief as you I assume like to have the proof ready and available for study.

Actually, Im not even talking about faith.  Im talking about things like the one and only correct definition of marriage.
It was stated as fact, even when presented with clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.  It was an opinion, but the ensuing mess of insisting it being fact almost brought a ban-hammer.

EDIT:  Lets just table this for another discussion.  Sorry about the hijack.

[eric42434224]

I will try to put this in laymans terms like the example above.  You think the chances of flipping a coin once are 50/50 to get heads once, right?  That is correct.
Now, I tell you that you get to flip that coin 1 million times.  Do you think that the chances you will get heads once, in a million tries, is 50/50?
No it is essentially a statistical guarantee you will see heads at least once.  Increase attempts, increase probability.


EDIT:  This is also some of the reasoning used in peoples opinion that there must be more life out there in the universe.
The sheer number of coin flips (# of suns/planets in universe) increases the probability, even for a result that may have different factors, and is very complicated to produce. 
The disagreement that may be occuring is when the probability of all the factors aligning for the possibility of life occuring is so low on a one-off attempt....(but it happened here!)...but you are only focusing on one attempt, and that will lead to the fine tuning opinion (not saying it is wrong), as your probability on one attempt for something so rare is astronomical.  But by adding the Septillions of attempts in the universe, as explained above, the probability increases to much more.

[BlobVanDam]

 
The disagreement that may be occuring is when the probability of all the factors aligning for the possibility of life occuring is so low on a one-off attempt....but it happened here!...but you are only focusing on one attempt, that will lead to the fine tuning opinion (not saying it is wrong), as your probability on one attempt for something so rare is astronomical.  But by adding the Septillions of attempts in the universe, as explained above, the probability increases to much more.

Considering the size of the universe, and the total lifespan of the universe (both prior to now, and yet to come), I'd say it's perfectly likely to happen somewhere at some time in some form by chance alone, so I agree. To think it proves "fine-tuning" shows a lack of scope imo.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

If you take the deterministic approach to the universe that I do, you actually have a 100% chance of getting a certain coin flip at a certain time. Everything that's occurred and ever will occur in the universe had a 100% chance of happening. Probability is only compensation for the fact that we don't have models advanced enough to predict everything to a tee.

[Ħ]

Let's slow down for a second. Bosk is correct that the probability of a coin flip/random shuffle landing on a "success" value doesn't change with the number of attempts. However, it is also true that the probability of at least one success in a series of n attempts increases as n increases. If success is possible, and n is infinite, then probability of success rises to 100%.

Here's what we can conclude:

1) Given a single attempt (the atheist single universe hypothesis), the probability that the universe would be life-permitting is astronomically small.

2) Given an infinite number of attempts (the atheist multiple universe hypothesis), the probability that the universe would be life-permitting is 1.

I assume that (and I think it's a reasonable assumption) that a theist single universe has a higher probability of permitting life than an an atheist single universe's probability of permitting life. In other words, fine-tuning counts as evidence for theism over single-universe atheism. I concede that fine-tuning also counts as evidence for multiple-universe atheism over single-universe atheism.

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

[eric42434224]

Let's slow down for a second. Bosk is correct that the probability of a coin flip/random shuffle landing on a "success" value doesn't change with the number of attempts. However, it is also true that the probability of at least one success in a series of n attempts increases as n increases. If success is possible, and n is infinite, then probability of success rises to 100%.

Here's what we can conclude:

1) Given a single attempt (the atheist single universe hypothesis), the probability that the universe would be life-permitting is astronomically small.

2) Given an infinite number of attempts (the atheist multiple universe hypothesis), the probability that the universe would be life-permitting is 1.

I assume that (and I think it's a reasonable assumption) that a theist single universe has a higher probability of permitting life than an an atheist single universe's probability of permitting life. In other words, fine-tuning counts as evidence for theism over single-universe atheism. I concede that fine-tuning also counts as evidence for multiple-universe atheism over single-universe atheism.

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

No, you are counting the universe as one attempt.  The universe contains Septillions of chances for the scenario to permit life.

[Ħ]

Dude, I don't know how you are disagreeing with me. I'm saying that if this universe was all there is, if this universe was a single attempt, then it would be vastly improbable that it would be life-permitting. I hate to talk down to you, but you are clearly not getting it. I am making a conditional statement. I am not actually claiming that the universe has only had one attempt.