INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

No, you should be specific. Places and many events in the Bible have been confirmed by science, therefore those things are not myths. If you are referring to beliefs you may can them myths, but don't claim the whole Bible is a myth when it is not.

Okay, so far we've established that just because a place that actually existed is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that the stories contained within the Bible actually happened. (Just like we know that just because a Spiderman comic takes place in New York City doesn't mean that Spiderman really lives in New York City and fights the Green Goblin.) So some of the names of cities or towns are not myths, which we should expect, actually.

So now, what events described in the Bible do you think have been confirmed by science?

 

[Repox]

Did you read what I wrote or did you just want to make things up and attack strawmen? Go back and re-read what I said.

Okay, I may have jumped the gun. However, I believe you have exaggerated. Recently, arch. studies have become more thorough. Here is an excellent source,

The Bible Unearthed by Isreal Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, 2002, Touchstone New York, NY.

one that has become very popular, and it criticizes some older biblical archaeology studies.

Here is an excellent book by an atheist, it is a good summary of the Bible and archaeology. It substantiates much of what Finkelstein and Silberman found.

The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever, 2012, W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Cambridge U.K.

 

[Cephus]

Oops, apologies to Cephus!

No worries at all.

 

[Cephus]

Okay, I may have jumped the gun. However, I believe you have exaggerated. Recently, arch. studies have become more thorough. Here is an excellent source,

The Bible Unearthed by Isreal Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, 2002, Touchstone New York, NY.

one that has become very popular, and it criticizes some older biblical archaeology studies.

Here is an excellent book by an atheist, it is a good summary of the Bible and archaeology. It substantiates much of what Finkelstein and Silberman found.

The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever, 2012, W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Cambridge U.K.

Again, you're responding to something that I never said. I never said that *ALL* Biblical archaeology was wrong, only that a good percentage of Biblical archaeology performed in the heyday was questionable at best because of shoddy techniques. Lots of theists think the Bible is a lot better verified than it actually is.

 

[Repox]

Okay, so far we've established that just because a place that actually existed is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that the stories contained within the Bible actually happened. (Just like we know that just because a Spiderman comic takes place in New York City doesn't mean that Spiderman really lives in New York City and fights the Green Goblin.) So some of the names of cities or towns are not myths, which we should expect, actually.

So now, what events described in the Bible do you think have been confirmed by science?

You mean confirmed by archaeology. There are many events in Bible, too many to cover here. I will summarize a little though, some of major battles in Sumeria, Migiddo, Lachish, and Shechem, and others, have been confirmed. It is interesting that Solmon's horse stables and luxurious palaces have not been found. According to Finkelstein and Silberman, the stories were written during the exile period when some Jewish exaggeration of heroes occurred. So, not all stories are confirmed. For a complete discussion another thread is required, and participants should have at least some knowledge of archaeology.

I really don't want to discuss so many stories. If you want, pick one story, but you really need to read those books posted or other arch. books. If you want to discuss, wait a couple of weeks, My wife and I are going on vacation.

 

[Thief]

Until such time as you can define "spirit" in a meaningful way, the question is pointless.

Something alive...as compared to something dead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean confirmed by archaeology. There are many events in Bible, too many to cover here. I will summarize a little though, some of major battles in Sumeria, Migiddo, Lachish, and Shechem, and others, have been confirmed. It is interesting that Solmon's horse stables and luxurious palaces have not been found. According to Finkelstein and Silberman, the stories were written during the exile period when some Jewish exaggeration of heroes occurred. So, not all stories are confirmed. For a complete discussion another thread is required, and participants should have at least some knowledge of archaeology.

I really don't want to discuss so many stories. If you want, pick one story, but you really need to read those books posted or other arch. books. If you want to discuss, wait a couple of weeks, My wife and I are going on vacation.

Well, you're the one making the claim, so you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. Since you want to be very specific, how about giving a specific example?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Something alive...as compared to something dead.

Maybe the dead take care of the dead....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That’s the point. Where’s the rest of the life in the universe? Something like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073% of the volume of the universe is habitable. So from my perspective, it seems that a lifeless universe is the more likely one.

But that is irrelevant, because like I keep saying; it doesn't matter, as long as the life that inhabit this earth is fine funed for human life. If I have 100 acres of land, and I build a 5,000 square feet house in the middle of this land, the rest of the land is completely void, right? But that doesn't change the fact that at least MY house is fine tuned for human inhabitance, now does it? Absolutely not.

So you think that’s the most probable explanation? How do you calculate that probability?

I am just giving a reasonable explanation of what COULD be the case. As long as this COULD be the case, then there is nothing irrational about God creating a vast universe which can only accomodate the only known forms of human life.

And that brings me to another question. Why does god even need a finely tuned universe to create life within? If god is who you think “he” is, he could start with any universe at all, and make life happen. Given that, the fine tuning argument doesn’t really seem to me like evidence for your god.

If humans could exist under any circumstances then our existence wouldn't be improbable, now would it? If God wanted to demonstrate the fact that we didn't have to be here and we are only here based on a number that is so improbable that if you wrote the number out in its enterity it would almost fill the entire universe....if he wanted to let his creation know that the odds were against us if this had been a random occurrence, I would say that he succeeded, at least to me. The fine tuning argument has been convincing enough to persuade many people in the supernatural direction, myself included. And for those that aren't convinced, well, you can't please everyone.

Were tornadoes and tsunamis designed with us in mind? How about cancer? It’s obvious to me, that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around.

Suit yourself.

Penrose isn’t the be-all and end-all to the discussion about the origins of the universe. Sorry. He’s part of it for sure, but he’s not the last word, by far.

Just like I asked someone else, name me one scientists that has called in to question Penrose's calculations. Just one.

You keep brushing it off like it doesn’t matter, but we have nothing else to compare this universe to. That is important, because that’s how probabilities are calculated. For instance, we know that the odds of pulling a particular card from a single deck is 1 in 52 because we know how many cards are in the deck. (People get amazing combinations of cards every day in Vegas, yet you don’t think that’s miraculous at all. Why not?) But we don’t know how many possible universes there are. We don’t know the available range of constants we have to deal with. We don’t know what other combinations of nature’s constants could produce some form of life. We need to be able to observe different universes with different constants in order to experimentally verify the fine-tuning argument.

This is completely false. The first car that was made...was there anything to compare it to at the time? When the first airplane was made, was there anything to compare it to at the time? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the one in question was fine tuned.

Where’s the evidence for the being you believe created the universe?

The evidence is the creation itself. I am appealing to the best explanation, and based on the precision that was needed to make life not only possible, but to actually have life, I believe the best explanation is that the universe is the work of a supernatural creator.

All of a sudden you’re concerned about scientific facts? Funny how you completely disregard them when it comes to evolution.

Because...cosmology is based off observation and experiment. Evolution is based off presuppositions and false interpretations.

It is not a scientific fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Do you think gravity was designed so people could skydive? Was wind designed so that we could windsurf?

So you don't believe that in order for human life to exist, certain conditions had to be met??? Wow.

So his publication has been around for 20 years. Okay, has it been verified by other teams of scientists? Has it become accepted science? That’s the important part.

The cosmological constants and values of our universe are accepted and verified by scientists. Those constants and values are so precise that if any one of them were off by just a small percentage, life wouldn't be permissible. These are FACTS.

How do we calculate the probability that the god you believe in exists?

We don't.

Let’s go back to the cards and talk probability and astronomical odds. The odds of pulling the Queen of Hearts out of one deck of cards is 1 in 52. Put the card back in, reshuffle the deck and now the odds of getting the Queen of Hearts again are 2700:1. Do it a third time and the odds jump to 14,000:1 that you will pull the Queen of Hearts from the deck. Keep going from there, and the odds very quickly become astronomical. Must we posit divine intervention or some miraculous event when someone pulls the Queen of Hearts after it’s been re-inserted into the deck and the deck has been reshuffled several times? Is it a miracle from god when someone pulls a straight flush at a card table?

This example is, cool, but it is not cool enough to do you any justice when it is up against the astronomical odds of fine tuning. A good analogy that has been used is to imagine there are a zillion black balls in a very large box, and amongsts those black balls, there is one white ball. You are blindfolded, and you are told to jump in the box and pull out the one white ball among the zillion black balls. You cannot see, and you are told to randomly pull out the one white ball. You are told that if you pull out any black ball, you will be executed.

So what is going on here...now, each ball you pick has the same probabilty of being pulled...but it is even MORE improbable for you to pick that one single white ball. Now, if it was the other way around and you are told to pick any black ball and if you pick the one white ball, you will be executed, you wouldn't be worried, now would you?

Now, if you start the universe off with a big bang, any universe is improbable, but it is even more improbable for us to wind up with one that is not only fine tuned for human life, but for human life to actually exist, because as I keep stressing, it isn't enough to just have a universe fine tuned, the puzzle pieces still has to be put together, which would make it even more improbable give the fact that there was no mind behind it.

LOL Nice try, but no cigar. You can’t imagine anything else, so it’s got to be god! Let’s explain a mystery with a mystery! Oh wait, that gets us nowhere.

Abiogenesis is a mystery to us now, but you still think that nature did it? Taxi cab fallacy

Intelligent design is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. Believe whatever you want, but don’t pretend it’s science.

Macroevolution is not observable, and therefore not science, but you still believe it now don't you?

What I said is true. Every single process discovered on earth (and in the universe) to date, has been found to have a naturalistic explanation behind it. Everything. But according to you, this one thing has just GOT to be the one that’s got a god explanation behind it. And you’re the one talking to me about probabilities?

Wait a minute, we've found out how life came from non-life? It must of happened in between the time of me beginning this post until now.

It is also true that abiogenesis is not a done deal ( I don’t think I said otherwise). We still don’t know nearly enough about it.

But you just said above that every single process on earth...oh..never mind.

What god hypothesis? What empirical evidence? What logical evidence?

See all 1400 or so of my previous posts. Pretty compelling stuff going on there, and I invite you to check it out.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But that is irrelevant, because like I keep saying; it doesn't matter, as long as the life that inhabit this earth is fine funed for human life. If I have 100 acres of land, and I build a 5,000 square feet house in the middle of this land, the rest of the land is completely void, right? But that doesn't change the fact that at least MY house is fine tuned for human inhabitance, now does it? Absolutely not.



I am just giving a reasonable explanation of what COULD be the case. As long as this COULD be the case, then there is nothing irrational about God creating a vast universe which can only accomodate the only known forms of human life.



If humans could exist under any circumstances then our existence wouldn't be improbable, now would it? If God wanted to demonstrate the fact that we didn't have to be here and we are only here based on a number that is so improbable that if you wrote the number out in its enterity it would almost fill the entire universe....if he wanted to let his creation know that the odds were against us if this had been a random occurrence, I would say that he succeeded, at least to me. The fine tuning argument has been convincing enough to persuade many people in the supernatural direction, myself included. And for those that aren't convinced, well, you can't please everyone.



Suit yourself.



Just like I asked someone else, name me one scientists that has called in to question Penrose's calculations. Just one.



This is completely false. The first car that was made...was there anything to compare it to at the time? When the first airplane was made, was there anything to compare it to at the time? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the one in question was fine tuned.



The evidence is the creation itself. I am appealing to the best explanation, and based on the precision that was needed to make life not only possible, but to actually have life, I believe the best explanation is that the universe is the work of a supernatural creator.



Because...cosmology is based off observation and experiment. Evolution is based off presuppositions and false interpretations.



So you don't believe that in order for human life to exist, certain conditions had to be met??? Wow.



The cosmological constants and values of our universe are accepted and verified by scientists. Those constants and values are so precise that if any one of them were off by just a small percentage, life wouldn't be permissible. These are FACTS.



We don't.



This example is, cool, but it is not cool enough to do you any justice when it is up against the astronomical odds of fine tuning. A good analogy that has been used is to imagine there are a zillion black balls in a very large box, and amongsts those black balls, there is one white ball. You are blindfolded, and you are told to jump in the box and pull out the one white ball among the zillion black balls. You cannot see, and you are told to randomly pull out the one white ball. You are told that if you pull out any black ball, you will be executed.

So what is going on here...now, each ball you pick has the same probabilty of being pulled...but it is even MORE improbable for you to pick that one single white ball. Now, if it was the other way around and you are told to pick any black ball and if you pick the one white ball, you will be executed, you wouldn't be worried, now would you?

Now, if you start the universe off with a big bang, any universe is improbable, but it is even more improbable for us to wind up with one that is not only fine tuned for human life, but for human life to actually exist, because as I keep stressing, it isn't enough to just have a universe fine tuned, the puzzle pieces still has to be put together, which would make it even more improbable give the fact that there was no mind behind it.



Abiogenesis is a mystery to us now, but you still think that nature did it? Taxi cab fallacy



Macroevolution is not observable, and therefore not science, but you still believe it now don't you?



Wait a minute, we've found out how life came from non-life? It must of happened in between the time of me beginning this post until now.



But you just said above that every single process on earth...oh..never mind.



See all 1400 or so of my previous posts. Pretty compelling stuff going on there, and I invite you to check it out.

You do know that Penrose is a atheist right? A nd while it's good and all to put much of what he says as a defense for your view. Do you actually understand the equation? How it is formulated? What are the conditions that it takes into consideration?

A fine tune world is an interesting statement, because what does fine-tune actually mean? Is it a permanent state? Will earth always be fine-tune for human life, was earth always fine-tuned for human life. Modern science says no to those, but I suppose you will say yes, given your beliefs.

But as you said, Improbable is not the same as impossible. The odds are stacked, but not impossible odds. So the possibility is there. I'm sure there is even something in chaos theory that holds that overtime chaos does develop order and the likes.

Abiogenesis is under study, but I'm not sure how up on it people on here have kept up with the on coming information.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yeah, they were called scientists. They were people who actually cared about how things actually operate. Funny how the explanations they found were all natural ones. You’re not going to evade the point that easily.

Well, either way you look at it, the theologians were right, and these "scientists" were wrong.

We still don’t know that the universe had a beginning

Um, we do know that at least our universe had a beginning. Now if you want to further believe that our universe was caused by some pre-big bang epic, then you are speculating and relying on the unseen, kinda like the same thing unbelievers accuse believers of. Second, you are still stuck with the problem of infinity, and also thermodynamics and entropy. So, it must be tough.

we don’t know if it had an external cause

If it had a beginning how can it not have a external cause?

and we definitely don’t know that that external cause is the god you personally believe in.

The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Your god fixes this “problem” how?

The argument is that God was timeless before creation. If this is the case, then there was no time before creation, so therefore, infinite duration is negated. The same thing cant be said for the universe, because things are constantly changing and moving, thus infinite duration is not negated.

Of course it’s a requirement when we're determining probabilities. How do you calculate probabilities if you have no way of knowing what range of constants are available? How can we know how many different arrangements of constants could produce life?

There are many ways you can make a automobile, but that doesn't change the fact that the ones that are currently made and the way that they are made REQUIRES FINE TUNING AND PRECISION.

So we should just assume that one single car is the only available form of transportation?

No.

Are there no other means of transportation available at all?

Fine. Pick another means of transportation. Design is inescapable regardless.

I mean, if you only have the one car, I guess we have to assume so. Nevermind the fact that cars are manmade and so we already know exactly what they’re designed for. They’re also not naturally occurring things that have the ability to reproduce.

The ability to reproduce itself requires fine tuning.

What??

I don't remember.

This is nonsense. We’re talking about PROBABILITIES. How do you calculate a probability when we don’t know what range of constants are available to us?

That is irrelevant. Any other range of constants would not allow life. The constants are at its exact value for life.

I already explained to you long ago how we know things that are designed by humans are designed. It has nothing to do with complexity.

Aliens are not humans. If I found a space shuttle that I knew no man has ever made, I would still consider intelligent design. I would know the space shuttle didn't assemble itself randomly from an explosion in a alien junkyard.

And this is why analogies don’t work when we’re talking about nature. Please go educate yourself on evolution.

I tried to educate myself on evolution, but when it got to the chapters about animals producing different kind of animals, I stopped.

If we stuck with “god did it” we wouldn’t know anything close to what we know now

That is your opinion. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I can't explore nature and find out many cool things in science. You (and others) seem to have the notion that if there is a Creator, there is no need for science. That is completely bogus to me. My need to explore the universe and find out how things work isn't in any way negated because I believe in God, and Im sure many other believers feel the same way. So that is your opinion, one that I don't share.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, either way you look at it, the theologians were right, and these "scientists" were wrong.

Huh? What scientists were wrong? We didn’t have nearly anything like the data we needed at that point to determine anything either way. We’re getting there now, finally. But abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stages, at this point.

Um, we do know that at least our universe had a beginning. Now if you want to further believe that our universe was caused by some pre-big bang epic, then you are speculating and relying on the unseen, kinda like the same thing unbelievers accuse believers of. Second, you are still stuck with the problem of infinity, and also thermodynamics and entropy. So, it must be tough.

We do and we don’t. Our universe may have had a beginning.

I’m not saying anything is caused by anything. I say “I don’t know” and I’ll wait until science has it figured out.

What problem of infinity? What problem of thermodynamics? What problem of entropy?

If it had a beginning how can it not have a external cause?

We don’t know if it had a beginning. And we don’t know what the cause may have been, so I don’t assume some invisible deity did it because there’s no reason to do so. And if I did, it opens up even more questions. Where did the invisible deity come from? Where does it reside? How does it do things? How long has it been around? Is it measurable? Etc. Positing an invisible deity creates more questions than it answers.

The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How is that an argument for anything?

The argument is that God was timeless before creation. If this is the case, then there was no time before creation, so therefore, infinite duration is negated. The same thing cant be said for the universe, because things are constantly changing and moving, thus infinite duration is not negated.

Yeah, I can make stuff up too, if I feel like filling in the gaps with non-answers and more mysteries. Problem is, I’m concerned with what is actually true.

Your “infinity problem” or whatever you call it only applies if time is linear. Einstein kinda turned that one on its head.

There are many ways you can make a automobile, but that doesn't change the fact that the ones that are currently made and the way that they are made REQUIRES FINE TUNING AND PRECISION.

So what? How are cars comparable to organic matter?

I’m not sure how this answered my questions:
Of course it’s a requirement when we're determining probabilities. How do you calculate probabilities if you have no way of knowing what range of constants are available? How can we know how many different arrangements of constants could produce life?

No.

So why do you assume there is only one way the universe could have formed that would be life-permitting?

Fine. Pick another means of transportation. Design is inescapable regardless.

How do you think we determine that an automobile is designed?

The ability to reproduce itself requires fine tuning.

It does? Well, if your god fine-tuned the process of reproduction, then why are there so many problems with it? Why so many birth defects and spontaneous abortions?

I don't remember.

Can you clarify what you said there?

That is irrelevant. Any other range of constants would not allow life. The constants are at its exact value for life.

It can’t be irrelevant when those are the parameters needed to calculate probability.

Please tell me how you know that a combination of different constants couldn’t produce life.

Aliens are not humans. If I found a space shuttle that I knew no man has ever made, I would still consider intelligent design. I would know the space shuttle didn't assemble itself randomly from an explosion in a alien junkyard.

Wow, like I said, we already went over this. You know that alien spacecraft is designed not because it’s complex, but because you have experience with designed (human designs) things and recognize it as such. I gave a much more detailed explanation the last time we went over this.

I tried to educate myself on evolution, but when it got to the chapters about animals producing different kind of animals, I stopped.

Well, that’s obviously your problem. No wonder you don’t understand evolution.

Why did you stop there?

That is your opinion. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I can't explore nature and find out many cool things in science. You (and others) seem to have the notion that if there is a Creator, there is no need for science. That is completely bogus to me. My need to explore the universe and find out how things work isn't in any way negated because I believe in God, and Im sure many other believers feel the same way. So that is your opinion, one that I don't share.

It’s my opinion that if we stuck a “god did it” into everything we didn’t understand, that we wouldn’t understand how anything works? Seems pretty obvious to me. Look at this discussion. I’m waiting until science determines how the universe formed and you’re just sitting there saying “god did it.” And that’s your explanation. You don’t need a scientific one because you’ve made up your mind. End of discussion.

And I’m sorry to have to point out to you your stance on evolution. It doesn’t fit with your religious beliefs, and so you don’t accept it. God created kinds. It doesn’t matter what science can demonstrate. That’s it. End of story.

See what I mean?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But that is irrelevant, because like I keep saying; it doesn't matter, as long as the life that inhabit this earth is fine funed for human life. If I have 100 acres of land, and I build a 5,000 square feet house in the middle of this land, the rest of the land is completely void, right? But that doesn't change the fact that at least MY house is fine tuned for human inhabitance, now does it? Absolutely not.

LOL Everything is irrelevant except for what you personally believe. Wow.

As to your example, you think that the vast space of land with nothing on it is also fine-tuned for life by the god you believe in. So how are you even beginning to distinguish between the house you fine-tuned yourself and the fine-tuned land that surrounds it? In your opinion, it’s ALL fine-tuned.

I am just giving a reasonable explanation of what COULD be the case. As long as this COULD be the case, then there is nothing irrational about God creating a vast universe which can only accomodate the only known forms of human life.

Anything is possible. We’re talking about what is probable.

So do you think it’s the most probable explanation, or not?

If humans could exist under any circumstances then our existence wouldn't be improbable, now would it? If God wanted to demonstrate the fact that we didn't have to be here and we are only here based on a number that is so improbable that if you wrote the number out in its enterity it would almost fill the entire universe....if he wanted to let his creation know that the odds were against us if this had been a random occurrence, I would say that he succeeded, at least to me.

Okay so now you’re inserting another made up “answer.” Must be nice to be able to just make things up to fill in the blanks.

I’m looking for real answers.

The fine tuning argument has been convincing enough to persuade many people in the supernatural direction, myself included. And for those that aren't convinced, well, you can't please everyone.

So besides this appeal to popularity, do you have something relevant to say? Atheists aren’t convinced by your supernatural evidence. So what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means: Nothing, just like your assertion.

Suit yourself.

Are tornadoes, tsunamis and cancer are a part of this fine-tuning you speak of, or not?

Just like I asked someone else, name me one scientists that has called in to question Penrose's calculations. Just one.

Yeah, it was me. See what I said in my last post.

This is completely false. The first car that was made...was there anything to compare it to at the time? When the first airplane was made, was there anything to compare it to at the time? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the one in question was fine tuned.

No, it’s not false that that is how probabilities are calculated. How do you determine a probability without having all the proper numbers available to insert into the equation?

Why do you not think it’s miraculous when someone is dealt a straight flush or wins the lottery?

The evidence is the creation itself. I am appealing to the best explanation, and based on the precision that was needed to make life not only possible, but to actually have life, I believe the best explanation is that the universe is the work of a supernatural creator.

You can’t just label it creation and declare it evidence of creation. You’re just begging the question and getting nowhere.

How can you even begin to say that a supernatural creator is the best explanation when you have no idea how to even calculate the probability of such a thing? Why bring up probability at all then?

Because...cosmology is based off observation and experiment. Evolution is based off presuppositions and false interpretations.

Both are based on the EXACT SAME SCIENTIFIC METHOD, as I already pointed out a few times now. Evolution is fact at this point, while much of cosmology is still in the hypothetical stages. So excuse me for not understanding why you accept cosmology but not evolution.

So you don't believe that in order for human life to exist, certain conditions had to be met??? Wow.

I said this:
It is not a scientific fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Do you think gravity was designed so people could skydive? Was wind designed so that we could windsurf?

Please respond to what I actually said.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

The cosmological constants and values of our universe are accepted and verified by scientists. Those constants and values are so precise that if any one of them were off by just a small percentage, life wouldn't be permissible. These are FACTS.

We are missing important information, as I’ve pointed out many times.

We don't.

Well gee, that’s awfully convenient for you, isn’t it.

Can I just dismiss your god claims then?

This example is, cool, but it is not cool enough to do you any justice when it is up against the astronomical odds of fine tuning. A good analogy that has been used is to imagine there are a zillion black balls in a very large box, and amongsts those black balls, there is one white ball. You are blindfolded, and you are told to jump in the box and pull out the one white ball among the zillion black balls. You cannot see, and you are told to randomly pull out the one white ball. You are told that if you pull out any black ball, you will be executed.

So what is going on here...now, each ball you pick has the same probabilty of being pulled...but it is even MORE improbable for you to pick that one single white ball. Now, if it was the other way around and you are told to pick any black ball and if you pick the one white ball, you will be executed, you wouldn't be worried, now would you?

Now, if you start the universe off with a big bang, any universe is improbable, but it is even more improbable for us to wind up with one that is not only fine tuned for human life, but for human life to actually exist, because as I keep stressing, it isn't enough to just have a universe fine tuned, the puzzle pieces still has to be put together, which would make it even more improbable give the fact that there was no mind behind it.

In your example, there are a determined number of black and white balls in the bag. We use that number to determine the probability of pulling one. In the universe example, we don’t know how many constants are available, we don’t know how many universes there could be, and we don’t know how many combinations of constants could allow for a life-permitting universe. Maybe there are different combinations of constants that could produce a universe that allowed for some other form of life. We have one sample. We’re missing a bunch of numbers there, as you already know I’ve pointed out before.

Abiogenesis is a mystery to us now, but you still think that nature did it? Taxi cab fallacy

You missed the point. Every known process on earth that has been researched and studied to date (things we have explanations for, that is) has a natural explanation behind it. At some point in time, people posited supernatural explanations for such things and now we have naturalistic answers for them, more and more over time as we fill in the gaps where god used to be inserted. Therefore, there is no reason, at this point, to believe that there is some non-natural explanation for the expansion of the universe. Get it? It is more probable that there is a naturalistic explanation for it.

Macroevolution is not observable, and therefore not science, but you still believe it now don't you?

Yes it is. Yet again, already pointed out to you.

Besides, you told me you stopped reading about evolution when you got to the speciation part of it. So how on earth would you know anyway??

Wait a minute, we've found out how life came from non-life? It must of happened in between the time of me beginning this post until now.

How about canning the evasive answers and addressing what was said? Do you deny things that people once posited a supernatural explanation for, can now be explained with naturalistic answers? Like lightning, for example.

And yes, we know at this point in time that it is possible that life could have formed from non-life. Crack open a book please. And maybe this time, read the parts that make you uncomfortable.

But you just said above that every single process on earth...oh..never mind.

See above.

See all 1400 or so of my previous posts. Pretty compelling stuff going on there, and I invite you to check it out.

Uh, no thanks. Can you sum it up here?

 

[1robin]

Claims that either theology or science must be chosen. That either evolution or creation must be adopted or that theologians or scientists are the sole arbiters of all truth are lost on me.

1. Modern science is in large part standing of the shoulders of Christian scientists who literally created many of the field themselves. Theologians and sciences greatest past legends are one in the same to a great extent. Newton wrote more on God than on Physics. There is no either/or choice necessary.

2. Things like creation and evolution are not incompatible in the slightest. If we are asked to explain the Jet engine, is either Frank Whittle or a list of aerodynamic theories the answer? Agency and mechanism are not exclusive. I need both Frank Whittle's intelligent design and principles of physics to explain the jet engine (even maybe jet theory historical evolution). Even more I need something to build a jet engine out of and neither natural law nor Mr. Whittle can bring anything into existence form nothing. Neither choice is wrong, only the insistence that one must be chosen in exclusion is wrong.

3. If an arbiter of general truth exists it is not in any way science alone nor even faith alone. Since by rigorous methods only that we think is knowable to a certainty everything else (everything in every field) is composed of some amount of faith. Forcing anyone to choose between faith given no evidence or fact based science is to force a choice between two things neither of which exist. Virtually everything is composed of faith. Why are we the only ones that admit it and hold that both have validity?

4. Much of histories greatest science was done specifically because faith in God results in a desire to search for rationality in nature. Entire fields of science began this way.

Science and Christianity have been complimentary for thousands of years. Only in the last few has an arrogance so potent arisen that a choice between the two has been mandated but never validated.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Um, we do know that at least our universe had a beginning.

No, we don't know that. There are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses which DO NOT INCLUDE ANY BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, such as Hawking's no boundary proposal, as well as hypotheses which do include a beginning of the universe (but doesn't require any external agency that enacts it, such as a deity) such as the zero-energy universe. And cyclical models are also consistent with the current state of physics, albeit speculative (though they have intuitive appeal)- models in which the universe has always existed, and that the Big Bang was preceded by a "big crunch", which in turn was preceded by a big bang, and so on, ad infinitum.

Misrepresenting science obviously doesn't help your case.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Huh? What scientists were wrong? We didn’t have nearly anything like the data we needed at that point to determine anything either way. We’re getting there now, finally. But abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stages, at this point.

Well, we can hypotheticalize all we want. Intelligent Design is my hypothesis. You have yours, and I have mines.

We do and we don’t. Our universe may have had a beginning.

Sorry, to much scientific confirmation that says the universe is finite. I understand the fact that you must hold to that false belief and deny contemporary cosmology, but if you are honest and is willing to go wherever current science leads us, then you should be more open to accept the facts.

I’m not saying anything is caused by anything. I say “I don’t know” and I’ll wait until science has it figured out.

First off, you are calling upon science to figure it out, when it is the same science that has figured out the fact that the universe is finite, which you reject. Second, you are assuming that we shouldn’t believe it unless it can be scientifically proven, and that which is a self refuting position. What if science can’t figure it out? Then it isn’t true? Fallacious.

What problem of infinity?

If the universe is infinite, time is infinite. But if the past is eternal, in order to arrive to the present day (moment, time, year, month, minute, hour, etc), time would have to traverse (figuratively) an infinite number of previous moments. How could we ever reach the present day, if in order to reach the present day we had to traverse an infinite amount of days prior?

What problem of thermodynamics?

The universe is using all of its useful energy. The energy is winding down. If the universe was infinite, it would have used up its energy a long time ago. The fact that it hasn’t run out yet means that it hasn’t been running forever.

What problem of entropy?

If you start the universe off with a big bang, you won’t get order, you will get chaos. It is practically impossible to get order from a chaotic event, and when I say order, I mean SPECIFIED order. In order to be life permitting, our universe had to meet a certain criteria, each criteria would be improbable given the fact that there was no intelligent mind (on your view) to engineer the process.

For example, If me and you are shooting a game of pool, and I challenged you to put all the balls in the rack in a random order, and once the rack is removed I want you to “break”, and not only do I want to see all the balls roll into the pockets, but I want each ball to roll in to the pockets in numerical order, and you only have ONE try. Do you know how difficult that would be? It is difficult enough to get ANY balls in the pockets off one shot…and even more difficult to get all balls in the pockets off one shot…and even MORE difficult to get all the balls in one shot in NUMERICAL order. So improbability + Improbability + Improbability.

All three of these are problems that the naturalists can’t get over. But I would love to see you try.

We don’t know if it had a beginning. And we don’t know what the cause may have been, so I don’t assume some invisible deity did it because there’s no reason to do so.

Once again, we have scientific confirmation that it did…for reasons I mentioned above among other empirical reasons. You claim to be all about science, but yet you are adamantly denying contemporary science. I think this is because you are aware of its implications. Otherwise, why deny it? It is science, after all.

And if I did, it opens up even more questions. Where did the invisible deity come from?

So you are asking what caused the uncaused cause? Hmmm. Second, God, should he exist, is a metaphysical necessity, meaning that it is impossible for him to NOT exist. So it is nonsensical to ask where did God come from.

Where does it reside?

In a supernatural realm.

How does it do things?

Like what?

How long has it been around?

For eternity.

Is it measurable?

As far as what?

Etc. Positing an invisible deity creates more questions than it answers.

More questions than it answers? You are making it seem as if science answers all the questions. For every question you have for my “invisible deity”, I can ask you the same amount regarding your “voodoo” science.

How is that an argument for anything?

The argument for the Resurrection of Jesus is an argument for the Resurrection of Jesus. That is how.

Yeah, I can make stuff up too, if I feel like filling in the gaps with non-answers and more mysteries. Problem is, I’m concerned with what is actually true.

I am appealing to what I feel is the best explanations. In my opinion, science is an insufficient way to talk about absolute origins. So therefore, I appeal to the supernatural, which IS an efficient explanation regarding absolute orgins.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your “infinity problem” or whatever you call it only applies if time is linear. Einstein kinda turned that one on its head.

Regardless of your view on time, the infinity problem is a tough one. Guess what, before the universe existed, there was NO time at all. To go from atemporal to temporal is something that naturalism hasn’t been capable of explaining.

I’m not sure how this answered my questions:
Of course it’s a requirement when we're determining probabilities. How do you calculate probabilities if you have no way of knowing what range of constants are available? How can we know how many different arrangements of constants could produce life?

As I keep saying, it DOESN’T matter. All we need to know is how improbable it is for THIS universe. The space shuttle is more complex than a Honda Civic, but I don’t need to know exactly how much more complex a space shuttle is compared to a Honda Civic to explain the complexity of a Honda Civic.

So why do you assume there is only one way the universe could have formed that would be life-permitting?

I don’t, but until I have evidence that there is there is no need to assume that there is, now is there?

How do you think we determine that an automobile is designed?

By specified complexity.

It does? Well, if your god fine-tuned the process of reproduction, then why are there so many problems with it? Why so many birth defects and spontaneous abortions?

Thermodynamics. Things were originally created good, but over time, things go bad. Leave food sitting out for days and what do you get? The bible says that with sin came all kinds of bad things.

It can’t be irrelevant when those are the parameters needed to calculate probability.

Huh?

Please tell me how you know that a combination of different constants couldn’t produce life.

Maybe it could. I can be open to everything you are saying, but that still wont change the fact that for this particular universe, and this particular “life”, astronomical odds had to have been met. You can postulate anything you want, but it wont matter.

Wow, like I said, we already went over this. You know that alien spacecraft is designed not because it’s complex, but because you have experience with designed (human designs) things and recognize it as such. I gave a much more detailed explanation the last time we went over this.

No, I know a spacecraft is designed because of its complexity.

Well, that’s obviously your problem. No wonder you don’t understand evolution.

Why did you stop there?

Because I refuse to read about a biologists religion, if he won’t read about mines (the Bible).

It’s my opinion that if we stuck a “god did it” into everything we didn’t understand, that we wouldn’t understand how anything works? Seems pretty obvious to me. Look at this discussion. I’m waiting until science determines how the universe formed and you’re just sitting there saying “god did it.” And that’s your explanation. You don’t need a scientific one because you’ve made up your mind. End of discussion.

Well, once science tells you how the universe formed, it wont stop there. There will still be more questions to be asked. Second, you will still have the other problems that was mentioned above, so hey.

And I’m sorry to have to point out to you your stance on evolution. It doesn’t fit with your religious beliefs, and so you don’t accept it. God created kinds. It doesn’t matter what science can demonstrate. That’s it. End of story.

See what I mean?

No I don’t see what you mean. You want to know why? Because according to my religious beliefs, God said “they will bring forth after there kind” (See Gen 1). Coincidently, that is all I see, is animals producing there own kind. I see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish, snakes producing snakes, turtles producing turtles. No exceptions. I've never seen any exceptions and neither did you, or anyone else for that matter. No man in history has ever seen otherwise. So my religious just happens to fit my observation. The same thing with cosmology, naturalists always maintained that the universe is eternal. Now we have evidence that the universe began to exist, just like Gen 1:1 stated thousands of years before Einstein, before Hubble, and before Hawking. So no, I don’t see what you mean.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, we don't know that. There are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses which DO NOT INCLUDE ANY BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, such as Hawking's no boundary proposal

First off, Hawking's model does have a beginning, just not at a beginning point. Dr. Craig has already spoke out against this model in his public lectures and in his written work. So this is old news. Very old news.

, as well as hypotheses which do include a beginning of the universe (but doesn't require any external agency that enacts it, such as a deity) such as the zero-energy universe. And cyclical models are also consistent with the current state of physics, albeit speculative (though they have intuitive appeal)- models in which the universe has always existed, and that the Big Bang was preceded by a "big crunch", which in turn was preceded by a big bang, and so on, ad infinitum.

Bogus. First off, you are talking about oscillating models which have been long rejected by science do to empirical and observational problems. There is just no reason for you to even bring these models up...so either you are out of date when it comes to cosmology, or you assumed I would'nt know. Whatever the case is, you are wrong. The BGV theorem (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin) applies to these oscillating models, which proves that even these models would have to have had a beginning.

Misrepresenting science obviously doesn't help your case.

Being out of date on science doesn't help your case either.

 

[1robin]

No, we don't know that. There are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses which DO NOT INCLUDE ANY BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, such as Hawking's no boundary proposal, as well as hypotheses which do include a beginning of the universe (but doesn't require any external agency that enacts it, such as a deity) such as the zero-energy universe. And cyclical models are also consistent with the current state of physics, albeit speculative (though they have intuitive appeal)- models in which the universe has always existed, and that the Big Bang was preceded by a "big crunch", which in turn was preceded by a big bang, and so on, ad infinitum.

Misrepresenting science obviously doesn't help your case.

The most widely accepted model in modern cosmology posits an actual beginning. There will always be theories that have not been disproven but the fact they invent theories faster than they can be ruled out is not a meaningful claim. The evidence for a single finite universe is vastly more substantial than the almost fantasy like science fictional claims of evidence for a non finite universe. BTW any man who claims that because there is such a thing as gravity that the universe can and did create its self from nothing despite how ever many degrees they have is a very un-trust worthy source. It is absolutely impossible for that statement to be true and very imminent scientists (Penrose, etc..) have said the latest ideas (M, etc..) Hawking has coughed up are not even very good excuses for not having a valid theory.