One of the more popular arguments for the existence of God used by theists is that the universe is finely tuned for life, and only God could have done it.
Over the past couple of decades it has become apparent to astronomers, physicists and cosmologists that if many of the constants of nature (e.g., gravitational constant, expansion rate of the universe, etc.) were just a hair's breath different, then our universe and life would not exist. This much is true. In fact, if the expansion rate of the universe was slower or faster than just 1 part in 10 to the 55th power (10^55), our universe would not exist as we know it. Astronomer Hugh Ross lists over 100 of these variables that need to be similarly fine tuned for us to exist, and he estimates the probability that all of them fall in the narrow window for life is on the order of 1 chance in 10^1050. Needless to say this number is extremely small, in fact it's almost zero.
Theists have jumped on this discovery and argue the only way to overcome that low probability is if God designed our universe and that it could not happen naturally by chance because the odds are too low. This is known as the teleological argument from fine tuning, or commonly called the fine tuning argument (FTA). The formal logic for the FTA is as follows:
Premise 1: The fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is due to either physical necessity, random chance, or intelligent design (God).
Premise 2: The fine tuning is not due to physical necessity or random chance.
Conclusion: The fine tuning is due to intelligent design.
Over the next few posts I'll be pecking away at this argument. For starters, I tend to hate these types of "negation" arguments, for the lack of a better term. These are arguments where the proponent lists several possibilities, eliminates all but one of the possibilities, and thereby concludes it must be due to the remaining choice. These are weak arguments in general because it's easy to leave out a potential contending choice from the first premise and no positive evidence is provided for the remaining option.
To see how this is the case, consider the following example. Suppose you work in a bank and at the end of the day the manager discovers a shortage of $1000 cash. The manager searches all the employees and their belongings except for you. Since none of the other employees has the money the manager concludes you must have stolen the money and has you arrested. He doesn't provide any direct evidence that you took the money. No video surveillance tapes were checked to see if you stole the money. The manager didn't search you for the cash either. No, he just concluded that because nobody else had taken the money it must be you who took the loot.
The FTA has the same weakness. No direct evidence is provided that God performed the fine tuning of the constants. No documents are provided exactly how God performed this fine tuning. No video tape evidence is provided discussing with God whether he fine tuned our universe for life. Rather it just eliminates the other contenders leaving God as the remaining option, and as indicated above already, it's all too easy to leave out potential contending choices out of the first premise. For example, in the bank situation, instead of concluding that one of the employees stole the money maybe the wrong change was given to a customer, maybe the manager miscounted the money, or perhaps the money was misplaced somewhere else in the bank.
In the next installment of You Can't Tuna Universe I'll pick apart the premises in the FTA more specifically, and will provide an alternative possibility for the fine tuning of the constants omitted by theists. I'll also provide examples of how our weather must be controlled by God if we are to conclude that our universe was designed by God, so stay tuned!!
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
Twas the Night Before Christmas
Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a God.
Well, that's my rendition of the poem anyway, but it leads into the topic of my next post. Over the next couple of days millions of Americans will attend church to honor the birth of Christ, sing some songs and say a few prayers. However did you ever really think about whether God can hear you pray? Let's find out.
If God really does exist and let's say that he lives in heaven which is located outside our known universe, then how could he possibly hear our prayers? Even if our sound waves could travel across the universe (they don't) then it would take roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000 years for your prayer to reach God traveling at the speed of sound, and that's likely a gross understatement since the universe is constantly expanding. So you would long be dead and decayed by the time God got to hear your prayer.
If it's argued that God exists closer to earth, say outside the earth's atmosphere somewhere else within our universe, well there would be another problem. There is no such thing as sound in empty space. Set off a firecracker in empty space it would not make a noise. Sound requires a physical medium (air, ground). So there is no way an entity existing outside the earth's atmosphere could hear our prayers. Even if there was a way God could hear us pray from his location outside earth, there would be so much noise from everybody else talking that our prayers would be drowned out by all the excess commotion, kind of like trying to listen to someone talk when a loud band is playing at a bar and others are singing.
If it's argued that God is here on earth all around us, well I'm not buying that either. We know the weight of the earth's atmosphere and its composition precisely. God = energy and energy = mass (remember Einstein's equation E = M * C^2). If God was all around us then there would be excess mass in our atmosphere that is unaccounted for. However, that is not the case since we can account for every micro-gram. Therefore, God can not be all around us either. Moreover, if he was all around us here on Earth then there would be other issues like why would he let millions of innocent children starve each year, but that's another post for another time.
So really, there is no physical way God can hear our prayers even if God existed. However, if it can be shown that there is power in prayer, then maybe God has a way that we just can't explain with known physics just yet. So let's see if praying really works, after all Jesus said in Matthew [21:22] that "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." So let's see if Jesus is telling the truth.
First we can look at scientific studies, like that performed by the Cochrane Collaboration Group, who in 2010 performed a meta-analysis of all peer-reviewed medical trials to determine the effects of prayer on people with health problems. Their results showed that praying had no effect on the death rates or recovery rates of patients who had serious medical issues. What was more shocking was the authors suggestion that no further money be spent on determining the effectiveness of prayer ever again.
So where else can we look to see if prayer works. How about Professor William Lane Craig? He is one of the world's foremost Christian apologists and has probably debated in favor of the existence of God over a hundred times. What is interesting is that in all of his debates, not once did he use the power of prayer as evidence for the existence of God. If prayer really worked, he'd be all over it like a fly to honey using it to his debating advantage for sure. The fact he is silent on the subject of the prayer in his debates is telling.
There is one sure way you can find out whether prayer is effective. Simply pray that none of our military troops will be killed in battle in the middle East and pray that no Christians will ever get killed again by a natural disaster like a tornado, hurricane or lightning. You know neither of those prayers will ever come true even if they were blessed by the Pope.
For those who still believe the power of prayer despite the evidence against, then here's a simple challenge. If you really believe that God answers prayers, then there should be no need to carry health insurance, life insurance and homeowners insurance. Just think of how much money you can save through the power or prayer. Of course no sane person would do this because they know deep down praying has no impact on anything that happens on this planet.
In summary, there's no physical way God can can hear our prayers and there's no evidence that God is answering our prayers, contrary to the words of Jesus. So I say skip the church, skip the prayers, save the time, save the donation money and don't worship a liar and a fraud, even on Christmas.
Not a creature was stirring, not even a God.
Well, that's my rendition of the poem anyway, but it leads into the topic of my next post. Over the next couple of days millions of Americans will attend church to honor the birth of Christ, sing some songs and say a few prayers. However did you ever really think about whether God can hear you pray? Let's find out.
If God really does exist and let's say that he lives in heaven which is located outside our known universe, then how could he possibly hear our prayers? Even if our sound waves could travel across the universe (they don't) then it would take roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000 years for your prayer to reach God traveling at the speed of sound, and that's likely a gross understatement since the universe is constantly expanding. So you would long be dead and decayed by the time God got to hear your prayer.
If it's argued that God exists closer to earth, say outside the earth's atmosphere somewhere else within our universe, well there would be another problem. There is no such thing as sound in empty space. Set off a firecracker in empty space it would not make a noise. Sound requires a physical medium (air, ground). So there is no way an entity existing outside the earth's atmosphere could hear our prayers. Even if there was a way God could hear us pray from his location outside earth, there would be so much noise from everybody else talking that our prayers would be drowned out by all the excess commotion, kind of like trying to listen to someone talk when a loud band is playing at a bar and others are singing.
If it's argued that God is here on earth all around us, well I'm not buying that either. We know the weight of the earth's atmosphere and its composition precisely. God = energy and energy = mass (remember Einstein's equation E = M * C^2). If God was all around us then there would be excess mass in our atmosphere that is unaccounted for. However, that is not the case since we can account for every micro-gram. Therefore, God can not be all around us either. Moreover, if he was all around us here on Earth then there would be other issues like why would he let millions of innocent children starve each year, but that's another post for another time.
So really, there is no physical way God can hear our prayers even if God existed. However, if it can be shown that there is power in prayer, then maybe God has a way that we just can't explain with known physics just yet. So let's see if praying really works, after all Jesus said in Matthew [21:22] that "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." So let's see if Jesus is telling the truth.
First we can look at scientific studies, like that performed by the Cochrane Collaboration Group, who in 2010 performed a meta-analysis of all peer-reviewed medical trials to determine the effects of prayer on people with health problems. Their results showed that praying had no effect on the death rates or recovery rates of patients who had serious medical issues. What was more shocking was the authors suggestion that no further money be spent on determining the effectiveness of prayer ever again.
So where else can we look to see if prayer works. How about Professor William Lane Craig? He is one of the world's foremost Christian apologists and has probably debated in favor of the existence of God over a hundred times. What is interesting is that in all of his debates, not once did he use the power of prayer as evidence for the existence of God. If prayer really worked, he'd be all over it like a fly to honey using it to his debating advantage for sure. The fact he is silent on the subject of the prayer in his debates is telling.
There is one sure way you can find out whether prayer is effective. Simply pray that none of our military troops will be killed in battle in the middle East and pray that no Christians will ever get killed again by a natural disaster like a tornado, hurricane or lightning. You know neither of those prayers will ever come true even if they were blessed by the Pope.
For those who still believe the power of prayer despite the evidence against, then here's a simple challenge. If you really believe that God answers prayers, then there should be no need to carry health insurance, life insurance and homeowners insurance. Just think of how much money you can save through the power or prayer. Of course no sane person would do this because they know deep down praying has no impact on anything that happens on this planet.
In summary, there's no physical way God can can hear our prayers and there's no evidence that God is answering our prayers, contrary to the words of Jesus. So I say skip the church, skip the prayers, save the time, save the donation money and don't worship a liar and a fraud, even on Christmas.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
'Tis the Season
Well it's the holiday season, and this December 25th over 250 million Americans will celebrate Christmas. But does anybody research why so many celebrate Christmas? Well duh, it's to celebrate the birth of Jesus of course. Yeah I get that part, and for the moment I'll suspend discussion about whether Jesus was really born on December 25th (the evidence in the Bible points otherwise). But back to the previous question, why do so many celebrate the birth of Jesus? Let's look at some popular responses more critically.
1) Jesus was the son of God. Really? Where's the proof of that? Of course where's the proof that any God exists? There have been many impostors over the centuries claiming to be the son/daughter of God. Remember David Koresh of Waco, TX? He claimed to be the son of God and had 100+ followers, but of course nobody really believed he was the son of God (except those in the Waco compound). Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon religion) was thought to be a prophet of God and to have been directed by an angel of God to a buried book of sacred golden plates in the 1800s; however today it's obvious he was a fraud yet there are still millions who practice Mormonism. So how do we really know the Biblical Jesus wasn't a similar crackpot who started with his own small legion of followers in Galilee, similar to what Koresh had in Waco or Smith had in Utah? The answer is we really don't know. The only "evidence" is from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses or by followers of Jesus. They weren't even written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the true authors were anonymous). They were written 30-60 years after Jesus' death and are based upon hearsay and rumors, which allows for embellishment and fabrication of history, and was followed by centuries of likely manipulation by the Church before we get to the copies we read today. Bottom line is the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical information and there is zero credible evidence that Jesus was the son of God. See my November post on the resurrection of Jesus for more insight.
2) The teachings of Jesus are brilliant. Really? I'm aware of all the passages which say that Jesus loves us and wants peace on earth which is all well and good, but are you aware of all the teachings of Jesus that priests don't reveal at Sunday mass? Well, here's a short list in blue font directly from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7]:
3) Jesus died for our sins.
This one is the most sickening of all. Why should one person die to forgive another of their sins? I can not imagine a more stupid base for a religion than that. Does that mean I now have a free pass to commit as many sins as I want? Crazy. Why not just forgive someone's sins if they confess and the are sincere? Why does there have to be a killing too? What would you think of two parents if they killed their only son just to forgive their daughter of her sins? You would think the parents were nuts and a jury would probably sentence them to life in prison. See the contradiction? So you see this whole notion of blood sacrifice for atonement of sin is a pretty ridiculous concept. Moreover, I would rather spend my time worshiping our fallen military, who really made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up their lives so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today.
Therefore upon deeper analysis I fail to see any compelling reason to worship the birth of Jesus.
1) Jesus was the son of God. Really? Where's the proof of that? Of course where's the proof that any God exists? There have been many impostors over the centuries claiming to be the son/daughter of God. Remember David Koresh of Waco, TX? He claimed to be the son of God and had 100+ followers, but of course nobody really believed he was the son of God (except those in the Waco compound). Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon religion) was thought to be a prophet of God and to have been directed by an angel of God to a buried book of sacred golden plates in the 1800s; however today it's obvious he was a fraud yet there are still millions who practice Mormonism. So how do we really know the Biblical Jesus wasn't a similar crackpot who started with his own small legion of followers in Galilee, similar to what Koresh had in Waco or Smith had in Utah? The answer is we really don't know. The only "evidence" is from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses or by followers of Jesus. They weren't even written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the true authors were anonymous). They were written 30-60 years after Jesus' death and are based upon hearsay and rumors, which allows for embellishment and fabrication of history, and was followed by centuries of likely manipulation by the Church before we get to the copies we read today. Bottom line is the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical information and there is zero credible evidence that Jesus was the son of God. See my November post on the resurrection of Jesus for more insight.
2) The teachings of Jesus are brilliant. Really? I'm aware of all the passages which say that Jesus loves us and wants peace on earth which is all well and good, but are you aware of all the teachings of Jesus that priests don't reveal at Sunday mass? Well, here's a short list in blue font directly from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7]:
- You shall not get angry with someone or call them an idiot or you will be judged. You shall not curse at anyone or you are in danger of going to hell. Really? So if some drunk driver kills the members of my family and I curse at the drunk I'm the one that goes to hell?
- If a man looks at a woman with lust he shall gouge out his eyeball and throw it away, otherwise he will be thrown in hell. Really? In that case you would think most of the male population would be walking around blind!
- A man is guilty of adultery if he marries a divorced woman. A woman is guilty of adultery if a man divorces his wife. The punishment? According to the Bible the punishment is death [Leviticus 20:10]. Gee, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorced remarry. Wow, according to Jesus we should kill off a good chunk of our population.
- Do not resist an evil person. Really? If someone breaks into my house with the intention of doing harm I'm supposed to just let them? If a woman is about to be raped she should let them? If an evil dictator wants to start a war and invade the USA, we should just let them? Sorry but Jesus is an idiot, most rational people would fight back.
- If you are sued in court and lose, give them more than the judgment. Really? Bet the ambulance chasers are Christians, LOL.
- If someone asks for something then give it to them without question. Cool. Mr. Buffett, kindly send me a check for 10 million dollars!
- Love your enemies. Really? Never felt much love for Osama Bin Laden.
- Keep your gifts to charity private. Hmm, the IRS requests otherwise on Schedule A. Guess that also means goodbye to the Bill Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
- Do not pray where others can see you. Really? Then exactly why were churches built?
- Do not accumulate wealth on earth. Really? So what shall millions of Americans do with their IRAs?
- Do not worry about every day life - whether you have enough food and drink or enough clothes to wear. God will take care of that. Really? And how many millions of children starve to death each year on the planet?
- Do not plan for the future. Really? Sorry, but Jesus you're really an idiot.
- Do not judge others. Really? If a gang of obvious thugs is heading your way exactly how am I supposed to survive without judging others?
- Pray for something and you will receive what you ask for. This is very dangerous. Just ask the parents of sick children who ended up dead because their parents thought that praying was better than taking them to a hospital.
- If a town doesn't accept the words of Jesus, the town shall be destroyed in a manner worse than Sodom and Gomorrah [Matthew 10]. Oooh, now we're rolling. Guess we should kill off over half the world's population that doesn't follow Christianity.
- Children who speak disrespectfully of their parents must be put to death [Mark 7:10]. Wow, who would think Jesus would condone killing children.
- To get into heaven you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor [Mark 10:21]. Really? Maybe the Vatican can set an example and give all its net worth to the poor.
- Jesus says that slaves must obey orders from the master or face severe punishment [Luke 12:47]. Another example of outdated morality in the Bible.
- You can not be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father, mother, wife and children [Luke 14:26]. Wow, what a monster.
- People who don't believe in Jesus shall be thrown away like useless branches to be gathered into a pile and burned [John 15:6]. This passage served as impetus for the killings during the Inquisition.
3) Jesus died for our sins.
This one is the most sickening of all. Why should one person die to forgive another of their sins? I can not imagine a more stupid base for a religion than that. Does that mean I now have a free pass to commit as many sins as I want? Crazy. Why not just forgive someone's sins if they confess and the are sincere? Why does there have to be a killing too? What would you think of two parents if they killed their only son just to forgive their daughter of her sins? You would think the parents were nuts and a jury would probably sentence them to life in prison. See the contradiction? So you see this whole notion of blood sacrifice for atonement of sin is a pretty ridiculous concept. Moreover, I would rather spend my time worshiping our fallen military, who really made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up their lives so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today.
Therefore upon deeper analysis I fail to see any compelling reason to worship the birth of Jesus.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The Problem of Miracles
One reason why the Bible is just not believable (besides all the blatant scientific errors it contains) is due to the endless number of miracle stories it says happened. Let me explain further with an analogy.
Suppose I was testifying in a courtroom murder trial as an eye-witness and I said that I saw the defendant shoot the victim. Now without knowing any other information you might have no reason to discard my account of the event and if you were on the jury you may even vote to convict the defendant based in part on my testimony.
However, let's say in the cross-examination the defense attorney asked me what I was doing earlier that morning before the murder. Suppose my response was "I went for a jog through the trail in the woods and I encountered a UFO hovering over a lake, and was then promptly abducted by the craft whereupon they did a brain transplant and teleported me back to earth with x-ray vision whereupon I could see through the walls of the apartment building that the defendant murdered the victim." Well, in that case you would probably ignore my testimony that I saw the defendant shot the victim. Why? Because my credibility was destroyed by the UFO miracle story.
So how does this relate to the Bible? Well, the Bible is littered with similar miracle stories that are totally unbelievable. What are some of these stories? Here's a brief list (believe me, there are many more ... really too many to list here in this blog):
Something to think about before putting money in the collection bin at church.
Suppose I was testifying in a courtroom murder trial as an eye-witness and I said that I saw the defendant shoot the victim. Now without knowing any other information you might have no reason to discard my account of the event and if you were on the jury you may even vote to convict the defendant based in part on my testimony.
However, let's say in the cross-examination the defense attorney asked me what I was doing earlier that morning before the murder. Suppose my response was "I went for a jog through the trail in the woods and I encountered a UFO hovering over a lake, and was then promptly abducted by the craft whereupon they did a brain transplant and teleported me back to earth with x-ray vision whereupon I could see through the walls of the apartment building that the defendant murdered the victim." Well, in that case you would probably ignore my testimony that I saw the defendant shot the victim. Why? Because my credibility was destroyed by the UFO miracle story.
So how does this relate to the Bible? Well, the Bible is littered with similar miracle stories that are totally unbelievable. What are some of these stories? Here's a brief list (believe me, there are many more ... really too many to list here in this blog):
- Virgin Birth [Matthew 1:18-25]. Virgin births are not observed in humans and if they were the product would likely be another female, not a male.
- Daniel & the Lion [Daniel 6]. Daniel was thrown in a lion's den and survived because God sent angels to shut the mouths of the lions.
- Jonah & the Fish [Jonah 1:2]. Jonah spent 3 days and nights in the belly of a whale after being eaten, but then prayed to God and the fish spit Jonah back on the shore alive.
- David & Goliath [1Samuel 17]. A young early teen David killed a 9' 9" giant in Goliath by slinging a rock at him.
- Samson & Delilah [Judges 16]. Samson pressed the pillars of a temple and the temple collapsed killing several thousand enemy Philistines.
- Joshua takes Jericho [Joshua 6]. The walls surrounding the town of Jericho collapsed when the priests in the Israelite army sounded a long blast on their horns.
- Parting the Red Sea [Exodus 14]. God parted a 1600 foot deep sea by blowing an east wind allowing Israelites to escape the Pharaoh's army.
- Stopping Earth's Rotation [Joshua 10:12-14]. The sun halted in the sky for an entire day despite the physics against that.
- Talking animals [Genesis 3:1-5, Numbers 22:28-30]. Snakes and donkeys can talk in words!
- Life Span [Genesis 5]. Humans routinely lived over 900 years.
- Noah's Ark [Genesis 6]. Noah gets tens of thousands of animals and hundreds of thousands of insects to board an arc and spends over a year at sea providing them food and disposing their waste.
- Resurrections. Too many to list. Jesus wasn't the only resurrection. Matthew 27:50-53 describes how there was an earthquake and the bodies of many saints who were dead came back to life and entered the holy city.
Something to think about before putting money in the collection bin at church.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
No explanation, must be God!
Often times I hear an argument for the existence of God that goes as follows: "You can't explain how we got here so I'm going to believe in God."
Yes, it's true that scientists at this time can not offer a concrete explanation on where the universe came from or how life arose from non-life. They have hunches for sure and are working on the problems, but nothing has been proven yet. For example, many Chemists believe that if the right chemicals are mixed together under the right conditions over time then simple life will eventually appear. Unfortunately, this process likely took billions of years to happen naturally on Earth so it's not something that can be replicated & verified so simply in a lab. Similarly, our universe is a very difficult place to explore. It's very big and very old, so it's impractical to send probes to locations outside our solar system. There are hypotheses which show how the universe may have originated from nothing, but at this point while plausible they're really just educated speculation.
However, none of this really matters because the original argument is incredibly logically flawed anyway. This is important. Just because there is no explanation for something doesn't mean a God had to be the cause. For example, we have absolutely no clue why an otherwise healthy middle-aged person who lived a clean life would all of a sudden get pancreatic cancer. Does that mean God caused cancer in that individual? What an absurd thought! There are numerous mysteries we don't understand yet. That doesn't mean a God is the cause of each one.
What we do know for sure is that there have been hundreds of phenomena over history which humans once thought were caused by God but today with our increasing scientific and mathematical knowledge can now easily explain without the need to invoke the supernatural. For example, just a few thousand years ago it was thought that rainbows, lightning storms, and solar eclipses were caused by God. There were even specific gods named after each one (e.g., Iris, Zeus, Helius, etc.). Today we know better!
Another thing we do know with 100% certainty is that in terms of the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the Bible's explanation in Genesis is completely wrong. We know that Earth didn't form before the first stars. We know it took longer than a few days for life to appear after the first stars formed. We know birds did not appear before the first land animals. We know the first human didn't appear out of a whirlwind of dirt. We know the first woman didn't form from a man's rib. We know there wasn't a global flood, and so on.
One last thing we are certain of is that there has not been one phenomenon that we didn't know the cause of in the past but today we know for sure it's God. I'm not sure of the exact score now but it's probably like Physics 1000 and God 0 in terms of things that can be explained today that we didn't know in the past.
So, which the more likely explanation of how we got here, natural or supernatural? The odds would say that there's a physical explanation to the origins of the universe and life but just haven't figured it out yet. Science and math have done a pretty good job so far of explaining our world. On the other hand God hasn't explained anything how he did it, and the Bible has a good track record of being wrong!
My money is going on the side of physics rather than in a church collection bin.
Yes, it's true that scientists at this time can not offer a concrete explanation on where the universe came from or how life arose from non-life. They have hunches for sure and are working on the problems, but nothing has been proven yet. For example, many Chemists believe that if the right chemicals are mixed together under the right conditions over time then simple life will eventually appear. Unfortunately, this process likely took billions of years to happen naturally on Earth so it's not something that can be replicated & verified so simply in a lab. Similarly, our universe is a very difficult place to explore. It's very big and very old, so it's impractical to send probes to locations outside our solar system. There are hypotheses which show how the universe may have originated from nothing, but at this point while plausible they're really just educated speculation.
However, none of this really matters because the original argument is incredibly logically flawed anyway. This is important. Just because there is no explanation for something doesn't mean a God had to be the cause. For example, we have absolutely no clue why an otherwise healthy middle-aged person who lived a clean life would all of a sudden get pancreatic cancer. Does that mean God caused cancer in that individual? What an absurd thought! There are numerous mysteries we don't understand yet. That doesn't mean a God is the cause of each one.
What we do know for sure is that there have been hundreds of phenomena over history which humans once thought were caused by God but today with our increasing scientific and mathematical knowledge can now easily explain without the need to invoke the supernatural. For example, just a few thousand years ago it was thought that rainbows, lightning storms, and solar eclipses were caused by God. There were even specific gods named after each one (e.g., Iris, Zeus, Helius, etc.). Today we know better!
Another thing we do know with 100% certainty is that in terms of the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the Bible's explanation in Genesis is completely wrong. We know that Earth didn't form before the first stars. We know it took longer than a few days for life to appear after the first stars formed. We know birds did not appear before the first land animals. We know the first human didn't appear out of a whirlwind of dirt. We know the first woman didn't form from a man's rib. We know there wasn't a global flood, and so on.
One last thing we are certain of is that there has not been one phenomenon that we didn't know the cause of in the past but today we know for sure it's God. I'm not sure of the exact score now but it's probably like Physics 1000 and God 0 in terms of things that can be explained today that we didn't know in the past.
So, which the more likely explanation of how we got here, natural or supernatural? The odds would say that there's a physical explanation to the origins of the universe and life but just haven't figured it out yet. Science and math have done a pretty good job so far of explaining our world. On the other hand God hasn't explained anything how he did it, and the Bible has a good track record of being wrong!
My money is going on the side of physics rather than in a church collection bin.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (1)
This will be the first installment of many to come where I talk about bogus statistics and their numerical flaws. Today's post will be about crime rate statistics.
After vacationing in Myrtle Beach, SC, from 1979 to 2005 and living in the town full-time from 2005 to 2011, never once did I feel unsafe and at no time was I under the impression that I was living in one of the most dangerous cities in America ... until the following rankings appeared:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/
Are you kidding me? Myrtle Beach ranked the 21st most dangerous city in the country? More dangerous than Newark, NJ (51st) or Philadelphia, PA (50th)? Surely you can't be serious (I am serious and please don't call me Shirley, LOL).
I grew up in NJ, just minutes away from Newark. No way (and I really mean no way) is Myrtle Beach more dangerous. Not even close. So what gives, how can the statistics lie?
Quite simple. Crime rates are computed as total # of crimes divided by population of the city (i.e., crime rate = total crimes / population). The problem is that Myrtle Beach only has a steady population of 35,000 people; however there are millions of tourists that visit the city through the year. In the Spring and Fall hoards of golfers visit from the north where it gets too cold to play golf and tees up in the warmer climate on one of Myrtle's 100+ golf courses. In the summer, throngs of families visit the coast to enjoy the beach. However, the crime rates don't include this transient population! Therein lies (no pun intended) the flaw of crime rate statistics, they do not include the number of tourists in the denominator.
If the crime rates were computed like this: crime rate = total crimes / (population + tourists) then the true crime rate of Myrtle Beach would drop substantially relative to Newark because, let's face it, not too many people spend a nice family vacation in Newark, LOL. Residents in Myrtle Beach can now sleep easier!
After vacationing in Myrtle Beach, SC, from 1979 to 2005 and living in the town full-time from 2005 to 2011, never once did I feel unsafe and at no time was I under the impression that I was living in one of the most dangerous cities in America ... until the following rankings appeared:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/
Are you kidding me? Myrtle Beach ranked the 21st most dangerous city in the country? More dangerous than Newark, NJ (51st) or Philadelphia, PA (50th)? Surely you can't be serious (I am serious and please don't call me Shirley, LOL).
I grew up in NJ, just minutes away from Newark. No way (and I really mean no way) is Myrtle Beach more dangerous. Not even close. So what gives, how can the statistics lie?
Quite simple. Crime rates are computed as total # of crimes divided by population of the city (i.e., crime rate = total crimes / population). The problem is that Myrtle Beach only has a steady population of 35,000 people; however there are millions of tourists that visit the city through the year. In the Spring and Fall hoards of golfers visit from the north where it gets too cold to play golf and tees up in the warmer climate on one of Myrtle's 100+ golf courses. In the summer, throngs of families visit the coast to enjoy the beach. However, the crime rates don't include this transient population! Therein lies (no pun intended) the flaw of crime rate statistics, they do not include the number of tourists in the denominator.
If the crime rates were computed like this: crime rate = total crimes / (population + tourists) then the true crime rate of Myrtle Beach would drop substantially relative to Newark because, let's face it, not too many people spend a nice family vacation in Newark, LOL. Residents in Myrtle Beach can now sleep easier!
Monday, November 18, 2013
Improving Weather Forecasts
How you can improve weather forecasts ...
By far the biggest source of error in 1-2 day weather forecasting is in the communication of the forecast from the meteorologist to the user. That is, the computer models could get it right but the information gets garbled in the communication process resulting in error.
The communication errors stem from two sources. One is that a significant percentage of meteorologists do a very poor job of presenting the forecast. On a typical 3 minute weather segment, the meteorologist may spend 2:50 of that time talking about local temperatures, past weather, current weather, frontal boundaries, and pressure systems. Then the last 10 seconds they flash the 7-day forecast filled with stupid icons that don't accurately convey the actual forecast, and they expect the user to digest the entire forecast in those closing seconds of the segment.
And then there's the National Weather Service forecasters who absolutely butcher the meaning of precipitation probability. Every day in the summer the forecast includes an "XX% chance of showers and thunderstorms". Well the XX% is not the probability of having at least two showers and two thunderstorms at the user's location. It's the probability that 0.01" of rain will fall on your head. Quite the difference.
However, the meteorologist isn't the only one to blame in the communication process. Oh no, you're likely at fault too. Why? Because most people hear the weather forecast in passing or from someone else, and have a hard time remembering the actual forecast if called upon. Ask 10 people on the street what the weather forecast says for the next few days you'll likely get 10 different responses. When I taught an intro meteorology class at Penn State, one day I played the recording of the campus weather service forecast at the beginning of class. At the end of class I asked them to write down the forecast. Almost 90% couldn't. People generally have selective memories.
So what can you do to improve weather forecasting? Three things. One is if tomorrow's weather is very important to you for planning, then don't listen to what your friend says what the weather will be. Information will only get garbled in the extra transmission process. Only listen to the forecast directly from a meteorologists mouth. Second, be sure to listen to the forecast carefully (and maybe listen a couple of times) so that you can recall the forecast an hour or two later if you need it. Third, if forecast accuracy is important, then listen to the forecasts of several meteorologists and take the average. Numerous studies have shown that the consensus opinion will outperform the individual forecasters nearly every time.
As for improving the National Weather Service in this regard, well, I pointed out their probability problem over 15 years ago and it fell on deaf ears. Sad to say they're kind of stuck in their ways. As for the TV side, the door is wide open for a meteorologist to break the mold and present weather in a different, more intuitive manner that reduces the potential for miscommunication error.
By far the biggest source of error in 1-2 day weather forecasting is in the communication of the forecast from the meteorologist to the user. That is, the computer models could get it right but the information gets garbled in the communication process resulting in error.
The communication errors stem from two sources. One is that a significant percentage of meteorologists do a very poor job of presenting the forecast. On a typical 3 minute weather segment, the meteorologist may spend 2:50 of that time talking about local temperatures, past weather, current weather, frontal boundaries, and pressure systems. Then the last 10 seconds they flash the 7-day forecast filled with stupid icons that don't accurately convey the actual forecast, and they expect the user to digest the entire forecast in those closing seconds of the segment.
And then there's the National Weather Service forecasters who absolutely butcher the meaning of precipitation probability. Every day in the summer the forecast includes an "XX% chance of showers and thunderstorms". Well the XX% is not the probability of having at least two showers and two thunderstorms at the user's location. It's the probability that 0.01" of rain will fall on your head. Quite the difference.
However, the meteorologist isn't the only one to blame in the communication process. Oh no, you're likely at fault too. Why? Because most people hear the weather forecast in passing or from someone else, and have a hard time remembering the actual forecast if called upon. Ask 10 people on the street what the weather forecast says for the next few days you'll likely get 10 different responses. When I taught an intro meteorology class at Penn State, one day I played the recording of the campus weather service forecast at the beginning of class. At the end of class I asked them to write down the forecast. Almost 90% couldn't. People generally have selective memories.
So what can you do to improve weather forecasting? Three things. One is if tomorrow's weather is very important to you for planning, then don't listen to what your friend says what the weather will be. Information will only get garbled in the extra transmission process. Only listen to the forecast directly from a meteorologists mouth. Second, be sure to listen to the forecast carefully (and maybe listen a couple of times) so that you can recall the forecast an hour or two later if you need it. Third, if forecast accuracy is important, then listen to the forecasts of several meteorologists and take the average. Numerous studies have shown that the consensus opinion will outperform the individual forecasters nearly every time.
As for improving the National Weather Service in this regard, well, I pointed out their probability problem over 15 years ago and it fell on deaf ears. Sad to say they're kind of stuck in their ways. As for the TV side, the door is wide open for a meteorologist to break the mold and present weather in a different, more intuitive manner that reduces the potential for miscommunication error.
Financial Transactions Tax
Talking about potential Government money grabs ...
Former labor secretary Robert Reich wants to see a 0.5% financial transaction tax (FTT) imposed on all stock market trades. This FTT has been proposed before by several politicians and just never seems to go away. The quick skinny is it's bad law and won't provide the benefits that supporters purport. Here's why.
As a private equity manager, when I make a stock trade my broker charges me 0.5 cents commission on every share of stock traded. So if I buy a stock that costs $50 per share, the brokerage earns 0.01% commission on that transaction ($0.005 / $50). In return for the commission, the brokerage executes and clears the trade through the exchange, pays any exchange fee, provides trade and accounting reporting, provides real-time market data, provides trading platform software, and provides technical support. All those nice services for just 0.01% commission per trade.
Now Reich and others want Government to impose a tax that amounts to 50 times what brokerages work their asses off to collect for the transaction!!! I'll repeat that because it's important. The Government wants to impose a tax in an amount that is 50 times greater than the total money that all brokerages collect for processing the transaction. Sorry, but in my opinion that's beyond draconian. More importantly, however, the tax won't increase revenues as planned. The problem is you can't just impose a tax and expect everybody to behave in the same manner. Imposing a huge 0.5% tax each trade will eliminate all short- and medium-term trading, not just the so-called "high-frequency" or "day-traders". These type of trades amount to at least 75% of all trading on the exchanges.
Why would the 0.5% tax dramatically reduce the amount of trading? Well, quite simply if you had a strategy that made 12% annual profit and changed the portfolio just once each month, under the proposed FTT you would now make 0% profit since the FTT is imposed on both the buy side and sell side (0.5% x 24 = 12% hurdle). Why would anyone continue trading a strategy that doesn't make any money?! So if all the day-traders, short- and medium-term traders are obliterated, then the amount of commissions & profits collected by the brokerages and exchanges will be reduced significantly which will then result in lower corporate tax and/or personal income tax payments to the IRS. So yeah, technically the FTT would gain revenue off the transactions, but that would be offset by the reduced taxable revenue collected from the brokerages, exchanges and their employees.
However, the results would be even more chilling as thousands of private equity managers and proprietary traders would be put out of business since their trading strategies wouldn't be able to produce gains after the tax is imposed. So the government would lose out on income taxes of their revenues in addition to those of their investors. Additionally, with reduced commissions & profits, the brokerages and exchanges would likely have to lay-off some employees. These are not the 1% type either, we're talking about IT people, customer support, etc, which would also result in reduced income tax payments to the IRS. The reduced trading on the exchanges would widen the bid-ask spread and increase transaction costs for those who are still trading on the exchanges, which of course those costs feed through to anyone owning an IRA or 401k.
Proponents of the FTT want to penalize the financial industry for causing the financial collapse of 2008-09 and want to create a mechanism to slow trading on the exchanges so that there is less volatility. Well, this is horrible thinking IMO. By imposing the tax they are penalizing people and firms that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial meltdown of 5 years ago and creating all sorts of other problems as stated above. Moreover, there is no evidence that reducing algorithm or high-frequency trading on the exchanges will reduce volatility. In fact, the volatility in the last decade with the growth in electronic trading has been no different than the trading over the previous 80 years. If the government wants to prevent another financial collapse there are better avenues ... like limiting the leverage banks & financial institutions may utilize when purchasing derivatives. Leverage kills. That's why the SEC wisely restricts leverage to 2x equity balance on overnight stock holdings, which means if you have 100k in the cash account you can own 200k of stock. In contrast, the institutions that collapsed in the financial meltdown had leverage ratios over 30x in 2007 owning derivatives. Well, if you utilize 30x leveraging power than what is actually in your equity account and the derivative drops just 3.3% in price, then you've just lost all your money!
Sorry, but the financial transactions tax is an over-reach and will accomplish nothing but curtail freedom. What's next, a transaction tax every time you deposit and withdraw money from your bank?
Former labor secretary Robert Reich wants to see a 0.5% financial transaction tax (FTT) imposed on all stock market trades. This FTT has been proposed before by several politicians and just never seems to go away. The quick skinny is it's bad law and won't provide the benefits that supporters purport. Here's why.
As a private equity manager, when I make a stock trade my broker charges me 0.5 cents commission on every share of stock traded. So if I buy a stock that costs $50 per share, the brokerage earns 0.01% commission on that transaction ($0.005 / $50). In return for the commission, the brokerage executes and clears the trade through the exchange, pays any exchange fee, provides trade and accounting reporting, provides real-time market data, provides trading platform software, and provides technical support. All those nice services for just 0.01% commission per trade.
Now Reich and others want Government to impose a tax that amounts to 50 times what brokerages work their asses off to collect for the transaction!!! I'll repeat that because it's important. The Government wants to impose a tax in an amount that is 50 times greater than the total money that all brokerages collect for processing the transaction. Sorry, but in my opinion that's beyond draconian. More importantly, however, the tax won't increase revenues as planned. The problem is you can't just impose a tax and expect everybody to behave in the same manner. Imposing a huge 0.5% tax each trade will eliminate all short- and medium-term trading, not just the so-called "high-frequency" or "day-traders". These type of trades amount to at least 75% of all trading on the exchanges.
Why would the 0.5% tax dramatically reduce the amount of trading? Well, quite simply if you had a strategy that made 12% annual profit and changed the portfolio just once each month, under the proposed FTT you would now make 0% profit since the FTT is imposed on both the buy side and sell side (0.5% x 24 = 12% hurdle). Why would anyone continue trading a strategy that doesn't make any money?! So if all the day-traders, short- and medium-term traders are obliterated, then the amount of commissions & profits collected by the brokerages and exchanges will be reduced significantly which will then result in lower corporate tax and/or personal income tax payments to the IRS. So yeah, technically the FTT would gain revenue off the transactions, but that would be offset by the reduced taxable revenue collected from the brokerages, exchanges and their employees.
However, the results would be even more chilling as thousands of private equity managers and proprietary traders would be put out of business since their trading strategies wouldn't be able to produce gains after the tax is imposed. So the government would lose out on income taxes of their revenues in addition to those of their investors. Additionally, with reduced commissions & profits, the brokerages and exchanges would likely have to lay-off some employees. These are not the 1% type either, we're talking about IT people, customer support, etc, which would also result in reduced income tax payments to the IRS. The reduced trading on the exchanges would widen the bid-ask spread and increase transaction costs for those who are still trading on the exchanges, which of course those costs feed through to anyone owning an IRA or 401k.
Proponents of the FTT want to penalize the financial industry for causing the financial collapse of 2008-09 and want to create a mechanism to slow trading on the exchanges so that there is less volatility. Well, this is horrible thinking IMO. By imposing the tax they are penalizing people and firms that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial meltdown of 5 years ago and creating all sorts of other problems as stated above. Moreover, there is no evidence that reducing algorithm or high-frequency trading on the exchanges will reduce volatility. In fact, the volatility in the last decade with the growth in electronic trading has been no different than the trading over the previous 80 years. If the government wants to prevent another financial collapse there are better avenues ... like limiting the leverage banks & financial institutions may utilize when purchasing derivatives. Leverage kills. That's why the SEC wisely restricts leverage to 2x equity balance on overnight stock holdings, which means if you have 100k in the cash account you can own 200k of stock. In contrast, the institutions that collapsed in the financial meltdown had leverage ratios over 30x in 2007 owning derivatives. Well, if you utilize 30x leveraging power than what is actually in your equity account and the derivative drops just 3.3% in price, then you've just lost all your money!
Sorry, but the financial transactions tax is an over-reach and will accomplish nothing but curtail freedom. What's next, a transaction tax every time you deposit and withdraw money from your bank?
Retiring Wealthy
How to retire very wealthy ...
The answer is to start young, as early as 14 or 15. Get a summer job and start investing the money. If you start young and remain disciplined, you will have 10-20 times more money at retirement age than if you wait until you are 40 to begin investing (and you'd have way more money than Uncle Sam will give you in Social Security). That's the difference between retiring with 75k in your IRA and retiring a millionaire. Then when you're at retirement age you can live comfortably off the interest while leaving a nice nest egg for your kids. The beauty is anybody (and I really mean anybody, regardless of income level) can do this who has the right mind-set and discipline level.
Why we don't teach the miracle of compounding interest to kids in school is beyond me (in addition to other aspects regarding money). There should be a course all about money, and students should be required to take it just like algebra, and I'm not talking about an esoteric economics or finance class where they teach BS theory. This would be a "get your hands dirty" course about how to manage money, how to balance a checkbook, what kind of retirement accounts are there, how the financial markets work, how to buy shares of stock, how to start a business, and so on.
If you're 40+, it's never too late to start investing, but at least try to get your kids or your grandkids to start today.
The answer is to start young, as early as 14 or 15. Get a summer job and start investing the money. If you start young and remain disciplined, you will have 10-20 times more money at retirement age than if you wait until you are 40 to begin investing (and you'd have way more money than Uncle Sam will give you in Social Security). That's the difference between retiring with 75k in your IRA and retiring a millionaire. Then when you're at retirement age you can live comfortably off the interest while leaving a nice nest egg for your kids. The beauty is anybody (and I really mean anybody, regardless of income level) can do this who has the right mind-set and discipline level.
Why we don't teach the miracle of compounding interest to kids in school is beyond me (in addition to other aspects regarding money). There should be a course all about money, and students should be required to take it just like algebra, and I'm not talking about an esoteric economics or finance class where they teach BS theory. This would be a "get your hands dirty" course about how to manage money, how to balance a checkbook, what kind of retirement accounts are there, how the financial markets work, how to buy shares of stock, how to start a business, and so on.
If you're 40+, it's never too late to start investing, but at least try to get your kids or your grandkids to start today.
Resurrection of Jesus
To all those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus ...
Suppose a person (named Trevor) was recently arrested and placed on trial for a crime committed 40 years ago. Let's say the charge was that Trevor murdered someone as they left a night club. At the trial the prosecutor sums up the case as follows:
- There is NO physical evidence, no DNA evidence, no smoking gun, no fingerprints, no tire tracks, no footprints, and no pictures or security tapes which link Trevor to the crime;
- There are NO eyewitnesses to provide direct testimony in the case;
- However, there is a note that says Trevor was the one who shot the victim;
- The author of the note was not an eyewitness, but was written down by an anonymous author who knew somebody that knew someone else who was around 40 years ago when there were rumors around town that Trevor might have shot the victim;
- The note was not the original document, but rather a 4th generation copy that was created from scratch by another anonymous writer who claimed to be copying the original;
- The only other piece of evidence was a letter that some person wrote (named Paul, who has since passed away) which claimed that the ghost of the victim appeared to Paul in a vision and told him that Trevor was the person who shot the victim.
If you're on this jury would you vote guilty or not guilty for Trevor? I think a vast majority of rational people would vote not guilty and would only take about 2 seconds to even think about the decision because the case was so ludicrous.
So it boggles my mind that, with equivalent scant evidence, a reasonable person would strongly believe in the resurrection of Jesus. There is certainly no physical evidence available (no security camera footage, no DNA evidence, etc). Additionally, the accounts in the New Testament would never be considered evidence in a court of law because they are hearsay. In fact, they are very bad hearsay because the Gospel writers were anonymous and were not eyewitnesses. In fact, they were not even written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; those names were assigned hundreds of years later by the Church out of tradition. Moreover, the alleged accounts were not written about until decades after the events were thought to occur, followed by centuries of likely manipulation from other anonymous authors. Contrary to the popular view, the accounts in the Bible are not like newspaper reports. Instead, what's written in the New Testament Gospels was based on oral gossip and rumors that got passed around for decades before they were finally written down, which makes them subject to embellishment and opens up the potential for fabrication of ancient history.
Two-thousand years ago there were no TV cameras to record events, no news reporters, and no forensic scientists to validate bizarre claims. Moreover, there were very few skeptical thinkers and the scientific method would not be fully developed until centuries later. Furthermore, ancient people were highly superstitious, believing in demons, ghosts, magic, fortune telling, and astrology. So combining all these factors it is easy to see how myths and legends could arise so easily among ancient people, and how stories about empty tombs, resurrections and postmortem appearances could arise and spread.
Just something to think about the next time you decide to put money in the collection bin at church ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)