If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[Repox]

I see, so you've looked at how complex the universe is and you've 'calculated' that it's just TOO IMPROBABLE that it could have occurred by chance. I'm curious, what calculations have you done to determine the probability that an all-powerful being that exists beyond space and time created the universe? And how exactly did you determine that the latter is MORE probable than the former?

And I really think you need to educate yourself on how probabilities work.

I think people on this forum need to learn how probability works. For those who lack and understanding, here are some references.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think people on this forum need to learn how probability works. For those who lack and understanding, here are some references.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

I mean, if we're just posting links...

Misuse of probability by “creation scientists” « Math Drudge

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Creationism and Pseudomathematics

 

[Repox]

I mean, if we're just posting links...

Misuse of probability by “creation scientists” « Math Drudge

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Creationism and Pseudomathematics

It should be noted, critique links posted by ADigitalArtist are about biology, not the universe. My probability argument is about the probability for intelligent design of the universe. Nevertheless, my comments and critique are applicable.

It is amazing how many atheists are on this “religious” forum. It reminds of the time when I explored the topic of believers in academia and discovered most professors are determinist. They just cannot stand the idea of God. They prefer to think their intellects are superior to any “fantasy” notion of God.

It is interesting to discuss the state of affairs for scientists who debunk “creationists” or believers. They use a fallacious argument, proposing creationist use probability theory incorrectly to prove God. Yet, they use probability theory everyday to prove scientific theories. If you carefully examine their arguments about “false use” of probability theory, you will find they use imprecise models to reject them.

Here are some competing references. There are many more references for probability of intellectual design for the universe. This argument can go on for a very long time. Again, it is interesting that scientists reject probability theory for creationists, but they accept it for their own research.

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/

http://mymouse.org/probability_and_universe.html

http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/

It is interesting to note that probability theory is more applicable to physics than biology where there are so many erratic and unpredictable outcomes.

Why is quantum mechanics based on probability theory?

 

[Repox]

It should be noted, critique links posted by ADigitalArtist are about biology, not the universe. My probability argument is about the probability for intelligent design of the universe. Nevertheless, my comments and critique are applicable.

It is amazing how many atheists are on this “religious” forum. It reminds of the time when I explored the topic of believers in academia and discovered most professors are determinist. They just cannot stand the idea of God. They prefer to think their intellects are superior to any “fantasy” notion of God.

It is interesting to discuss the state of affairs for scientists who debunk “creationist” or believers. They use a fallacious argument, proposing creationist use probability theory incorrectly to prove God. Yet, they use probability theory everyday to prove scientific theories. If you carefully examine their arguments about “false use” of probability theory, you will find they use imprecise models to reject them.

Here are more competing references. There are many more references for probability of intellect design for the universe. This argument can go on for a very long time. Again, it is interesting that scientists reject probability theory for creationists, but they accept it for their own research.

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/

http://mymouse.org/probability_and_universe.html

http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think people on this forum need to learn how probability works. For those who lack and understanding, here are some references.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

ROFL... I notice how you failed to address the question of how you went about calculating the probability of God and how you determined that a God is MORE probable that random chance.

 

[Repox]

ROFL... I notice how you failed to address the question of how you went about calculating the probability of God and how you determined that a God is MORE probable that random chance.

I never made any such statement. Who would ever propose calculating a probability theory for God? That is stupid.

I am tired of idiots on this forum trying to debate me by lying about what I've posted.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is amazing how people can't read. I never made any such statement. Who would ever propose a probability theory for God? That is stupid.

LOL... yet you say you find a world WITHOUT God to be FAR too improbable. Do you honestly not see the contradiction?

 

[Repox]

LOL... yet you say you find a world WITHOUT God to be FAR too improbable. Do you honestly not see the contradiction?

What I see are a lot of ignorant statements. People on this forum don't even know the dictionary definition of words. How many stupid people are there on this forum?

 

[QuestioningMind]

What I see are a lot of ignorant statements. People on this forum don't even know the dictionary definition of words. How many stupid people are there on this forum?

I'm sure that there are plenty of stupid people on this forum. Though I'm still not sure if you recognize the contradiction in your argument. Those of us who aren't ignorant do.

 

[Repox]

I'm sure that there are plenty of stupid people on this forum. Though I'm still not sure if you recognize the contradiction in your argument. Those of us who aren't ignorant do.

It is utterly amazing to read this same reply from so many on this forum. It is so much to do about nothing. I have no contradictions, I never proposed a formal theory. Again, everyone should learn to read the dictionary. Look up the meaning of "propose" and "theory."

It started from Post # 198 on science vs. religion thread.

"At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line."

I am certain this will not satisfy bloodthirsty atheists on this forum. They don't think, they just reach into their devil tool kit and attack, ha. ha. It reminds me of a shark attack, once there is blood in the water, all other sharks come in for the kill. However, there is no blood here, just made up stupid accusations. A lot of really stupid people who can't read.

 

[Valjean]

Here’s a logical standard: that complex information systems don’t arise by themselves; it requires an intelligent person, or many working together, to design them.

But they do, and did. Positing a magical, invisible engineer, that arose by himself, is not 'logical'.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But they do, and did. Positing a magical, invisible engineer, that arose by himself, is not 'logical'.

I don't believe that, either. I believe that an invisible, intelligent energy has always existed

 

[Valjean]

I don't believe that, either. I believe that an invisible, intelligent energy has always existed

Well, that may be, but for this to be generally accepted you'd need some evidence. In the mean time, the steps of evolution don't need any supernatural guidance. They follow naturally and demonstrably from already known laws of chemistry and physics.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, that may be, but for this to be generally accepted you'd need some evidence. In the mean time, the steps of evolution don't need any supernatural guidance. They follow naturally and demonstrably from already known laws of chemistry and physics.

So, you think that explains how life began? ToE has no bearing on the origin of life. It also provides no explanation for the 100's of millions, possibly billions, of different body plan groups that have lived within the 600-million-year time frame; that's when it began. Life before that was unicellular, apparently.

 

[Valjean]

The ToE does not explain the origin of life. It does explain the multitude of body plans quite well, though. That's what the theory's all about.

As for the origin of life, this is an active field of study. Various components of life have been shown to develop by natural chemistry, though the precise details remain to be determined. All of science is a work in progress.

 

[Muffled]

But they do, and did. Positing a magical, invisible engineer, that arose by himself, is not 'logical'.

I believe anything can be posited so there is no logic involved in that. The logic comes in proving it.

The universe is extremely complex and follows rules.
Chaos is not complex and does not follow rules.
Experience shows that intelligent beings form complexity and unintelligent beings just make a chaotic mess.
therefore the universe is the result of an intelligent being.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I asked this question on the atheist forum of which I am a member; yes, we get theists who join the forum for debate all the time, we even have some years-long theistic members who still post there.

Anywho, onto the actual subject in relation to the title of the thread, verbatim:

By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.

That faith is needed in the religious community reasonably means that zero evidence is in existence to prove god is real.

Natural faith manifests as a spontaneous thought. You truly believe and LOVE makes it come true aswell, ths is the evidence nature gives you for God. Faith's ultimate purpose is life and time groundhog.

 

[Hawkins]

I asked this question on the atheist forum of which I am a member; yes, we get theists who join the forum for debate all the time, we even have some years-long theistic members who still post there.

Anywho, onto the actual subject in relation to the title of the thread, verbatim:

By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.

That faith is needed in the religious community reasonably means that zero evidence is in existence to prove god is real.

What!

What evidence do you have for even the shooting occurred in Texas? Humans don't bother to gather evidence along as they are reliable media to report it for them to believe with faith!

Humans seldom rely on evidence to get to a truth while they have to rely heavily on faith to get to a truth. That's why among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99% of them don't have the evidence. This is about a scientific truth, not to speak other kinds of truths.

 

[Valjean]

I believe anything can be posited so there is no logic involved in that. The logic comes in proving it.

The universe is extremely complex and follows rules.
Chaos is not complex and does not follow rules.
Experience shows that intelligent beings form complexity and unintelligent beings just make a chaotic mess.
therefore the universe is the result of an intelligent being.

This is not logical.
The universe follows rules. So what? What do you mean by intelligent vs unintelligent beings? and how are you defining complexity? Can you cite some examples of unintelligent beings making a chaotic mess?
And what does all this have to do with the existence of God?

You seem to be saying:
Man is an intelligent being.
Man creates complex things.
Therefore all complex things are the result of the machinations of some intelligent being.
This just doesn't follow, nor must complexity be the result of intentionality.

A few simple laws of physics can generate great complexity, completely automatically, just as the Mandelbrot set can generate infinite complexity.
A case could also be made that the universe is a chaotic mess, ergo: No God.

Natural faith manifests as a spontaneous thought. You truly believe and LOVE makes it come true aswell, ths is the evidence nature gives you for God. Faith's ultimate purpose is life and time groundhog.

So you're generating truth with spontaneous thought? Faith in something renders it true? What evidence do you have for this? How do the competing truths from the spontaneous thoughts of others manage to coexist?

What evidence do you have for even the shooting occurred in Texas? Humans don't bother to gather evidence along as they are reliable media to report it for them to believe with faith!

Humans seldom rely on evidence to get to a truth while they have to rely heavily on faith to get to a truth. That's why among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99% of them don't have the evidence. This is about a scientific truth, not to speak other kinds of truths.

I think this degree of epistemic rigor renders the whole discussion moot. It makes nothing true; nothing real but one's own existence.

 

[MonkeyFire]

So you're generating truth with spontaneous thought? Faith in something renders it true? What evidence do you have for this?

Faith in something is evidence not a conclusion.