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. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Gadfly laid it argument out

Gadfly laid it argument out very well so I won't retread that, except to say...really?

You really don't see how an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy?  If I see something I don't immediately understand, I still assume there is a 'normal' explanation.  What do you do when you see a stage magician levitate, do you assume he must be using supernatural means to accomplish his trick because you don't know how he did it?  Why not?

 

I have almost no idea why the universe is here, you don't either.  Not knowing something is not a valid reason to give up and invent something.  If you can't see that I really, honestly don't know what to tell you.  I guess I would advise you take a survey course about physical science or something so you can see how the scientific method works, and how humans can investigate nature.

 

I don't know how you can still trot out the fine-tuning argument after the information we have given you.  If you think that science has discovered more and more evidence that there is a creator I just have to say, flat out, that you are wrong.  It has not, and it never has.  I know, I know, you will link to some theist site where some random dude says I am wrong.  In science, you have to at least acknowledge consensus though and the consensus is clearly not on your side.  

 

Cosmology is the only thing that science does not have any reliable way to answer/theorize at this point, I don't see any other large issues.  All the biology stuff fine-tuners come up with is dealt with.  The eye, the flagellum, etc...all those arguments are dealt with via evolutionary processes.  Every time an irreducible complexity is posited it gets shot down, and you guys just think of another one!  Do evolutionary biologists have to figure out every detail of every creature on the planet before you give up?

 

And although science might not have figured out cosmology, at least it can guess.  Religion brings nothing to the table.  Nothing.

 

On the issue of the Genesis/Moses stuff...please, please try to clear your preconceptions about the Bible and look at it neutrally for a minute.  You have the creation story, which you say is a divine revelation to Moses, followed by a talking snake.  Please try to look at the book from our perspective, and tell us what we are supposed to think about that.

 

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: there we

jcgadfly wrote:
there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?

Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't know and you don't either. Unfortunately, "I don't know" is an answer that scares you so you posit a magic man to keep you from thinking.

 

no. it has nothing to do with scaring me. It has to do with the fact, that God fits perfectly as a rational, and reasonable explanation for the existence for the universe. Atheism has no rational answer at all. So " we don't know " is a simple admittance that Theism is a superior explanation than Atheism.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
I've answered that already in this thread. If you had we wouldn't keep asking.

Like the fine tuning, and the living Cell. That does evidence a creator. Chance is not a reasonable answer.

 

You are correct - chance is not a reasonable answer. That's why no one here has given chance as an answer. Natural selection is not chance.

 

Natual selection applies as a explanation for the evolution theory. When it comes to abiogenesis and the fine-tuning of the universe, there is not such a thing as natural selection. There remains only chance - and its NOT a reasonable explanation. Once again. God is a better explanation than chance. Chance can do nothing. Chance is nothing , in fact. Chance can't move anything. Chance has no will, no force, no intelligence. By chance, nothing will remain always nothing. Nothing would come to existence by pure chance.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Magic is not a rational answer.

 

But a all powerful God is. Nothing is not a rational answer. From nothing, nothing derives. Simple as that.

jcgadfly wrote:
The universe is not fine tuned
Well, if you do disagree with common scientific knowledge, you remain with Santa Claus, and the Spaghettimonster...

 

jcgadfly wrote:
(The universe, the earth and our bodies are poorly designed - life has adapted to deal with the incompetence of the designer.) If there is a designer, what proof do you have that it's your god (besides the goatherder myths).

if the universe and the earth is poorly designed , then 1. do you understand how its designed ? 2. can you do better ?

mellestad wrote:

Your argument is simply a logical fallacy: If we do not have a perfect natural explanation, then the answer must be supernatural.

My answer is a perfect epistemic answer, logical and rational. The universe is designed, therefor there is a designer. The evidence is strong and compelling. No other answer is rational.

mellestad wrote:
It's an argument from ignorance. Basically, you're saying "I don't know so god did it".

no sir. We do know, that the universe is finely tuned, we know dna is a carrier of information, and derived on that, we arrive to our conclusion - there is a creator of everything.

mellestad wrote:
Magic isn't an explanation. The universe is not fine-tuned.

keep on ignorance then. I think if scientific facts are denied, no reasonable dialog remains possible.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:I won't

angelobrazil wrote:

I won't quote your text because I can't make out much after you broke the quote function.

 

1. Saying, "we don't know" is not saying "it came from nothing".  I don't know how you can get that from what we have been writing.

2. God is not a rational, reasonable explanation for anything because the existence of such a creature cannot be tested or proved, and the entire concept of what you call god is a logical dead end.  Your proof of god is a) a book that is internally and externally inconsistent b) an argument of design that is irrational c) a personal feeling you get.

3. "common scientific knowledge" is that you are wrong and we are right.  To claim otherwise is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.  You claim that by saying we don't know, Santa Clause must have done it.  This actually makes sense though because you rely on supernatural explanations for everything and cannot understand how to approach a mystery in a rational way.  So I can understand why you would think we all believe in Santa Clause...after all, he is just as reasonable as your god due to omniscience, immortality and possibly omnipresence.

4. Our understanding of how the universe works increases every day.  I doubt any of us have the hubris to claim we could design a better universe when we don't even fully understand this one.  Ultimate knowledge seems to be a claim made only by theists.

5. If there is a creator for everything then god needs a creator.  This is another theist logical fallacy, you can do better than this.  No special pleading for deities!  If, logically, god does not need a creator then, logically, neither does whatever existed before our universe began.  You can't have it both ways.

6. Again and again you trot out the idea that we are ignoring science, but that is the most incorrect statement you make in your argument.  There is no scientific evidence for a designer!  You have brought out examples of this supposed fact, we have shown them to be wrong, but you still claim the same thing over and over.  So what is the evidence that is so conclusive?  Why hasn't it convinced us, or the bulk of physical scientists who spend their lives studying this?  Why have you been holding it back?

 

At least you are speeding up.  Now you go in a circle in less than one forum page!

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


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

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?

Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't know and you don't either. Unfortunately, "I don't know" is an answer that scares you so you posit a magic man to keep you from thinking.

 

no. it has nothing to do with scaring me. It has to do with the fact, that God fits perfectly as a rational, and reasonable explanation for the existence for the universe. Atheism has no rational answer at all. So " we don't know " is a simple admittance that Theism is a superior explanation than Atheism.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
I've answered that already in this thread. If you had we wouldn't keep asking.

Like the fine tuning, and the living Cell. That does evidence a creator. Chance is not a reasonable answer.

 

You are correct - chance is not a reasonable answer. That's why no one here has given chance as an answer. Natural selection is not chance.

 

Natual selection applies as a explanation for the evolution theory. When it comes to abiogenesis and the fine-tuning of the universe, there is not such a thing as natural selection. There remains only chance - and its NOT a reasonable explanation. Once again. God is a better explanation than chance. Chance can do nothing. Chance is nothing , in fact. Chance can't move anything. Chance has no will, no force, no intelligence. By chance, nothing will remain always nothing. Nothing would come to existence by pure chance.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Magic is not a rational answer.

 

But a all powerful God is. Nothing is not a rational answer. From nothing, nothing derives. Simple as that.

jcgadfly wrote:
The universe is not fine tuned
Well, if you do disagree with common scientific knowledge, you remain with Santa Claus, and the Spaghettimonster...

 

jcgadfly wrote:
(The universe, the earth and our bodies are poorly designed - life has adapted to deal with the incompetence of the designer.) If there is a designer, what proof do you have that it's your god (besides the goatherder myths).

if the universe and the earth is poorly designed , then 1. do you understand how its designed ? 2. can you do better ?

mellestad wrote:

Your argument is simply a logical fallacy: If we do not have a perfect natural explanation, then the answer must be supernatural.

My answer is a perfect epistemic answer, logical and rational. The universe is designed, therefor there is a designer. The evidence is strong and compelling. No other answer is rational.

mellestad wrote:
It's an argument from ignorance. Basically, you're saying "I don't know so god did it".

no sir. We do know, that the universe is finely tuned, we know dna is a carrier of information, and derived on that, we arrive to our conclusion - there is a creator of everything.

mellestad wrote:
Magic isn't an explanation. The universe is not fine-tuned.

keep on ignorance then. I think if scientific facts are denied, no reasonable dialog remains possible.

1. Magic, divine or otherwise, is not an answer to anything.

2. Man had to create a "god" to provide an answer for what they didn't understand. As more is learned, the need for a god as an answer goes away.

3. The creation cannot surpass the creator. God cannot be more powerful than man as man created God. An all powerful God is impossible.

4a. It is not common scientific knowledge as the consensus stands against the fine tuning argument.

4b. Santa, the FSM and God are probably playing cards together as we speak. Have you played any hands?

5a. Asked and answered. The universe was designed poorly. Evidence against fine  tuning includes such facts that 99% of all species that lived on the earth are extinct, natural disasters to which man has had to adjust, eating through the same hole we breathe through, etc.

5b. Some ae trying to improve things. Transhumanism comes to mind.

6. The watchmaker argument does not imply the God of the Bible is the desgner.

7. No, you don't know anything of the kind. Yoiu believe it fervently - that is all.

8. I can't deny scientifc facts on the fine tuning argument. You haven't broguht any. You have brought a whole lot of apologist propaganda and academic dishonesty - but no evidence.

"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


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:there we

angelobrazil wrote:
there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?

Why do you think nothing is the default?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:So " we

angelobrazil wrote:
So " we don't know " is a simple admittance that Theism is a superior explanation than Atheism.

Hahahahaha. 

No, "I don't know" is simply admitting that I don't know.

Quote:
Natual selection applies as a explanation for the evolution theory. When it comes to abiogenesis and the fine-tuning of the universe, there is not such a thing as natural selection. There remains only chance - and its NOT a reasonable explanation. Once again. God is a better explanation than chance. Chance can do nothing. Chance is nothing , in fact. Chance can't move anything. Chance has no will, no force, no intelligence. By chance, nothing will remain always nothing. Nothing would come to existence by pure chance.

If it was a natural process, it would most likely not be "chance," and it would not be natural selection, but it would be a determined, gradual process, just like natural selection is a determined, gradual process. As of now, we haven't even found anything in nature that we know for certain to be random.

Jeez, angelo, how many times have we already gone over this?

And, what do you mean, chance can do nothing? Asserting the same claim over and over again doesn't strengthen the claim. What arguments or evidence do you have that "chance can do nothing?" None.

Quote:
But a all powerful God is.

An all powerful God IS magic in the way that it's currently described. You don't know how this God exists. You don't even know what it is. You've already defined it as something that you can't understand. You don't know how it created the universe; the Bible merely states that he "spoke" everything into existence.

*poof* Magic by definition.

Quote:
if the universe and the earth is poorly designed , then 1. do you understand how its designed ? 2. can you do better ?

Red herring.

Quote:
The universe is designed, therefor there is a designer.

Begging the question.

Quote:
no sir. We do know, that the universe is finely tuned,

It is not "finely tuned" unless you beg the question. We've gone over this like ten times. You still haven't addressed our main criticisms to the arguments you presented in the OP.

Quote:
we know dna is a carrier of information,

Semantic fallacies. 

Quote:
and derived on that, we arrive to our conclusion - there is a creator of everything.

Non sequitur.

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 mellestad wrote: 1.

 

mellestad wrote:
1. Saying, "we don't know" is not saying "it came from nothing". I don't know how you can get that from what we have been writing.
Once again then : God fits perfectly as a rational, and reasonable explanation for the existence for the universe. Atheism has no rational answer at all, therefor " we don't know " is a simple admittance that Theism is a superior explanation than Atheism.

mellestad wrote:
2. God is not a rational, reasonable explanation for anything because the existence of such a creature cannot be tested or proved, and the entire concept of what you call god is a logical dead end.

Well, if logic has to be applied, then a dead end is atheism, when we ask what is the origin of the universe, since it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. God, even if he cannot be proven, is a perfectly rational and reasonable answer as first cause. Atheism simply does't explain anything. Why should it then be more rational than theism ? Its not. Its not rational at all. It makes no sense. But if wishful thinking helps your case, so let it be.

mellestad wrote:
Your proof of god is a) a book that is internally and externally inconsistent
If have based my argumentation entirely on natrual observation. I do not need the bible to make my case. And i have not.
mellestad wrote:
b) an argument of design that is irrational c) a personal feeling you get.

 

Why is it rational ? The universe seems designed. So why could it not be designed ? Only because we cannot prove god ? Our entire life is based on faith. If you sit on a chair, you believe the chair will support you. You will not fall down. Do you believe your grand grand grand grand father lived back at his time ? Even if you have no proof he lived ? no picture, no letter, nothing ? You believe he lived based on the evidence, you are here. The same applies on God.

 

mellestad wrote:
3. "common scientific knowledge" is that you are wrong and we are right.

 

Common scientific knowledge is impartial. It just explores the natural world, and that's it. It doesn't make predictions beyond that.

 

mellestad wrote:
You claim that by saying we don't know, Santa Clause must have done it.

 

No. I say : if you question even what are considered scientific facts ( the universe is fine-tuned ) , then you can stick also on science-fiction. You do not need to agree on anything rational anymore.

 

mellestad wrote:
This actually makes sense though because you rely on supernatural explanations for everything and cannot understand how to approach a mystery in a rational way.

 

well, your answer is : " i don't know ". hah.... 1 + 1 = how much ? 2 ? but your answer is " i don't know ". Is that rational ?

mellestad wrote:
4. Our understanding of how the universe works increases every day. I doubt any of us have the hubris to claim we could design a better universe when we don't even fully understand this one.

 

So why do you critizise then, what you don't fully understand ?

 

mellestad wrote:
Ultimate knowledge seems to be a claim made only by theists.

 

Yes, there is a ultimate truth, and i believe i have found it. That is what i testify here.

 

mellestad wrote:
5. If there is a creator for everything then god needs a creator. This is another theist logical fallacy, you can do better than this. No special pleading for deities! If, logically, god does not need a creator then, logically, neither does whatever existed before our universe began. You can't have it both ways.

 

i have answered already the " special pleading " argument to latincanuck. What i say is : everything , that had a beginning, needs a cause. Since God is eternal, beyond time ( as a creator of time, of course he must be above time ) he had no beginning, he needs no cause. Makes perfectly sense. And is perfectly according what the bible tells us.

 

mellestad wrote:
6. Again and again you trot out the idea that we are ignoring science,
No. Actually, only YOU are. Since you deny the universe is finely tuned.
mellestad wrote:
but that is the most incorrect statement you make in your argument. There is no scientific evidence for a designer!

 

Well , if the universe, and creation appears designed, ( and in fact it does appeard designed ) than this IS a evidence for a designer. This is negate what is obvious.

 

mellestad wrote:
You have brought out examples of this supposed fact, we have shown them to be wrong,

You can show me as well that 2 + 2= 5. You can show me whatever you want, and deny what i say as wrong. The question is if your statement is right. Sorry. Its not. Its irrational. Its senseless. Its baseless.

mellestad wrote:
but you still claim the same thing over and over. So what is the evidence that is so conclusive?

For example. DNA is a Code. A code has as origin always a conscious mind. therefore DNA was designed by a conscious mind. cool, hah ? just a example, btw....

mellestad wrote:
Why hasn't it convinced us, or the bulk of physical scientists who spend their lives studying this?

cientists are also human. They are also biased.... and by far not all scientists are atheists....

mellestad wrote:
At least you are speeding up. Now you go in a circle in less than one forum page!

no. unfortunately i answer the same questions to people like you, who do not give attention to what i wrote already....

 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

 

mellestad wrote:
1. Saying, "we don't know" is not saying "it came from nothing". I don't know how you can get that from what we have been writing.
Once again then : God fits perfectly as a rational, and reasonable explanation for the existence for the universe. Atheism has no rational answer at all, therefor " we don't know " is a simple admittance that Theism is a superior explanation than Atheism.

mellestad wrote:
2. God is not a rational, reasonable explanation for anything because the existence of such a creature cannot be tested or proved, and the entire concept of what you call god is a logical dead end.

Well, if logic has to be applied, then a dead end is atheism, when we ask what is the origin of the universe, since it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. God, even if he cannot be proven, is a perfectly rational and reasonable answer as first cause. Atheism simply does't explain anything. Why should it then be more rational than theism ? Its not. Its not rational at all. It makes no sense. But if wishful thinking helps your case, so let it be.

mellestad wrote:
Your proof of god is a) a book that is internally and externally inconsistent
If have based my argumentation entirely on natrual observation. I do not need the bible to make my case. And i have not.
mellestad wrote:
b) an argument of design that is irrational c) a personal feeling you get.

 

Why is it rational ? The universe seems designed. So why could it not be designed ? Only because we cannot prove god ? Our entire life is based on faith. If you sit on a chair, you believe the chair will support you. You will not fall down. Do you believe your grand grand grand grand father lived back at his time ? Even if you have no proof he lived ? no picture, no letter, nothing ? You believe he lived based on the evidence, you are here. The same applies on God.

 

mellestad wrote:
3. "common scientific knowledge" is that you are wrong and we are right.

 

Common scientific knowledge is impartial. It just explores the natural world, and that's it. It doesn't make predictions beyond that.

 

mellestad wrote:
You claim that by saying we don't know, Santa Clause must have done it.

 

No. I say : if you question even what are considered scientific facts ( the universe is fine-tuned ) , then you can stick also on science-fiction. You do not need to agree on anything rational anymore.

 

mellestad wrote:
This actually makes sense though because you rely on supernatural explanations for everything and cannot understand how to approach a mystery in a rational way.

 

well, your answer is : " i don't know ". hah.... 1 + 1 = how much ? 2 ? but your answer is " i don't know ". Is that rational ?

mellestad wrote:
4. Our understanding of how the universe works increases every day. I doubt any of us have the hubris to claim we could design a better universe when we don't even fully understand this one.

 

So why do you critizise then, what you don't fully understand ?

 

mellestad wrote:
Ultimate knowledge seems to be a claim made only by theists.

 

Yes, there is a ultimate truth, and i believe i have found it. That is what i testify here.

 

mellestad wrote:
5. If there is a creator for everything then god needs a creator. This is another theist logical fallacy, you can do better than this. No special pleading for deities! If, logically, god does not need a creator then, logically, neither does whatever existed before our universe began. You can't have it both ways.

 

i have answered already the " special pleading " argument to latincanuck. What i say is : everything , that had a beginning, needs a cause. Since God is eternal, beyond time ( as a creator of time, of course he must be above time ) he had no beginning, he needs no cause. Makes perfectly sense. And is perfectly according what the bible tells us.

 

mellestad wrote:
6. Again and again you trot out the idea that we are ignoring science,
No. Actually, only YOU are. Since you deny the universe is finely tuned.
mellestad wrote:
but that is the most incorrect statement you make in your argument. There is no scientific evidence for a designer!

 

Well , if the universe, and creation appears designed, ( and in fact it does appeard designed ) than this IS a evidence for a designer. This is negate what is obvious.

 

mellestad wrote:
You have brought out examples of this supposed fact, we have shown them to be wrong,

You can show me as well that 2 + 2= 5. You can show me whatever you want, and deny what i say as wrong. The question is if your statement is right. Sorry. Its not. Its irrational. Its senseless. Its baseless.

mellestad wrote:
but you still claim the same thing over and over. So what is the evidence that is so conclusive?

For example. DNA is a Code. A code has as origin always a conscious mind. therefore DNA was designed by a conscious mind. cool, hah ? just a example, btw....

mellestad wrote:
Why hasn't it convinced us, or the bulk of physical scientists who spend their lives studying this?

cientists are also human. They are also biased.... and by far not all scientists are atheists....

mellestad wrote:
At least you are speeding up. Now you go in a circle in less than one forum page!

no. unfortunately i answer the same questions to people like you, who do not give attention to what i wrote already....

 

 

Is this a joke?

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. Magic,

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Magic, divine or otherwise, is not an answer to anything.

 

If you want to ignore the evidence, fine. That is up to you.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
2. Man had to create a "god" to provide an answer for what they didn't understand. As more is learned, the need for a god as an answer goes away.

 

1. actually, quit the oposit is the case. The more science advances, the more evidence of God appears. When Einstein developed the relativity theory, the evidence was, the universe had a beginning. Einstein didn't like the results of his equations, since it was clear then, that a beginning of the universe was a clear evidence of a cause of the universe. But the evidence got stronger and stronger.

2.In 1973, astronomer and cosmologist Brandon Carter (Carter 1974) delivered a lecture in which he announced an exciting new discovery: the fundamental constants of the physical world must have been very delicately fine-tuned in order to make life possible. Since that time, literally dozens of such remarkable coincidences have been discovered, the so-called "anthropic coincidences".

 

3. DNA is a code. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code. therefor, the more science discovers, the more God is evidenced as cause and origin of everything created.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
3. The creation cannot surpass the creator. God cannot be more powerful than man as man created God. An all powerful God is impossible.

 

the word all powerful certainly must be defined, to be applied correctly. The attribute of God which describes his ability to do whatever He wills. God's will is limited by His nature, and He therefore cannot do anything contrary to His nature as God, such as to ignore sin, to sin, or to do something absurd or self-contradictory. God is not controlled by His power, but has complete control over it; otherwise He would not be a free being. To a certain extent, He has voluntarily limited Himself by the free will of His rational creatures.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
4a. It is not common scientific knowledge as the consensus stands against the fine tuning argument.

 

If that would be the case, show me ONE atheist or scientific page, which does questions the fine-tune constants.... and show the numbers are wrong.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
5a. Asked and answered. The universe was designed poorly. Evidence against fine tuning includes such facts that 99% of all species that lived on the earth are extinct, natural disasters to which man has had to adjust, eating through the same hole we breathe through, etc.

 

Your claim has one serious fault - when you show that you have a better throat design, your opinion will be worthy of consideration. It is only when several systems fail that people die from choking or aspiration pneumonia. Apart from the very occasional accident, usually caused by people trying to talk and eat at once, the reflexes only seriously fail because of illness or disability.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
6. The watchmaker argument does not imply the God of the Bible is the desgner.

 

correct.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
8. I can't deny scientifc facts on the fine tuning argument. You haven't broguht any. You have brought a whole lot of apologist propaganda and academic dishonesty - but no evidence.

 

http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_03.htm

 

1. More than thirty separate parameters require precise calibration to produce a life-sustaining planet - Robert Collins, physicist-philosopher

 

2. "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop." - Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories

 

3. "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University

 

4. "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. - Dr. Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University

 

5. This "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind -- The possibility that life exists based on random chance alone is astronomical!

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Is this a

mellestad wrote:

Is this a joke?

 

No. But your answer is a admittance you throw the towel..... 


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

KSMB wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?

Why do you think nothing is the default?

 

Whatelse do you suggest ? the pink unicorn ?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok, this has degenerated

Ok, this has degenerated into a pissing contest.

Angelo, repeating the claims that have been rebutted while ignoring the rebuttals is not rational.

Give some honest evidence. I dare you.

"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


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

butterbattle wrote:
Hahahahaha. No, "I don't know" is simply admitting that I don't know.

 

Same scenario : I ask you : Did you have a father ? Answer : i don't know....

 

butterbattle wrote:
If it was a natural process, it would most likely not be "chance," and it would not be natural selection, but it would be a determined, gradual process, just like natural selection is a determined, gradual process.

 

And who, or what determines, that it would be a gradual process ? how was it directed to be gradual ? what kind of mechanism determined it ? why was it not completely chaotic ? And : who guarantees you evolution was a gradual process ? how about the Cambrian explosion ?

 

butterbattle wrote:
As of now, we haven't even found anything in nature that we know for certain to be random.

excellent. Than you admit design. And design needs a designer.

butterbattle wrote:
And, what do you mean, chance can do nothing? Asserting the same claim over and over again doesn't strengthen the claim. What arguments or evidence do you have that "chance can do nothing?" None.
So what is chance for you ? is it " something " ?

butterbattle wrote:
An all powerful God IS magic in the way that it's currently described. You don't know how this God exists. You don't even know what it is. You've already defined it as something that you can't understand.

I can not understand God completely. But i can understand as far as he revealed about him to us.

butterbattle wrote:
You don't know how it created the universe; the Bible merely states that he "spoke" everything into existence.

correct. Thats enough. We don't need to know more than that.

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Ok, this has

jcgadfly wrote:

Ok, this has degenerated into a pissing contest.

Angelo, repeating the claims that have been rebutted while ignoring the rebuttals is not rational.

Give some honest evidence. I dare you.

Well, do you know the Bus campaign ? Live your life and be happy. Probably there is no God. 

So, my same advice to you : why do you care about evidence ? live your life and be happy...

 

probably there is no God anyway. Fine for you ? that way, you don't need to bother me anymore at this topic.


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

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Ok, this has degenerated into a pissing contest.

Angelo, repeating the claims that have been rebutted while ignoring the rebuttals is not rational.

Give some honest evidence. I dare you.

Well, do you know the Bus campaign ? Live your life and be happy. Probably there is no God. 

So, my same advice to you : why do you care about evidence ? live your life and be happy...

 

probably there is no God anyway. Fine for you ? that way, you don't need to bother me anymore at this topic.

First off, these kind of discussions do make me happy. Your intellectual dishonesty and disregarding of others' arguments does kill my buzz a little bit. Then I have to settle for shredding you apart . Unfortunately, chew toys lose their flavor eventually.

Why do I care about evidence? This passage from Inherit the Wind says it better than I can:

"Is it possible that something is holy to the celebrated agnostic?

Yes. The individual human mind. In a child's power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "amens" and "holy holies" and "hosannas." An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters."

As for not bothering you any more - I've kicked you around enough but I can't speak for the others.

"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


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

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Is this a joke?

 

No. But your answer is a admittance you throw the towel..... 

 

I was honestly confused, because I did not think that could have been a serious response to what I wrote.  I guess it was.  It is like you are quoting what we post without actually reading it.  I am going to make this very simple...you have been repeating:

 

1. You claim that because an atheist cannot explain the origin of the universe, god is real because it is the only possible answer to a question currently unanswered by science.

2. You claim there is a supernatural, nonphysical entity that created the physical universe...and you can prove that because the universe had to be created by something...but the supernatural thing did not have to be created because it is not natural.

3. You claim that because the natural laws of the universe allowed life to form, that requires an intelligent designer.

4. You claim that because scientists use the word 'code' to describe DNA, that means it had an intelligent designer.

 

Multiple people have directly refuted every one of your points multiple times, and you totally ignore what we write and re-post the exact same thing.  That is why I thought you were joking...you made an argument, we show you how that argument is flawed, you make the exact same argument without a single change again and even without refuting our point.

 

By this stage, if you cannot see the blatant logical fallacies in your four main points I am honestly at a loss on how to proceed.  You cannot win a debate by plugging your ears and chanting the same slogans over and over again.  If you do not acknowledge or refute the points of the other debaters, you fail at the very idea behind a debate.  You have not even tried to do anything but re-post apologist garbage that you have not even read.  You have broken the trust necessary for people to put time into talking to you.  You have wasted our time as well as your own.  If you did not enter into this conversation with the intent of holding a real discussion then your behavior is reprehensible, and I cannot see how you ever had any honest intentions.  Post after post of the same exact logical fallacies.

 

When my two year old daughter is unreasonable, I give her a time out because I know that giving her attention for bad behavior only encourages it.  I think the same idea applies here.

(Edit: You don't have to agree with our statements to be labeled reasonable, you just have to provide arguments that are not totally bankrupt)

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: 1. You

mellestad wrote:
1. You claim that because an atheist cannot explain the origin of the universe, god is real because it is the only possible answer to a question currently unanswered by science.

 

No. I will make it simple to you as well. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. that cause was God.

 

mellestad wrote:
2. You claim there is a supernatural, nonphysical entity that created the physical universe...and you can prove that because the universe had to be created by something...but the supernatural thing did not have to be created because it is not natural.

 

I can't prove anything. I just present the Evidence. God is eternal. Since he created time , he is above time.

 

mellestad wrote:
3. You claim that because the natural laws of the universe allowed life to form, that requires an intelligent designer.

 

the natural laws actually were also created.

 

mellestad wrote:
4. You claim that because scientists use the word 'code' to describe DNA, that means it had an intelligent designer.

 

DNA IS a code. 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.

 

mellestad wrote:
Multiple people have directly refuted every one of your points multiple times, and you totally ignore what we write and re-post the exact same thing. That is why I thought you were joking...you made an argument, we show you how that argument is flawed, you make the exact same argument without a single change again and even without refuting our point.

 

So what makes you feel the refuting s are compelling ? are correct ? The refutation goes like this : If God was not the origin of the universe, since it had a beginning, what else could it be ? " We don't know ". What a great answer !! what a brilliant refutation. My compliments. Very compelling. that is why i repeat. This here is not the rational squad responding, but the irrational squad. Do better. Try harder !!

 

mellestad wrote:
By this stage, if you cannot see the blatant logical fallacies in your four main points I am honestly at a loss on how to proceed.
then don't.

 

mellestad wrote:
You cannot win a debate by plugging your ears and chanting the same slogans over and over again.

 

you either.

mellestad wrote:
If you do not acknowledge or refute the points of the other debaters, you fail at the very idea behind a debate.

I have done so, showing compelling, rational , and reasonable scientific evidence. Since it goes against your wishful thinking, you refute it. Thats the quadro.

mellestad wrote:
You have not even tried to do anything but re-post apologist garbage that you have not even read.

That is empty accusation. I have presented scientific facts, which do find general support at the scientific community.

mellestad wrote:
You have broken the trust necessary for people to put time into talking to you. You have wasted our time as well as your own.

So what are you still doing at this topic ?

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:KSMB

angelobrazil wrote:
KSMB wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?
Why do you think nothing is the default?

Whatelse do you suggest ? the pink unicorn ?

I guess the question and the point of the question went way over your head. But interesting indirect comment about deities and how arbitrary they are...


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

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:
1. You claim that because an atheist cannot explain the origin of the universe, god is real because it is the only possible answer to a question currently unanswered by science.

 

No. I will make it simple to you as well. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. that cause was God.

 

mellestad wrote:
2. You claim there is a supernatural, nonphysical entity that created the physical universe...and you can prove that because the universe had to be created by something...but the supernatural thing did not have to be created because it is not natural.

 

I can't prove anything. I just present the Evidence. God is eternal. Since he created time , he is above time.

 

mellestad wrote:
3. You claim that because the natural laws of the universe allowed life to form, that requires an intelligent designer.

 

the natural laws actually were also created.

 

mellestad wrote:
4. You claim that because scientists use the word 'code' to describe DNA, that means it had an intelligent designer.

 

DNA IS a code. 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.

 

mellestad wrote:
Multiple people have directly refuted every one of your points multiple times, and you totally ignore what we write and re-post the exact same thing. That is why I thought you were joking...you made an argument, we show you how that argument is flawed, you make the exact same argument without a single change again and even without refuting our point.

 

So what makes you feel the refuting s are compelling ? are correct ? The refutation goes like this : If God was not the origin of the universe, since it had a beginning, what else could it be ? " We don't know ". What a great answer !! what a brilliant refutation. My compliments. Very compelling. that is why i repeat. This here is not the rational squad responding, but the irrational squad. Do better. Try harder !!

 

mellestad wrote:
By this stage, if you cannot see the blatant logical fallacies in your four main points I am honestly at a loss on how to proceed.
then don't.

 

mellestad wrote:
You cannot win a debate by plugging your ears and chanting the same slogans over and over again.

 

you either.

mellestad wrote:
If you do not acknowledge or refute the points of the other debaters, you fail at the very idea behind a debate.

I have done so, showing compelling, rational , and reasonable scientific evidence. Since it goes against your wishful thinking, you refute it. Thats the quadro.

mellestad wrote:
You have not even tried to do anything but re-post apologist garbage that you have not even read.

That is empty accusation. I have presented scientific facts, which do find general support at the scientific community.

mellestad wrote:
You have broken the trust necessary for people to put time into talking to you. You have wasted our time as well as your own.

So what are you still doing at this topic ?

 

The fallacies and oft reputed (oft repeated) arguments don't stop from you, do they?

arguments from ignorance, special pleading, fine tuning, first cause.

As for "How did it all begin?" - We don't know yet but we're still looking is much better than "The ultra magic God I worship did it." Especially when you don't seem to know anything about this god of yours.

Again, if your evidence had been compelling, it wouldn't have withered so easily when it was examined.

Perhaps you still have flavor, chew toy.

"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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Since it is now obvious

 Since it is now obvious that you intend to ignore every point you cannot understand, as evidenced by your ignoring half of my post, I have decided to stop waiting patiently and just start beating you.

Quote:
No. I will make it simple to you as well. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. that cause was God.


I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist. There is nothing, everything in this universe is, when you get right down to it, nothing more than a rearrangement of matter and energy, thus the claim that 'everything that begins to exist must have a cause', has no observed evidence to support it. This becomes especially comedic when quantum mechanics suggests that there may actually be uncaused events in the universe.

Furthermore, we actually haven't proven that the universe had a beginning. We have proven that this iteration of the universe experienced what might be called a beginning, but that doesn't mean that is actually what it was.More research is needed.

Quote:
DNA IS a code. 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.


There are several suggested ways in which DNA could form itself through slow modifications to self-replicating molecules. For further study, I suggest you look up The Origin of Life Made Easy by potholer54 on Youtube. It is worth mentioning that this field is still in its infancy, however this is no excuse to throw your arms up and cry god, Otherwise, the lack of an explanation for Lightning in Classical Greece was proof that Zeus was throwing it around.

Furthermore, proposition 2 is nothing but an assertion that would require omniscience. Just because you cannot think up a way for this to happen naturally doesn't mean that there is no way for it to happen. Likewise, just because most of the codes we have found we're designed by an intelligent being does not mean every code was, even if DNA we're a code in the traditional sense, which it is not. It is a molecule, whose actions are entirely controlled by chemistry and Physics.

Also, please note that I have already adressed the claim about chance involved in this. Chance is not the answer, because the early self replicating molecules don't function based on chance, they function based on Chemistry. I notice you ignored this the first time I pointed it out, and I expect you will ignore it again.

I am reminded of an 'Order of the Stick' comic involving the dwarf who worships Odin being convinced that Lightning, the holy weapon of his god, striking trees was proof that trees we're pure evil.

Quote:
So what makes you feel the refuting s are compelling ? are correct ? The refutation goes like this : If God was not the origin of the universe, since it had a beginning, what else could it be ? " We don't know ". What a great answer !! what a brilliant refutation. My compliments. Very compelling. that is why i repeat. This here is not the rational squad responding, but the irrational squad. Do better. Try harder !!


'We don't know' is essentially just a Quote Mine of the full Answer, which reads; "We don't know for sure, however here are a whole bunch of possible answers, one of which is god. We're doing more research, check back in a decade or so."

Once again however, this isn't really that big of a deal, as even if we don't have a full answer yet, that doesn't mean your personal god suddenly becomes a rational answer.

Quote:
I have done so, showing compelling, rational , and reasonable scientific evidence. Since it goes against your wishful thinking, you refute it. Thats the quadro.

Actually you haven't, you have not cited a single peer reviewed article. All you do is link to apologist sites and expect us to believe the people these people quote actually meant even slightly what these people say they did. This is especially obvious when you quote Stephen Hawking, as if you actually google the parts of the quote you give us, you literally cannot find any mention of the quote on anything but apologist websites.

Quote:
That is empty accusation. I have presented scientific facts, which do find general support at the scientific community.

Then link us to peer reviewed papers. if these 'facts' find general support at the scientific community, they should be all over the place.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
some questions for

KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Theist: *Bunch of nonsense

Theist: *Bunch of nonsense claims*

Atheist: *Refutes the nonsense*

Theist: *Pastes the same nonsense from different apologetics site*

 

Why is it always like this?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Why do theists need to know now?

 

I'm not tooled up to wade into this debate proper but something I often wrestle with is why christians fail to understand that modern science is a babe in arms.

My younger brother and I often argue over god. We get into evolution and he insists on my delivering intermediate forms. When I tell him he is an intermediate form he wants a

crocodile with wings. If I tell him DNA shows the nearest relative of the hippo is the whale he tells me this is evidence of a single designer.

When you consider Galileo was imprisoned only 350 years or so ago for peeking at the solar system and now we have hubble and better you'd think theists would

understand that on one side of the debate the evidence continues to mount.

I look forward to the day empirical evidence can manouver the godly into a position of extreme discomfort. Of course my brother will then say, 'Where did it all come from

then'. And will start in with how when looking for an answer to a question you must accept the answer the evidence best supports right now - you can't just say the jury is out.

I'd really love martians to come to earth and just hang out a bit and freak everyone out but no doubt the godly would trademark them as angels, same as they've trademarked

every positive human quality as having been sent from god - leaving the rest of us with nothing but iniquity.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


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

angelobrazil wrote:

some questions for atheists...


http://www.seekfind.net/Why_Cant_Evolutionists_Find_Answers_That_Make_Sense.html

 

 

 

 

After reading that, here are the answers to those at least somewhat educated in some of the scientific fields of biology, which is VERY OBVIOUS the person of the website you posted is either not educated at all, or completely ignores all the facts and evidence done by biologists over the last 150 years....basically he is like you, dismiss all the evidence at hand.

mutations

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

http://www.biology-online.org/2/8_mutations.htm

As for the geological information why would an Evolution have anything to say about geology? it's a geologists that does that. However after all the research done over the last 150 years, including the most recent being genetic research, that combined with what geologist have found about earth and its history has far more compelling evidence than the bible's version of events.

As for how DNA/RNA assembled, well there have been many sites and journals already posted go back and look at it. However this isn't the realm of evolution, it's abiogenesis which is a different field of science. All evolution states is that once life began however it began, it started to adapt and change to it's environment, via random mutation, natural selection, etc, etc.

The rest of that site is just pure shit and ignorance at it's best, it's just ignore all the facts so I can say god exists and the bible is correct the universe is only 6000 years old, lets ignore EVERYTHING else so that it's true, blah blah blah. How about this angelo, present peer reviewed journals with actual work done by scientist that prove your point. PEER REVIEW WORK....wait what can't do that because the evidence is lacking? Gotcha, ignore everything else what everyone posts and just keep on spouting the same crap. Sorry angelo, you have been DEBUNKED AND REFUTED repeatedly, you just dismiss and ignore. Hell you ignore all the major contradictions you have brought up about your god forget about everything else.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

...that on one side of the debate the evidence continues to mount...

Some forms of theism embrace scientific discovery as a means to undergird their truth claims. But in any case, we should not  confuse extrapolations from  evidence with the evidence itself. One thing angelo has done (not necessarily himself) is pointed to many places were theists interpret scientific findings in favor of their beleifs. My contention was that the entire approach was wrong, and all the evidence in the world did not matter if the fundamental arguement being made is falacious.

“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
Sinphanius wrote: I

Sinphanius wrote:
I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist.

 

Thats my point. The Universe itself has truly began to exist. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. I challenge you as well to disprove this claim.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
There is nothing, everything in this universe is, when you get right down to it, nothing more than a rearrangement of matter and energy, thus the claim that 'everything that begins to exist must have a cause', has no observed evidence to support it.

 

Rearrangement of matter and energy isn't anything else than the principle cause and effect applied.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
This becomes especially comedic when quantum mechanics suggests that there may actually be uncaused events in the universe.

 

In 1973 Edward Tryon speculated whether the universe might not be a long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum.{30} This seemingly bizarre speculation gave rise to a new generation of cosmogonic theories which we may call Vacuum Fluctuation Models. In such models, it is hypothesized that prior to some inflationary era the Universe-as-a-whole is a primordial vacuum which exists, not in a state of expansion, but eternally in a steady state. Throughout this vacuum sub-atomic energy fluctuations constantly occur, by means of which matter is created and mini-universes are born Our expanding universe is but one of an indefinite number of mini-universes conceived within the womb of the greater Universe-as-a-whole. Thus, the beginning of our universe does not represent an absolute beginning, but merely a change in the eternal, uncaused Universe-as-a-whole.According to such models, it is impossible to specify precisely when and where a fluctuation will occur in the primordial vacuum which will then grow into a universe. Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, we actually haven't proven that the universe had a beginning. We have proven that this iteration of the universe experienced what might be called a beginning, but that doesn't mean that is actually what it was.More research is needed.

 

P. C. W. Davies comments, An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo.As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
It is worth mentioning that this field is still in its infancy, however this is no excuse to throw your arms up and cry god,
there is common understanding that DNA is a code. Its a language. So the escape " this field is still in its infancy " is not valid.
Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, proposition 2 is nothing but an assertion that would require omniscience. Just because you cannot think up a way for this to happen naturally doesn't mean that there is no way for it to happen.

 

Assertions have been attempted that gravity, snowflakes, magma flows and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon's communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system. We know only human kind to be able to communicate throug complex and specific information. There is no reason the believe some other kind might be discovered in the future to do so. Information is always a result of a intelligent, conscious mind.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Likewise, just because most of the codes we have found we're designed by an intelligent being does not mean every code was, even if DNA we're a code in the traditional sense, which it is not. It is a molecule, whose actions are entirely controlled by chemistry and Physics.

 

Complaints have been lodged that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire. The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Also, please note that I have already adressed the claim about chance involved in this. Chance is not the answer, because the early self replicating molecules don't function based on chance, they function based on Chemistry. I notice you ignored this the first time I pointed it out, and I expect you will ignore it again.

 

then lets start by the most important building block for life : carbon.

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html Carbon chemistry Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0. Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

 

Carbon Resonance A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium ) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon. Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

 

Science is not optimistic about abiogenesis

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

 

At the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in 1994, Leslie Orgel observes, "Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule..." (9). Apparently NASA has lost enthusiasm for the RNA world as well. In the Final Report issued after the "Astrobiology Workshop" held September 9-11, 1996 at Ames Research Center, California, we read (10), It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world&quotEye-wink. However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear. Deductively, God is certainly the best explanation for the origin of life. Life has always Life as origin, and not inanimate matter.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
'We don't know' is essentially just a Quote Mine of the full Answer, which reads; "We don't know for sure, however here are a whole bunch of possible answers, one of which is god. We're doing more research, check back in a decade or so." Once again however, this isn't really that big of a deal, as even if we don't have a full answer yet, that doesn't mean your personal god suddenly becomes a rational answer.

 

We have the full data on hand, and deductively we can say : God is the best and most rational answer for the natural phenomenons. Its VERY unlikely, that God does not exist. I would say, its 99.9999999999999% ( put some more nines on that number ) certain, that God must exist. Otherwise, simply nothing would exist.

Sinphanius wrote:
Actually you haven't, you have not cited a single peer reviewed article.
The base of my world view is science, religion, and philosophy. Why should only science be aloud to form our beliefs and convictions ? Science does explain less, than it explains.

 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist.

 

Thats my point. The Universe itself has truly began to exist. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. I challenge you as well to disprove this claim.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
There is nothing, everything in this universe is, when you get right down to it, nothing more than a rearrangement of matter and energy, thus the claim that 'everything that begins to exist must have a cause', has no observed evidence to support it.

 

Rearrangement of matter and energy isn't anything else than the principle cause and effect applied.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
This becomes especially comedic when quantum mechanics suggests that there may actually be uncaused events in the universe.

 

In 1973 Edward Tryon speculated whether the universe might not be a long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum.{30} This seemingly bizarre speculation gave rise to a new generation of cosmogonic theories which we may call Vacuum Fluctuation Models. In such models, it is hypothesized that prior to some inflationary era the Universe-as-a-whole is a primordial vacuum which exists, not in a state of expansion, but eternally in a steady state. Throughout this vacuum sub-atomic energy fluctuations constantly occur, by means of which matter is created and mini-universes are born Our expanding universe is but one of an indefinite number of mini-universes conceived within the womb of the greater Universe-as-a-whole. Thus, the beginning of our universe does not represent an absolute beginning, but merely a change in the eternal, uncaused Universe-as-a-whole.According to such models, it is impossible to specify precisely when and where a fluctuation will occur in the primordial vacuum which will then grow into a universe. Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, we actually haven't proven that the universe had a beginning. We have proven that this iteration of the universe experienced what might be called a beginning, but that doesn't mean that is actually what it was.More research is needed.

 

P. C. W. Davies comments, An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo.As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
It is worth mentioning that this field is still in its infancy, however this is no excuse to throw your arms up and cry god,
there is common understanding that DNA is a code. Its a language. So the escape " this field is still in its infancy " is not valid.
Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, proposition 2 is nothing but an assertion that would require omniscience. Just because you cannot think up a way for this to happen naturally doesn't mean that there is no way for it to happen.

 

Assertions have been attempted that gravity, snowflakes, magma flows and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon's communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system. We know only human kind to be able to communicate throug complex and specific information. There is no reason the believe some other kind might be discovered in the future to do so. Information is always a result of a intelligent, conscious mind.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Likewise, just because most of the codes we have found we're designed by an intelligent being does not mean every code was, even if DNA we're a code in the traditional sense, which it is not. It is a molecule, whose actions are entirely controlled by chemistry and Physics.

 

Complaints have been lodged that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire. The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

 

Sinphanius wrote:
Also, please note that I have already adressed the claim about chance involved in this. Chance is not the answer, because the early self replicating molecules don't function based on chance, they function based on Chemistry. I notice you ignored this the first time I pointed it out, and I expect you will ignore it again.

 

then lets start by the most important building block for life : carbon.

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html Carbon chemistry Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0. Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

 

Carbon Resonance A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium ) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon. Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

 

Science is not optimistic about abiogenesis

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

 

At the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in 1994, Leslie Orgel observes, "Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule..." (9). Apparently NASA has lost enthusiasm for the RNA world as well. In the Final Report issued after the "Astrobiology Workshop" held September 9-11, 1996 at Ames Research Center, California, we read (10), It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world&quotEye-wink. However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear. Deductively, God is certainly the best explanation for the origin of life. Life has always Life as origin, and not inanimate matter.

 

Sinphanius wrote:
'We don't know' is essentially just a Quote Mine of the full Answer, which reads; "We don't know for sure, however here are a whole bunch of possible answers, one of which is god. We're doing more research, check back in a decade or so." Once again however, this isn't really that big of a deal, as even if we don't have a full answer yet, that doesn't mean your personal god suddenly becomes a rational answer.

 

We have the full data on hand, and deductively we can say : God is the best and most rational answer for the natural phenomenons. Its VERY unlikely, that God does not exist. I would say, its 99.9999999999999% ( put some more nines on that number ) certain, that God must exist. Otherwise, simply nothing would exist.

Sinphanius wrote:
Actually you haven't, you have not cited a single peer reviewed article.
The base of my world view is science, religion, and philosophy. Why should only science be aloud to form our beliefs and convictions ? Science does explain less, than it explains.

 

The Tryon piece is 56 years old - ancient by scientific standards. The citation from panspermia,org is also old by scientific standards

The piece you claim is from Davies is actually from W.L. Craig.

Stealing from Perry Marshall doesn't help you ether.

So God is the best answer because man assigned God life (by creating the myths) and life can only come from life? You've just admitted that man is God - congrats.

 

"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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The Tryon

jcgadfly wrote:

The Tryon piece is 56 years old - ancient by scientific standards. The citation from panspermia,org is also old by scientific standards

The piece you claim is from Davies is actually from W.L. Craig.

Stealing from Perry Marshall doesn't help you ether.

So God is the best answer because man assigned God life (by creating the myths) and life can only come from life? You've just admitted that man is God - congrats.

 

 

great answer. Just by judging the source, you dismiss the argument and the scientific  facts. That's behave like the ostrich : put your head into the sand, and ignore everything. Really not the best rational behaviour.....  


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

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The Tryon piece is 56 years old - ancient by scientific standards. The citation from panspermia,org is also old by scientific standards

The piece you claim is from Davies is actually from W.L. Craig.

Stealing from Perry Marshall doesn't help you ether.

So God is the best answer because man assigned God life (by creating the myths) and life can only come from life? You've just admitted that man is God - congrats.

 

 

great answer. Just by judging the source, you dismiss the argument and the scientific  facts. That's behave like the ostrich : put your head into the sand, and ignore everything. Really not the best rational behaviour.....  

Hardly.

I simply acknowledge that science has moved on from the 1940's and the early '90s.

The rest was simply acknowledging where you stole your information. Someone has to source your stuff since you can't be bothered to do so properly.

So, as you didn't answer my question or dispute my last statement where you acknowledge man as the source for God - thanks for agreeing.

"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


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

angelobrazil wrote:

some questions for atheists...


http://www.seekfind.net/Why_Cant_Evolutionists_Find_Answers_That_Make_Sense.html

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ.  This is a whining tirade about how modern scientists ignore and misinterpret evidence that should lead them to young earth creationism.

 

The problem with this opinion is 'science' did not wake up one morning and decide to attack religious fundamentalism.  Evidence pushed them toward the modern understanding of events.  This entire rant is the direct result of someone having zero understanding of modern scientific thought, and some blatant misinterpretations.

 

We can't argue with you when you willfully cling to ignorance.

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So, as you

jcgadfly wrote:

So, as you didn't answer my question or dispute my last statement where you acknowledge man as the source for God - thanks for agreeing.

 

Since you have not taken position to the single stated points - i take it as admission , you do not have a more rational argument on hand, to counter what i presented. So - thanks for agreeing as well. 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: We can't

mellestad wrote:

 

We can't argue with you when you willfully cling to ignorance.

 

you are also free to take direct position to my last comprehensive post - showing clear and compelling evidence that

carbon  could arise by chance or physical necessity.

DNA could  arise through natural random processes . 

 

As long you do not, you prove as well that you prefere to ignore hard facts.

 

if the scientific source is old, please present recent scientific studies and papers, which dismantle my arguments... 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So, as you didn't answer my question or dispute my last statement where you acknowledge man as the source for God - thanks for agreeing.

 

Since you have not taken position to the single stated points - i take it as admission , you do not have a more rational argument on hand, to counter what i presented. So - thanks for agreeing as well. 

Oh you mean Craig's argument that you took as your own in the OP?

Too many others have debunked it into oblivion. and you've ignored them. Why should I myself to the list people you ignore because you can't refute them?

If you want one, here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS-yNbO9-zQ

It is in video form so you don't have to read too much. I realize you'll ignore this also but you're a nice chew toy.

Here's one for fine tuning - you might have to read this one. I apologize for the impending mental strain.

http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2009/07/fine-tuning-argument-is-rubbish-or-why.html

"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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Oh you mean

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh you mean Craig's argument that you took as your own in the OP?

Too many others have debunked it into oblivion. and you've ignored them. Why should I myself to the list people you ignore because you can't refute them?

If you want one, here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS-yNbO9-zQ

It is in video form so you don't have to read too much. I realize you'll ignore this also but you're a nice chew toy.

Here's one for fine tuning - you might have to read this one. I apologize for the impending mental strain.

http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2009/07/fine-tuning-argument-is-rubbish-or-why.html

 

don't worry, i will post all sources from now on, ok ?

i have seen the youtube video. So i really don't understand the guy's point. He questions what " everything " meant to be. What is the doubt about that ? everything means everything. point.

the blog argument says :

 

For example, God could have created a universe where ALL the planets and moons in our solar system could support human life (without the aid of man-made technology), yet this isn’t what we see. Just the moon being habitable would be nice, but no.

how does this dismantle the fine-tune argument. It seems God decided to make only our earth able to support life. So what ? the fine-tuned constants remain the same, and they continue to be strong evidence for god... 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

We can't argue with you when you willfully cling to ignorance.

 

you are also free to take direct position to my last comprehensive post - showing clear and compelling evidence that

carbon  could arise by chance or physical necessity.

DNA could  arise through natural random processes . 

 

As long you do not, you prove as well that you prefere to ignore hard facts.

 

if the scientific source is old, please present recent scientific studies and papers, which dismantle my arguments... 

 

Tell me one thing first:  Why should I bother?  You are clearly using a god of the gaps argument by digging around apologist sites for something they list as a current scientific mystery and regurgitating it.

Every time you have brought this type of argument up and someone has spent their time explaining why you are wrong you:

a) Ignore them and re-post the same thing over and over (like your DNA nonsense)

b) Ignore them and keep digging around for the next 'unsolvable' mystery that 'proves' god is real

 

So I have to ask, what is in it for me?  After hundreds of posts it seems clear you will just ignore anything anyone says, even when they use well cited scientific sources to invalidate your links to blog entries written by unscientific apologists.  We ignore your 'hard facts' indeed.

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


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

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

We can't argue with you when you willfully cling to ignorance.

 

you are also free to take direct position to my last comprehensive post - showing clear and compelling evidence that

carbon  could arise by chance or physical necessity.

DNA could  arise through natural random processes . 

 

As long you do not, you prove as well that you prefere to ignore hard facts.

 

if the scientific source is old, please present recent scientific studies and papers, which dismantle my arguments... 

No one is claiming chance or randomness as a reason for anything.

Doesn't knocking down your straw man get boring after a while?

And you still haven't explained why your particular version of god is the Designer in the design argument.

You're getting threadbare, chewtoy.
 

 

"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
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

We can't argue with you when you willfully cling to ignorance.

 

you are also free to take direct position to my last comprehensive post - showing clear and compelling evidence that

carbon  could arise by chance or physical necessity.

DNA could  arise through natural random processes . 

 

As long you do not, you prove as well that you prefere to ignore hard facts.

 

if the scientific source is old, please present recent scientific studies and papers, which dismantle my arguments... 

This is what I mean that you simply dismiss not refute or debunk anyone's argument, a few including myself have posted links to scientific studies showing possible paths (which they are now studying to further show how DNA could have occurred naturally) you completely ignore that and keep on spouting your ignorant statements about this. There are explanations which are far more superior than your god did it answer, because in the end you have zero evidence for your particular god, and the fine tune argument makes no argument for any god, only a designer, and even that is flawed, which has been pointed out many times. Again keep ignoring everything science says so your can say your god is real. No change in your argument.


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

latincanuck wrote:

This is what I mean that you simply dismiss not refute or debunk anyone's argument, a few including myself have posted links to scientific studies showing possible paths (which they are now studying to further show how DNA could have occurred naturally) you completely ignore that and keep on spouting your ignorant statements about this. There are explanations which are far more superior than your god did it answer, because in the end you have zero evidence for your particular god, and the fine tune argument makes no argument for any god, only a designer, and even that is flawed, which has been pointed out many times. Again keep ignoring everything science says so your can say your god is real. No change in your argument.

 

and the origin of carbon in the universe was just chance, isn't it ? sorry, no. your answer falls short.

but you can try and guess again.... you might come up with a reasonable answer. The last that goes away is hope..... 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Same

angelobrazil wrote:
Same scenario : I ask you : Did you have a father ? Answer : i don't know....

People must have fathers; therefore, universes must have intelligent designers? 

Fail. Try again.

angelobrazil wrote:
And who, or what determines, that it would be a gradual process ?

Look at that! You're already starting to assume that there has to be something intelligent "determining" the gradual process. This is a loaded question.

No, the forces of nature operate by themselves. They don't need a supernatural mind.

angelobrazil wrote:
how was it directed to be gradual ?

Another loaded question.

It doesn't have to be "directed" to be gradual. It just IS natural. 

Nobody "opens" the "floodgates of heaven" to "allow" rain to pour down from the sky. It just happens.

angelobrazil wrote:
what kind of mechanism determined it ?

Vague and loaded, yet again.

My first response concerning the origin of the universe is "I don't know." Could there be a deist type God? Maybe, but it seems ad hoc and doesn't make any sense with what we know about biology and intelligence. Everything beyond that makes the term exponentially more improbable and incoherent.

angelobrazil wrote:
why was it not completely chaotic ?

Why should it be?

angelobrazil wrote:
And : who guarantees you evolution was a gradual process ?

Another loaded question.

Jeez. What is it with you and this stuff? Why does it have to be a "who?" I know we disagree, but can't you even consider it from another perspective? 

Nobody "guarantees" that evolution is gradual process. It just is. Evolution happened slowly over billions of years. That makes it a gradual process.

Are you asking how evolution works?

angelobrazil wrote:
how about the Cambrian explosion ?

What about it?

You're going to make me laugh aren't you?

butterbattle wrote:
As of now, we haven't even found anything in nature that we know for certain to be random.

angelobrazil wrote:
excellent. Than you admit design. And design needs a designer.

You have some serious reading comprehension issues.

I'm saying, "as of now, we haven't even found anything in nature that we know for certain to be random." There are some things, especially at the quantum level, that seem random, but we don't know for sure. It's possible that we simply don't understand these processes well enough. Again, nature, at least the vast majority of it, is not random and does not need a designer. 

You want me to validate that premise for you, so you don't have to beg the question again?

Quote:
So what is chance for you ? is it " something " ?

I don't really understand your questions.

Um, what is "chance" for me? Um, it's a concept. It deals with probability.

Is it "something?" It's...well, what the heck is "something?"

Quote:
correct. Thats enough. We don't need to know more than that.

Of course. We can't know more than that. It's magic, right?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations

2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural 

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spell

1 a : a spoken word or form of words held to have magic power b : a state of enchantment

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


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

butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
Same scenario : I ask you : Did you have a father ? Answer : i don't know....
People must have fathers; therefore, universes must have intelligent designers? Fail. Try again.
explain : why does it fail ? your answer was not a answer. Actually, even Richard Dawkins admits Intelligent Design, isn't that amazing ?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8&feature=related
butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
And who, or what determines, that it would be a gradual process ?
Look at that! You're already starting to assume that there has to be something intelligent "determining" the gradual process. This is a loaded question. No, the forces of nature operate by themselves. They don't need a supernatural mind.
onces again you didn't answer my question. You said evolution of the universe had to be a gradual one. And i ask you again : Why ? if these forces operate by themself, why or what does regulate the process, so that it had to be gradually ?
butterbattle wrote:
Another loaded question. It doesn't have to be "directed" to be gradual. It just IS natural. Nobody "opens" the "floodgates of heaven" to "allow" rain to pour down from the sky. It just happens.
wait a minute. you said its gradual, not its natural. So why would it have to be gradual ? what determined it had to be gradual ?
butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
what kind of mechanism determined it ?
Vague and loaded, yet again. My first response concerning the origin of the universe is "I don't know." Could there be a deist type God? Maybe, but it seems ad hoc and doesn't make any sense with what we know about biology and intelligence. Everything beyond that makes the term exponentially more improbable and incoherent.
once again. The universe is fine tuned. We find order of the highest degree. It appears to be designed. So why is a designer not the best explanation ?
butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
why was it not completely chaotic ?
Why should it be?
have you seen a atomic explosion for example be ordered ? or is it always chaotic ? throw thousand stones to the floor. Will you find them in a chaotic situation on the floor, or highly ordered ? Throw them a trillion times on the floor. how many times do you think they will arrive ordered ?
butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
And : who guarantees you evolution was a gradual process ?
Another loaded question. Jeez. What is it with you and this stuff? Why does it have to be a "who?" I know we disagree, but can't you even consider it from another perspective?
Its up to you to show this other perspective, since it is you to propose it. Up to now, i really can't. But there might be things i don't know yet...( i don't know a lot of things ) so please explain.
butterbattle wrote:
Nobody "guarantees" that evolution is gradual process.
that was your assertion.
butterbattle wrote:
It just is. Evolution happened slowly over billions of years. That makes it a gradual process.
so how do you know ? we talk btw. about the evolution of the universe....
butterbattle wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
how about the Cambrian explosion ?
What about it? You're going to make me laugh aren't you?
i don't think so. But your arguments make me wonder what you actually understand about the assertions you make.
butterbattle wrote:
I'm saying, "as of now, we haven't even found anything in nature that we know for certain to be random." There are some things, especially at the quantum level, that seem random, but we don't know for sure. It's possible that we simply don't understand these processes well enough. Again,
again. you make a assertion, but give no explanation. Please explain why nature, at least the vast majority of it, is not random and does not need a designer.

 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

This is what I mean that you simply dismiss not refute or debunk anyone's argument, a few including myself have posted links to scientific studies showing possible paths (which they are now studying to further show how DNA could have occurred naturally) you completely ignore that and keep on spouting your ignorant statements about this. There are explanations which are far more superior than your god did it answer, because in the end you have zero evidence for your particular god, and the fine tune argument makes no argument for any god, only a designer, and even that is flawed, which has been pointed out many times. Again keep ignoring everything science says so your can say your god is real. No change in your argument.

 

and the origin of carbon in the universe was just chance, isn't it ? sorry, no. your answer falls short.

but you can try and guess again.... you might come up with a reasonable answer. The last that goes away is hope..... 

Way to set up your strawman and knock it down!

You are the only one that has suggested chance as an solution to the beginning if anything. You need to quit projecting that on us and tell us why you believe that your God designed the universe for little ol' us. Personally, I think that attitude is beyond arrogant.

Or do you believe that chance did it all and you're just calling it God?

"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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Its up to you to give a

 Its up to you to give a better explanation than God. What alternative do you suggest ?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist.

 

Thats my point. The Universe itself has truly began to exist.

I demand proof of your claim.


Surely everyone here must realize angelobrazil has shifted the burden of proof. It is his burden to prove the thing he calls god exists.

His claim that the universe began rests on his claim that a thing he calls god created the universe.

So prove "god" angelobrazil. Merely provide any evidence of it.


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

No evidence of this thing has been presented.

Quote:
I ask this in face of following facts :

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


Prove this is a fact

Quote:
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 ?

Prove the universe is "tuned". The word 'tuned' implies a tuner, so prove there is a 'tuner'.

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.

There are many questions without answers. If your answer is "god" then prove "god". If you cannot then you have no answer.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


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

aiia wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
Sinphanius wrote:
I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist.
Thats my point. The Universe itself has truly began to exist.
I demand proof of your claim.

 

i will resume the answer from William Lane Craig :

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?

 

page=NewsArticle&id=6115&printer_friendly=1 The standard Big Bang model includes an initial singularity.The model cannot lose that feature and remain the same model. So there’s no question of the standard model’s not including a singularity anymore. the model is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. But Einstein’s theory breaks down when space is shrunk down to sub-atomic proportions.We’ll need to introduce quantum physics at that point, and no one is sure how this is to be done. With respect to the alternative of Eternal Inflation, it was suggested by some theorists during the 1980s that perhaps the inflationary expansion of the universe was not confined to a brief period early in the history of the universe but is eternal in the past, each inflating region being the product of a prior inflating region. Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

 

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

aiia wrote:
Surely everyone here must realize angelobrazil has shifted the burden of proof. It is his burden to prove the thing he calls god exists.

 

Sorry, but i repeated several times : i have not the goal to prove God. God's existence cannot be proved/disproved.

 

aiia wrote:
Merely provide any evidence of it.

 

Despite the claim, i have not given any evidence, i have given plenty of evidence all through this topic for Gods existence. If you want to make a indepth study abouth the evidence that points toward God, i recommend you to have a look at this topic at my site :

 

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

aiia wrote:
Prove the universe is "tuned". The word 'tuned' implies a tuner, so prove there is a 'tuner'.

Again : forget proves. But evidence, there is plenty :

The extreme fine-tuning of the universe

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


 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

 Its up to you to give a better explanation than God. What alternative do you suggest ?

I don't have an explanation - never claimed to. My honesty is still far superior to your invocation of magic as an explanation/

"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


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

angelobrazil wrote:

aiia wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
Sinphanius wrote:
I challenge you to present anything in this universe that has ever truly begun to exist.
Thats my point. The Universe itself has truly began to exist.
I demand proof of your claim.

 

i will resume the answer from William Lane Craig :

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?

 

page=NewsArticle&id=6115&printer_friendly=1 The standard Big Bang model includes an initial singularity.The model cannot lose that feature and remain the same model. So there’s no question of the standard model’s not including a singularity anymore. the model is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. But Einstein’s theory breaks down when space is shrunk down to sub-atomic proportions.We’ll need to introduce quantum physics at that point, and no one is sure how this is to be done. With respect to the alternative of Eternal Inflation, it was suggested by some theorists during the 1980s that perhaps the inflationary expansion of the universe was not confined to a brief period early in the history of the universe but is eternal in the past, each inflating region being the product of a prior inflating region. Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

 

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

aiia wrote:
Surely everyone here must realize angelobrazil has shifted the burden of proof. It is his burden to prove the thing he calls god exists.

 

Sorry, but i repeated several times : i have not the goal to prove God. God's existence cannot be proved/disproved.

 

aiia wrote:
Merely provide any evidence of it.

 

Despite the claim, i have not given any evidence, i have given plenty of evidence all through this topic for Gods existence. If you want to make a indepth study abouth the evidence that points toward God, i recommend you to have a look at this topic at my site :

 

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

aiia wrote:
Prove the universe is "tuned". The word 'tuned' implies a tuner, so prove there is a 'tuner'.

Again : forget proves. But evidence, there is plenty :

The extreme fine-tuning of the universe

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


 

Well, you're not plagiarizing anymore - good on you for that.

Your arguments are there, yes. They have been shown to be invalid. Repeating them does not make them valid or evidentiary. If you actually read other prople's posts, you'd know that.

 

"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
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

This is what I mean that you simply dismiss not refute or debunk anyone's argument, a few including myself have posted links to scientific studies showing possible paths (which they are now studying to further show how DNA could have occurred naturally) you completely ignore that and keep on spouting your ignorant statements about this. There are explanations which are far more superior than your god did it answer, because in the end you have zero evidence for your particular god, and the fine tune argument makes no argument for any god, only a designer, and even that is flawed, which has been pointed out many times. Again keep ignoring everything science says so your can say your god is real. No change in your argument.

 

and the origin of carbon in the universe was just chance, isn't it ? sorry, no. your answer falls short.

but you can try and guess again.... you might come up with a reasonable answer. The last that goes away is hope..... 

It's not chance, that's what you keep on saying, however more like the properties of this universe and the make up of it, like a few scientists have pointed out with the fine tune argument if it wasn't carbon it could  have been silicone and then the question would have been why silicone and not anything else.

however I digress back to your question regarding the origin of carbon in the universe, oh wait look a scientific study on this http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/conferences/crumps05/Contributions/PDF/Beers.pdf

yet another explanation as to why carbon is formed http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5397/2204

and yet another study on carbon in the universe and it's abundance http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03/12/stars-at-milky-way-core-exhale-carbon-oxygen/

there are people who study this, that don't take it as mere chance, but want to know why and how and can actually have answers to those questions instead of wow must be chance or god, both are just mere ignorant statements as one fails to observe the causes and the other is not an answer to anything, on the contrary it is an impossible proposition as it the god mentioned in your case is no improbable, but impossible.


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

latincanuck wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

This is what I mean that you simply dismiss not refute or debunk anyone's argument, a few including myself have posted links to scientific studies showing possible paths (which they are now studying to further show how DNA could have occurred naturally) you completely ignore that and keep on spouting your ignorant statements about this. There are explanations which are far more superior than your god did it answer, because in the end you have zero evidence for your particular god, and the fine tune argument makes no argument for any god, only a designer, and even that is flawed, which has been pointed out many times. Again keep ignoring everything science says so your can say your god is real. No change in your argument.

 

and the origin of carbon in the universe was just chance, isn't it ? sorry, no. your answer falls short.

but you can try and guess again.... you might come up with a reasonable answer. The last that goes away is hope..... 

It's not chance, that's what you keep on saying, however more like the properties of this universe and the make up of it, like a few scientists have pointed out with the fine tune argument if it wasn't carbon it could  have been silicone and then the question would have been why silicone and not anything else.

however I digress back to your question regarding the origin of carbon in the universe, oh wait look a scientific study on this http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/conferences/crumps05/Contributions/PDF/Beers.pdf

yet another explanation as to why carbon is formed http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5397/2204

and yet another study on carbon in the universe and it's abundance http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03/12/stars-at-milky-way-core-exhale-carbon-oxygen/

there are people who study this, that don't take it as mere chance, but want to know why and how and can actually have answers to those questions instead of wow must be chance or god, both are just mere ignorant statements as one fails to observe the causes and the other is not an answer to anything, on the contrary it is an impossible proposition as it the god mentioned in your case is no improbable, but impossible.

 

I don't know why you bothered, he will just ignore it or post a link to a youtube video that has nothing to do with anything.  At best he will stop bringing up carbon and shift to another 'gap'.  I admire your patience!

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


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

latincanuck wrote:

 

tere are people who study this, that don't take it as mere chance, but want to know why and how and can actually have answers to those questions instead of wow must be chance or god, both are just mere ignorant statements as one fails to observe the causes and the other is not an answer to anything, on the contrary it is an impossible proposition as it the god mentioned in your case is no improbable, but impossible.

 

 the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. that is simply a fact. If you think chance is a better explanation   for the physical constants of the universe , than shall it be. For me, its utmost irrational. Would you bet a dime on that probability ?

 

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:
p://thecw.com/2009/09/17/the-fine-tuning-in-the-univers
The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 1200 Celsius (2480 F). These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

 

Another group of variables that are fascinating is that the atoms that make up the bulk of life have certain qualities that, again, are not obvious nor required. Some, indeed, are quite subtle.

One of these is carbon, which is the mainstay of biological processes. Carbon is the sixth atom in size, it has six protons, and six electrons–two in an inner orbit and four in its outer orbit, which makes it possible to connect with up to four other atoms at a time. This is near the maximum of chemical connections, and so carbon is unique among the ninety-two elements in its capacity to create complex molecules.

So we need lots of carbon for life to exist, and carbon is created in the bowels of the stars. But it requires a peculiar chain of fusion events, beyond the fusion of hydrogen into helium, which is the source of energy that fuels hydrogen bombs and keeps the stars as hot as they are. But in addition to being a source of heat and light, the cores of stars have the pressure, due to the gravitational force of all that matter, and the heat due to the power of the fusion reaction, to be an "alchemical crucible," a high-pressure chamber in which even larger atoms can be created, and so they are.

The bigger the atom, though, the hotter and higher pressure it needs to be, so that the larger atoms only happen in the cores of very large stars, much larger than our sun, and even then, only when they are undergoing the final phases of their own collapse, called the "super-nova," when they burn–if you can imagine this–and you can't–none of us really can–millions of times hotter than the sun! Silicon based life is not possible :  A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life. 

 


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

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 

tere are people who study this, that don't take it as mere chance, but want to know why and how and can actually have answers to those questions instead of wow must be chance or god, both are just mere ignorant statements as one fails to observe the causes and the other is not an answer to anything, on the contrary it is an impossible proposition as it the god mentioned in your case is no improbable, but impossible.

 

 the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. that is simply a fact. If you think chance is a better explanation   for the physical constants of the universe , than shall it be. For me, its utmost irrational. Would you bet a dime on that probability ?

 

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:
p://thecw.com/2009/09/17/the-fine-tuning-in-the-univers
The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 1200 Celsius (2480 F). These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

 

Another group of variables that are fascinating is that the atoms that make up the bulk of life have certain qualities that, again, are not obvious nor required. Some, indeed, are quite subtle.

One of these is carbon, which is the mainstay of biological processes. Carbon is the sixth atom in size, it has six protons, and six electrons–two in an inner orbit and four in its outer orbit, which makes it possible to connect with up to four other atoms at a time. This is near the maximum of chemical connections, and so carbon is unique among the ninety-two elements in its capacity to create complex molecules.

So we need lots of carbon for life to exist, and carbon is created in the bowels of the stars. But it requires a peculiar chain of fusion events, beyond the fusion of hydrogen into helium, which is the source of energy that fuels hydrogen bombs and keeps the stars as hot as they are. But in addition to being a source of heat and light, the cores of stars have the pressure, due to the gravitational force of all that matter, and the heat due to the power of the fusion reaction, to be an "alchemical crucible," a high-pressure chamber in which even larger atoms can be created, and so they are.

The bigger the atom, though, the hotter and higher pressure it needs to be, so that the larger atoms only happen in the cores of very large stars, much larger than our sun, and even then, only when they are undergoing the final phases of their own collapse, called the "super-nova," when they burn–if you can imagine this–and you can't–none of us really can–millions of times hotter than the sun! Silicon based life is not possible :  A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life. 

 

Make up your mind, son. Yahweh or Allah?

"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