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

[ImprobableBeing]

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.

I don't like that kind of math at all since it's applied fallaciously.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what i mean, the statistical chance of you being hit by the exact combination of water molecules when it rains (given the sheer number of water molecules in our atmosphere) is about the same which would mean that it's so unlikely that you can get wet when it rains that it's basically impossible.

The chance of all your ancestors meeting and procreating with all of your ancestors at the exact time with that one out all sperms and that exact egg not to mention the chance for miscarriage or death before procreation for each individual is about the same as in your example so using your math, it's a statistical impossibility for you to exist.

Now, the chance for this universe exactly as it is, that you get wet if you go outside when it rains and that you exist is of course 1:1.

You should also be aware that this universe doesn't really support life, this planet does (it's about 1:10^22 of the universe) and if it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion but it would still have been just as improbably as this current state is, namely 1:1.

 

[nash8]

True. I agree with that. I meant merely to make sure that I made it clear that it was "knowledge". Technically you can have Gnostic athiests who have esoteric "knowledge" there is no god.

Indeed.

 

[1robin]

I haven't seen this good an example of special pleading in a very long time.

That was a joke because I was given a joke of a questions however the math is right. I always like how your side will use the strongest words in your pocket thesaurus in an attempt to assert things away but never attempt to demonstrate the fault in what you wish to dismiss. You might as well copy and paste the word wrong after everything you do not like.

 

[1robin]

Theists can't admit that there is no evidence for God because nobody likes being wrong, and nobody wants to look like a fool.

But conversely, atheists play the same game in that they have no evidence that God does not exist. They point to the "fact" that no evidence exists that God exists. A lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything. It is simply a lack in evidence.

There is more evidence consistent with there being a God than you will ever reach the end of. There is no proof, there is endless evidence.

 

[1robin]

If science made facts out of things without evidence to support or used the lack of evidence as support for a theory, would it still be science?

They do.
No it is no longer science.
Yes they act as if it is.
Most of theoretical science is fantasy. Of course it should be pursued but it should not be called science. When they do it makes the term science so broad it no longer means anything.

I theorize that somewhere in this universe is a gas planet 10,000 times bigger than the mass of our sun. Since there is no evidence of such, this theory is true.

I theorize that since atheistic scientists hate a finite universe so much that somewhere in their heads exists multiverses, string theory, M-theory, and other assorted fictions to allow their escape. They each require more faith given less evidence than the bible ever has.

 

[1robin]

I see.
So basically, in a nut shell, you claim that it is a statistical impossibility that the universe did not come to be without a god doing it, but feel no need to support your claim with anything other than the claim itself being retold by other people?

I claim God created the universe for three reasons.

1. No other source is currently known or even reasonable at this point.
2. His description matches exactly what is needed for whatever created the universe.
3. Reasoned faith.

You refuse to show any of the math used to support any of your math claims, and as a last ditch effort to get the lime light off your serious lack of anything but empty unsubstantiated claims, you want me to prove god does not exist?

No, I gave silly (but accurate) math for a silly question and demanded you employ consistent standards. I only asked you prove what you claimed. I also notice you did not show the math wrong, but only found it inconvenient and so dismissed it is the usual flourish of rhetoric. As ridiculous as my math was it is still until you demonstrate why it is not.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I see so much misuse of the scientific use of the word theory right now....

 

[1robin]

I just checked stats. Mess has 9.35 posts a day. Did you check all 3400+ posts ?

I don't know but captured terrorists should be made to unless that is against the Geneva convention. They would tell us anything at that point.

 

[1robin]

I can't wait to be a god...the first thing I'm going to do is re-write the laws of the Universe and make ice cream rain from the heavens

Your avatar looks like a half Darius the great and half predator at first glance.

 

[1robin]

I don't like that kind of math at all since it's applied fallaciously.

I was quite sure you would not like it. It is too God suggestive. I did not invent that number I found it fairly consistent even among non-theist mathematicians and is absurdly generous because it just presumes a life permitting universe to begin with.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what i mean, the statistical chance of you being hit by the exact combination of water molecules when it rains (given the sheer number of water molecules in our atmosphere) is about the same which would mean that it's so unlikely that you can get wet when it rains that it's basically impossible.

That is a one time only case like winning a lottery. Life requires contingent lotteries over and over and over. That necessitates multiplicative profanities and things go from ridiculous to just silly in a hurry. You need certain expansion rates and weak nuclear forces, chemical evolution, mass ratios, etc.... x millions of things. If just one is altered a hairs breath a life permitting universe of any kind is out of the question. Your mathematical reasoning is incorrect.

The chance of all your ancestors meeting and procreating with all of your ancestors at the exact time with that one out all sperms and that exact egg not to mention the chance for miscarriage or death before procreation for each individual is about the same as in your example so using your math, it's a statistical impossibility for you to exist.

Of course it is impossible or almost for me to exist as I am a life form that has been my exact argument. Your simply taking what I said making it even less likely and saying see that proves I am wrong.

Now, the chance for this universe exactly as it is, that you get wet if you go outside when it rains and that you exist is of course 1:1.

However the chance that that universe arose on it's own is 1 in infinity.

You should also be aware that this universe doesn't really support life, this planet does (it's about 1:10^22 of the universe) and if it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion but it would still have been just as improbably as this current state is, namely 1:1.

Last time I checked this planet is in this universe. If I have a universe and it contains life then my argument stands. Once again your are making your case even worse and then yelling "told you so". If only this planet has life then that is further reason to think it is not accidental. Here is the actual math used by actual mathematics professors but it is actually far worse than even they suggest as many of the constants that are needed are not even necessitated by anything natural.

http://www.universitycad.com/creation/articles/English/The_Probability_of_Evolution.pdf

I will post just one of these factors that were not included in my very generous 1 in 10^80th number.

A single amino acid of 1000 proteins must not have a single right handed protein in it anywhere. That gives a 1 in 10 ^ 301st chance.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

.

Lol sorry i wish I knew how to make this smaller...but I think if we depended on probability for things to not happen...then a lot of us are just here by pure and utter luck.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I was quite sure you would not like it. It is too God suggestive. I did not invent that number I found it fairly consistent even among non-theist mathematicians and is absurdly generous because it just presumes a life permitting universe to begin with.

It actually isn't, it's just plain wrong.

That is a one time only case like winning a lottery. Life requires contingent lotteries over and over and over. That necessitates multiplicative profanities and things go from ridiculous to just silly in a hurry. You need certain expansion rates and weak nuclear forces, chemical evolution, mass ratios, etc.... x millions of things. If just one is altered a hairs breath a life permitting universe of any kind is out of the question. Your mathematical reasoning is incorrect.

This is entirely untrue since every possible outcome is equally likely, you're just making the fallacious argument that what is is somehow less unlikely than any other outcome which is obviously false.

Of course it is impossible or almost for me to exist as I am a life form that has been my exact argument. Your simply taking what I said making it even less likely and saying see that proves I am wrong.

Either you have a reading comprehension problem (probably because you don't exist) or you are being purposefully dishonest. The point is that even if your claim is true you still cannot exist given the chance of DNA and epigenetics resulting in you is a statistical impossibility.

However the chance that that universe arose on it's own is 1 in infinity.

This is your assertion and it's demonstrably false.

Last time I checked this planet is in this universe. If I have a universe and it contains life then my argument stands. Once again your are making your case even worse and then yelling "told you so". If only this planet has life then that is further reason to think it is not accidental. Here is the actual math used by actual mathematics professors but it is actually far worse than even they suggest as many of the constants that are needed are not even necessitated by anything natural.

I will post just one of these factors that were not included in my very generous 1 in 10^80th number.

A single amino acid of 1000 proteins must not have a single right handed protein in it anywhere. That gives a 1 in 10 ^ 301st chance.

Yes, this planet is part of this universe but the overwhelming majority of it doesn't support life at all so to proclaim that it does is simply false.

Your argument asserts that this outcome is the necessity while it's just not. Any other outcome would have the exact same chance of happening and then we wouldn't have this conversation at all but then that outcome would still be equally likely.

If you flip a coin 10^80 times you wouldn't say that the result would be impossible just because it had 1 in 10^80 of happening, would you? Yet you would say that this outcome for the universe is less likely than any other outcome?

 

[McBell]

I claim God created the universe for three reasons.

1. No other source is currently known or even reasonable at this point.
2. His description matches exactly what is needed for whatever created the universe.
3. Reasoned faith.

Diversion tactic.

No, I gave silly (but accurate) math for a silly question and demanded you employ consistent standards. I only asked you prove what you claimed. I also notice you did not show the math wrong, but only found it inconvenient and so dismissed it is the usual flourish of rhetoric. As ridiculous as my math was it is still until you demonstrate why it is not.

Wait, now you are whining because I have not shown that the math, which has not been presented, is wrong?

Are you serious?

What is it that I have claimed?
I ask because I do not recall making a claim.
I have asked some questions and made a few requests, but I do not recall making a claim.


So, are you going to show any of the math you claim?

 

[Willamena]

.

Lol sorry i wish I knew how to make this smaller...but I think if we depended on probability for things to not happen...then a lot of us are just here by pure and utter luck.

It's more impressive big.

Actually, the probability is 1:1, because it's already happened.

Probability is usually used to determine the possibility of things whose certainty is not known.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's more impressive big.

Actually, the probability is 1:1, because it's already happened.

Probability is usually used to determine the possibility of things whose certainty is not known.

So how can you talk about the probability of evolution?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

So how can you talk about the probability of evolution?

Evolution has a 1:1 probability.

Evolution is a fact as much as gravity and the scientific theories on either are not meant to establish THAT it happens but HOW it happens.

There is absolutely nothing to discuss on the subject of evolution unless you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to actually falsify a major part of the theory (on the fact that evolution occurs there is nothing to discuss what so ever).

 

[1robin]

.

Lol sorry i wish I knew how to make this smaller...but I think if we depended on probability for things to not happen...then a lot of us are just here by pure and utter luck.

Holy crap!!!!!
I have already gotten into why this does not work. It serves as a kind of joke to mathematicians like Lennox, etc.. The difference is any result would do for your math. Every possibility is equally improbable but any possibility would do and the probability of any person being born is 100%. Not any possibility will do for life permitting universes. Only a infinitely small percentage of values will allow life. It is not probability of complexity but of very specialized complexity. Besides your argument suggests that something I said was impossible without God is actually more impossible than I said and then for some reason thinks it's done something. I have a math degree and the numbers I posted came from math professors.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Holy crap!!!!!
I have already gotten into why this does not work. It serves as a kind of joke to mathematicians like Lennox, etc.. The difference is any result would do for your math. Every possibility is equally improbable but any possibility would do and the probability of any person being born is 100%. Not any possibility will do for life permitting universes. Only a infinitely small percentage of values will allow life. It is not probability of complexity but of very specialized complexity. Besides your argument suggests that something I said was impossible without God is actually more impossible than I said and then for some reason thinks it's done something. I have a math degree and the numbers I posted came from math professors.

I HAVE A DEGREE IN HOMEOPATHETIC MEDICINE!

YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN BOLOGNY! --Futurama

Except it's talking about probability. You say specialized, but what determines specificity?

 

[1robin]

It actually isn't, it's just plain wrong.

Then explain how I get 1000 left handed amino acids without a single right handed one.

This is entirely untrue since every possible outcome is equally likely, you're just making the fallacious argument that what is is somehow less unlikely than any other outcome which is obviously false.

No they are not equally likely. Not even close. Have you ever had a statistics class? Are you more educated that Hawking or Lennox or any of the dozens that agree even though they are atheists. They just create alternate even more unlikely answers to compensate for then improbabilities instead of God.

Either you have a reading comprehension problem (probably because you don't exist) or you are being purposefully dishonest. The point is that even if your claim is true you still cannot exist given the chance of DNA and epigenetics resulting in you is a statistical impossibility.

This is absurd. In this strange comparison any me would do. Taller, shorter, black, purple makes no difference but change the universe the tiniest fraction and you get no universe at all. Probabilities predict specific outcomes they do not start with any givens that just happen to exist. I need a specific universe not any universe that just happens to be this one. I would be no less me if I was different but the universe would be less life supporting if different or probability suggests it would. This is not how probability operates or is used.

This is your assertion and it's demonstrably false.

Not until you demonstrate it.

Yes, this planet is part of this universe but the overwhelming majority of it doesn't support life at all so to proclaim that it does is simply false.

Even if only one cell exited for one instant it makes no difference in my math or the argument and is actually evidence against your case and in favor of mine. The less life the less chance could have produced it.

Your argument asserts that this outcome is the necessity while it's just not. Any other outcome would have the exact same chance of happening and then we wouldn't have this conversation at all but then that outcome would still be equally likely.

No it doesn't. It insists just the opposite. See the above.

If you flip a coin 10^80 times you wouldn't say that the result would be impossible just because it had 1 in 10^80 of happening, would you? Yet you would say that this outcome for the universe is less likely than any other outcome?

Physicists have an unwritten rule that past 1 in 10^50th just write zero and move on. In this case it is virtually 1 in 10 ^ infinity. If you wish to go with those odds then have at it but your are believing in something despite the evidence and not because of it. You still have not even gotten the 1000 left handed amino acids we need yet and until you do this debate is academic and apparently you just ignore the paper by the professional mathematicians I supplied.

 

[1robin]

I HAVE A DEGREE IN HOMEOPATHETIC MEDICINE!

Homey Pathetic medicine huh. Do you really?

YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN BOLOGNY! --Futurama

Ham not belogni.

Except it's talking about probability. You say specialized, but what determines specificity?

Need or goals. Life needs a very narrow band of constants and possibilities to exist. If any one of many dials were adjusted by 1 in 10 ^ trillions the entire structured universe would evaporate as a reality and there are many of these that are contingent so it gets way way worse. The most atheistic of atheist scientists grants fine tuning, they just posit fantasy instead of God to explain it. Simply get me 1000 left handed amino acids in a row without a single right handed one and then we could begin the conversation and that is being infinitely generous.