Evidence of a Creator

Originally posted by dj2becker
Is there any good reason to believe that anything can exist without being created?

The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to the power 17.

OK dj, you want to discuss probabilities? Let's take even one prophecy and consider it ex ante, that is before we know what happens after the prophecy has been uttered.

In order to place a probability on the outcome that the prophecy is true, we first need to know the sample space, that is what are the possible outcomes.

For example, if we flipped a coin once and excluded the event that the coin land on its edge, then the sample space would be {H,T}. This describes the entire set of possible outcomes.

So what is the analog in your case? Is it simply, {True, False}? Or must we consider a more sophisticated sample space that takes into account all the possible occurences from the moment the prophecy is uttered forward?

Next we must designate a field. This is a collection of sets, F, such that F has the following two properties: 1) (A U B) is contained in F whenever A is contained in F and B is contained in F, and 2) A compliment is contained in F when A is contained in F. Basically, it must be closed under unions and complimentation

This is rather important because in order to construct this field you will have detail exactly what outcomes make the prophecy true and which ones make it false. That is when is the prophecy a success and when is it a failure? The major problem with prophecies is that this is not clearly defined. How do you know what the prophecy meant? If it does not place a definite time limit on its fulfillment, when do you know that the prophecy has failed?

Moreover we need more than just any old field, we need a sigma-field (aka sigma-algebra). That is, it must be closed under countable unions and under complementation. That complicates matters for you a bit, I think.

Finally we must you must establish a probability measure which posseses these three properties:
1) the P-measure of the sample space = 1
2) the P-measure is nonnegative for any event in the sample space
3) the P-measures of mutually independent must be countably additive

The first two are easy enough I suppose. But the third will again require that you carefull specify successes and failures.

There are more wonderful properties of P-measures, but I won't get into them.

Suffice to say that your source either has absolutely no idea what it is talking about or does know a bit about probability theory and deliberately made up a bunch of dubious numbers to get their calculation. Oh wait, I see from the site that it was Josh McDowell that calculated this. It must be the former case then.

Ok, so what was the point?

1) There is no way to get a realistic probability of the event that any eight prophecies from the Bible occur unless you make some very, very strong assumptions about the world.

2) Josh McDowell is a clown who should read some probability theory or better yet measure theory before opening his mouth on this subject.

3) You should be more discerning about the sources you quote.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to the power 17.

OK dj, you want to discuss probabilities? Let's take even one prophecy and consider it [i]ex ant ...[text shortened]... mouth on this subject.

3) You should be more discerning about the sources you quote.


[/b]

Originally posted by telerion
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to ...[text shortened]... should be more discerning about the sources you quote.


[/i]

Originally posted by royalchicken
Nicely done.

After reading enough of thr psuedo-science that is purported to "prove the existence of god" , I wonder if the proponents of prophecy realize that if god is not inside the 6-manifold 4 space and to be still metrizable to it: God would have to be contained in a 10-manifold 5 space? Maybe, the psuedo-scientist can try to work out thr properties of the new gauge fields they are predicting?

edits--wish my spelling was nearly as good as my math

Originally posted by frogstomp
nope the space was there independent of matter. therefore the hole wasnt created , only the bounderies, and actually they were already there. the most you can say is thr removal of matter exposed the pre existing boundaries.

Wow that's more stuff that wasn't created

Originally posted by bbarr
What a strange question coming from you, given that you think God can exist without being created.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to the power 17.

OK dj, you want to discuss probabilities? Let's take even one prophecy and consider it [i]ex ant ...[text shortened]... mouth on this subject.

3) You should be more discerning about the sources you quote.


[/b]

Originally posted by dj2becker
The definition of "anything" is not "something everlasting". The definition of God is "an everlasting being", which means he has no beginning and no end.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Is there any good reason to believe that anything can exist without being created?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]nope the space was there independent of matter. therefore the hole wasnt created , only the bounderies...

You are saying that the hole was not created but only the bounderies. The boundaries of the hole is the matter that defines the hole. Therefore you are saying that matter was created.

...the most you can say is thr rem ...[text shortened]... ated. So basically "nothing" can exist without being created. In that sense it makes sense. 🙂

Originally posted by frogstomp
nope that's what you are saying,
I'm saying the hole was already there

by your logic : either , god is nothing or doesn't exist , since only nothing csn exist without being created.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not particularly. However there's no good reason to believe that everything that exists must have been created either. There's no evidence either way.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you agree it is a matter of faith? If so then do you believe that it is more likely for "nothing" to produce everything we see today?