If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

The God of Insufficient Statistics?

I watched a video on youtube entitled "What Evolutionists Never Realize part1" which was clearly authored by one or more Islamic sympathisers a sycophants.
I've embedded it for your convenience.

Now, because it's anti-evolution propaganda by an organisation with, shall we say, a vested interest, it would be foolish to accept any of their 'FACTS' as 'TRUTH', however one slide in the presentation caught my eye -
'Evolutionists never realize that the chances of a functional protein forming by chance are 1 in 10 (to the power of 950)'

It set me thinking, you know how things do, and it occurred that somebody must have done the math on how likely the big questions are, to have the answers many think they have?
Questions like,
  • How did we get here?
  • Where do we come from?
  • How did the universe come about?
  • If the chances of the universe exploding into existence from nothing are astronomical, (lol) then how much smaller are the chances that a fully-formed, highly-educated, all-knowing being popping into existence!!

What are the actual chances?
What are the odds?
How might one prove which is more likely, big bang or god?

So I've been trawling around various probability blogs and websites, trying to get a handle on the subject and discover if anybody has done any work on it.
After much research, and something of a glimmer of understanding, I was reading a post called "Can we calculate the probability of God?"1 on a blog entitled "The Big Bang to Now" and a question arose almost fully formed, a question so beautiful that I was instantly going to post it to Twitter.
Where insufficient statistics exist to calculate the probability of ‘X’ occurring, can 'Possible' be a proper descriptor for ‘X’?
My son who, I'm proud to say, is a bit of a physics geek, saw me typing and got very excited, grabbed the keyboard, almost pushed me from my seat and typed furiously for a few seconds - he posits this equation

If P(X) ≠ P(X)irc → P(X) ≅ 0
P(X)irc = Information required for calculation (of Probability of X)

I’m an artist by profession but I think, and he assures me, it makes sense and states - Where insufficient stats exist to properly calculate the probability of an event’s occurrence, it is not reasonable to conclude that the event will/did occur.
What does this mean in real terms?

If it is not possible to calculate the probability
of the existence of God,
then it is unreasonable to assume a god exists.
If it can be considered unreasonable to assume it,
it should be thought unconscionable
to promote the concept as fact.

Yet the fraud continues.

This is one of the Too many questions



Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Get TMQ on your Kindle

Copyright Crispy Sea

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

All blog posts copyright http://atheist.diatribes.co.uk

TMQCrispySea 2009-2014