God is not the Atheist, Probability of Abiogenesis

[questfortruth]

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than 0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Same way one can deal with "missing antimatter paradox" at Big Bang. Therefore, the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):

All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.

God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans asked self a real question, why do you rationalize God for, in human life?

The real answer is for science.

Just that one simple advised thought, to want to conceptualize God means to a scientist that God does not exist.

For if you claim that the absolute exists, then you would never be enabled to change it with lesser states.

Therefore in the life and mind of a human scientist, God does not exist.

It was human science that claimed that God existed, so that they could attack God and remove the power of God for human science.

Which is proof to everyone that God does not exist.

So then a scientist would claim, so how do I realize higher information.

You would claim, because you know God is a spirit.

And you cannot have spirit, for it is not seen, therefore you always said you cannot see God.

Then a male says, but I am God, as the he claiming God is a male, for it is exactly what he says in human male written concepts and documentation, human thought, human written by males.

Claiming self is God.

Yet you are just a human.

Which would bring you to realize, did you in the past remove a portion of your own human presence into a spirit presence that you said was God?

And the answer is yes you did.

The Image, what is magical he says, the presence of self and spirit. For he tried to remove stone into just existing as a spirit body. And he ANTI self, and removed the spirit of his own self, human.

Which in science terms means once you owned a larger mass of self owned water and oxygen and microbes and you gave it to evaporation and a higher cloud mass.

And you took it away from your own self, human in a science chosen nuclear reaction in Nature. And said, and so we got evicted out of the Nature Garden...as the fact of it.

I hear our Holy Father speaking everyday, and he owns the history of human life.

 

[osgart]

In any sequence of events only one outcome will happen in the now. Of the infinitesmal things that can happen only one does happen for any sequence of events. All outcomes are improbable.

There are 26 fine tuning constants, and a delicately balanced Earth atmosphere plus a highly sophisticated form of life built from information coding. So there is an extremely long line of improbabilities. And the precision of these events in a very wide cosmological landscape of possibilities leaves a wide open door for the argument of intelligent creation.

Physical necessity, chance, both, or IC are the only options.

Couple that with the universe being a contingent entity that likely had an ultimate beginning. An eternal foundational existence must exist is an option.

A multiverse would require even more fine tuning to exist. And it is not a given that multiverse can produce an royal flush for producing human life. The multiverse would probably have mediocre averages for producing void universes. The multiverse is no ordered deck of cards. Far from it.

 

[Skwim]

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than 0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability.

"Therefore"? I think not. Believe me, scientists don't give a rap what creationists come up with as long as their pap isn't pushed into public high school science classes. Scientists propose abiogenesis because that's where the evidence has led them.

Same way one can deal with "missing antimatter paradox" at Big Bang. Therefore, the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):

Ah, just how do you get "therefore" from the "missing antimatter paradox" at the Big Bang?

All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by definition.

That would all depend on how one defines god. How are you defining god?

.

 

[rational experiences]

In any sequence of events only one outcome will happen in the now. Of the infinitesmal things that can happen only one does happen for any sequence of events. All outcomes are improbable.

There are 26 fine tuning constants, and a delicately balanced Earth atmosphere plus a highly sophisticated form of life built from information coding. So there is an extremely long line of improbabilities. And the precision of these events in a very wide cosmological landscape of possibilities leaves a wide open door for the argument of intelligent creation.

Physical necessity, chance, both, or IC are the only options.

Couple that with the universe being a contingent entity that likely had an ultimate beginning. An eternal foundational existence must exist is an option.

A multiverse would require even more fine tuning to exist. And it is not a given that multiverse can produce an royal flush for producing human life. The multiverse would probably have mediocre averages for producing void universes. The multiverse is no ordered deck of cards. Far from it.

First of all you are just a human being.

You own a brain with cells and bio chemicals that can change in radiation mass passing through your body.

So your own brain patterns change and you then own a situation of personally chosen brain change idealism......which is a Satanic attack factually.

If you did not own an organic bio brain, who designed all the machines, that do not in any term of reference function by their own accord.

So a male in science can design and invent a machine, but if he were not operating/controlling that machine, none of his ideals about the machine would be enacted. For in reality the machine does not exist.

Yet he claims that he gets his design ideals communicated to him.

But as those communications are given to him, he did not give the communications to his own self...then he should realize that as human life, bio life form can only exist in a radiating atmosphere for about 100 years that you should never have idealized radiation designs into machine communications.

For you are not a machine and nor is a natural life anything other than a natural life affected by unnatural radiation amounts.

Therefore if you asked self a question...I wonder what I would be like if I did not age and did not own death after 100 years.

And that would be to envision the incoming UFO not existing and attacking us as a fake machine theme. Where the mind ideas came from.

Just because a male was made aware of conditions that his personal life did not own, too much radiation, is not any excuse today why he tried to convince us that we were bio mechanical.

That UFO radiation mass should not even be entering our atmosphere.

Gases own natural levels as a gas of burning light.

 

[exchemist]

In any sequence of events only one outcome will happen in the now. Of the infinitesmal things that can happen only one does happen for any sequence of events. All outcomes are improbable.

There are 26 fine tuning constants, and a delicately balanced Earth atmosphere plus a highly sophisticated form of life built from information coding. So there is an extremely long line of improbabilities. And the precision of these events in a very wide cosmological landscape of possibilities leaves a wide open door for the argument of intelligent creation.

Physical necessity, chance, both, or IC are the only options.

Couple that with the universe being a contingent entity that likely had an ultimate beginning. An eternal foundational existence must exist is an option.

A multiverse would require even more fine tuning to exist. And it is not a given that multiverse can produce an royal flush for producing human life. The multiverse would probably have mediocre averages for producing void universes. The multiverse is no ordered deck of cards. Far from it.

Yes indeed. Your first paragraph is the fundamental flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument.

It is a misunderstanding of probability to imagine that, because a given outcome would have a very low probability of occurring by chance, it can't have happened. As you say, every state that exists is an outcome of a series of individually improbable events.

 

[Native]

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than 0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Same way one can deal with "missing antimatter paradox" at Big Bang. Therefore, the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):

All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.

God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.

It all depends on how you define the "god concept".

If you take it personally, you have to believe in a divine being. If you take it as a "creation force" in generally, you have to find a modern scientific expression of this force.

Personally I take "god" - and goddesses - as a general forces of LIGHT which provides life in numerous ways and forms. With other words: I take everything to be electromagnetically

 

[PureX]

The two concepts (god and abiogenesis) are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive. So the debate is unnecessary.

 

[icehorse]

Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability.

This is incorrect. People who value critical thinking and logic are comfortable saying "I don't know". Scientists have NOT "cut off God from the picture". If verifiable, repeatable, predictable evidence for a God is discovered, scientists will be fine accepting it.

 

[rational experiences]

It all depends on how you define the "god concept".

If you take it personally, you have to believe in a divine being. If you take it as a "creation force" in generally, you have to find a modern scientific expression of this force.

Personally I take "god" - and goddesses - as a general forces of LIGHT which provides life in numerous ways and forms. With other words: I take everything to be electromagnetically

God and Goddess. In human natural thinking terms, self expression relative to self being special as a human for their partner, as a human.

In science terms, God is science, stone and the Goddess meant Temple on the mountain as using mounds/wavelengths, which is just science.

Science is an artificial language that science tried to overcome natural life and thinking by, and because of.

The same as I feel electric meaning in self presence, and chemical bio reactions, the chemistry of sexual feelings and the heat of self passion in chemical responses.

Science then wants electricity in a new format, for there is no new resource. Nothing to take anymore from God. So now they want God to be a human, stone, and pretend we are stone, whilst talking about God the stone and tunnels and pyramids and stone passing electricity through it, as a non stop mumbo jumbo. The want from a psyche of a human has to be realised who first says I am the Creator, when not once in your male existence have you created as a or the Creator by conceptual thinking reality. You invented by copying the UFO metal body to an ability of metal...but could not own the UFO metal body and so did artificial instead.

Artificial God he says. Concepts that natural God never owned, was not owner of, and was not causing. So science says I can cause to change and force an artificial process upon it being science. And that statement is not creating.

Science says I want electricity. In energy, in form and by natural mass, you have to destroy a huge body of natural God mass to claim and then it equals the presence electricity, only after you applied conversion. That statement is not creating, it is to destroy natural by a huge mass of mass.

Which you achieved, sink holes. As the basis how much mass has to be destroyed to equals what it already caused by conversion...electricity, so you get the same answer, but achieved it differently.

Then you claim that you are not wrong and go about blaming whatever other reason you can use blame...which you did. For science believes it is not wrong...yet why was life changed by cause and effect of science radiation levels?

Since when has science taken full confession and said I am the Destroyer?

Not ever. As teaching always said there is only One God and that God was the body of stone.

 

[Native]

Not ever. As teaching always said there is only One God and that God was the body of stone

This is only according to the Abrahamic religions. In other cultures their creative deities are multiple and of both genders.

A question: What do you really mean with the term "the body of stone"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than 0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero

I bet that what you call a "calculation (by creationists)", is really nothing more then an assertion based on ignorance or misrepresentation of the facts.

I challenge you to post the calculation and explain how the various variables have been determined.

Because I am unaware of how a probability calculation can be done about a process of which it is UNKNOWN how it occurs or could occur.

Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability.

Abiogenesis happened as a matter of fact.
Life came into existance one way or the other.
Once there was no life and then there was life.

Your god creating life is ALSO an act of abiogenesis.

Science does not "cut god out of the picture" anymore then it cuts "unicorns out of the picture".
Instead, science ONLY takes into account those things that can be tested, verified or observed in some empirical way.

Your god is literally defined as undetectable, invisible and without manifestation.
Meaning that it is impossible to study, or even verify if it even exists in the first place.

It is, in other words, completely and utterly indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

How could science EVER take such a factor "into account"? There is nothing there to work with. There is nothing to take into account.......

Same way one can deal with "missing antimatter paradox" at Big Bang. Therefore, the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):

All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.

God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.

The unicorn can not be an unbeliever of unicorns, because the unicorn knows it exists. Therefor unicorns exist.

Great "logic" you got there........................

 

[questfortruth]

I bet that what you call a "calculation (by creationists)", is really nothing more then an assertion based on ignorance or misrepresentation of the facts.

I challenge you to post the calculation and explain how the various variables have been determined.

There were lab tests (Lui Paster), which refuted abiogenesis.

 

[McBell]

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than 0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use the Ockham's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Same way one can deal with "missing antimatter paradox" at Big Bang. Therefore, the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):

All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.

God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.

Now all you need to do is show the math.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There were lab tests (Lui Paster), which refuted abiogenesis.

Ow boy.........................

Louis Pasteur (which is how you actually spell that) died in 1895.
DNA genetics, and thus molecular biology, was discovered in 1953
The miller urey experiment, which in a real way is kind of the beginning of modern abiogenesis hypothesis, was done that same year, in 1953.


Tell me.... How did a person that died in 1895 refute an idea that wasn't even brought up until more then half a century later?
You might want to inform yourself. Spontaneous generation (which is what pasteur dealt with) is NOT the same as abiogenesis.

Now, having said that... even if your "answer" wasn't so incredibly wrong, you didn't address my point AT ALL. You claimed a "probability calculation". I asked about that calculation.
Pasteur most certaintly made no such calculation. And even if he did, it would be hopelessly outdated as he lived during a time where we didn't even know about molecular biology.

So.... care to try again? If you do try again, perhaps do a google or two before posting, just to make sure that you don't say things as stupid as you just did.....