Is a God probable...?

[empther]

I’ve never seen so much philosophical quibbling. Someone even calculated the odds from the number of characters in the Bible.

It’s like I wrote in my story. Theresa explains something to the British Prime Minister:

**“You can only be what you know you can be. You can only do what you know to do. That sums up who we are.”
“Interesting observation. I never heard of it.”
“That’s because people make the simple complicated.” – Theresa

**

 

[Kasama]

Well, if the peple who wrote the Bible were inspired to tell us all these scientific truths, by an omnipotent, all-knowing God, why did they not tell us what actaully happened, with all the scientific detail

The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook.

and why did they tell us things which are plainly wrong, such as different species not be related by descent,

The Bible only tells us that God created species, not the particulars.

and the sky being made of water?

This is confirmed by science, 5 billion years ago when the surface was molten magma, all the earth’s water was in the sky as superheated steam vapor. When the earth cooled, the steam condensed out as water.

Your understanding of “Eve” in the ancestor sense is wrong. She is not one of two ancestors of all humans, she is one of a great many ancestors. It is just that it is possible to identify her. The science that established 'mitochondria Eve" also establishes that she herself had parents, and was related to frogs, lichens, amobeas, and trees as well as being your, and my ancestor. Why did God not think to point this out?

The Discovery Documentary traced everyone back to one person. Scientist only speculate that she must have had parents. For humans a mitochondrial excursion into the past comes to a dead end thousands of years ago. This is not so for other creatures, which the Documentary claims goes ad infinitum.

 

[rossum]

How did the people who wrote the Bible 6 thousand years ago know this?

How many other creation legends include a first couple from whom everyone else is descended? The idea is not exactly original.

And by the way, this only works for humans, not mammals, amphibians, insects, fish, etc.

You have been misinformed. Maternal only transmission of mitochondria is common among animal species. And it certainly works for mammals because humans are mammals. Whoever told you that obviously did not know enough biology.

It is also worth pointing out there every living human is also descended from M-Eve’s parents, her grandparents and all her ancestors.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

How many other creation legends include a first couple from whom everyone else is descended? The idea is not exactly original.

rossum

As are other myths and storie involving virgin birth, miracles, ignominious death and resurrection.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

A classic sci-fi short story explores this possibility, see Asimov’s “The Last Question”
multivax.com/last_question.html

There is no such thing as Maxwell’s Daemon, no matter what famous science-fiction author (leader of Mensa or not) states on the issue. In order to decrease entropy in one region, the entropy must increase, and it is calculable that it must be a higher increase than the decrease, elsewhere.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Well, if the peple who wrote the Bible were inspired to tell us all these scientific truths, by an omnipotent, all-knowing God, why did they not tell us what actaully happened, with all the scientific detail, and why did they tell us things which are plainly wrong, such as different species not be related by descent, and the sky being made of water? Your understanding of “Eve” in the ancestor sense is wrong. She is not one of two ancestors of all humans, she is one of a great many ancestors. It is just that it is possible to identify her. The science that established 'mitochondria Eve" also establishes that she herself had parents, and was related to frogs, lichens, amobeas, and trees as well as being your, and my ancestor. Why did God not think to point this out?

You talk about what you do not know. Let us exemplify your errors:
1., if the peple who wrote the Bible were inspired to tell us all these scientific truths, by an omnipotent, **
2. such as different species not be related by descent
3.the sky being made of water?
4. Your understanding of “Eve” in the ancestor sense is wrong** Eva did not exist.
5. **she is one of a great many ancestors. It is just that it is possible to identify her. **
6. 'mitochondria Eve"
7. **Why did God not think ** You know, God does not think……thanks to God, not as you think. :juggle:

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is no such thing as Maxwell’s Daemon, no matter what famous science-fiction author (leader of Mensa or not) states on the issue. In order to decrease entropy in one region, the entropy must increase, and it is calculable that it must be a higher increase than the decrease, elsewhere.

That is actually incorrect. It stems from an incomplete understanding of the statistical basis for the second law. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That is actually incorrect. It stems from an incomplete understanding of the statistical basis for the second law. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

I am well aware of the fluctuation theorem; however, I presume you did not read the whole article on FT? I’ll snip it for you and show you the important lines:

it became apparent after the discovery of statistical mechanics that the second law is only a statistical one, suggesting that there should always be some nonzero probability that the entropy of an isolated system might spontaneously decrease

Non-zero does not necessitate “large” or anything other than “it is not zero.” As an example, 10[sup]-25[/sup] is very small and non-zero; 10[sup]25[/sup] is very large and non-zero.

Note that the FT does not state that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong or invalid. The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about macroscopic systems. The FT is more general. It can be applied to both microscopic and macroscopic systems. When applied to macroscopic systems, the FT is equivalent to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is the crux of your misinformation: FT belongs in the realm of microscopic materials and studies. In regards to larger systems, in which evolution takes place, the Second Law is a problem and needs to be reconciled.

The fluctuation theorem is of fundamental importance to nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. The FT (together with the Axiom of Causality) gives a generalisation of the second law of thermodynamics which includes as a special case, the conventional second law.

Thus: the Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually valid at the macroscopic level, where it matters. Thus, trying to reduce the entropy on the macroscopic level is impossible. Thus, the entropy problem as I stated above is completely valid. Thus, I am actually correct, because I applied the entropy problem to a macroscopic system.

Curiously enough, the Axiom of Causality cited above as a necessity for generalizing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, essentially leads to the Uncaused Cause argument.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I am well aware of the fluctuation theorem; however, I presume you did not read the whole article on FT? I’ll snip it for you and show you the important lines:

Non-zero does not necessitate “large” or anything other than “it is not zero.” As an example, 10[sup]-25[/sup] is very small and non-zero; 10[sup]25[/sup] is very large and non-zero.

This is the crux of your misinformation: FT belongs in the realm of microscopic materials and studies. In regards to larger systems, in which evolution takes place, the Second Law is a problem and needs to be reconciled.

Thus: the Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually valid at the macroscopic level, where it matters. Thus, trying to reduce the entropy on the macroscopic level is impossible. Thus, the entropy problem as I stated above is completely valid. Thus, I am actually correct, because I applied the entropy problem to a macroscopic system.

Not quite. See the recurrence theorem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Poincar.C3.A9_recurrence_theorem

In other words, the FT does say that the overwhelmingly likely outcome is for macroscopic systems to tend to maximum entropy. On the timescale of our universe so far, it is likely that there has never been such a violation. However, there does exist a non-zero (but incredibly miniscule) probability of violation. Because of this, there is a finite (but incredibly huge) length of time which would make the odds of observing a violation pretty good. It is like the lottery. Your odds of winning are tiny, even if you played every day for your whole life, your chance of winning would be around .01% However, if you played every day since the beginning of the universe, your odds of winning are effectively 100%. Basically, over sufficiently long periods of time, incredibly improbably events become possible.

Curiously enough, the Axiom of Causality cited above as a necessity for generalizing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, essentially leads to the Uncaused Cause argument.

No, there are more ways to reduce entropy than just random chance. See for example chaotic inflation theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory

Regions of space which are inflating undergo a decrease in entropy, so a universe which is inflating according to this model will never reach a maximum of entropy.

As for the uncaused cause argument, the problem is that the argument immediately disallows an infinite regression without justification. Theories such as the inflation theory permit past-infinite universes. The question of whether or not is acceptable was discussed, but not resolved, in this recent thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658977

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Not quite. See the recurrence theorem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Poincar.C3.A9_recurrence_theorem

In other words, the FT does say that the overwhelmingly likely outcome is for macroscopic systems to tend to maximum entropy. On the timescale of our universe so far, it is likely that there has never been such a violation. However, there does exist a non-zero (but incredibly miniscule) probability of violation. Because of this, there is a finite (but incredibly huge) length of time which would make the odds of observing a violation pretty good. It is like the lottery. Your odds of winning are tiny, even if you played every day for your whole life, your chance of winning would be around .01% However, if you played every day since the beginning of the universe, your odds of winning are effectively 100%. Basically, over sufficiently long periods of time, incredibly improbably events become possible.

Again, you are misreading and misinterpreting things. The Poincare theorem applies to systems in which energy is conserved. The thing is that we do not actually know if energy is actually conserved in the universe. Depending on whether you take an integral approach to energy conservation or a differential approach to energy conservation, you end up with different answers in GR, whereas in classical mechanics you get the same answer.

Thus, entropy is still a large problem for atheists to discern.

No, there are more ways to reduce entropy than just random chance. See for example chaotic inflation theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory

Regions of space which are inflating undergo a decrease in entropy, so a universe which is inflating according to this model will never reach a maximum of entropy.

That link sends me to a wiki page on Eternal inflation, is that intended or no? Anyway, as far as I know, chaotic inflation theory has not been reconciled with large vs small field models nor with quantum gravity. As far as I am concerned, that is sufficient evidence to not accept that as a valid response to the entropy problem. Anyone can make a model Z in which some random feature X is intended, the concern is whether model Z actually represents reality. CIT has feature X, but does not yet represent reality.

As for the uncaused cause argument, the problem is that the argument immediately disallows an infinite regression without justification. Theories such as the inflation theory permit past-infinite universes. The question of whether or not is acceptable was discussed, but not resolved, in this recent thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658977

Believe it or not, I participated regularly in that thread. What unfortunately happened is that every single one of my comments was ignored by you & everyone else in that thread. I felt that I had rather rock-solid answers that completely busted the existence of an actual infinity. Please carefully read that thread and look for my comments, you should find them ample enough to suffice your acceptance of physical infinities.

 

[Kasama]

How many other creation legends include a first couple from whom everyone else is descended? The idea is not exactly original.

The Bible is likely the first, Genesis was written 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

You have been misinformed. Maternal only transmission of mitochondria is common among animal species. And it certainly works for mammals because humans are mammals. Whoever told you that obviously did not know enough biology.

I didn’t write that mitochondria was only common to humans, but that a human mitochondrial excursion into the past comes to a dead end, not other species. The information is from the Discovery Documentary: “The Real Eve: 5 Billion People from One Woman”, which is based on the genetic research of several world leading geneticists.

It is also worth pointing out there every living human is also descended from M-Eve’s parents, her grandparents and all her ancestors.

We only know that the lineage genetically ceases at Eve.

 

[rossum]

The Bible is likely the first, Genesis was written 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

Creation legends can be transmitted orally. The date of first writing is not always the date of origination. See the Rig Veda or Homer for example.

I didn’t write that mitochondria was only common to humans, but that a human mitochondrial excursion into the past comes to a dead end with, not other species. The information is from the Discovery Documentary: “The Real Eve: 5 Billion People from One Woman”, which is based on the genetic research of several world leading geneticists.

Mitochondrial Eve is real. So were her parents and grandparents. There is no “dead end”.

We only know that the lineage genetically ceases at Eve.

We know that the lineage extends back well beyond Eve. The level of genetic diversity in current human populations tell us that the overall population has never dropped much below 10,000 breeding pairs since we split from our last common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

rossum

 

[Kasama]

Creation legends can be transmitted orally. The date of first writing is not always the date of origination. See the Rig Veda or Homer for example.

So those who wrote the Bible may have been aware of our roots even further back than 6 thousand years.

Mitochondrial Eve is real. So were her parents and grandparents.

Than there would not have been the mitochondrial dead end described by world leading geneticists.

We know that the lineage extends back well beyond Eve. The level of genetic diversity in current human populations tell us that the overall population has never dropped much below 10,000 breeding pairs since we split from our last common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

The Discovery Documentary is titled: “The Real Eve: 5 Billion People From One Woman”, not “The Real Eve: 5 Billion People From Five Thousand Women”. The world leading geneticists discovered that we all descended from one woman, it wouldn’t have been much of a landmark discovery if they found we descended from a multitude of woman.

amazon.com/The-Real-Eve-Billion-Discovery/dp/B00006AUKZ

The key word here is “one”.

 

[rossum]

So those who wrote the Bible may have been aware of our roots even further back than 6 thousand years.

Quite possibly. There are Sumerian and Babylonian elements in the Bible which could well go back a very long way, especially the Sumerian parts.

Than there would not have been the mitochondrial dead end described by world leading geneticists.

M-Eve is not a dead end. She is merely the origin of all the mitochondrial DNA in the current human population. The non-mitochondrial DNA (which is the bulk of our DNA) had a different origin. For an obvious example, being female, M-Eve did not carry a Y-chromosome, so every male has at least their Y-chromosome from a different source. The same is true for the rest of our nuclear (non-mitochondrial) DNA.

The key word here is “one”.

Yes, we can all trace descent back to one woman, but we can also trace our descent back to other people alive at the same time. Our mitochondria come from her. The rest of our DNA comes from various of her contemporaries.

I had eight great-grandparents. My mitochondiral DNA comes from my mother’s grandmother, since it descends in the female line only. My Y-chromosome (I’m male) comes from my father’s grandfather, since it descends in the male line only. The rest of my DNA can come from any combination of my eight great-grandparents, since it can descend in either the male or the female line. My mother’s grandmother is the equivalent of M-eve. Her existence does not negate the presence of my other seven ancestors of that generation.

rossum

 

[Kasama]

Quite possibly. There are Sumerian and Babylonian elements in the Bible which could well go back a very long way, especially the Sumerian parts.

Its amazing how the Bible records events, that scientist are only discovering now.

M-Eve is not a dead end. She is merely the origin of all the mitochondrial DNA in the current human population. The non-mitochondrial DNA (which is the bulk of our DNA) had a different origin. For an obvious example, being female, M-Eve did not carry a Y-chromosome, so every male has at least their Y-chromosome from a different source. The same is true for the rest of our nuclear (non-mitochondrial) DNA.

The Discovery Documentary calls it a dead end, because the mitochondrial trail ends at that point. This doesn’t happen with other creatures like animals, amphibians, fish, birds, etc. which go on, ad infinitum. Humans come to a dead end with one woman, while all other species go back millions of years. You would have to take up your contention with the world renowned geneticists who came to that conclusion cited in the documentary.

And even more impressive, is that this same result is duplicated in a Y-chromosome excursion into the past, resulting in every male descending from one male.

Yes, we can all trace descent back to one woman, but we can also trace our descent back to other people alive at the same time. Our mitochondria come from her. The rest of our DNA comes from various of her contemporaries.

That is illogical, if we are all descendents of one woman, being related to other people alive at the time would change that result to more than one.

I had eight great-grandparents. My mitochondiral DNA comes from my mother’s grandmother, since it descends in the female line only. My Y-chromosome (I’m male) comes from my father’s grandfather, since it descends in the male line only. The rest of my DNA can come from any combination of my eight great-grandparents, since it can descend in either the male or the female line. My mother’s grandmother is the equivalent of M-eve. Her existence does not negate the presence of my other seven ancestors of that generation.

But since we are all decedents of one woman, we are all related at some point in the past.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Its amazing how the Bible records events, that scientist are only discovering now.

The Discovery Documentary calls it a dead end, because the mitochondrial trail ends at that point. This doesn’t happen with other creatures like animals, amphibians, fish, birds, etc. which go on, ad infinitum. Humans come to a dead end with one woman, while all other species go back millions of years. You would have to take up your contention with the world renowned geneticists who came to that conclusion cited in the documentary.

I’m pretty sure that is actually incorrect. I think the “mitochondrial eve” phenomenon is basically an inevitable consequence of how genetics works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#MRCA_of_different_species

 

[Kasama]

I’m pretty sure that is actually incorrect. I think the “mitochondrial eve” phenomenon is basically an inevitable consequence of how genetics works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#MRCA_of_different_species

Have you considered challenging the findings and years of research of (what the Discovery Documentary touts as) the world leading geneticists?

amazon.com/The-Real-Eve-Billion-Discovery/dp/B00006AUKZ

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Believe it or not, I participated regularly in that thread. What unfortunately happened is that every single one of my comments was ignored by you & everyone else in that thread. I felt that I had rather rock-solid answers that completely busted the existence of an actual infinity. Please carefully read that thread and look for my comments, you should find them ample enough to suffice your acceptance of physical infinities.

Are you referring to this?

You cannot get infinite object from a finite one. That is the general reason as to why an actual infinity does not exist. Our observable universe is finite in size, so nothing in our observable universe is infinite in any dimension. The unobservable universe is complete conjecture and cannot be used as an example about an actual infinity because we literally cannot determine anything about it; thus it must be a potential infinity only.

There is a fairly simple response, and it was made, although I don’t think it was made in direct response to your point. I will add the response directly to yours in the appropriate thread.

As it stands, science is unsure of what will happen to the universe in the long term. There are several competing theories, each has its pros and cons. In order to find out which is correct, the correct approach is to science-ifize and not philosophize.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Have you considered challenging the findings and years of research of (what the Discovery Documentary touts as) the world leading geneticists?

amazon.com/The-Real-Eve-Billion-Discovery/dp/B00006AUKZ

I believe you are misrepresenting their claims.

 

[Kasama]

I believe you are misrepresenting their claims.

In what way? The Discovery Documentary is titled: “The Real Eve: 5 Billion People From One Woman”, not 5 Billion People From A Whole Bunch Of Women. The documentary is how genetic researches found that all humans descended from one woman thousands of years ago, which matches what the Bible claims.

amazon.com/The-Real-Eve-Billion-Discovery/dp/B00006AUKZ