INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I'm going to ignore this part of the post, since it absolutely fails to answer or even address my points. I didn't say anything whatsoever about the validity of multiverses, oscillating universes, string theory or dark matter, so you dragging them into this discussion is an obvious attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

It is your side’s numbers I gave. How do I know the methods involved? I was pointing out that people who believe in those concepts above can produce anything without any solid evidence what so ever. I can produce numbers from fully qualified biologists etc.. from my side if needed. It gets way worse than the probabilities that I gave.

Hoyle's calculation is already rendered asinine by statistical thermodynamics. It's so often cited as a gross error that it is now commonly referred to as Hoyle's Fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Instead of yelling fallacy please demonstrate why it is a fallacy. I find fallacies a crutch misused more than anything else by the non-theist side. I almost never yell fallacy and stop. I almost always explain why it is fallacious.

And every single part of what you just did falls under Hoyle's Fallacy and utterly fails to account for statistical thermodynamics.

I have appprox 18 sem hours in thermodynamics and statistics but I am unfamiliar with anything that will do what you claim. Please illustrate.

I'll repeat the offer to explain it to you if you wish, but others seem to have already started doing so.

That must occur after this post.

Again, this is completely meaningless. I've already said why, and all you're doing is repeating yourself.

Sagan's numbers are completely derived in an independent method than Hoyle's. If you think significant levels of complexity can derive from a branch of study that says more about the tendency of complexity to self-destruct than any other I can't wait to see it demonstrated.

Give me one example of life that was the result of supernatural, rather than natural, processes.

You have two choices life came from a natural or supernatural source. It is either effectual or absolute law of biology that life only comes from life. Not a single exception to this principle has ever been observed despite many attempts and countless lies to the contrary. That kind of narrows things down.

Not if every single example of life we have is the result of natural, rather that supernatural, processes. Which it is. Since life exists, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the first forms of life were also the result of natural processes.

That can be tested and has been, and has always resulted in abject failure. There for it is not reasonable it is faith based and against all available evidence.

Now, I'll try again: Can you present the equation and how you know this equation for the "probability" of life is accurate, in spite of statistical thermodynamics rendering it and any other such calculations meaningless?

I tell you what I will let you do it. All these are necessary contingent factors that required before life could arise from non-life among millions. The probability for any kind of universe coming from nothing, a structured universe of any kind, a life permitting universe, the necessary molecular contingents of carbon based life, chemical evolution of the necessary complexity and parameters, the arrangement of these constituent components into the precise order for a cell to exist (left handed versus right handed proteins etc....), the chance that cell arrived with a fully operational intact reproductive mechanism. Assign your own numbers based on RELIABLE SCIENCE not fantasy; you will just arbitrarily dismiss mine. Multiply the exponents and tell me the result. Also consider this is the barest of requirements. For every one I gave there are at least a hundred or more needed. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

Great! So with a faith-based belief you can believe absolutely anything without any evidence whatsoever. That means I can dismiss it just as quickly and easily. Obviously you can assert it and believe it all you want, but you can't make any fact-based claims with it.

Boy you guys are frustrating. I said no proof, not no evidence. Which is infinitely more than can be said for much of the science fiction used as an argument against God. They do not even have any potential evidence.

I require evidence in order to believe things. Most religious people do too, just not when it comes to their particular religion.

See above. There is more than enough evidence a thousand times over to convince anyone not determined to reject it all.

No, science does not require any amount of faith. That's why it's been such a useful tool to us in understanding the world around us. Scientists don't get to posit things as facts unless they can be verified.

Then you can tell my why abiogenesis is claimed to have happened by thousands of scientists. There is not a single example of that ever happening under observation, nor macroevolution, nor an eternal universe, nor string theory etc adinfinitum. It's your dang scientific method if you won't obey it at least do not call it non faith based conclusions.

All of these things are based on scientific understandings about how our universe works. There is no definitive theory of abiogenesis quite yet because scientists don't posit things as facts unless they can verify them. Saying "god did it" answers nothing, and we should be quite happy this is not what scientists do, because that's not a way to learn how the universe operates. It's a dead end.

With the exception of the undetectable dark matter none of these are based on any evidence what so ever. They claim abiogenesis happened a thousand times a day. In fact the entire theory of evolution is dependent on that faith based assertion devoid of evidence.

This is pretty funny. So you know for a fact that all that stuff you listed above is bogus nonsense, but this one thing here that you happen to personally like, (the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Past Finite universe theory) is definitely, absolutely a fact. It's pretty interesting how you feel you can pick and choose like that.

This has certainly been the day for the old tried and true arrogant assertion that Christians are too stupid to recognize how smart secular scientists are when they produce a metric ton of theory based on a gram of evidence. That is not my conclusion above it is cosmological consensus. This is rarely challenged seriously in professional circles. Of course crackpots have their fantasies but this is current cosmology. The theory was made to be bullet proof on purpose. Is the product of secular scientists of the top tier and nothing KNOWN counters it. Good night nurse.

What is this supposed to mean?

If you have to ask, I am unsure my explanation will help. However nature is governed by thermodynamics. Said to be the most immutable laws in nature by Einstein. It mandates that nature results in low complexity on its own. Less than equilibrium complexity. The only even theoretical exception is to have a very very complex system that can convert energy into complexity. That system depends on information it did not produce. Information is not only complexity it is specified complexity. So before that system information was impossible to produce by nature if it even was after. What made the information to produce the first system that even theoretically could produce brute complexity but not specified complexity. I have a math degree and work with a PhD that is a contributor to information theory. I have just given very basic issue here. For information to be useful it must also have an independent system that is tuned to decode that specific language. It just gets worse and worse. DNA is 3.2 billion bits in the exact order necessary. That is thousands of encyclopedias. What in nature can produce this? Natural law can copy information (even that is nonsense but I will grant it) but natural law has never created anything from nothing much less complexity not to mention specified complexity and it's decoding system. Only a mind can do that. You ever seen a computer code write itself, a letter type itself, a telegram dash and dot its self.

And yet here we are. Looks like nature was able to produce life to me. We even know how different species form!

That is a circular fallacy and I am running to short of time to explain it as well.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! The UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life?? So far we know that life exists on planet earth, which is one tiny ball in a vast, vast universe which so far has revealed no other life forms. So I have to ask, where and how do you come up with the assertion that the universe is fine tuned for life?

You do not have much experience in these matters do you. The universe is not only tuned for any life of any kind to even appear once and vanish, it is also fine-tuned to allow that to even have a chance, and not only that but to even have a structure at all. One hairs breath of difference in the expansion rate even at 1 second and no material universe of structures of any kind exists. Where are you getting this crap? I do not have enough time to keep straightening out these inaccuracies I will try and continue tomorrow. There are just too many.

 

[PolyHedral]

I made it very clear that my numbers are not based on absolute standards. They are the product of my subjective reasoning.

Oh, why? Is your hypothesis too vague?

Evolution unlike abiogenesis is not absolute in every single test. It is not a law it is a theory that you claim is reliable but I would hope not absolute yet you adopt it.

Evolution of naturally occurring lifeforms is as reliable as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That law is reliable enough that one should not expect to find a detectable exception anywhere within the universe before the Big Freeze. At a very pessimistic, conservative estimate.

God confirms and provides sufficient cause for what we KNOW about science. Without him there are gaping holes and unanswerable questions that nature does not even have a potentiality to solve.

You have the exact same problem the string theorists do:

Except even worse, because "God" isn't even defined well enough that you can infer any specific things happening because of Him. "God did it!" explains why the universe is the way it is... but it doesn't explain why the universe isn't different than it is, or detail God's properties or motivations for creating the universe as it is. It is not science because of that - scientific models tell us that the universe is this way, and by implication, not some other way. "God" does not.

tl;dr - "God did it" does not make predictions and is therefore not science.

I think people are far more guilty of a science of the gaps, (science or nature did not even exist before the universe yet it is constantly shoved into a gap it can't fit into) and I strongly reject your claim above.

Science doesn't exist as a thing at all - it's an abstract method of inventing models. It can be applied anywhere there's data, and there is data concerning the state of the early universe. Thus, we can build models concerning what came before the universe, and test them, having made sure that they make predictions about the state of the early universe. (Ones that don't, like "God did it!", get kicked out immediately.)

This would only be valid if we knew that a virtually inexhaustible multitude of attempts have been tried. We KNOW of only one.

The answer to the question, "If I toss a coin, will I get heads or tails?" will still be "Yes," regardless of whether or not you flip the coin(s).

We only have evidence that the coin was flipped once and that changes everything.

We have evidence that the coin was flipped at least once. Beyond that, we can't tell.

Anyway the silly argument goes that if they [the monkeys] do this long enough they will create Shakespeare.

This is true.

An atheist therefore should when upon finding King Lear yell look what some monkeys produced. My side finds kind Lear and says look what an intelligent and intentional mind created on purpose. Which side is more scientific?

This, meanwhile, is a false dichotomy. There are lots of ways for complexity and order to arise, apart from a designer or random chance.

 

[godnotgod]

When the absurdity, ignorance, and resentment of the secular world nailed him to the cross it stopped there.

What are you talking about? The Jewish high priests also nailed him to the cross for blasphemy. But ultimately, it was the jealous ogre, God the Father that did so; demanded so, in order to assuage his rage and lust for blood over the bite of an apple (or whatever 'Forbidden Fruit' it may have been). Men had made grain and animal sacrifices to God in the past, but always the 'punishments' returned in the form of floods, locusts, disease, etc, and so finally, the ONLY acceptable sacrificial host in the eyes of God was God himself, in the form of Jesus in the flesh.

What you are not getting is that most of the ancient gods were seen as solar deities, who needed blood to nourish them, as they thought the the Winter Solstice, in which the Sun seemed to travel away from the Earth, meant the death of the Sun-God, unless nourished via blood sacrfices. Yawheh, Moloch, Ba'al, Jesus, Mithra etc. are all seen as solar deities.

This is the issue with the superstitious pagan world: it thought blood to be the life-force. More enlightened spiritual practices understood the breath to be the life-force.

In the case of Christianity, they wanted THEIR deity to be the ONLY deity, one that is Special, and head and heels above all the rest. Only egotistic thinking creates this kind of scenario. It is psychologically and spiritually out of whack with Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

But how does that render an analysis of it inadequate? I guess my problem is more with the use of the word "mere" than artifact.

Because analysis cannot provide an understanding as to the nature of what it sees as an 'artifact'. It sees it as artifact to begin with. With classical science and its analysis, we came to certain conclusions about the atomic world, conclusions which Quantum Mechanics have now overturned. Now, our physics and mathematics as applied to the universe is also being turned upside-down. Reason and Logic and Analysis have reached their limits:

[youtube]wHHz4mB9GKY[/youtube]
Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

If we weren't conscious, we wouldn't be capable of understanding anything about the Universe anyway.

But we don't understand anything about the universe. We are as far away from a true understanding of it as ever, if not moreso. We know how it behaves; can predict its behavior; but that tells us nothing about what it actually IS. Factual knowledge is not understanding.

I don't think either the theistic or non-theistic views miss the fact that we are a part of the Universe, or that we are conscious.

Oh, but they do. In both cases, man is seen as observer of the observed universe. The universe is always seen as object, by both theists and atheists. If you truly understood that you are completely integrated with the universe, you would change your approach to trying to attain real understanding. Instead, you seem to want to analyze it as a set of separate 'things', and then come to some realization of truth about what it is by such analysis of the parts. You have it backwards.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is your side’s numbers I gave.

What does that even mean? Were we wearing the same colours?

How do I know the methods involved? I was pointing out that people who believe in those concepts above can produce anything without any solid evidence what so ever. I can produce numbers from fully qualified biologists etc.. from my side if needed. It gets way worse than the probabilities that I gave.

Numbers which, as I've already explained, are meaningless. Pointing out what you consider the lack of validity of other arguments does not make your argument more credible.

Instead of yelling fallacy please demonstrate why it is a fallacy.

Hoyle's calculation only calculates the formation of a modern protein, not an early earth protein.
Hoyle's calculation assumes a fixed number of proteins with a fixed sequence.
Hoyle's calculation is based only on sequential trials rather than simultaneous trials.
The calculation is inaccurate in representing the number of enzymes present in a randomly sequenced group.

If you wish for more professional opinions, check the wiki link I gave you. It's got a rather comprehensive list of sources.

I find fallacies a crutch misused more than anything else by the non-theist side. I almost never yell fallacy and stop. I almost always explain why it is fallacious.

Instead of being so arrogant, perhaps you could have taken five minutes to read the link I gave you.

I have appprox 18 sem hours in thermodynamics and statistics but I am unfamiliar with anything that will do what you claim. Please illustrate.

Very well then: the bogus probability calculation can be dismissed entirely as it bases its entire model on the possibility of something occurring only by "random chance". However, statistical thermodynamics teaches us that nearly all formations of atoms - from a grain of sand to a cliff side - can be demonstrated to be "infinitely improbable" by exactly the same means. This is because all things must exist in a state, influenced not by "random chance" but by the physical laws of the Universe.

If I wanted to, for example, deduce the "possibility" of a grain of sand forming by random chance, I could easily demonstrate that getting even the first atom in the first specific location required for this particular grain of sand to form is around about one in a billion - and that's only the first atom. This means that, by your standard, sand is too improbable to arise naturally, and must be the result of divine agency. However, sand is not formed by "random chance" - it is formed by erosion and other natural factors acting upon rock. The calculation simply cannot take account of this.

All of this also applies to the probability calculation for life. The probability fails to take account of any physical laws that exist that may influence the result, and simply calculates the probability of life arising by "random chance", despite the fact that any natural chemical process is not governed purely by chance but by the forces inherrent in the Universe.

Oh, and as for you having studied thermodynamics - I don't believe a word of it.

Sagan's numbers are completely derived in an independent method than Hoyle's.

And they, too, are covered by the above refutation.

If you think significant levels of complexity can derive from a branch of study that says more about the tendency of complexity to self-destruct than any other I can't wait to see it demonstrated.

Miller-Urey.

You have two choices life came from a natural or supernatural source. It is either effectual or absolute law of biology that life only comes from life. Not a single exception to this principle has ever been observed despite many attempts and countless lies to the contrary. That kind of narrows things down.

Not a single example of anything supernatural ever occurring has ever been observed despite millions upon millions of people claiming it. That certainly narrows it down. Until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist, the answer to the origin of life is always most likely going to be natural - just as the answer to every other question ever answered by science has been. Your double-standard with regards to this point is duly noted.

That can be tested and has been, and has always resulted in abject failure. There for it is not reasonable it is faith based and against all available evidence.

What evidence do you have that life cannot form naturally? Since you're claiming the proposition is AGAINST all available evidence.

I tell you what I will let you do it. All these are necessary contingent factors that required before life could arise from non-life among millions. The probability for any kind of universe coming from nothing, a structured universe of any kind, a life permitting universe, the necessary molecular contingents of carbon based life, chemical evolution of the necessary complexity and parameters, the arrangement of these constituent components into the precise order for a cell to exist (left handed versus right handed proteins etc....), the chance that cell arrived with a fully operational intact reproductive mechanism. Assign your own numbers based on RELIABLE SCIENCE not fantasy; you will just arbitrarily dismiss mine. Multiply the exponents and tell me the result. Also consider this is the barest of requirements. For every one I gave there are at least a hundred or more needed. Good luck.

I asked you a question. Here it is again:

Can you present the equation and how you know this equation for the "probability" of life is accurate, in spite of statistical thermodynamics rendering it and any other such calculations meaningless?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because analysis cannot provide an understanding as to the nature of what it sees as an 'artifact'. It sees it as artifact to begin with. With classical science and its analysis, we came to certain conclusions about the atomic world, conclusions which Quantum Mechanics have now overturned. Now, our physics and mathematics as applied to the universe is also being turned upside-down. Reason and Logic and Analysis have reached their limits:

But surely our understanding of quantum physics is the result of reason and logic?

But we don't understand anything about the universe.

We understand at least a little.

We are as far away from a true understanding of it as ever, if not moreso. We know how it behaves; can predict its behavior; but that tells us nothing about what it actually IS. Factual knowledge is not understanding.

This sounds like you're wandering more into the realm of philosophy than science.

Oh, but they do. In both cases, man is seen as observer of the observed universe. The universe is always seen as object, by both theists and atheists. If you truly understood that you are completely integrated with the universe, you would change your approach to trying to attain real understanding.

I don't think so. I'm as much a part of the Universe as anything else, but how does that change my understanding of it? In what way? How should my approach be any different?

Instead, you seem to want to analyze it as a set of separate 'things', and then come to some realization of truth about what it is by such analysis of the parts. You have it backwards.

I'm afraid you're just saying words. You've not really elaborated on any of your meanings, or the methods you're implying. You've not explained anything.

 

[Skeptisch]

A faith based belief is under no obligation to provide proof.

You have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt, however:
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
christopher hitchens

 

[godnotgod]

But surely our understanding of quantum physics is the result of reason and logic?

We don't have an understanding of Quantum Physics; we know what occurs, but we don't understand why it does. We have knowledge, data and facts, not understanding. Every several years, the renowned Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger meets with the Dalai Lama and his monks to see if THEY can provide answers to what it is the physicists have found in the interim. He wants to see what a mystic has to say about it. See here:

[youtube]Zjd26JSaq64[/youtube]
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6 - YouTube

We understand at least a little.

Do we? Tell me one thing we understand about the universe.

This sounds like you're wandering more into the realm of philosophy than science.

Where is any philosophy? Understanding something is Reality, not philosophy. Philosophy is a model of what Reality might be.

I don't think so. I'm as much a part of the Universe as anything else, but how does that change my understanding of it? In what way? How should my approach be any different?

Because, you would no longer see the universe as an object. You would awaken to the fact that you have been the universe all along, but pretending to be merely an observer of it.

I'm afraid you're just saying words. You've not really elaborated on any of your meanings, or the methods you're implying. You've not explained anything.

I am talking about the approach of the analytical mind. It thinks it can study the various 'parts', and at some point, a Eureka moment will occur in which everything will be made clear. In other words, analysis, logic, and reason rely on the dissection of the whole and the accumulation of data, facts, and knowledge that leads up to a conclusion. All that can be attained is more and more information about the mechanics of the universe, but nothing about exactly what the universe actually IS. As Alan Watts tells us,

'the dead man gives us all the facts, but says nothing.'

The problem, you see, is that data, facts, and knowledge are dead, as they are based on the past. The universe is happening NOW. But we, as conceptualizing humans, want to freeze reality into manageable concepts, to 'nail it', so to speak. But such freezing of reality seems to elude us, as Quantum Mechanics is now showing us.

 

[1robin]

Oh, why? Is your hypothesis too vague?

No, because it is composed of many things that have wide margins of error that are cumulative. I will say again you are welcome to adjust them, however there is no science that would make the evidence for a finite universe less than extremely more reliable than the evidence if any actually exists for its opposite.

Evolution of naturally occurring life forms is as reliable as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That law is reliable enough that one should not expect to find a detectable exception anywhere within the universe before the Big Freeze. At a very pessimistic, conservative estimate.

I disagree. I do believe evolution happens and I believe thermodynamics is nature’s most immutable law. (I also believe they work against each other. However thermodynamics has no Cambrian explosion problems, no abiogenesis problems, no complexity problems, no non observable macro problems, and no it happened 500 million years ago problems.

You have the exact same problem the string theorists do:
https://xkcd.com/171/
Except even worse, because "God" isn't even defined well enough that you can infer any specific things happening because of Him. "God did it!" explains why the universe is the way it is... but it doesn't explain why the universe isn't different than it is, or detail God's properties or motivations for creating the universe as it is. It is not science because of that - scientific models tell us that the universe is this way, and by implication, not some other way. "God" does not.

I am not sure I agree. I think this universe fits in the narrow band of the types of universe what we know about God would imply. Science only says what the universe is. Why, has no scientific answer.

- "God did it" does not make predictions and is therefore not science.

I have never suggested theology is science. I have no need as science is not the arbiter of all truth. If I said science is not theology do I win? Positing God does make all kinds of predictions.

Science doesn't exist as a thing at all - it's an abstract method of inventing models. It can be applied anywhere there's data, and there is data concerning the state of the early universe. Thus, we can build models concerning what came before the universe, and test them, having made sure that they make predictions about the state of the early universe. (Ones that don't, like "God did it!", get kicked out immediately.)

How are you going to use natural law to test what was going on before natural law? I think your need of an eternal universe is clouding everything you consider. The best theory to date in cosmology posits no nature before the big bang. No energy, no matter, no quantum fluctuations. How do you test that?

The answer to the question, "If I toss a coin, will I get heads or tails?" will still be "Yes," regardless of whether or not you flip the coin(s).
We have evidence that the coin was flipped at least once. Beyond that, we can't tell.

I agree and since this is so conducive to my claims I do not understand why you admit it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

This is true.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem It might be but it is it's use as a method to examine how nature works is nonsense.
1. Nature erases letters in time. Typewriters do not.
2. We only had one monkey and one attempt.
3. Someone rightly or wrongly computed this will not even work for Shakes Spear because the entire universe could not contain the incorrect copies.
4. Monkeys are intentional and intelligent and can desire to hit the keys, nature can't even do that.

This, meanwhile, is a false dichotomy. There are lots of ways for complexity and order to arise, apart from a designer or random chance.

In years of debate and thousands of hours of research I have only heard one. Some system with extreme complexity must be able to convert energy into complexity (photosynthesis being one of many). What produced the very first one of these systems? The problem is that even if a system can change energy to complexity (which by the way operates on instructions like a computer program and there is no source known for information other than mind) the system required to produce the first one is so complex it can't arise with the system it would produce already existing. I am sure you can find some very theoretical and fantasy type explanation someone produced for a camera or a grant but as you know am very suspicious of these fairy tale science theories. I wish only what is reliably known to be discussed but that is your choice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We don't have an understanding of Quantum Physics; we know what occurs, but we don't understand why it does. We have knowledge, data and facts, not understanding. Every several years, the renowned Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger meets with the Dalai Lama and his monks to see if THEY can provide answers to what it is the physicists have found in the interim. He wants to see what a mystic has to say about it.

But surely the discovery of it is the result of rational inquiry. The fact that we don't fully understand the process yet doesn't mean we can't figure it out through similar methods, and I really don't think the Dalai Llama is qualified to say anything about the nature of quantum physics. I'll watch the videos, however.

Do we? Tell me one thing we understand about the universe.

Basically everything that is demonstrable in science?

Where is any philosophy? Understanding something is Reality, not philosophy. Philosophy is a model of what Reality might be.

Science models how things work, that is understanding it. What you are talking about is a far more abstract area of knowledge - the question of "why". I understand that when I drop an apple it falls, and I understand that this is because of a force we call gravity. At what point does my understanding become insufficient? Exactly how much do I need to know before I can "understand" it?

Because, you would no longer see the universe as an object. You would awaken to the fact that you have been the universe all along, but pretending to be merely an observer of it.

I've said repeatedly that this is something I (and many others) understand fully. How does that change how we see the Universe? How should (or do) we see the Universe any differently in light of this fact, considering we already know and understand it?

I am talking about the approach of the analytical mind. It thinks it can study the various 'parts', and at some point, a Eureka moment will occur in which everything will be made clear. In other words, analysis, logic, and reason rely on the dissection of the whole and the accumulation of data, facts, and knowledge that leads up to a conclusion. All that can be attained is more and more information about the mechanics of the universe, but nothing about exactly what the universe actually IS. As Alan Watts tells us,

'the dead man gives us all the facts, but says nothing.'

The problem, you see, is that data, facts, and knowledge are dead, as they are based on the past. The universe is happening NOW. But we, as conceptualizing humans, want to freeze reality into manageable concepts, to 'nail it', so to speak. But such freezing of reality seems to elude us, as Quantum Mechanics is now showing us.

So are you saying that all the facts we currently possess are null and void? I'm having tremendous difficulty trying to ascertain what your point is.

 

[1robin]

What are you talking about? The Jewish high priests also nailed him to the cross for blasphemy.

Those priests, as Jesus said many times were not righteous or Godly and therefor were thinking worldly not Godly. They were acting mainly on the motivation of protecting their power and status (they were losing influence and followers). That is a secular concern. However the Hebrews nailed no one to the cross, nor did they convict him. Rome did.

But ultimately, it was the jealous ogre, God the Father that did so; demanded so, in order to assuage his rage and lust for blood over the bite of an apple (or whatever 'Forbidden Fruit' it may have been). Men had made grain and animal sacrifices to God in the past, but always the 'punishments' returned in the form of floods, locusts, disease, etc, and so finally, the ONLY acceptable sacrificial host in the eyes of God was God himself, in the form of Jesus in the flesh.

Leave it to an atheist to spin what is probably by far the most cherished example of self sacrificial love in human history into something ugly. We build museums and give medals to people who give everything they have to save or help others. Why is it only when it comes to God you invent this absurd redaction?

What you are not getting is that most of the ancient gods were seen as solar deities, who needed blood to nourish them, as they thought the the Winter Solstice, in which the Sun seemed to travel away from the Earth, meant the death of the Sun-God, unless nourished via blood sacrfices. Yawheh, Moloch, Ba'al, Jesus, Mithra etc. are all seen as solar deities.

I agree but so what? Are you asserting that Christ was a solar God? This gets a little tricky because Catholics acting on their own did incorporate sun worship dates and practices into Christianity later on. I however am discussing the Gospels not Church corruption. The one thing you would never ever do in 1st century Israel if you wanted to invent a religion is import foreign theological concepts. The Hebrews had suffered and suffered because they had went WHORING after other God's. By this time they were zealous against anything foreign. They kicked out their own people for distorting a few OT verses. No one expected a dying and rising messiah. They had no need to import a myth to promote something they did not expect and did not even like. Parallelism is silly.

This is the issue with the superstitious pagan world: it thought blood to be the life-force. More enlightened spiritual practices understood the breath to be the life-force.

Great so?

In the case of Christianity, they wanted THEIR deity to be the ONLY deity, one that is Special, and head and heels above all the rest. Only egotistic thinking creates this kind of scenario. It is psychologically and spiritually out of whack with Reality.

I like how you are intimately aware of every motivation and thought in the apostles head. Where do you hide the time machine? These speculative ideas based on little beyond preference have no explanatory power. Are you some kind of apostolic pseudopsychologist? Even if true, you could not possibly know this given what is available to you. So these apostles invented a lie and then spent the rest of their lives suffering for it, risking their lives for it, and in some cases losing their lives without any worldly compensation worth mentioning. Why? The Gospels were written during the lifetimes of thousands of eye witnesses. Why is there not one single scrap or account saying “I was there and that never happened”?

 

[1robin]

You have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt, however:
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
christopher hitchens

I very much agree with this. I am consistent. The issue is that given the evidence is it more likely God exists than not. In almost every category I believe the case for God is vastly more reliable than the case for no God.

I liked Hitchen's, I believe he died recently, correct?
However his entire argument was based on one single idea, he hated God or the concept, anyway. He would never answer arguments for God in any other way than to say God stinks. However he was witty and interesting. Unlike Dawkin's or Harris.

 

[McBell]

However his entire argument was based on one single idea...

interesting how much you and him have in common.

 

[1robin]

What does that even mean? Were we wearing the same colors?

You actually do not get this? They were secular, non-theists.

Numbers which, as I've already explained, are meaningless. Pointing out what you consider the lack of validity of other arguments does not make your argument more credible.

You have asserted they are not but never shown they are not. If they aren't why are these scholars all saying similar things?

Hoyle's calculation only calculates the formation of a modern protein, not an early earth protein.

What is so different about an early protein and how do you know that? Even if true this would only skew the numbers a bit, it isn't going to make it significantly different.

Hoyle's calculation assumes a fixed number of proteins with a fixed sequence.

I believe that would be in your favor.

Hoyle's calculation is based only on sequential trials rather than simultaneous trials.

Lightening strikes do not occur in pools that contain the exact chemicals in the exact positions needed that often, and never at the same time.

The calculation is inaccurate in representing the number of enzymes present in a randomly sequenced group.

I do not have the education to evaluate this one.

If you wish for more professional opinions, check the wiki link I gave you. It's got a rather comprehensive list of sources.

I read about this long before I posted it. Any claim no matter how solid, (for example finite cosmology) if it indicates a roll for God will be fought tooth and nail even with theories based on no evidence nor even the potential for any. I am very very skeptical of theoretical science. I will consider this conclusion a draw and move on to another. I have only given a quick tip of the ice burg and will go ahead and throw at least a significant part of the burg at you in a minute.

Instead of being so arrogant, perhaps you could have taken five minutes to read the link I gave you.

Arrogant, what are you talking about? What I said is an actual fact and it can be proven if you review my posts.

Very well then: the bogus probability calculation can be dismissed entirely as it bases its entire model on the possibility of something occurring only by "random chance". However, statistical thermodynamics teaches us that nearly all formations of atoms - from a grain of sand to a cliff side - can be demonstrated to be "infinitely improbable" by exactly the same means. This is because all things must exist in a state, influenced not by "random chance" but by the physical laws of the Universe.

This is simply determinism on steroids and of little help to you. I am very aware of cause and effect relationships, chaos theory, and determinism. The point is that determinism is not intentional. To get multiple things in very sophisticated orders requires intentionality. For example if nature produced and eye (and that is debatable) it also needs to form a specific type of visual cortex and a specific optical nerve network. Determinism does not help. There is nothing in nature that can generate these dependent and in "tune" contingent improbabilities. It gets far far worse for information. Information as in DNA (3.2 billion bits) is useless without a decoder also formed by independent means to read it. Only mind can do these things. I was expecting something much more profound than a flavor of materialism.

If I wanted to, for example, deduce the "possibility" of a grain of sand forming by random chance, I could easily demonstrate that getting even the first atom in the first specific location required for this particular grain of sand to form is around about one in a billion - and that's only the first atom. This means that, by your standard, sand is too improbable to arise naturally, and must be the result of divine agency. However, sand is not formed by "random chance" - it is formed by erosion and other natural factors acting upon rock. The calculation simply cannot take account of this.

This will not work for contingent but independent systems each reaching the needed improbable structures. Your sand example is not a complex ordered creation. It is a lower than equilibrium (crystalline) complexity and bears no relationship to the complexity (infinitely higher than equilibrium) needed for even the simplest life. If this is your solution it won't work. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

All of this also applies to the probability calculation for life. The probability fails to take account of any physical laws that exist that may influence the result, and simply calculates the probability of life arising by "random chance", despite the fact that any natural chemical process is not governed purely by chance but by the forces inherent in the Universe.

I have already explained why this is not so.

Oh, and as for you having studied thermodynamics - I don't believe a word of it.

I do not care. However if you put some money on it I might and will provide my transcripts.

And they, too, are covered by the above refutation.

Nope

Miller-Urey.

Amino acids are low equilibrium complexity and no one believes nature can't produce them. However it took intelligence to produce only half of these simple structures. They only have about 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the structures left to produce life. This is like saying we found out how nature makes copper and silicone therefore nature produced deep blue. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Not a single example of anything supernatural ever occurring has ever been observed despite millions upon millions of people claiming it

This is just dishonest. Even if true you have absolutely no way to know this and the fact you say you do anyway is abhorrent and indicative of everything that is driving your rationalizations.

That certainly narrows it down. Until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist, the answer to the origin of life is always most likely going to be natural - just as the answer to every other question ever answered by science has been. Your double-standard with regards to this point is duly noted.

This is based totally on something you have no way possible of knowing. Try again. I for one have experienced the supernatural more than once. Your calling billions of people liars is getting close to my cut of the discussion point.

What evidence do you have that life cannot form naturally? Since you're claiming the proposition is AGAINST all available evidence.

The fact that has never been observed to happen even when trying to force it to. Plus the fact that even every single point along the trail of contingent probabilities of necessary things happening is past the physicists "call it zero and ignore it point", and there are hundreds of them. Not to mention a biological principle against it and the food industry that would collapse it occurred.

Can you present the equation and how you know this equation for the "probability" of life is accurate, in spite of statistical thermodynamics rendering it and any other such calculations meaningless?

Since you can't or won't I guess it must be up to me to do your science for you.

The excellent article Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life? gives numbers calculated by scientists from several different fields. First, keep in mind that anything with a chance of less than 1 x 10-50 is considered to be statistically impossible, an event that would never happen. So what are the chances that an average-sized protein would form by itself out of amino acids in nature? 4.9 x 10-191, which is far, far beyond the "impossible" boundary. But that's just one protein - not an entire DNA strand, and certainly not an entire living cell. What are the chances of a living cell just happening to cobble itself together out of a soup of amino acids? Why, that would be 1 x 10-40,000, a probability which, according to the article, "could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup"

Let's go back to that first tiny creature that would have started all evolution and try to understand the unbelievable creation it in itself was. That first tiny organism was incredibly complex - with all our science and understanding we can't come close to creating anything like it. Consider one of the simplest living organisms now known, the single-DNA strand E.Coli bacteria. Even this simplest organism has about 5,000 genes - the genetic code holders. Alter the position, leave out or change the chemical combinations up of just a few lines of code and the organism ceases to thrive. There are 4.80 x 1050 (3)possible DNA combinations in those 5,000 genes. That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:

1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000​

How big is this number? It's more than astronomical! Think of it this way. There's 1.37 x 1025 drops of (4)water in all the oceans on Earth (10 drops per cc x 1015 cc per km3 x 1.37x109 km3 water in oceans). That's 10 to the 25th power, not 50TH power. You'd need to count every drop of water on 7 trillion trillion Earths to get the same number! Here's another thought. You know how big a millimeter is? About the width of a dime. Pretty small right? From one side to the other, the (5)UNIVERSE has a diameter of 3 x 1029 millimeters. The odds of accidentally forming that first single DNA strand is a billion trillion times larger. Using accepted mathematical and statistical theory, it's (6)statistically impossible that this happened in the simplest single cell organism. Now consider that humans have 100 trillion cells in their body - each in a unique location for a unique purpose. The impossibility of our existence is why we can know we were created in the image of God.

I believe you can follow these links and get the computations for these numbers. However I am not claiming that they are extremely accurate. There are too many margins of error in this type stuff. What I am claiming is that they give a rough ballpark figure. You can halve them, divide buy 10,000 or whatever you wish within reason and you still get no freakin way. Even this is only a fraction of what is necessary to get life and I noticed you did not answer my questions. What is the probability that nothing exploded and created a fine tuned for life structured universe by natural causes? Zero.

 

[Skeptisch]

The issue is that given the evidence is it more likely God exists than not. In almost every category I believe the case for God is vastly more reliable than the case for no God.

It easy to agree that the “Laws of Nature God” exists. But the Abrahamic God? You can’t be that superstitious, are you? The only reason science has not proven that God does not exist is because it is kind of hard to prove what does not exist.

You on the other hand who probably sincerely thinks s/he exists should have no problem giving us some scientific evidence that this cruel and mean entity exists.

Why would anyone try to defend this monster:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 

[camanintx]

It is your side’s numbers I gave. How do I know the methods involved?

It doesn't matter who's probabilities you gave, you claimed that anything smaller than 1 x 10^50 is equivalent to zero which is demonstrably false.

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't matter who's probabilities you gave, you claimed that anything smaller than 1 x 10^50 is equivalent to zero which is demonstrably false.

Agree.

A number greater than zero is never equal to zero. Only in certain computations can you discard small numbers, like engineering and such. A small chance, however small it is, is still a chance. Almost every week someone wins on Lotto even though it's a very small chance I (specifically) would win.

 

[godnotgod]

But surely the discovery of it is the result of rational inquiry. The fact that we don't fully understand the process yet doesn't mean we can't figure it out through similar methods, and I really don't think the Dalai Llama is qualified to say anything about the nature of quantum physics. I'll watch the videos, however.

Please don't misunderstand: I have nothing against Science, except that it's importance is overrated. Science is a wonderful tool, and is responsible for many useful discoveries. We may even get to the point of understanding the process, but science cannot tell us what the nature of reality is. It cannot tell us what the universe actually IS. It can only tell us ABOUT it. If Zeller did not think the Dalai Lama had an important view re: Quantum Mechanics, he would not bother to make a point of seeing him now and then.

Basically everything that is demonstrable in science?

So what is the universe?

Science models how things work, that is understanding it. What you are talking about is a far more abstract area of knowledge - the question of "why". I understand that when I drop an apple it falls, and I understand that this is because of a force we call gravity. At what point does my understanding become insufficient? Exactly how much do I need to know before I can "understand" it?

You 'understand' the mechanics, but you still do not know what it is. The difference is between knowledge and knowing. The more you know about the mechanics, the data, the facts, the less you understand about the nature of gravity. Knowing all about how a piano works does not give you the music, let alone the understanding of the music. It is the opposite: to gain understanding, we need to let go of the details of both piano and musical notes and just listen. The moment you begin analysis, you lose touch with the actual music.

I've said repeatedly that this is something I (and many others) understand fully. How does that change how we see the Universe? How should (or do) we see the Universe any differently in light of this fact, considering we already know and understand it?

But you don't understand it. If you did, you would know why it is there at all.
All you know is how it behaves, and how to predict that behavior. We know how gravity and electricity behave, but we don't actually know what they ARE.

So are you saying that all the facts we currently possess are null and void? I'm having tremendous difficulty trying to ascertain what your point is.

That's because you are ignoring what I am actually saying. What I am saying is this: that by gaining understanding of the nature of things FIRST, BEFORE we accumulate data and facts ABOUT them allows us to UNDERSTAND what the data and facts MEAN. Understanding puts the data and facts in the correct context. By pursuing the data and facts FIRST leaves you with no real understanding as to what those facts signify.

I'll give you an example: Let us say that the true nature of the phenomenal world is that it is actually illusory. Science does not see that, because it begins its investigation from the premise that 'matter' is real. Even when QM finds matter behaving differently than we thought, it still cannot tell us what its nature is. It is still a total mystery. That is not to say that science is useless. On the contrary, it is a very useful and valuable tool.

I am also saying that if we truly understood who and what we are, we would also understand the true nature of the universe.