Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Anyway, now I

Eloise wrote:

Anyway, now I see you eventually behave like a childish brat when you're disagreed with I've suddenly run out of time for you. We won't be discussing this any further, mate, see ya.

You seem to have caught on quicker than I did.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Creation

angelobrazil wrote:


Creation and Maintenance of the Universe
If, universally, all systems and processes are “winding down”, dissipating energy and becoming more disordered over time, this implies the universe will at some point reach a state of equilibrium with constant temperature everywhere and the energy in all stars and other systems will have dissipated. Since this has not yet happened, the implication is that the universe has NOT always existed or else equilibrium would have already been reached. The universe exists, thus it must have had a beginning. Since natural processes have never been observed creating something from nothing, the only explanation for the existence of the universe is an un-natural or super-natural creation.

Since we are unaware of any universal maintenance program, we can conclude that the universe will continually proceed in the direction of increasing disorder (Entropy) and energy dissipation, thus eventually reaching a state of equilibrium everywhere.

For the last time, entropy did not exist before the big bang, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics didn't apply before the big bang and there are many hypothesies about what caused the big bang.

angelobrazil wrote:

Correct. This implies a cause. Nothing starts from nothing. What was the cause thow of the universe ?

If nothing starts from nothing why is god an exception and if god always existed why can't the universe always existed?

angelobrazil wrote:

Excuse me? Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions. In fact, it almost sounds like, dare I say it, intelligent design.

Given that 1. We know life exist and those events could have been the beginning.

                 2. Those events needed to happen only once

                 3. The conditions that existed on earth at that time could have easily caused those events

                 4. The other alternative is life was made by a being that there is no proof for.

I'd say It's pretty likely that it happened like that.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet Just because

Vastet wrote:
Just because something happened does not mean there is a god. It means something happened.

It also implies that it might involve conditions of possibilities. If you say something happened which reveals a intelligently composed complexity, it follows that their was some sort of intelligence behind this composition, an intelligent agent behind it. 

So the arguments is not what sort of intelligence is it, if it has two arms, a physical body that can be scientifically tested for, but rather if the universe could have came into being without an intelligent agent behind it. And more specific to this thread, is if the belief (like it would have fairly indisputable in the pre-darwin society--hence the prevalence of deism among skeptics) that the universe, and human life reveals an intelligence behind it, like a watch does, a viable conclusion.

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:reveals an

theTwelve wrote:
reveals an intelligence behind it, like a watch does, a viable conclusion.

This argument is one that has always baffled me (and I'm not suggesting you're making it). We know how watches are made, and we know that it's people who make them. To say that watches are made by any other creature would be silly. Even the statement "all watches are made by people" is easily falsifiable by a single instance of a watch created by anything non-human. I would feel safe in the practical assertion that all watches are made by humans, but accept that I could be proven wrong by any inhuman watch that might happen to come my way. That, and there are lots of watches.

Only one universe, though. So it's not even close to the same scenario. The odds can't be calculated in the same way at all. Let's say we have a billion watches ever made worldwide (obviously not a real number, but just say). That means that I could roughly say that there's a 1 in a billion chance that the next watch made would be made by a non-human.

What are the odds for a deist universe? A magically appearing universe? Who knows? With just one universe, the odds can't be calculated.

What's really odd is the idea that people who are not well versed in the mechanical complexities of intelligence can argue as if knowing what intelligence is all about. It's very difficult to get evidence for something you don't understand, but that doesn't seem to stop creationists. Their understanding of intelligence is apparently "good enough" that they know it when they see it.

That just blows my mind.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for Oblivion

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

For the last time, entropy did not exist before the big bang, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics didn't apply before the big bang and there are many hypothesies about what caused the big bang.

 

In fact, probably you will bring up your argument for the last time, after i answer you.

The laws of nature got in place at the beginning too, when everything,  matter, space, energy, and time where created. This doesn't change the fact, that the universe will continually proceed in the direction of increasing disorder (Entropy) and energy dissipation, thus eventually reaching a state of equilibrium everywhere. Therefor, the Universe could not be eternal, otherwise it would have already reached equilibrium, and we would not be here anymore.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Correct. This implies a cause. Nothing starts from nothing. What was the cause thow of the universe ?

 

If nothing starts from nothing why is god an exception and if god always existed why can't the universe always existed?

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm#206

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

We can summarize our argument as follows:

1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.

From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.

From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked,{67} is what everybody means by God.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

3. The conditions that existed on earth at that time could have easily caused those events

based on what do you make that assumption ?

Science has a pretty accurate picture about the difficulties of Abiogenesis might be occured:

you have some reading here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth-t60.htm

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Vastet

theTwelve wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Just because something happened does not mean there is a god. It means something happened.

It also implies that it might involve conditions of possibilities. If you say something happened which reveals a intelligently composed complexity, it follows that their was some sort of intelligence behind this composition, an intelligent agent behind it. 

So the arguments is not what sort of intelligence is it, if it has two arms, a physical body that can be scientifically tested for, but rather if the universe could have came into being without an intelligent agent behind it. And more specific to this thread, is if the belief (like it would have fairly indisputable in the pre-darwin society--hence the prevalence of deism among skeptics) that the universe, and human life reveals an intelligence behind it, like a watch does, a viable conclusion.

 

 

 

 

Indeed it does imply possibilities. You manage to ignore them and jump straight to "(my version of) God did it"

Man is also one of the most poorly designed beings on the planet. If you want to claim your God created man, you've just admitted he's a moron.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
why ignore the possiblities

First off energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so space-time and matter in our universe have a starting, energy has always been there in one form or another and therefore is not created as part of our universe. If in the case of the singularity the energy was compressed into the singularity how that occurred is now a different topic of discussion. As well as any other theory out there regarding our universe has to explain the observed expansion of energy throughout our universe.

Now your trying to say that either it's A or B, basically either the universe happened like this or god did it. However your forget in science it's more like A - Z and Z being the most remote possibility there is. You have to eliminate ALL the other hypothesis/theories before even saying god did it. You seem to be saying the entire time is that nope god did it. Oh God is explanation Z here.

All the while you like to ignore all the natural explanations that scientists have come up with for the universe, life and everything else around us. Lets say for the sake of argument that the singularity idea is completely false and without merit (it's still around although and still used because even Loop Quantum Gravity has problems explaining other parts of the big bang), then there are a few other hypothesis/theories to eliminate such as: String theory, multiverse theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and of course the big crunch now all have to be eliminated as well (as well as a few others) before you can say ok, god did it.

Then so, you have to prove god did it. god exists or existed. Which at this point you have failed to do so. Before saying god is the only possibility you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is a possibility. Something you have yet to even come close to.

For your whole genetic code argument, you have yet to show that some how the scientists are wrong with their hypothesis/theories of how RNA and DNA naturally formed and how the "code" came about NATURALLY.  You really need to eliminate all the other possibilities or at least prove them far beyond reasonable doubt (again something you have failed to do) before you get to say the only possibility is god.

Your argument that the universe had a cause, therefore that cause is god, is really ignorant because you fail to even accept the all the other natural possible causes. God is not the only cause for the universe nor the only possibility in the end. Many other possibilities have been given to you, you just like to ignore them in favor of god.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:First off

latincanuck wrote:

First off energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so space-time and matter in our universe have a starting, energy has always been there in one form or another and therefore is not created as part of our universe.

False. Energy was created together with all other elements , that exist.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.[20]

This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[21] Thus, what the Big Bang model of the universe seems to require is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

latincanuck wrote:

All the while you like to ignore all the natural explanations that scientists have come up with for the universe, life and everything else around us. Lets say for the sake of argument that the singularity idea is completely false and without merit (it's still around although and still used because even Loop Quantum Gravity has problems explaining other parts of the big bang), then there are a few other hypothesis/theories to eliminate such as: String theory, multiverse theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and of course the big crunch now all have to be eliminated as well (as well as a few others) before you can say ok, god did it.

I have not made a research of all hypotheses science gives as possibility of the origin of the universe.

But some, like multiverse , big crunch etc. i have given a closer look, and all are pure speculation. No evidence at all to support these claims :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/

but the BigBang theory finds a big consensus amongst Science, and therefor beggs a answer, what was the cause of it.

 

latincanuck wrote:

Then so, you have to prove god did it.god exists or existed. Which at this point you have failed to do so. Before saying god is the only possibility you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is a possibility. Something you have yet to even come close to.

The only thing that makes sense to be discussed is which model and explanation is more rational, and makes more sense : the hypotheses which claims there is a creator and designer of everything  that exists, ore the model that denies this hypotheses. To ask for proves, is senseless, since nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God.

For me, it not only makes much more sense rationally , and philosophically, to believe in God, but i base my faith and believe also in personal experiences ( but since these are entirely subjective , it would not make much sense to discuss them here ) In my introduction post, i have mentioned only 3 reasons, that evidence God. But there are actually many more :

Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm

 

Quote:
For your whole genetic code argument, you have yet to show that some how the scientists are wrong with their hypothesis/theories of how RNA and DNA naturally formed and how the "code" came about NATURALLY.  You really need to eliminate all the other possibilities or at least prove them far beyond reasonable doubt (again something you have failed to do) before you get to say the only possibility is god.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Quote:

Your argument that the universe had a cause, therefore that cause is god, is really ignorant because you fail to even accept the all the other natural possible causes. God is not the only cause for the universe nor the only possibility in the end. Many other possibilities have been given to you, you just like to ignore them in favor of god.

What other cause do you suggest ? you haven't yet suggested anyone that has scientific support.

this is fun reading :

Was there ever nothing ?

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:This

HisWillness wrote:
This argument is one that has always baffled me

Well, i think it baffles you, because you don't understand why we feel certain things are "designed". It's not because we know that watches are watches, that we know that they're designed, but rather because we perceive an intention in it's creation, a function it is to serve. We believe it to be designed because it presents qualities to us that designed things have. I'd claim a watch was designed at my first sight of it, just by my familiarity with television sets. 

If baffles you, it doesn't baffle Richard Dawkins, and it's why he's capable of an exemplar rebuttal of the watchmaker argument, by making a case for the unintelligence of things, a sort of blindness if there actually were to be a creator. It isn't baffling to an atheist such as Victor Stinger, who concedes that the Paley watchmaker argument was quite a convincing argument for God in a pre-Darwin age. In fact I'd venture to say that if it wasn't for Darwin as an alternative to "intelligently" designed beings, there'd be far fewer atheist today, and more deist. 

I'd say it baffling to me, that it baffles you. 

Quote:
(and I'm not suggesting you're making it).

I'm not making the argument, I'm only explaining it.

Quote:
What's really odd is the idea that people who are not well versed in the mechanical complexities of intelligence can argue as if knowing what intelligence is all about.

People have a good understanding of what intelligence is all about, because they live in a world surrounded by intelligently created contraptions, from spoons, to toilet paper, to iPods.

What we are perhaps not so well versed in is what unintelligence is all about. A child comes into the world, encapsulated into a home were every object serves a purpose, that on those rare occasions he ventures outside and sees a pointy rock, he assume they are there so animals can scratch themselves, they have yet to develop a formative understanding of uselessness, of objects not designed for a purpose. 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: You manage

jcgadfly wrote:
 You manage to ignore them and jump straight to "(my version of) God did it"

Again jcgadfly you suffer from a misunderstanding. I explained an argument I didn't make one. An important distinction, if you figure out what it means. 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:False.

angelobrazil wrote:

False. Energy was created together with all other elements , that exist.

Ok either you are going to use science or your not, the law of conservation of energy states otherwise, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy was never created with all the other elements, energy has always been, therefore it was never CREATED.

 

 

 

Quote:

I have not made a research of all hypotheses science gives as possibility of the origin of the universe.

But some, like multiverse , big crunch etc. i have given a closer look, and all are pure speculation. No evidence at all to support these claims :

It's a bit more than just speculation, however again you have not eliminated all the possiblities. Therefore god is still not a viable option.

Quote:

The only thing that makes sense to be discussed is which model and explanation is more rational, and makes more sense : the hypotheses which claims there is a creator and designer of everything  that exists, ore the model that denies this hypotheses. To ask for proves, is senseless, since nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God.

For me, it not only makes much more sense rationally , and philosophically, to believe in God, but i base my faith and believe also in personal experiences ( but since these are entirely subjective , it would not make much sense to discuss them here ) In my introduction post, i have mentioned only 3 reasons, that evidence God. But there are actually many more :

If everything needs a creator than the creator needs a creator, and that creator needs a creator to, etc, etc, etc, basically where does it end? Every creator needs a creator. Only make sense from everything needs a creator. It is not a rational option. Those three reason you given all have natural explanations so far. None require a creator.

Quote:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Again no they are not, yes they working on a natural cause, since the code was naturally created which is what again? How the chemical interaction works, however you have no shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this is THE ONLY way is possible is via an intelligent mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis please show me were this stated an intelligent mind HAD to create this? Second what created that intelligent mind? what created the creator of that intelligent mind as well.

in the end you have no eliminated all the possibilities and has such jump to the conclusion that god did it. Again please beyond a reasonable doubt show god could have only done everything you claim.

Quote:

What other cause do you suggest ? you haven't yet suggested anyone that has scientific support.

this is fun reading :

Was there ever nothing ?

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

 

Already given you suggestions, which again science does believe is a possibility, you have refused to show otherwise, quantum flux is one possibility scientists have suggested, as for scientific support, umm I have given you a bunch of possibilities all of those are suggested and being studied by scientists, even the wikipedia sites you gave for DNA for genetic code, and the ones I gave you for loop quantum gravity etc, but hey here is some for the big bang and possible explantions for the causes

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory (yes they have been proposed, and much like your statement there is no evidence yet, however god has the same problem zero evidence for it existance, however these could be natural explanations which now eliminate the need for the big problem you have with the explanation that all things need a creator)

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/questions.html a bunch more of possibilities here as well, and we could go on and on.

Yet again I ask please present the evidence that god exits or exited that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the nothing link you posted, the only people really proposing that the universe came about from nothing are theists that believe god created everything from nothing. Science pretty much states there was something always, energy mainly, how it came about to this point in time in this universe well they are still working on that answer.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

False. Energy was created together with all other elements , that exist.

Ok either you are going to use science or your not, the law of conservation of energy states otherwise, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy was never created with all the other elements, energy has always been, therefore it was never CREATED.

http://is.gd/2IsOR

The first law of thermodynamics affirms that energy is conserved, that it can neither be created or destroyed, that it can only be transformed in other types. This  well verified law of nature does not imply that mass/energy existed everlastingly and necessarily throughout a everlasting or infinite past. Standard BigBand Cosmology affirms that all mass/energy of creation came into being with its laws through the BigBang event. As a law of science, the first law of thermodynamics says energy, once created, energy is conserved, and that we do not know any way how to destroy it.

 

Quote:
I have not made a research of all hypotheses science gives as possibility of the origin of the universe.But some, like multiverse , big crunch etc. i have given a closer look, and all are pure speculation. No evidence at all to support these claims :It's a bit more than just speculation, however again you have not eliminated all the possiblities. Therefore god is still not a viable option.

God is in my opinion the ONLY viable option, since chance as answer of the question of the finetuning of the universe can be discarded.  The multi-verse hypotheses can be discarded as well.

Quote:

If everything needs a creator than the creator needs a creator, and that creator needs a creator to, etc, etc, etc, basically where does it end? Every creator needs a creator. Only make sense from everything needs a creator. It is not a rational option. Those three reason you given all have natural explanations so far. None require a creator.

You would not repeat the same argument, if actually read the links i have posted here.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

 

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.


Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.


Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

 

Quote:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

 

Again no they are not, yes they working on a natural cause, since the code was naturally created which is what again? How the chemical interaction works, however you have no shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this is THE ONLY way is possible is via an intelligent mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis please show me were this stated an intelligent mind HAD to create this? Second what created that intelligent mind? what created the creator of that intelligent mind as well.

in the end you have no eliminated all the possibilities and has such jump to the conclusion that god did it. Again please beyond a reasonable doubt show god could have only done everything you claim.

What other cause do you suggest ? you haven't yet suggested anyone that has scientific support.

this is fun reading :

Was there ever nothing ?

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

Quote:

Already given you suggestions, which again science does believe is a possibility, you have refused to show otherwise, quantum flux is one possibility scientists have suggested, as for scientific support, umm I have given you a bunch of possibilities all of those are suggested and being studied by scientists, even the wikipedia sites you gave for DNA for genetic code, and the ones I gave you for loop quantum gravity etc, but hey here is some for the big bang and possible explantions for the causes

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html

Scientists can suggest inumerous hipotheses. I have seen already someone else mension Bojowald. What however he himself admits , is :

Bojowald also figures some knowledge of the past was irrevocably lost. For instance, the sheer size of the present universe would suppress precise knowledge of how the universe changed in size before the Big Bang, he said.

So why should we consider this not just one more of many speculations without any hint of evidence ?

 

latincanuck wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory (yes they have been proposed, and much like your statement there is no evidence yet, however god has the same problem zero evidence for it existance,

 

It seems you don't make a difference between proves, and evidence. In fact, as said before, nobody has proves in regard of the existence or non - existence of God. But evidence, there is plenty, and i have given you already a good number. Another question is of course if you think these are compelling, or not. The main question however is if you WANT there to be a God, or not. This wish influences and directs all your thinking. If you wish no God to exist, you will search all reasons and evidence that confirms your wish. In this case, even the best argument will find its way only to death ears, and blind eyes.... 

 

 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:The first

angelobrazil wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics affirms that energy is conserved, that it can neither be created or destroyed, that it can only be transformed in other types. This  well verified law of nature does not imply that mass/energy existed everlastingly and necessarily throughout a everlasting or infinite past. Standard BigBand Cosmology affirms that all mass/energy of creation came into being with its laws through the BigBang event. As a law of science, the first law of thermodynamics says energy, once created, energy is conserved, and that we do not know any way how to destroy it.

Oi vey, ok umm lets see if it was a singularity, the energy was already there in a singularity of infinite mass and temperature, the big bang or the expansion of said singularity release the energy in the singularity, no energy created, the energy already exist which some way some how was compressed into the singularity, it was never created. Wow you still don't comprehend this do you?

Quote:

God is in my opinion the ONLY viable option, since chance as answer of the question of the finetuning of the universe can be discarded.  The multi-verse hypotheses can be discarded as well.

Quote:

You could discard them, however science doesn't quite yet, god has no evidence mathematically or otherwise.

Quote:

You would not repeat the same argument, if actually read the links i have posted here.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

 

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.


Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

yeah see energy is still there, and no one said the universe has existed forever, on the contrary it had a beginning some 14.5 billion years ago. Energy however again cannot be created nor destroyed, it simply transfers in one form or another. Even in an object there is kinetic energy, there is always energy, god is not required.

Quote:


So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.


Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Yet the argument fails right at the beginning. The cause can be a natural non intelligent cause, such as a quantum fluxuation. This eliminates the requirement of god. why does the cause HAVE to be intelligent?

Quote:


Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

 

Yet again a natural explanation can be given, and should thought of first, god is not the first and only answer here. Energy has always existed again, according to science. Why is god special that he can avoid abiding all the requirement you put to the universe? Because by doing so you don't need evidence be it mathematical or otherwise to prove god, god is beyond all that. That's the problem with the answer you give about god, it's special pleading. Oh everything needs a creator everything needs a cause....but not god, god is beyond that, this is why god is not really considered a cause or possibility in science, it make no predictions, it doesn't give answers to how it all happened or why, it just adds more questions without any real answers.

Quote:

Scientists can suggest inumerous hipotheses. I have seen already someone else mension Bojowald. What however he himself admits , is :

Bojowald also figures some knowledge of the past was irrevocably lost. For instance, the sheer size of the present universe would suppress precise knowledge of how the universe changed in size before the Big Bang, he said.

So why should we consider this not just one more of many speculations without any hint of evidence ?

Because mathematical models can be proven as well, even without the evidence, this is how science works as well, it has to work in the details, they cannot make wild speculations without some form of proof, be it physical, observed, or mathematical evidence. As well we will probably never know what was before the big bang or how all the energy got to the point of the big bang (expansion). All evidence unfortunately is gone with the expansion, we cannot see outside of our universe to see what the universe occupies.

Quote:

It seems you don't make a difference between proves, and evidence. In fact, as said before, nobody has proves in regard of the existence or non - existence of God. But evidence, there is plenty, and i have given you already a good number. Another question is of course if you think these are compelling, or not. The main question however is if you WANT there to be a God, or not. This wish influences and directs all your thinking. If you wish no God to exist, you will search all reasons and evidence that confirms your wish. In this case, even the best argument will find its way only to death ears, and blind eyes.... 

  

What i want is proof of god beyond a reasonable doubt. Be it mathematically or otherwise, as well if you need to give god an explanation, one that makes far better sense then the special pleading type that you do, that makes god the exception to all the rules and requirements for this universe to exist. Proof and/or evidence in science is important as I said before, there may be no physical evidence but there can be mathematical proof. As such like those of black holes, which have recently been discovered proved the mathematics correct

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070312_black_holes.html

Can you see how science really works, and how your description of god, cannot work for science and is not really an answer but a cop-out?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:At the

angelobrazil wrote:

At the very exact moment , you leave politeness, and  insult your counterpart, instead of answering with RATIONAL ( istn't that the name of this forum ? ) and intelligent answers, you LOST the debate.

And people who behave this way , i  do not loose my time with.  


Again, on the contrary. I've already won. You lost by failing to refute or even address the refutations of your claims. Failing to address them was also rude, so my response likewise degenerated into rudeness; though you'd already lost by then, so technically the debate was already over.

You can try to ignore me if you want, but you are clearly an anti-intellectual troll. I will treat you like one. If you'd like to grow up and have an actual discussion, let me know. I won't hold my breath. Neither will I ignore you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"It also implies that it

"It also implies that it might involve conditions of possibilities. If you say something happened which reveals a intelligently composed complexity, it follows that their was some sort of intelligence behind this composition, an intelligent agent behind it."

Too bad for theists that the universe has nothing to suggest it was designed, and everything to suggest that things happen because of energy and force reacting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:False.

angelobrazil wrote:
False. Energy was created together with all other elements , that exist.

False.
The law of conservation of energystates that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
[latincanuck wrote: Oi vey,

[

latincanuck wrote:
Oi vey, ok umm lets see if it was a singularity, the energy was already there in a singularity of infinite mass and temperature,
So what existed before the singularity, before the (10-34) second ?

latincanuck wrote:
the big bang or the expansion of said singularity release the energy in the singularity, no energy created, the energy already exist which some way some how was compressed into the singularity, it was never created. Wow you still don't comprehend this do you?

Well, it seems the oposit is the case. You seem not to comprehend that before the BigBang, nothing existed, energy came into being together with matter, space and time. Before, nothing existed.

http://www.reasons.org/quantum-mechanics-modern-goliath

latincanuck wrote:
You could discard them, however science doesn't quite yet, god has no evidence mathematically or otherwise.

It seems you are willing to ignore hard facts, and to mantain a irrational view at any cost..... Its up to you to disagree with Steven Hawking, for example : http://www.emmanueldowntown.org/steven-hawking-on-the-anthropic-principle.html

An example of one of these scientific insights is set out by Stephen Hawking in the following way: "Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of early expansion had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less than one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is." Hawking is saying that a difference of one part in ten billion in the rate of cosmic expansion would have been enough to preclude the emergence of life. So you think chance is the best explanation for this ?

latincanuck wrote:
yeah see energy is still there, and no one said the universe has existed forever, on the contrary it had a beginning some 14.5 billion years ago. Energy however again cannot be created nor destroyed, it simply transfers in one form or another. Even in an object there is kinetic energy, there is always energy, god is not required.

If the universe had its beginning 14.5 billion years ago, than this includes energy as well. If energy would have existed before the BigBang, then time would have existed as well..... does that make sense to you ? i mean, you can believe in fairy tales as well....

latincanuck wrote:
Yet the argument fails right at the beginning. The cause can be a natural non intelligent cause, such as a quantum fluxuation. This eliminates the requirement of god. why does the cause HAVE to be intelligent?

Everything that is designed, needs a designer.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

latincanuck wrote:
Yet again a natural explanation can be given, and should thought of first, god is not the first and only answer here. Energy has always existed again, according to science.

No. According to science, it has not. Since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum disorder, and since it is not at maximum disorder today, it could not have been always tending that direction forever. Either the atheist would have to deny the second law of thermodynamics in order to maintain the idea of eternally existing matter and energy, or accept that matter and energy had a starting point. Therefore, the atheist's assertion that matter and energy has always existed is incorrect. The Biblical assertion that there was a beginning is correct.

latincanuck wrote:
Why is god special that he can avoid abiding all the requirement you put to the universe? Because by doing so you don't need evidence be it mathematical or otherwise to prove god, god is beyond all that.

Science is all about probabilities, not about proves.... The probability, that chance was the origin of the universe, is in my view simply zero. And this based on mathematical probabilities.

latincanuck wrote:
What i want is proof of god beyond a reasonable doubt.

once again. What you are looking for, makes no sense. No proofs exist, wheter God exists, or not.

latincanuck wrote:
Be it mathematically or otherwise, as well if you need to give god an explanation, one that makes far better sense then the special pleading type that you do, that makes god the exception to all the rules and requirements for this universe to exist. Proof and/or evidence in science is important as I said before, there may be no physical evidence but there can be mathematical proof. As such like those of black holes, which have recently been discovered proved the mathematics correct

I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?

latincanuck wrote:
Can you see how science really works, and how your description of god, cannot work for science and is not really an answer but a cop-out?

Science, limited to the observable—the measurable—simply cannot provide us with all we need to know about ourselves.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:So what


angelobrazil wrote:

So what existed before the singularity, before the (10-34) second ?

um the singularity would have been there, again assuming the singularity hypothesis is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity of course the issue now is trying to prove that hypothesis true, the math seems that it would have been there, with the observation regarding the big bang, however there are other ideas, and energy is always been there, it has taken different forms that its, the energy did not come from nothing, if again you understood what the singularity was your would realize your statement is one of complete ignorance, never at one point was there nothing, only thesis truly believe the universe came from nothing.

Quote:

Well, it seems the oposit is the case. You seem not to comprehend that before the BigBang, nothing existed, energy came into being together with matter, space and time. Before, nothing existed.

http://www.reasons.org/quantum-mechanics-modern-goliath

yet again there has to be some form of evidence for god, mere speculation without the math to back it up means squat, which is why god is not a variable in science. You have a massive comprehension problem it seems. Multi-verse theory, string theory, loop quantum gravity all have some mathematical evidence, now if they are true or not is a different issue, god does not even have that, it's mere speculation at it's greatest, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the universe to suggest god exists. On the contrary, the quantum mechanics can so causes that are completely random. NO GOD REQUIRED, until you can show me otherwise the argument really is mute, and mere speculation on your part.


Quote:

It seems you are willing to ignore hard facts, and to mantain a irrational view at any cost..... Its up to you to disagree with Steven Hawking, for example : http://www.emmanueldowntown.org/steven-hawking-on-the-anthropic-principle.html

An example of one of these scientific insights is set out by Stephen Hawking in the following way: "Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of early expansion had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less than one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is." Hawking is saying that a difference of one part in ten billion in the rate of cosmic expansion would have been enough to preclude the emergence of life. So you think chance is the best explanation for this ?

 

http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N48/47hawking.48n.html wow, lecture from hawking himself states the following:

Although the principle may seem like a tautology at first, it opens up a very interesting question. When physicists ask themselves why a certain property P of the universe is such, there are two kinds of answers. There could be an underlying theory, which explains P based on more fundamental quantities, or P could be just an accident. In particular, Hawking’s “Anthropic Principle” is the latter answer to a number of problems along the lines of , “isn’t it amazing that the values of the fundamental physical constants are just such that life is possible in the universe?”

Similarly, or so Hawking claims, the dimensionality of space and amount of matter in the universe is an accident, which needs no further explanation. I think that the fact that the accident was such that life is possible is irrelevant here.

so Hawkings is trying to advocate a god? Are you kidding me?

Quote:

If the universe had its beginning 14.5 billion years ago, than this includes energy as well. If energy would have existed before the BigBang, then time would have existed as well..... does that make sense to you ? i mean, you can believe in fairy tales as well....

except time is a property of space, not energy. again read up on a singularity, space-time in our universe began, energy always was there.

Quote:

Everything that is designed, needs a designer.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

[/quote]

yet your argument fails because you say the designer doesn't need a designer, so why does everything in the universe need a designer? is there a lightning maker? a rock maker? a fire maker? Why is your designer the exception to your rules? because it allows you to side step the massive problem this idea creates, infinite regression.

Quote:

Science is all about probabilities, not about proves.... The probability, that chance was the origin of the universe, is in my view simply zero. And this based on mathematical probabilities.

good now give me the a high probability that god exists, because from what you have given me, science has shown your version a extremely low probability of happening, especially since there is nothing back it up but mere speculation. it's not even a valid hypothesis.

Quote:

once again. What you are looking for, makes no sense. No proofs exist, wheter God exists, or not.

again it is a valid question, if you going to attack science with non scientific ideas, who cares, there is no way to validate it, and since there is no evidience of god I have no requirement to believe such god exists, existed or did anything, when all the evidence points to a naturally occuring universe.

Quote:

I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?

and I have given an argument against it, even Stephen Hawkins argues against your point, are you going to disagree with him now? If you like appeal to authority (which is what you did earlier), I am glad to play the same game. The fine tuning argument is a waste of time because you have to show that life is completely not possible in one form or another.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
 You manage to ignore them and jump straight to "(my version of) God did it"

Again jcgadfly you suffer from a misunderstanding. I explained an argument I didn't make one. An important distinction, if you figure out what it means. 

 

 

You attempted to provide support for a evidence free conclusion - you seem to be missing out on that distinction. It's an important distinction also.

Can you figure it out?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:I have

angelobrazil wrote:
I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?
The universe is not fine-tuned, it just is what it is.  There is only one universe that we know of.  To what are you comparing it to conclude that it is fine-tuned?  How do you know that it is?  Our existence, the existence of this universe, does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent and it is mere equivocation to claim that it was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created). 

How can you commit such obvious intellectual dishonesty?  You're claiming much more than any non-believer might safely and you're attributing it to (I assume) a magical creature that can't be objectively verified to exist (even granted you were able to form a coherent definition of the thing so that we might know what to look for).

Quote:
1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.
Sure.  It had a 'cause'.  No problem here, unless you're actually trying to sneak a different use of cause past.

Quote:
The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?
The universe exists.  That is all we know.  There is only one universe for comparison.  It is nonsense to claim that it is fine-tuned and it is further nonsense to speak of chances of any sort unless tautologically.  The exact chances of this universe existing as it does are currently 1 in 1, due to the fact that it exists.  It is not more rational to believe that the universe happened by chance.  It is rational to believe that we are ignorant of the causal chain before the inception of the universe (if it is even necessary that there be a causal chain); further investigation is needed.

Quote:
3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind.
Abiogenesis.  The investigation of the origins of life.  For the matter of it, RNA and amino acids have been formed in laboratory settings not far removed from naturally occurring conditions.  It is by no means impossible that the building blocks for life could have formed naturally.  In fact, it appears to be the only way; life is composed of 'unanimated' (sic) (by which I assume you mean inanimate) matter.

Quote:
why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?
I assume you're referring to the Christian god.  The concept itself is flawed; there is no reason to believe that the Christian god is required for the existence of this universe or for life on Earth; there is no reason to believe that the Christian god does or could exist (the concept is flawed and even in practicality it is not falsifiable); there is no reason to believe Christians' word (there is no way to believe that they have access to special knowledge without committing a fallacy).

Quote:
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?
(I'm assuming you mean to ask if an atheist is more rational than a theist.) Not universally or completely, but on the matter of belief in magical beings absolutely yes!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:HisWillness

theTwelve wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
This argument is one that has always baffled me

Well, i think it baffles you, because you don't understand why we feel certain things are "designed". It's not because we know that watches are watches, that we know that they're designed, but rather because we perceive an intention in it's creation, a function it is to serve. We believe it to be designed because it presents qualities to us that designed things have.

In the context of things, though, there is no undesigned mechanical watch. The set of undesigned mechanical watches has no elements. So it's difficult to see why the argument would persist (and not why it was convincing originally, which is obvious, as you point out).

 

theTwelve wrote:
People have a good understanding of what intelligence is all about, because they live in a world surrounded by intelligently created contraptions, from spoons, to toilet paper, to iPods.

That's fair. Any object that is engineered can be said to be designed intelligently. How one would pair intelligence to the design and execution of an entire universe bends the imagination. Especially since our only real example of intelligence comes from mammals; more specifically us.

theTwelve wrote:
What we are perhaps not so well versed in is what unintelligence is all about. A child comes into the world, encapsulated into a home were every object serves a purpose, that on those rare occasions he ventures outside and sees a pointy rock, he assume they are there so animals can scratch themselves, they have yet to develop a formative understanding of uselessness, of objects not designed for a purpose.

Right. While animals may, in fact, scratch themselves on the rock, and may find a use for that same rock, there is nothing to say that the rock was carved by a being with intelligence. That would be confirmation bias.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: angelobrazil

Thomathy wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?
The universe is not fine-tuned, it just is what it is.
That is not what science says.
Thomathy wrote:
There is only one universe that we know of. To what are you comparing it to conclude that it is fine-tuned? .
I don't need to compare it to anything else, to get this conclusion. http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe-aug-2006
Thomathy wrote:
How do you know that it is? Our existence, the existence of this universe, does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent and it is mere equivocation to claim that it was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created).
Based on what do you come to this conclusion ?
Thomathy wrote:
How can you commit such obvious intellectual dishonesty? You're claiming much more than any non-believer might safely and you're attributing it to (I assume) a magical creature that can't be objectively verified to exist (even granted you were able to form a coherent definition of the thing so that we might know what to look for).
Shure, i can do that. Who God is - the essence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Thomathy

angelobrazial wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?
The universe is not fine-tuned, it just is what it is.
That is not what science says
There is only one universe that we know of. To what are you comparing it to conclude that it is fine-tuned?.
I don't need to compare it to anything else, to get this conclusion. http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe-aug-2006
What? The list you quote is not proof that the universe is fine-tuned. It is proof that the universe contains observable facts. With no other universe to compare this one to we cannot conclude that it is fine-tuned, only that it exists as it does. What you need is a logical argument that the universe is fine-tuned, not a list of observed facts and certainly not that fine-tuning 'argument' (which is fallacious).
Thomathy wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
How do you know that it is? Our existence, the existence of this universe, does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent and it is mere equivocation to claim that it was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created).
Based on what do you come to this conclusion ?
Which conclusion? First, the universe does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent: Such an agent has never been observed and no scientific undertaking investigating the origin of the universe or its inception has uncovered an intelligent agent. It is a bald assertion to inject into the existence of the universe a need for an intelligent agent. The same goes for our existence. Secondly, that it is equivocation to claim that the universe was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created): Well, to make that claim you would be using create in the same sense that you would if you were to create a piece of art (with intent and intelligence), to say that the universe was created in that sense is incorrect. It appears that the universe was created in the way that rocks are created or how rivers form and reform their courses; by an natural process without intent or intelligence.
angelobrazil wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
How can you commit such obvious intellectual dishonesty? You're claiming much more than any non-believer might safely and you're attributing it to (I assume) a magical creature that can't be objectively verified to exist (even granted you were able to form a coherent definition of the thing so that we might know what to look for).
Shure, i can do that. Who God is - the essence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm
A link to links and one of them is a google search and the other videos. I can't presently watch videos. What you didn't do, and I didn't ask you to do anything, is actually provide a coherent definition for your god that it may even be looked for. You didn't respond to my question. Actually, in this whole response you have only repeated yourself and failed to address my points reasonably. Since it appears obvious (based on the rest of the thread) that you will continue in this manner or degrade further, I'm done here. I don't care to repeat myself too much and I don't care to spend too much time in dialogue with someone who won't respond reasonably.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: yet again

latincanuck wrote:
yet again there has to be some form of evidence for god, mere speculation without the math to back it up means squat, which is why god is not a variable in science.
Do you have any mathematical evidence to back up Macro-evolution ? Does only something constitute evidence, if you can back it up with math ? http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html (Psalm 19:1-4) “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: (Psalm 14:1): “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”

 

latincanuck wrote:
You have a massive comprehension problem it seems. Multi-verse theory, string theory, loop quantum gravity all have some mathematical evidence, now if they are true or not is a different issue, god does not even have that, it's mere speculation at it's greatest, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the universe to suggest god exists.

I guess you do not have a massive comprehension problem. But first of all, probably, a strong wish God NOT to exist. Can you answer a very simple question, without a " but" afterwards ? Do you wish God to exist ? Please answer only Yes, or No. afterwards i answer your point.

 

latincanuck wrote:
On the contrary, the quantum mechanics can so causes that are completely random. NO GOD REQUIRED, until you can show me otherwise the argument really is mute, and mere speculation on your part.

 

Atheists use the quantum fluctuation to prove matter can pop up from nothing. But i don't see a valid argument in this scenário.

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics

 

The second is the Copenhagen Interpretation’s fundamental measurement problem. Quantum indeterminacy is only resolved through observation (called ‘collapsing the wave function&rsquoEye-wink. Hence an outside measurement apparatus must always exist. But cosmologists started to run into a problem when they began to consider the whole universe as a quantum object. What or who, outside the universe, collapses its wave function? An infinite regress problem develops that can only be resolved by recourse to a necessary being!

 

latincanuck wrote:
Although the principle may seem like a tautology at first, it opens up a very interesting question. When physicists ask themselves why a certain property P of the universe is such, there are two kinds of answers. There could be an underlying theory, which explains P based on more fundamental quantities, or P could be just an accident. In particular, Hawking’s “Anthropic Principle” is the latter answer to a number of problems along the lines of , “isn’t it amazing that the values of the fundamental physical constants are just such that life is possible in the universe?” Similarly, or so Hawking claims, the dimensionality of space and amount of matter in the universe is an accident, which needs no further explanation. I think that the fact that the accident was such that life is possible is irrelevant here.

 

That is the ostrich behaviour. Just stick with your head into the sand, and ignore the surrounding facts.... That makes it a complete waste of time to argue with someone, that comes up with that kind of completely nonsense, irrational answer....

 

latincanuck wrote:
except time is a property of space, not energy. again read up on a singularity, space-time in our universe began, energy always was there..

 

You simply continue to ignore the second law of thermodynamics. If energy would be eternal, the universe would already be in a state of thermal death.

 

latincanuck wrote:
yet your argument fails because you say the designer doesn't need a designer, so why does everything in the universe need a designer? is there a lightning maker? a rock maker? a fire maker? Why is your designer the exception to your rules? because it allows you to side step the massive problem this idea creates, infinite regression.

 

Are you really interested to understand my standpoint ? It does not seem so, since you repeat your same arguments over and over. I've answered you already, why the creator does not need to be created.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

 

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be.

 

latincanuck wrote:
good now give me the a high probability that god exists, because from what you have given me, science has shown your version a extremely low probability of happening, especially since there is nothing back it up but mere speculation. it's not even a valid hypothesis.

 

You can sustain that argument only by completely ignore the fine-tune argument. I think our discuss will come to a end sooner than expected. You have no rational arguments whatsoever to sustain your belief system.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Thomathy

angelobrazil wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
I have given you already the fine-tuning argument. It cannot be clearer than this. What makes you think, chance is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than a intelligent agent ?
The universe is not fine-tuned, it just is what it is.
That is not what science says.
Thomathy wrote:
There is only one universe that we know of. To what are you comparing it to conclude that it is fine-tuned? .
I don't need to compare it to anything else, to get this conclusion. http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe-aug-2006
Thomathy wrote:
How do you know that it is? Our existence, the existence of this universe, does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent and it is mere equivocation to claim that it was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created).
Based on what do you come to this conclusion ?
Thomathy wrote:
How can you commit such obvious intellectual dishonesty? You're claiming much more than any non-believer might safely and you're attributing it to (I assume) a magical creature that can't be objectively verified to exist (even granted you were able to form a coherent definition of the thing so that we might know what to look for).
Shure, i can do that. Who God is - the essence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm

 

If the universe is fine-tuned for us, why is so much of it trying to kill us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw - Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Stupid Design"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If the

jcgadfly wrote:

If the universe is fine-tuned for us, why is so much of it trying to kill us?

*clap, clap*

Of course, isn't it enough that this particular band of this particular world in this particular orbit round this particular star, ad nausea is well-suited to our existence?  Doesn't that prove that it's fine-tuned!?

I can't imagine such gaping holes keeping the light out ...or obscuring vision.  How do people buy such crap?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
So, pages and pages of

So, pages and pages of debate, which all boils down to the same arguments, on both sides.  

 

I will summarize:  No-one knows how the universe was created.  Group A) thinks it must be magical.  Group B) thinks it must be natural.  Group C) thinks that if you can't "prove" anything beyond deism, the idea of religion is pointless and the debate is silly.

 

Let's tune in to the debate!

A) Nuh-Uh!

B) Uh-Huh!!

A) Nuh-UH!!!

B) UH-HUH!!!!

C) Wake me if you see a miracle.

 

I don't have any problem with the debates, but I just read a couple pages of intelligent people typing an already dead horse to death until their fingers bled.  It's like reading an angry wikipedia article.  Show me the money theists!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well this is a useless debate

Life has adapted to it's environment, the universe did not adapt for life, it's the other way around, and much in the universe is actually harmful to life, which is why most living organisms develop outer layer of skin to protect the cells from solar radiation, which is extremely harmful to cells. Thanks to evolution we have arrived to this point in time in our present form.

However as much fun as this has been, it's getting to be quite boring repeating myself. You like to use Stephen Hawkings as a compelling scientist that say god must have created the universe, and then say that he has his head up his ass when it's actually shown he doesn't. But hey ignore all the other everything else science says about the universe, life, and how it all began and just keep repeating god did it, i need no evidence for god, I AM RATIONAL YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT EVIDENCE. But hey, it's seems to be your tactic, avoid the real problem you have, you make a massive exception for god, no energy, no creator for god, no nothing, yet can create everything and everything needs a designer except god. this is special pleading and you have been doing it from the beginning.

Maybe someone else can show you the fallacy your making, but to ask three questions, to get many answers to those three questions and then pretty much ignore all the answers to say god can only do it, well your not really rational at all.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It is abundantly clear that

It is abundantly clear that angelobrazil has no actual knowledge and understanding of science. The two most likely causes are religious schooling (oxymoron) or home schooling by people who don't understand how things work.
Mathematics for macro evolution? Idiot, look at micro evolution. Which is all there is. A giraffe won't give birth to a monkey. It'll give birth to a slightly different giraffe. Add 1000 generations, random mutation, natural selection, and various environmental changes, and you have at least one new species. Possibly dozens if the giraffes are wide spread with isolated communities.
It's like the dumb question: If humans came from apes, why are there still apes? Hey morons! HUMANS ARE APES.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
life code

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules

gee and you said science couldn't answer this question, at least it shows it can occur naturally. Like most questions science answers it takes time to find the answer, using your god of the gaps examples do not answer questions.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules

gee and you said science couldn't answer this question, at least it shows it can occur naturally. Like most questions science answers it takes time to find the answer, using your god of the gaps examples do not answer questions.

 

It won't matter to him though, because a scientist did not create a dragon or something in a test tube.  He will keep moving the bar.

 

This is a classic science vs. religion argument.  He sees that science cannot answer a particular question, he claims that is because it cannot, and magic is responsible.  Then in twenty years science answers the question, and he retreats a bit further and says that science can't answer another question.  This has been going on literally since philosophy first became a discipline.  These are intelligent people who claim to believe in the supernatural, but they don't even claim the supernatural does anything useful...because every time they claim something falsifiable, science eventually pushes them back and they retreat further into intellectually obscure niches.

 

Science answers question after question, and continues to explain the physical world.  There is no reason to think this pattern will not continue.  But what questions has religion answered?  Oh, right...gay people suck.  Thanks god!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If these were not

Quote:
If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts.

Wow, that's corny. It's an argument from "I feel strongly about it?" Or, an implicit naturalistic fallacy?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:It won't

mellestad wrote:

It won't matter to him though, because a scientist did not create a dragon or something in a test tube.  He will keep moving the bar.

 

This is a classic science vs. religion argument.  He sees that science cannot answer a particular question, he claims that is because it cannot, and magic is responsible.  Then in twenty years science answers the question, and he retreats a bit further and says that science can't answer another question.  This has been going on literally since philosophy first became a discipline.  These are intelligent people who claim to believe in the supernatural, but they don't even claim the supernatural does anything useful...because every time they claim something falsifiable, science eventually pushes them back and they retreat further into intellectually obscure niches.

 

Science answers question after question, and continues to explain the physical world.  There is no reason to think this pattern will not continue.  But what questions has religion answered?  Oh, right...gay people suck.  Thanks god!

I realize this much, it was one of his arguments from the get go that there is no way possible for the genetic "code" to form naturally and that any and all codes MUST be done via intelligent designer (however this designer is the exception to all rules, it does not require a creator, is intelligent, and more so unprovable by any scientific means). So I am curious on how he plans to dismiss it, personally I think it will be "Well they haven't figured it out yet and have not been able to duplicate it" argument, but we all know that with time, those questions get valid answers, at least we are on track to figuring it out.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Life has

latincanuck wrote:
Life has adapted to it's environment, the universe did not adapt for life, it's the other way around, and much in the universe is actually harmful to life, which is why most living organisms develop outer layer of skin to protect the cells from solar radiation, which is extremely harmful to cells. Thanks to evolution we have arrived to this point in time in our present form.

 

thats the argument of poor design.

 http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/intelligent-design-f4/argument-from-poor-design-t161.htm#418

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

 

Several generic philosophical criticisms can be directed towards the first premise of the argument - that a Creator God would have designed things 'optimally'. The argument hinges on an assumption that the human concept of 'optimal design' is the same as those of God, but there is no proof that this is valid. This is, in effect, the argument of the Book of Job:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[5]

 

Well, you say there is no mathematical evidence for the existence of God. You can make this assertion only, disregarding completely what science has discovered.

http://www.faithhelper.com/astrophysics1.htm

We come face to face with the fact that the Earth is an extremely unique environment in that it can supports life. Scientists discovered that less than 1 chance in 10x282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. And here it is: the Earth. Earth is not an accident, nor are we.

 

I recommend also the following reading, which is VERY enlightening :

 

http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf

 

Stephen Hawking agrees , when he writes:

 

http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65

 

We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.

 

latincanuck wrote:
However as much fun as this has been, it's getting to be quite boring repeating myself.

 

I fully agree. Repeating the same empty, senseless, irrational arguments must be quite boring....

 

latincanuck wrote:
You like to use Stephen Hawkings as a compelling scientist that say god must have created the universe, and then say that he has his head up his ass when it's actually shown he doesn't. But hey ignore all the other everything else science says about the universe, life, and how it all began and just keep repeating god did it, i need no evidence for god, I AM RATIONAL YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT EVIDENCE.

 

you do stick words in my mouth, which i did not say. I look as mutch for evidence, as you do. And i have found inumerous reasons to believe in God. You can repeat thousand times, that i do not have any evidence. That makes your assertion not being more true.

 

latincanuck wrote:
But hey, it's seems to be your tactic, avoid the real problem you have,

 

Sorry, no. I have no problem at all. I am completely in peace with my reasoning, it makes completely sense to me. I just don't know how you handle your problem of not want to admit any God exists, and the overwhelming evidence that says the contrary.

latincanuck wrote:
you make a massive exception for god, no energy, no creator for god, no nothing, yet can create everything and everything needs a designer except god. this is special pleading and you have been doing it from the beginning.

No. Its not special pleading. http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/04/27/does-god-exist-part-3/ the naturalistic universe is (i) material, (ii) subject to decay, (iii) finite, (iv) impersonal, (v) unintelligent, etc. That would constitute the first circumstance (C1). God, however, is (vi) immaterial, (vii) incorruptible, (viii) infinite, (ix) personal, and (x) intelligent. This would constitute the second circumstance (C2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HgzRMN-TM

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules

gee and you said science couldn't answer this question, at least it shows it can occur naturally. Like most questions science answers it takes time to find the answer, using your god of the gaps examples do not answer questions.

 

It might make sense to masticate the food, before you swallow it. 

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200908.htm

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So much backwards thinking.

So much backwards thinking. Nothing but fallacy. Fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules

gee and you said science couldn't answer this question, at least it shows it can occur naturally. Like most questions science answers it takes time to find the answer, using your god of the gaps examples do not answer questions.

 

It might make sense to masticate the food, before you swallow it. 

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200908.htm

 

 

Ok, I read this and your other post.  Did you even *read* the Hawking article you posted?  "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."  It is filled with stuff like that...can you show us what part you cherry-picked that helps your case?  I would love to know.

 

Also, trillion-trillion-trillion-etc...can you link to that?  That is a brand new number for me, I would like to see where you got it from.

 

The reason I don't trust it is one of the articles you linked says, "Most origin-of-life researchers have acknowledged the extreme improbability of the genetic code arising by chance.", but then fail to point out that the vast majority still accept that is probably what happened.  Which is such an obviously biased statement that you can't take anything else it says seriously.  That is like opening a seminar on global climate change with a lecture on the flood and the canopy theory.

 

Is your argument just based on the improbability of a vast and complex system that we do not understand very well at this point, so it must be voodoo?  See my post above, because this is classic.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:1.

angelobrazil wrote:

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

Are you talking about a temporal or a causal beginning?

For this to work, you'd probably need something like premise 1 from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Also, why do you say things that have a beginning to have a cause?

angelobrazil wrote:

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

Hume pointed out that talking about a fined tuned universe from within the universe is at worst question begging and at best a fallacy of composition.

angelobrazil wrote:

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind.

Not having an explanation for some thing's origin does not mean that there is not an explanation for its origin. This is at best an argument from silence...a god of the gaps argument if one wants to use that sort of language.

Also, how does one determine if DNA is and is not code? Again, this seems like question begging.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Also, how

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Also, how does one determine if DNA is and is not code? Again, this seems like question begging.

It seems that way, but it certainly is confirmation bias.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Hume

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Hume pointed out that talking about a fined tuned universe from within the universe is at worst question begging and at best a fallacy of composition.

I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations. You can turn it the way around you want. Fact is, that the fine-tuning of the universe remains maiby the strongest evidence that the universe was designed. to put chance into the game, is not rational. Chance is zero the universe could have formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Hume pointed out that talking about a fined tuned universe from within the universe is at worst question begging and at best a fallacy of composition.

I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations. You can turn it the way around you want. Fact is, that the fine-tuning of the universe remains maiby the strongest evidence that the universe was designed. to put chance into the game, is not rational. Chance is zero the universe could have formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. 

You're making yourself dizzy.

"Is the universe designed?"

"Yes"

"How do you know?"

"It's fine-tuned for (human) life."

"And you know that because?"

"The universe is designed."

If the chance is zero for the universe forming through natural means, why does all the evidence point that way?

Is your God ashamed of his work?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We have no idea what

We have no idea what practical limits there might be on those 'fine-tuned' constants, as that would require knowledge we simply do not have, so we have absolutely no basis to to establish a probability that they would randomly lie within a range allowing for life-as-we-know-it. That also does not allow for assessing the existence of regions of possible life-friendly combinations of values. So the fine-tuning argument is pretty much an argument from ignorance.  At best it is might show that a 'life-friendly' universe is of low a priori probability, not that any external agency is required.

Any argument from 'watches' to life-forms misses the major attribute of life which watches do not possess, namely the ability to self-reproduce, which allows evolution to act.

No matter how you interpret the evidence, there is certainly none that points to the probability of the Universe forming from natural processes being zero.

The process of evolution thru natural selection is so fundamental, given observed mechanisms of genetic variation which can ultimately mutate any known genome into any other by a finite series of steps, and the fact that some mutations are going to produce more descendents that others, plus the genetic studies which show how all life is related, in a logical inheritance tree, it is the burden of the denier of 'macro-evolution' to show what additional mechanism, so far not detected, that would stop any given lineage from changing more than a certain amount beyond some hypothetical reference 'type'.

The standard models of energy balance in the Universe put the total energy at zero, since gravitational potential energy is negative, starting at zero for infinitely dispersed masses, and becoming increasingly negative if it falls back to a more concentrated state, so conservation of energy is not a show-stopper.

So while there are many gaps in our current ideas of the plausible origin of the Universe and life, there are no 'in principle' contradictions, just the gaps. All the science is extrapolated from the more well-established observations and theories of other areas of science.

To argue for an 'alternative' which involves a hypothetical being whose attributes are beyond logic and all observation and experience is infinitely irrational.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
@ubuntuAnyone:Thank you for

@ubuntuAnyone:

Thank you for covering the bases on these three consistently failing arguments in the exact way I wanted to.

@Thomathy:

Isn't it funny when you can't figure out which fallacy to start with? You know an argument is bad when it appears to violate several rules in one go!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Fact is,

angelobrazil wrote:
Fact is, that the fine-tuning of the universe remains maiby the strongest evidence that the universe was designed.

ubuntuAnywhere's point stands. It's begging the question if you start with the idea that anything unlikely must have been designed. Even more damaging to your argument is that you fail to actually show that the universe is unlikely. The unlikely part seems to only be an assumption, along with the design assumption. Does that make two begged questions?

angelobrazil wrote:
to put chance into the game, is not rational. Chance is zero the universe could have formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. 

But you haven't demonstrated that at all. Given one universe, there's no way to work out the chance that this one universe would come into being. So it's not a good argument.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:I don't

angelobrazil wrote:

I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations. You can turn it the way around you want. Fact is, that the fine-tuning of the universe remains maiby the strongest evidence that the universe was designed. to put chance into the game, is not rational.

The problem with saying the universe is designed is that there is no way to prove otherwise. This is what the argument seems to say: "If human life exists, then the universe is designed Human life exists, therefore universe is designed." The two terms are viciously circular, that's why is is question begging. "Why does the universe have design? Because human life exists. Why does human life exist? because the Universe has design." Chance is really not the issue...it's just a bad argument.

angelobrazil wrote:

Chance is zero the universe could have formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms.

Rather than saying, "Chance is zero" you'd probably be better to say "It is highly improbable that the universe formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. " But this does not deny the possibility that it could. One could  give a typewriter to a monkey, and with enough time, the monkey could accidently produce the works of Shakesspeare. Although the probability of this happening is exteremely small, this does not deny the possibility that such a thing could happen.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: We have no

BobSpence1 wrote:

We have no idea what practical limits there might be on those 'fine-tuned' constants, as that would require knowledge we simply do not have, so we have absolutely no basis to to establish a probability that they would randomly lie within a range allowing for life-as-we-know-it.

Simply not true. What do we physics need for ? True is, we actually have all these constants, they are well known. There is no doubt about these constants, and the limit range, between the constants need to stay, so that the universe and life could form.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That also does not allow for assessing the existence of regions of possible life-friendly combinations of values. So the fine-tuning argument is pretty much an argument from ignorance.

There has been speculation , if other life forms, non carbon-based could exist. That is very improbable. But that doesn't change the fact, that our universe could form also only, if the inflation rate at the very beginning remains in a very tiny, fine tuned range.

http://www.reasons.org/where-cosmic-density-fine-tuning

In addressing audiences about the fine-tuning of the cosmic expansion rate, I have used the illustration that adding or subtracting a single dime to the mass of the observable universe would be enough of a change to make physical life impossible. This word picture helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning, namely 1 part in 1060. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 1060 works out to about a tenth part of a dime.

BobSpence1 wrote:

At best it is might show that a 'life-friendly' universe is of low a priori probability, not that any external agency is required.

No. It shows that the odds are so small, that chance as a possible agent can be discarded.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any argument from 'watches' to life-forms misses the major attribute of life which watches do not possess, namely the ability to self-reproduce, which allows evolution to act.

what does the watchmaker argument have to do with the fine-tune argument ?

BobSpence1 wrote:

No matter how you interpret the evidence, there is certainly none that points to the probability of the Universe forming from natural processes being zero.

why do you not make a study by yourself. ? you will change your opinion, if you are honest to yourself. its after all not so difficult to understand....

Let's consider a universe that contains only matter. If the matter density is sufficiently large, gravity will overcome the expansion and cause the universe to collapse on itself. If the density is sufficiently small, the cosmos will continue to expand forever with negligible slowing. If the density is just right, the universe will expand forever, but continually slow down its expansion rate until it becomes static at an infinite time into the future. In a universe that contains only matter, this corresponds to a "flat" geometry for the universe. Life and flatness are related because only a flat universe meets two life-essential requirements. First, a flat universe survives long enough for an adequate number of generations of stars to form that will make the heavy elements and long-lived radiometric isotopes that advanced life requires. Second, a flat universe expands slowly enough for the matter to clump together to form galaxies, stars, and planets, but not so slowly as to form only black holes and neutron stars.

Until the mid-1990s, astrophysicists found it remarkable that the universe was so close to a flat geometry because such flatness is unstable with respect to time. Even though they could detect only about 4 percent of the mass required to make the universe flat, this required the early universe to be exquisitely close to "flat" to within one part in 1060. The previous statement holds true even given the uncertainties that existed twenty years ago (and to a lesser extent still do) in measurements of the cosmic mass density. Thus, in the absence of dark energy, the expansion rate would have changed so dramatically that the galaxies, stars, and planets necessary for physical life would never have formed.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The process of evolution thru natural selection is so fundamental, given observed mechanisms of genetic variation which can ultimately mutate any known genome into any other by a finite series of steps,

That is a assertion without any empirical evidence. Random mutations , and natural selection, cannot form new genetic information, required to form new limbs, and organs. Evolution cannot explain, how wings of birds evoluted, amongst many other things.

a few examples :

Birds and creatures that defy evolution

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/birds-and-creatures-that-defy-evolution-t111.htm

but if you want to discuss evolution, you might open a new topic.

BobSpence1 wrote:

and the fact that some mutations are going to produce more descendents that others, plus the genetic studies which show how all life is related, in a logical inheritance tree, it is the burden of the denier of 'macro-evolution' to show what additional mechanism, so far not detected, that would stop any given lineage from changing more than a certain amount beyond some hypothetical reference 'type'.

I understand things a little different. I believe, the creator gave already right in the beginning the possibility of genetical change for adaptation to the environment, but always within the same taxonomic group of animals. upward genetic evolution ( like formation of new limbs ) does not occur.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/has-macro-evolution-been-proved-observed-t80.htm

BobSpence1 wrote:

To argue for an 'alternative' which involves a hypothetical being whose attributes are beyond logic and all observation and experience is infinitely irrational.

We do just not know, what happened in the first fraction of second of the BigBang. This does not eliminate the question, why something exists, rather than nothing. And what is the origin of motion in the Universe.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#2

Featured Writing
Featured Audio
Books
About
FAQs
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
More Featured Writing
The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager

In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God. And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.

They have also believed that an effective rational argument for God's existence is an important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith—in clearing some of the roadblocks and rubble that prevent people from taking the idea of divine revelation seriously. And in this they have a real point. Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

You may not feel that they are particularly valuable to you. You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God's presence; and that is something for which to be profoundly grateful. But that does not mean you have no obligation to ponder these arguments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they really need. You may even be asked to provide help.

Besides, are any of us really in so little need of such help as we may claim? Surely in most of us there is something of the skeptic. There is a part of us tempted to believe that nothing is ultimately real beyond what we can see and touch; a part looking for some reason, beyond the assurances of Scripture, to believe that there is more. We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse "good reason" "with scientific proof." But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.

A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without—cosmological arguments—and those that take it from within—psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

1. The Argument from Change
The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Rather than saying,

Quote:

Rather than saying, "Chance is zero" you'd probably be better to say "It is highly improbable that the universe formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. " But this does not deny the possibility that it could. One could  give a typewriter to a monkey, and with enough time, the monkey could accidently produce the works of Shakesspeare. Although the probability of this happening is exteremely small, this does not deny the possibility that such a thing could happen.

I agree. What are the odds ? just a example :

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/156-tu.html

Scientists have been able to measure and compare the relative proton and electron charge within atoms, and have established that these charges can only differ by less than one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion). Therefore, since the charge of the electron is of equal magnitude to the charge of the proton, atoms tend to maintain a neutral charge.

However, if one of these charged particles differed by only one part in 1,000,000,000 (one billion), then an atom would no longer be electrically neutral. If the proton charge were greater, atoms would be electrically positive. If the electron charge were greater, then atoms would become electrically negative. In such cases, atoms would no longer be neutral, but would possess a definite charge—positive or negative. Since like charges repel, in such a case there would be repulsion between atoms of elements—and solid matter could not exist!

The thin line of tolerance of this electrical charge is extremely intricate. What is the probability that the charge of these particles would be almost identical, if the universe occurred by chance—without any design from an intelligent mind?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote: 

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:

 

Rather than saying, "Chance is zero" you'd probably be better to say "It is highly improbable that the universe formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. " But this does not deny the possibility that it could. One could  give a typewriter to a monkey, and with enough time, the monkey could accidently produce the works of Shakesspeare. Although the probability of this happening is exteremely small, this does not deny the possibility that such a thing could happen.

I agree. What are the odds ? just a example : http://www.realtruth.org/articles/156-tu.html Scientists have been able to measure and compare the relative proton and electron charge within atoms, and have established that these charges can only differ by less than one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion). Therefore, since the charge of the electron is of equal magnitude to the charge of the proton, atoms tend to maintain a neutral charge. However, if one of these charged particles differed by only one part in 1,000,000,000 (one billion), then an atom would no longer be electrically neutral. If the proton charge were greater, atoms would be electrically positive. If the electron charge were greater, then atoms would become electrically negative. In such cases, atoms would no longer be neutral, but would possess a definite charge—positive or negative. Since like charges repel, in such a case there would be repulsion between atoms of elements—and solid matter could not exist! The thin line of tolerance of this electrical charge is extremely intricate. What is the probability that the charge of these particles would be almost identical, if the universe occurred by chance—without any design from an intelligent mind?

This post demonstrates that you clearly have no understanding of the fine-tuning argument. The equality of the charge on the electron and proton is not one of the issues - it follows automatically and directly from the way positively and negatively charged particles are assumed to form from the decomposition of neutral particles.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: The thin

angelobrazil wrote:
The thin line of tolerance of this electrical charge is extremely intricate. What is the probability that the charge of these particles would be almost identical, if the universe occurred by chance—without any design from an intelligent mind?

What about the small tolerance implies design? This seems to be nonsequitor. Suppose I was born January 1, 1960. If I was born on this day, I'd be 49. If I was born on January 1, 1961 I'd be 48. I would not be 49 because I was designed to be 49, but because of the fact I was born on a particular date. The existence of phyiscal matter is a consequence of the physical properties. If it was any other way, then perhaps it would not exist, but that does not mean it was designed to be this way. Does this make sense. I'm not trying to disprove or prove what you are saying, but rather that the argumentation does not seem to be valid.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I don't see Hume's point.

"I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations."

You just get everything backwards, don't you kid?

The fact that we are in the universe means all of our observations are biased. To give an example even a 5 year old could understand, we don't know what, if anything, is outside the universe. It could very well be that there is, and that all of it would be hospitable to life as developed on Earth. Which would mean the universe was fine tuned to kill us, by your reasoning. Even the Earth isn't particularly hospitable, and can kill you in an instant. From all accounts, 99% of the universe is simply fatal to human life. Perhaps 90% fatal to all life we've ever observed. Fine tuned for us my left nut.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.