INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

I have no desire or need to equate science with religion even though they are both faith based and have been composed of Christians to a very large extent.

You say you're not doing that at the exact same time that you're doing it! Science is not faith-based. It is evidence-based. That's why it works. Every time. Over and over.

In fact I spend lots of time distinguishing the two. No there has never been life created in a lab. If there was it would be the greatest discovery ever. The most famous example created amino acids only.

Amino acids, proteins, methane, etc. Those are the building blocks of life on planet earth. Therefore, the building blocks of life have been created in a lab. Several different times under several different conditions. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending this isn't so, isn't going to get you anywhere. And it's dishonest also.

If you assign the complexity of amino acids a 2 then life would have a complexity factor of several trillion.There are countless examples of lower than equilibrium complexity arising out of chance there is not one example of higher then equilibrium. Take a trillion piece jigsaw puzzle and break it up completely. Put it in a bag and shake it up. From time to time you may get two or even three pieces to come together correctly but long before you get the fourth or fifth the previous 3 break up. So you never get a hundred much less a trillion. What they did in the lab was get 2 or three pieces to form not the trillion necessary.

I'm not really sure what all this is supposed to mean, but the fact of the matter is that several building blocks of life have been created in a lab (several different times, independently of each other) from inorganic matter. You can't deny that. To go on and say, "well, they haven't created a fully living organism yet" is like saying "so they've discovered that stem cells hold the possibility of curing Parkinson's disease but they haven't immediately cured Parkinson's disease, so it will never amount to anything." It's a false argument. Knowledge is built up over time, upon previous knowledge. They're not going to, right off the bat be able to create a fully living, breathing human person or something. The fact that anyone (nevermind several different researchers at several different times) was able to even produce the building blocks of life IS a huge deal. I don't know why you think it isn't.

Abiogenesis is referred to as a law in biology. The defanition of a law is something that has no known exceptions. You can prove me wrong be quoting the statement from a peer reviewed paper where they actually made life. However that simply shows that it took intelligence to create life. Until you post this the question is academic. Good luck.

Those studies DO NOT show that it took intelligence to create life, as I've said before; the opposite in fact. The researchers recreated what they imagined to be the conditions present on earth billions of years ago and let things happen on their own. What resulted were amino acids, methane, etc. THAT is what is so significant about these studies. What these studies show is that it is POSSIBLE for life to come from non-life. (Something you keep baldly asserting is impossible.)

I don't know why your provide definitions for laws here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not care where he is in your book. He is one of the most respected chemists in modern times.

Um, no he isn't. And simply stating that he is doesn't make it true.
He cannot be one of the most respected chemists in modern times if he believes the earth is 6000 years old, because that faith-based belief flies in the face of all modern science. He also didn't accept evolution, which is a scientific fact. He promoted the intelligent design hypothesis which is unfalsifiable. Not to mention the fact that he died in 1995.

You don't just get to make bald assertions.

Even the God hating poster boy for biology and Atheism knows life did not come from non life. That is why his response is always that aliens must have seeded life on Earth which does not solve anything. It just kicks the can down the road and puts the problem on another planet. There is far less evidence that aliens are real than for God being real yet he rejects God and assumes aliens exist and it does not even help abiogenesis even if he was right. That is not science that is faith based preference. By that silly logic I can claim that no evolutionist can be used for evolution. Even if a young earth could be shown to be false, and it can't, not to say I believe in a young earth, that has nothing at all to do with evolution and the chemical evolution it depends on and that he comments on. You can yell bias all you want but until you counter his arguments it is meaningless. Until you show how the 12 billion bits of information needed for the simplest life appeared in the right order by natural law these false claims are pointless.

Who is this person you speak of? How can an atheist hate god? You do know how silly that sounds, right?

The young earth model has been shown to be quite faulty given that all measurements of the earth date it at MUCH older than 6000 years.

And what are these "12 billion bits of information" you speak of? Likewise, you don't just get to make all these bald assertions without backing them up with anything. The man's argument has been countered by all modern science: Paleontology, genetics, archaeology, biology, I could go on and on.

No it does not and no you have not. I do not get this. I even quoted from the examples you gave where they specifically said they did no such thing. What the heck are you talking about. Post one quote from a peer reviewed journal recording the creation from life by natural law. The entire food industry is built around the fact that life will never ever arise on its own. I am getting the impression you did not even read the examples you gave. THEY HAVE NEVER MADE LIFE IN A LAB FROM NON LIFE.

You don't get it because you're not paying attention and you haven't quoted anything from the studies I cited. You don't just get to plug your ears and repeat "no they didn't!" over and over when the evidence clearly shows that they did. Maybe this is why you don't understand how science works. I don't know.

SCIENTISTS HAVE PRODUCED THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE FROM INORGANIC MATTER IN THE LAB. Your continued denial of this fact is dishonest. You don't just get to deny demonstrable facts because you don't like them.

The entire food industry is built around the fact that life will never ever arise on its own? What??

Here are a whole bunch of explanations, with links to numerous studies on the subject that should help you out:
The Origin of Life

I see as yet no evidence you have any idea what faith, evidence, the scientific method means or what science has done. Until you can get a handle on what truth is as it concerns science and what it has done then the comments you make about faith are irrelevant. I will await your post proving life has been created from non-life before I bother clearing up additional errors on your part.

Wow, I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. The amount of psychological projection present in this statement is unbelievable.

I've distinguished between faith and science (evidence). But hey, why don't you go ahead and explain to mean what you think faith is.

The scientific method is the best possible method we have for discovering accurate descriptions of the way our world works. It always works. Science has given us everything we know about just about everything. The computer you're using is a product of science; the drugs you take when you're sick are a product of science; the car you drive or the airplane you fly on, are products of science; the glasses you may wear, are a product of science; the food you eat, is a product of science; everything we know about the history of the earth, is a product of science, etc., etc., etc. Faith has not produced these things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The most prominent modern cosmology posits a single finite universe that began 14 or so billion years ago and will never begin again. An actual infinite is a logical absurdity. All claims that the universe oscillates, or that time is eternal, or that there is more than one universe are based on drastically less reliable data than the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem and the rest of the cosmology that all suggests that what we see is all that exists and is finite. You can believe what you wish and you may be right but at this time you are not going with the most reliable science. Natural infinites are almost fantasy.

I would suggest not interpreting the Borde-Buth-Vilenkin singularity theorem through William Lane Craig's eyes, as he constantly misquotes and gets it wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no know example of the supernatural bringing into existence life.

Exactly.

 

[1robin]

"The most prominent modern cosmology posits a single finite universe that began 14 or so billion years ago and will never begin again."

No it doesn't, you have some of it right though

There could be another bang happen in our universe again

Higgs Boson Discovery = Cosmic Doomsday? : Discovery News

No, my statement is correct. Reliable cosmology provides a single universe that is in fact flying apart at an accelerated rate. There is not one single thing known that would allow a cycle of big bangs. That was the purpose of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theory. It is a very course theory made that way to overcome almost all fantasy based monkey wrenches. Much more exists that indicates a finite universe but that theory is almost bullet proof. Of course there are atheistic scientists who do not like having only one finite God needing universe and so created faith based guesses that get them out of this mess. There are many who had proposed or adopted theories that this theorem refutes who will not let their inaccurate positions go without a fight. Everything that argues against a finite universe is in the science fiction or fantasy category. All reliable and conclusive science is consistent with a single finite universe. You can say well maybe this or maybe that all day long and it has no affect against reliable and obvious facts. It is quite odd how the worst and most fantastic guesses are valid in science as long as it gets rid of anything that suggests God exists but hyper literal, rigorous evidence, and absolute demonstrable facts are required of the Bible which has only an intellectually permissive burden. Nothing reliable suggests God is not necessary. By all means these guesses should be pursued but they are currently not evidence for anything

 

[PolyHedral]

There is not one single thing known that would allow a cycle of big bangs.

Apart from the Poincaré recurrence theorem. Depending on the exact structure of the universe, this is probably not an allowance that the universe continuously cycle big bangs - but a requirement.

 

[1robin]

1robin

"There is no known example of nature bringing into existence life"

The natural laws created the stars which in turn created nucleosynthesis from super nova star explosions which created the elements to create life.

Where does the element carbon come from?

Carbon comes from a process in a star that is so finely balanced that originally scientists thought there was no way it could ever happen. I am talking balanced to 1 in 10^50th kind of odds. That plus about 20 or 30 parameters that have similar fine tuning are needed to even have a universe of any kind. There exists no natural explanation for those facts. In fact natural law never produces anything from nothing. Natural law simply arranges things and usually arranges them very crudely. I will grant that nature can produce lower than equilibrium complexity like amino acids or a carbon atom. What it can’t do is create 3.2 billion bits of data in the exact right order and then produce an independent mechanism that can decode 3.2 billion bits of data. That is just barely the tip of the ice burg. I use the numbers generated by secular scientists for the probability of life arising on its own. They are 1 in 10^80. In physics when a probability reaches 1 x 10^50 they consider it zero and move on. Unless of course it impacts the concept of God and then any hope no matter how infinitely remote is held out for. In fact these numbers are based on having a universe like our to begin with. If these contingent probabilities are factored in you get numbers that take gigs to store. If you wish to believe this happened anyway, fine but that is a faith based position not a scientific belief. If you wish to use it as an argument then prove that it did occur. This is science not religion. You have the burden of proof, I do not. I have the burden of intellectual permissiveness alone.

 

[PolyHedral]

I am talking balanced to 1 in 10^50th kind of odds.

Show the maths.

 

[1robin]

Exactly.

This is quite absurd.

1. A faith based belief is under no obligation to provide proof.
2. Science is obligated to provide proof or at least very very solid theory.

I could never insist anyone should believe. That is a subjective and personal matter. What I can insist is that the issues be discussed using consistent standards. Science posits all kinds of things that require more faith given less evidence than the Bible. Dark matter, multiverses, oscillating verses, and an eternal universe are all theories devoid of any real evidence, yet used as likely answers to God related questions about the cosmos. However all the reliable and solid evidence like the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theory, the fact that the only known source for information is intelligence, the facts that life arising on its own is absurdly remote (I am talking numbers trillions or orders of magnitude beyond the point where physicists declare them to be zero and move on), the fact that the one universe we know of, is so astronomically fine tuned for life or even a universe of structure at all, the fact that almost all of us apprehend a moral system greater than out mind which has no natural explanation and on and on. These are all evidence for the God hypothesis and some do not even have a natural explanation even theoretically possible. Yet you reject God and adopt all or some of those theories I mentioned above each of which has infinite less evidence than God does. You are using obvious and blatant double standards to arrive at a faith based conclusion that you are trying to obscure with scientific language. Double standards and inconsistency are the hallmarks of a week position.

 

[1robin]

Apart from the Poincaré recurrence theorem. Depending on the exact structure of the universe, this is probably not an allowance that the universe continuously cycle big bangs - but a requirement.

I said not one thing KNOWN, I was not claiming that not one thing thought to be possible (even in a science fiction sense). Instead of arguing against this specific claim let me make a different point. When I say that modern cosmological consensus is a single finite universe, what I am not saying is there are no other theories. What I am saying is that the evidence for a single finite universe is vastly greater than the evidence for these fantasy ideas. You can change these numbers as you wish but I think they are reasonable indicative of reality. Let's say for instance we can identify what probability a theory has that it is true. I would put the probability for a finite single universe at about 80%. I would put multiverses and oscillating universes at about 10-20% and the rest at negligible percentages. If you think they are in reality closer than this then fine but there is no scientific reason to show indicate that the finite single model is not of vastly higher probability of truth than the next most probable theory. My question is this, why are you not doing what scientists insist in most cases, going with the best evidence we have? The reason whatever it is is not scientific it is preference based. It is true that in almost every case where a scientific argument is wrongly or rightly believed to make God less probable that the most strenuous objections are raised by your side if a Christian will not adopt them. Why the double standards?

 

[1robin]

Show the maths.

I believe this particular probability was in connection with the sun and it's mechanisms to produce carbon. This is of course vastly less well known than the probability than life may have arisen on its own. I have only heard these statistics once and that was in a debate I saw several months ago. I can't even remember who the guy was. He was debating Hitchens, and Hitchens gave him credit for being knowledgeable in a field that contains solar academics. I am not sure I can give the equations he used to generate this number. It however is well known that the mechanism in stars used to produce carbon is delicately balanced within a very thin margin. So thin that it was originally thought to be impossible. I think I can prove that, even without that guy. Would that satisfy you? Are you claiming that it is not extremely improbable for a star to produce carbon? Or were you thinking this figure was associated with life its self?

The overall point is reality as we know it is the result of countless things that math shows is so improbable that to claim it arose by chance is less likely than picking a specific atom in the entire universe at random. In fact it is way way worse than even that. The argument is quite ridiculous even with the intellectual gyrations and gymnastics used to attempt to lower the odds.

 

[Skeptisch]

You don't just get to plug your ears and repeat "no they didn't!" over and over when the evidence clearly shows that they did. Maybe this is why you don't understand how science works.

Anyone still trying to reason with this participant does the neutral reader a huge service. Robin demonstrates over and over that s/he has no clue how science works and the continued posting of unreason that was frightening for a while has now become a source of amusement.
:magic:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The overall point is reality as we know it is the result of countless things that math shows is so improbable that to claim it arose by chance is less likely than picking a specific atom in the entire universe at random. In fact it is way way worse than even that. The argument is quite ridiculous even with the intellectual gyrations and gymnastics used to attempt to lower the odds.

And how, exactly, can anyone deduce an equation on the probability of life arising without a complete and comprehensive knowledge of all possible causes of life, forms life can take, environments which are required and an accurate understanding of every square inch of the Universe? No such equation can possibly exist except in the deluded minds of theistic apologists.

If you don't believe me, I'd be more than happy to explain to you the basics of statistical thermodynamics, and how they render any attempt to calculate a "probability" of life utterly meaningless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And how, exactly, can anyone deduce an equation on the probability of existence?

By not understanding what probability is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By not understanding what probability is.

Or how the Universe functions, since such calculations only ever take "random chance" into account.

 

[Looncall]

I believe this particular probability was in connection with the sun and it's mechanisms to produce carbon. This is of course vastly less well known than the probability than life may have arisen on its own. I have only heard these statistics once and that was in a debate I saw several months ago. I can't even remember who the guy was. He was debating Hitchens, and Hitchens gave him credit for being knowledgeable in a field that contains solar academics. I am not sure I can give the equations he used to generate this number. It however is well known that the mechanism in stars used to produce carbon is delicately balanced within a very thin margin. So thin that it was originally thought to be impossible. I think I can prove that, even without that guy. Would that satisfy you? Are you claiming that it is not extremely improbable for a star to produce carbon? Or were you thinking this figure was associated with life its self?

The overall point is reality as we know it is the result of countless things that math shows is so improbable that to claim it arose by chance is less likely than picking a specific atom in the entire universe at random. In fact it is way way worse than even that. The argument is quite ridiculous even with the intellectual gyrations and gymnastics used to attempt to lower the odds.

Who says that the properties of the universe gained their values by chance? This is a strawman argument.

Even if we do not know how they gained those values, we are not justified in claiming that they happened by chance.

All this is just dishonest religious propaganda.

 

[1robin]

Anyone still trying to reason with this participant does the neutral reader a huge service. Robin demonstrates over and over that s/he has no clue how science works and the continued posting of unreason that was frightening for a while has now become a source of amusement.
:magic:

If you have anything of substance to add then please do so. The subject matter involved here is the most profound in human history and deserves better scholarship than these inaccurate color commentaries. It is a tired old act that when a person can't make a point with science they suggest the other person is so stupid they can't get it or does not understand science. It is pathetic. I know very well, while not proof, my claims are scientifically as valid or more valid than their counter arguments. I have 190 sem hours in science and a math degree. I work with a Phd and a guy with a masters and we discuss these issues many times a day. I know what the current state of reliable science is and my views are drawn from it. So keep your commentary, and the emoticons used to make arguments that you on your own could not, and instead actually show my claims wrong. I do not have time for this personal stuff nor any reason at all to think it accurate. Step it up becuase this kind of garbage merits no response, beyond this.

 

[PolyHedral]

Let's say for instance we can identify what probability a theory has that it is true. I would put the probability for a finite single universe at about 80%.

So you're happy with asserting that the chances that God exists is 80% or lower?

Because that's the result of inductive arguments - your conclusions are equally or less confident than your premises. It is impossible for them to be more so.

My question is this, why are you not doing what scientists insist in most cases, going with the best evidence we have?

There is none - only very sure knowledge that the Big Bang theory is incomplete. Therefore, the contest is inventing a theory that predicts all of modern cosmology and avoids embarassing problems like discontinitous spacetimes. The most comprehensive answers (like string hypothesis) will explain as many questions as possible, while assuming as little as possible. (Like Hawking's no-boundary hypothesis)

Saying, "God did it", in any form, is the worst of all possible "answers" - it explains nothing, and voids everything we used to know. It is therefore completely useless as a hypothesis. (Assuming that it has been defined well enough to be testable - which, in this thread at least, isn't true)

The overall point is reality as we know it is the result of countless things that math shows is so improbable that to claim it arose by chance is less likely than picking a specific atom in the entire universe at random. In fact it is way way worse than even that. The argument is quite ridiculous even with the intellectual gyrations and gymnastics used to attempt to lower the odds.

When done properly, (i.e. taking into account the implicit conditional "given that we are here to observe it") the maths tells us that it is tautologically true that we will find ourselves in a universe that can support intelligent observers. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is - it cannot fail to happen. As such, the fact that it has happened is not actually evidence of anything at all, because all possible models that fit the observed data (i.e. that we are here) predict that it will happen.

Toss 10,000 coins, and write down what results you get. By your own argument, it is massively more likely that the entire universe appears as it does (10^50) than it is for you to get that specific combination of coin flips. (10^3,011) Yet we don't (for good reason) scream "divine intervention!" with coin tosses.

 

[1robin]

And how, exactly, can anyone deduce an equation on the probability of life arising without a complete and comprehensive knowledge of all possible causes of life, forms life can take, environments which are required and an accurate understanding of every square inch of the Universe? No such equation can possibly exist except in the deluded minds of theistic apologists.

If you don't believe me, I'd be more than happy to explain to you the basics of statistical thermodynamics, and how they render any attempt to calculate a "probability" of life utterly meaningless.

Since it was your side of the fence that did so, I am afraid that asking for a solid justification is a bridge too far for that community. It was not a believer that invented these well-known numbers. BTW how can you consider multiverses, oscillating verses, string theory, or dark matter, since none of them are based on any reliable evidence and some on none at all yet since they are used as arguments against God they are virtual certainties but even when your own side makes (no matter how bad the science) more reliable claims about the obvious improbability for an event that has no known example they are fought like the plague. I have never thought the adoption of faith a likelihood for people as convinced as people are here but the simple concept of consistent standards seems to be a ridiculous pipe dream as well. I could literally make the case against life forming from non-life from atheistic scientists statements alone. You can cut their numbers in half or divide by a thousand if you wish, it won’t help.

I tell you what convince Hoyle of your theory first I used 1 in 10^80th he used:
Though Hoyle was not a Biblical creationist or even a Christian, he eventually recognized the impossibility of Darwinian evolution, he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000 (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance.
http://creation.com/big-bang-critic-dies-fred-hoyle

Or whoever this is no matter which side she is on:
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis
After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

Or maybe Sagan:

Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human).

I will make it far easier; give me one example of this happening. If you can’t then your belief it happened is not science it is faith. That is enough of this kind of stuff for one day. Have a good afternoon.

 

[camanintx]

Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human).

Then it's a good thing that the human genome wasn't assembled by chance, otherwise none of us would be here.