/sci/ - Science & Math

>Abiogenesis
>Pseudoscience

... and I ain;t even mad...

fucking disgusted

>>1260080

actually I am.

All of his evidence against evolution is bullshit, frim the first sentence. The more we learn about DNA, the more we KNOW that we originated from a common ancestor of apes.

Eh, what can you do though? Evolution has been observed in populations of bacteria in labs, so whatever.

>>1260068

haha read the last full paragraph.

I can't believe there are retards that actually believe that shit.

>something that either is the case or is not is 50-50
lol :D

50-50 chance i am god
50-50 chance you will die today
50-50 chance you will die next week
50-50 chance you will die every second of next week
(those last 2 already show a logical fallacy, one cannot have a 50-50 chance and a 50-(((...-50)-50)-50) chance of dying at the same time)

everyone is either jesus or is not. so for the maker of the movie: 50-50 chance per person

with a world population of 6.8 billion people, we currently have 3.4 billion jesuses walking amongst us

god bless us

>the big bang is evolution
hahaha no

>the bible is 50-50 true
HAHAHA NO
the chance of the bible being true when it contradicts itself a million times is so close to zero you can come without it actually being zero

I wrote the guy a PM on youtube, and was wondering if /sci/ approves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq_9M60L_0
This is just Pascal's Wager, is it not?
I will not get into your wrongful claim that the chance of bible being true is 50%, as that will only serve to take up unnecessary amounts of time.

However, what I WILL do, is make you aware that pascals wager assumes that there exists only one religion.
It does not take into account the billions of other religions that exist, such as Islam (just to pull one out randomly).
Neither does it take into account that simply not believing in some of these, Islam is one of these, is considered less bad than believing in something else, such as Christianity.
You also have the deal about this life possibly being only a test, as to whether you can see that there is no God or not.
You see, there are ENDLESS religions, many not even thought of yet.
What if God hates YOU more than me, because you believe in a false religion, whereas I have yet to see one that I recognize as true?

You see, you are gambling, just like I would with the gun, except in reverse.
Every single one of the chambers, except maybe 3, contain a bullet, and there are an infinite amount of chambers.
Are you willing to bet that Christianity is one of those 3 chambers, given the odds?
Furthermore, are you willing to bet that YOUR variant of Christianity is one of them?


This is the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, and I would be most thrilled to hear your response.

P.S: Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
That's the Big Bang.
Does /sci/ approve?

>>1260274

haha yes

>>1260293
Splendid, I will now send the message.
If I get any response, I will see if this thread is still alive, and post it here.

>>1260297
Oh, it seems there's a friend lock D:
I'll have to wait for his approval.

>two discrete variables
>the probability for each must therefore be 50-50

Makes perfect sense!

You can either be gay or be straight.
THE CHANCES ARE THEREFORE 50-50 HURR I'M A CREATIONIST FAGGOT URRRRRR.

>>1260481
I rage quit as soon as he said that.

>>1260274
>>1260274
User ppsimmons has enabled friend lock. You will not be able to send messages to them unless they add you as a friend.

>>1260627
I have added him as a friend, and am waiting for him to accept it.
(not that he will, being a creationist retard)

I stopped watching at
>the chances are 50-50

what is this i dont even

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

Message-writer here.
He accepted my friend request, and I have now sent him the message.

I shall post again once I have a reply.

>>1260781
thanks, hopefully they will give a reply

>>1260781
Most likely he will just ignore it.

>>1260787
Hopefully.
>>1260793
True

>>1260797
I'm not so sure, he really wants to convert people

>>1260809
Perhaps, but he might realize my intellect is above that of a pre-schooler, and give up

I made it quite far, 4 minutes in. Then:

>What are the chances of you dying today?
>Either you will or you will not
>50-50

RAAAAGEEE!

>>1260861
You are brave.
I rage quit after a few seconds.
>implying there is a 50-50 chance of god existing

>comments, ratings disabled.

Makes me mad. They don't understand or appreciate free speech.

>>1260875
all creationist videos do this

>>1260896
I think they actually realize they're lying out of their ass, and don't want to be corrected.

His stuff reads like a tabloid. Secret names REVEALED! Sincere people don't talk like that. He wants attention, and nothing else, just like everyone else on U-tube.

>>1260905
Very deep down all Christians realize that god is really imaginary.

either that, or they know the alternative is a shitstorm of epic proportions.

>>1260912
They usually don't get shitstormed.
The few that allow comments, I mean.
People address the actual mistakes in the video, for the most part.

"Let's never mind the facts"

Line that sums up their entire argument.

>What is the chance that you will die today?

>50-50

I claim to be the fucking man.
50-50 chance.

I hate it when they say: it is pure luck (all the life forms) LUCK IS A MEANING THAT HUMANS HAVE INVENTED, THERE IS NO LUCK IN NATURE

50-50 chance diamond is the hardest metal.

Two possibilities != 50-50

>>1261073
>implying
coin toss, nigger, do you know it?

>>1261075
I have a bag with a dozen red marbles and one blue marble.

50/50 chance, right?

>>1261092
Yes.

I flip a coin, what is the chance that it is not a coin anymore when it lands?

50/50

Because, atheists, it is either a coin or it is not when it lands.

Two options.

That means HALF of the time it won't be a coin.

1/2 = 50 % in case you don't understand.

>>1261159
Troll or an idiot. This is like 5th grade math.

>>1261171
you do realize he was just sarcastically "quoting" the video, right?

>>1261176

or maybe >>1261171 is trawling....

ooOOOOOooooh

>>1261183
Or maybe >>1261171 was trollin'!

>>1261190


You trollin'?

>>1261196
Maybe, but there's a 50-50 chance that we are all trolling!
Either we are all trolling, or we are not all trolling!

>>1261199

There's also a 50% chance that there's a 50% chance of all of us being trolls.

Wait.... 25% chance of us all being trolls?

But there are two options and 25 x 2 = 50 so it is 50%

>>1261213
But there's a 50-50 chance of that, as well D:

>>1261222
>>1261213
>>1261199

I love you motherfuckers

"in whom you don't believe in anyway" HURRRR

>>1260274

That video was just a bad attempt at arguing Pascal's Wager. The chance you are going to die any given day isn't 50-50. If it were, you would have a 99.2% chance of dying in a week! But that point is completely irrelevant to the argument.

We don't need to assume to much to make the argument. Either there is a benevolent creator who looks after us after we are dead or there isn't. We certainly can't prove this to be true nor disprove it (taking a philosophy class for that argument...). So, we can't reasonably come up with any kind of probabilities for a supreme being's existence. With no information, we are left to approximate it as 50-50.

Now, look at your two choices. You can either act as if you believe in a supreme being or you don't. If you are act as if you believe and you are correct, your reward is eternal life and happiness. If you are wrong, you make your life on earth significantly less pleasant at worst. If you assume there is no supreme being and you are right, at best you made your life on earth significantly more pleasant. If you are wrong, you face eternal damnation. So, hedging your bets, what seems to be the smart choice: Infinite reward with a risk of insignificant loss or insignificant reward with a risk of infinite loss? (I only say it is insignificant in comparison to something that is infinite, not in general) This is Pascal's Wager.

Now, I am not trying to convince anyone to go believe in a God with this. I am just trying to present a somewhat decent argument (as Pascal did) instead of that sloppy one in the youtube video. There are arguments against Pascal's Wager; it certainly is not a proof of God (in fact, it assumes you can't prove/disprove God's existence). I am just trying to make things a bit more rigorous around here.