Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Chalant]

Fear. Fear that there is no purpose to life. Fear of an emptiness after death. I was afraid of this too when I was considering atheism. But, I just couldnt go back to religion.

 

[1robin]

Fear. Fear that there is no purpose to life. Fear of an emptiness after death. I was afraid of this too when I was considering atheism. But, I just couldnt go back to religion.

So you chose to give up and just live with fear. Is this an argument?

 

[philbo]

So you chose to give up and just live with fear. Is this an argument?

It sounds to me more like it's answering the question in the thread title. It's a valid reason why theists won't admit there's no evidence for god, because making that admission is scary.

It isn't "giving up" to live with the fear: more like "owning up".

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Well Cells are technically alive, but we should acknowledge that DNA itself is not alive, it's with my limited amount of knowledge. Replicating Information, it's data like you'd find in a computer. It is not alive yet it is the basis of what we define as life.

Interesting, that you should bring up the matter -- and why aren't you asleep at this hour? I thought you lived Down Under.

DNA is a template. Proteins align functional groups with DNA fragments, to produce proteins. The sequence of the DNA bases thus encode the sequence of the amino acids in the proteins. The proteins, in turn, are catalysts, which facilitate the various reactions needed for the processes of life.

You say well, that DNA is like [sequential] data in a computer. Computer data is in Base 2, consisting of "1"s and "0"s. DNA is in Base 4, consisting (in humans) of "A", "G", "C" and "T". What we call "words" are encoded in computers as binary sequences, and sentences and paragraphs are encoded in longer sequences. A large book is also nothing but a long sequence, and the entire memory of a computer can also be considered as one very long sequence of "1"s and "0"s.

Mathematical expressions, likewise, are nothing but binary sequences. The laws of physics, ditto. String theory postulates that all physical phenomena, from the force of gravity to photons to electrons to neutrinos, can be expressed as a single mathematical algorhythm, varying from one another simply in the parameters. All of nature, therefore, can be expressed, theoretically, as a single, great string, or "word".

The Bible tells us what that word is:

Heb 11
[3] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God's word is our universe's template, our "DNA."
Shalom shalom :camp:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Interesting, that you should bring up the matter -- and why aren't you asleep at this hour? I thought you lived Down Under.

DNA is a template. Proteins align functional groups with DNA fragments, to produce proteins. The sequence of the DNA bases thus encode the sequence of the amino acids in the proteins. The proteins, in turn, are catalysts, which facilitate the various reactions needed for the processes of life.

You say well, that DNA is like [sequential] data in a computer. Computer data is in Base 2, consisting of "1"s and "0"s. DNA is in Base 4, consisting (in humans) of "A", "G", "C" and "T". What we call "words" are encoded in computers as binary sequences, and sentences and paragraphs are encoded in longer sequences. A large book is also nothing but a long sequence, and the entire memory of a computer can also be considered as one very long sequence of "1"s and "0"s.

Mathematical expressions, likewise, are nothing but binary sequences. The laws of physics, ditto. String theory postulates that all physical phenomena, from the force of gravity to photons to electrons to neutrinos, can be expressed as a single mathematical algorhythm, varying from one another simply in the parameters. All of nature, therefore, can be expressed, theoretically, as a single, great string, or "word".

The Bible tells us what that word is:

Heb 11
[3] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God's word is our universe's template, our "DNA."
Shalom shalom :camp:

Lol is that what I had said...sigh. I'm at work, so I'm periodically given moments of reprieve followed by long bouts of insanity.

Though we do see cases of DNA and Protein operating without the use of cells.

 

[Cephus]

Hi, Cephus

I just updated my bio, so you can see I am a retired chemist with an MS in Chemistry. I have performed enough chemical procedures in my life, to understand THOROUGHLY, that you can't form a living cell by any random happenstance. Quite the contrary is true: be ever-so-slightly off on certain reagents, and even the simplest experiment goes ker-plooey.

The probabilities against the spontaneous generation of life have been gone over exhaustively; and they are so astronomical as to be physically impossible. The first Google® hit I found on this matter is:

What are the statistical odds-against the"spontaneous-generation theory? - Yahoo! Answers

Spontaneous generation is pseudo-science.

That's nice, let us know when you manage to convince the scientific establishment, with all of their Ph.D's in biochemistry and the like, that you're right. If the best you can do is a claim on Yahoo Answers, I'm not impressed. Let's try that again with peer-reviewed scientific journals. We've known how it works for decades, we've replicated the various pieces of the puzzle in the lab, such as the Fox experiments going back to the 1970s.

Your source there doesn't give any references to how the figure of 1-in-102,000,000,000.34, but going by previous claims of this type, I can say that the deck is specifically stacked quite dishonestly and I can go into detail if you like. This kind of nonsense only impresses the credulous and the ignorant.

 

[Cephus]

Rather than giving an absolute probability, how about a relative probability? What's the ratio of the probability of life arising by abiogenesis vs. the probability of life arising by "magic poofing" by God (including the probability of a God arising to do the poofing)?

The problem, as I mentioned to him, is that these kind of probability claims make a serious and significant error in their assumption, that humans were the end goal planned from the very beginning and applying that assumption to their calculations. In reality, we're here because of the way evolution worked, evolution didn't work the way it did in order to produce us.

It's a bunch of math games designed to impress the ignorant.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Lol is that what I had said...sigh. I'm at work, so I'm periodically given moments of reprieve followed by long bouts of insanity.

Though we do see cases of DNA and Protein operating without the use of cells.

Wrong. You have a cell. It's just glass, not polysaccharide or double lipid layer; and input into it is controlled by the chemist, not proteins in the cell wall.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

The problem, as I mentioned to him, is that these kind of probability claims make a serious and significant error in their assumption, that humans were the end goal planned from the very beginning and applying that assumption to their calculations. In reality, we're here because of the way evolution worked, evolution didn't work the way it did in order to produce us.

It's a bunch of math games designed to impress the ignorant.

You are using circular reasoning.

 

[philbo]

You are using circular reasoning.

Why is saying that the maths is in error because it's assuming that humanity is a planned endpoint circular reasoning?

..have to say that on reading that yahoo answer, there's so much left out and ignored that the numbers are totally and utterly meaningless.

 

[Cephus]

Why is saying that the maths is in error because it's assuming that humanity is a planned endpoint circular reasoning?

..have to say that on reading that yahoo answer, there's so much left out and ignored that the numbers are totally and utterly meaningless.

Because it gets in the way of what they want to believe. Apologists go about logic entirely ***-backwards. Instead of following the evidence to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion happens to be, they start with a conclusion and then only look for evidence that supports it. Often, this includes cooking the books to make it sound like the math supports their claims, but their assumptions are inserted into the figures to color the results.

It's dishonest at it's heart and most of them can't understand why.

 

[philbo]

Because it gets in the way of what they want to believe. Apologists go about logic entirely ***-backwards. Instead of following the evidence to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion happens to be, they start with a conclusion and then only look for evidence that supports it. Often, this includes cooking the books to make it sound like the math supports their claims, but their assumptions are inserted into the figures to color the results.

It's dishonest at it's heart and most of them can't understand why.

..but I still don't understand why he thinks it's circular reasoning. There's nothing circular in it.

 

[1robin]

..but I still don't understand why he thinks it's circular reasoning. There's nothing circular in it.

You sound more like you are concerned with your arguments merit than with automatically assuming every Christian is just too stupid to know how smart you are, unlike a few other posters. I will not intrude on Oatmeal's argument but I will add in another factor. Even having a universe to begin with There exist many probably inaccurate but indicative of he ballpark that place a cell arising on it's own at 1 in 10^80. That alone is far beyond the line where traditionally many physicists write zero and move on. And since there has ever been a known example of biological life coming from non-life even when it has been helped along by intelligent scientists guessing at the most likely arrangement of ingredients, there is little reason to think the guestimates significantly in error but that is only the tip of the ice burg. However there are dozens and maybe trillions of other even less likely things that must occur before a life permitting universe is around for the 1 in 10^event to happen and they are all contingent and so multiplicative. So we go from insanely improbable to hyperbolically absurd to come off it guys very quickly. If I won a lottery well someone had to, if I win every lottery that ever was then someone is doing something intentional. There is no escape from the problem, and as of right now God is the only feasible solution whether that is preferred or not. It may turn out God had nothing to do with anything but for now he is the only game in town worthy of mention IMO.

 

[McBell]

You sound more like you are concerned with your arguments merit than with automatically assuming every Christian is just too stupid to know how smart you are, unlike a few other posters. I will not intrude on Oatmeal's argument but I will add in another factor. Even having a universe to begin with There exist many probably inaccurate but indicative of he ballpark that place a cell arising on it's own at 1 in 10^80. That alone is far beyond the line where traditionally many physicists write zero and move on. And since there has ever been a known example of biological life coming from non-life even when it has been helped along by intelligent scientists guessing at the most likely arrangement of ingredients, there is little reason to think the guestimates significantly in error but that is only the tip of the ice burg. However there are dozens and maybe trillions of other even less likely things that must occur before a life permitting universe is around for the 1 in 10^event to happen and they are all contingent and so multiplicative. So we go from insanely improbable to hyperbolically absurd to come off it guys very quickly. If I won a lottery well someone had to, if I win every lottery that ever was then someone is doing something intentional. There s no escape from the problem, and as of right now God is the only feasible solution whether that is preferred or not. It may turn out God had nothing to do with anything but for now he is the only game in town worthy of mention IMO.

I do find it rather interesting that you have chosen to completely ignore the probability of your god ...

care to start presenting some math?
I have asked you and several other people who make the probability claim to present their math and not a single one of you have done so.
In fact, you have all completely ignored the request.

So is it safe to assume that you will ignore this one as well?

And what of asking for your math concerning the probability of god?

 

[graalbaum]

As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?

trying to "prove" the ineffable is foolish.
this doesn't mean God doesn't exist...

 

[philbo]

You sound more like you are concerned with your arguments merit than with automatically assuming every Christian is just too stupid to know how smart you are, unlike a few other posters. I will not intrude on Oatmeal's argument but I will add in another factor. Even having a universe to begin with There exist many probably inaccurate but indicative of he ballpark that place a cell arising on it's own at 1 in 10^80. That alone is far beyond the line where traditionally many physicists write zero and move on. And since there has ever been a known example of biological life coming from non-life even when it has been helped along by intelligent scientists guessing at the most likely arrangement of ingredients, there is little reason to think the guestimates significantly in error but that is only the tip of the ice burg. However there are dozens and maybe trillions of other even less likely things that must occur before a life permitting universe is around for the 1 in 10^event to happen and they are all contingent and so multiplicative. So we go from insanely improbable to hyperbolically absurd to come off it guys very quickly. If I won a lottery well someone had to, if I win every lottery that ever was then someone is doing something intentional. There is no escape from the problem, and as of right now God is the only feasible solution whether that is preferred or not. It may turn out God had nothing to do with anything but for now he is the only game in town worthy of mention IMO.

Except that, as I said above, what you're doing is saying that all these things are staggeringly unlikely, but that something fully-formed and capable of creating them all just happened to be eternally there. There are no odds for that at all: the probability is simply zero. Complaining about the improbability of abiogenesis while ignoring the odds against your preferred flavour of creator is simple double standards.

But you didn't explain why BlandOatmeal considered it circular reasoning. Which was the question in the post you quoted.

 

[1robin]

I do find it rather interesting that you have chosen to completely ignore the probability of your god ...

You interesting if nothing else. Is there some theological probabilistic math I am unaware of. I have never used such a thing and deny the question is even coherent. I have heard several PhD's prove Jesus' historicity to a high level of probability using probabilistic calculus I have never even heard of and I have a math degree. I would never argue anything using it and I doubt if your question is even meaningful. What probability is there that nothing explodes and creates everything - 0, but concerning God it is beyond my capacity to even think of a way to begin. He is no less probable than probable and that is about as far as I would go. What was the probability of black holes to a 1st dynasty Egyptian?

care to start presenting some math?

You have some God math in mind. I suppose you could do some historical probalistic analysis given the type of effect and frequency of cause or something but I am too lazy to even think about it. By the time you got through the additive error margins would make any result meaningless. Tell you what do the probability analysis for the existence Quantum fields given what was known 500 years ago first.

I have asked you and several other people who make the probability claim to present their math and not a single one of you have done so.
In fact, you have all completely ignored the request.

Probability can be applied when some idea of frequency is known. You know what the frequency of God's existence is? I will bet you answer and bet you have no idea.

So is it safe to assume that you will ignore this one as well?

There is a very good chance I will ignore your posts but this one was not simply commentary. This was demands to provide what is not even coherent or possible. I did not make any probability claim about the supernatural but about the natural because the natural is subject to law and the supernatural is not. You tell me what the speed limit of a hypothetical ghost is first.

And what of asking for your math concerning the probability of god?

I did not give a probability for God. Are you asking me to show the work for what I never did. Hope your not a teacher.

1. I have no burden to provide what you asked, nor need. Nor does the Bible or any Christian.
2. I doubt the question is mathematically coherent.
3. I doubt that any math that could be done would be precise enough to be meaningful.
4. I doubt that if 1000% precise and perfectly reliable and gave God a 100% probability it would matter to you.

Why in the world did you ask me this? This is like asking the ghosts taste like (no I do not believe in ghosts).

This is not serious but let me give an equation.

The probability the universe exists is 100%.
The probability the universe has a cause is 100%.
100% - the percentage a natural cause produced nature = the probability God exists.
100% - 0% = 100% chance God exists.
Did not even need calculus.
As stupid as that was it isn't all that stupid. Actually there is nothing known that is wrong with it. Still silly though. Of course so was the question.

Let me turn your misplaced claims on you. Prove that God does not exist. Unlike Christianity, atheism is not faith. It is the positive statement that not only does one God not exist but no God's do. That carries the burden you falsely tried to pin on faith and I bet you don not even have a silly equation. No matter how many atheists are asked not one knows what they claim to know.

 

[Cephus]

..but I still don't understand why he thinks it's circular reasoning. There's nothing circular in it.

Logic apparently doesn't work the same way for true believers as it does for the rest of us.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

You sound more like you are concerned with your arguments merit than with automatically assuming every Christian is just too stupid to know how smart you are, unlike a few other posters. I will not intrude on Oatmeal's argument but I will add in another factor. Even having a universe to begin with There exist many probably inaccurate but indicative of he ballpark that place a cell arising on it's own at 1 in 10^80. That alone is far beyond the line where traditionally many physicists write zero and move on. And since there has ever been a known example of biological life coming from non-life even when it has been helped along by intelligent scientists guessing at the most likely arrangement of ingredients, there is little reason to think the guestimates significantly in error but that is only the tip of the ice burg. However there are dozens and maybe trillions of other even less likely things that must occur before a life permitting universe is around for the 1 in 10^event to happen and they are all contingent and so multiplicative. So we go from insanely improbable to hyperbolically absurd

to come off it guys very quickly. If I won a lottery well someone had to, if I win every lottery that ever was then someone is doing something intentional. There is no escape from the problem, and as of right now God is the only feasible solution whether that is preferred or not. It may turn out God had nothing to do with anything but for now he is the only game in town worthy of mention IMO.

Thanks, Robin, for a moment of reason. There are other reasons besides statistics, namely chemical reasons, which I would gladly discuss with anyone with the background to understand them. Concerning the odds you state, which are, as you note, conservative,

"The number of atoms in the entire observable universe is estimated to be within the range of 10^78 to 10^82"

-- Atoms in the Universe

The geometric mean of those numbers is the 10^80 that you quoted.

Shalom shalom:balloons:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The geometric mean of those numbers is the 10^80 that you quoted.

And what should we infer from this and why?