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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Homey Pathetic medicine huh. Do you really? [/I]

Ham not belogni.

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.

Right and from what we see for a long time there wasn't life. Who knows there may have been failed prior attempts, and maybe one day we will discover that there use to be plenty of life in the Universe and it died out.

But what is the probability of life on the planet earth? Given the circumstances it seems to be 1. The condition no matter how improbable was met.

 

[1robin]

Right and from what we see for a long time there wasn't life. Who knows there may have been failed prior attempts, and maybe one day we will discover that there use to be plenty of life in the Universe and it died out.

That does not affect the math. The math suggests that not even one cell will exist for one second on one spot unless it is intended by something that has the capacity to make it occur. In fact it is worse, most of my probabilities concern only a universe that could support life regardless of whether you ever get it.

But what is the probability of life on the planet earth? Given the circumstances it seems to be 1. The condition no matter how improbable was met.

The condition was met even though absurdly improbable. Is the best explanation for things that defy odds greater than our capacity to even comprehend, intention or chance?

"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." — Freeman Dyson1

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
​

 

[philbo]

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

Because it's not random.

You're like someone looking into a puddle and saying "it's incredible how the dip is exactly the right shape for the water - look how perfectly it fills all the gaps! The odds against that must be astronomical!!!"

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That does not affect the math. The math suggests that not even one cell will exist for one second on one spot unless it is intended by something that has the capacity to make it occur. In fact it is worse, most of my probabilities concern only a universe that could support life regardless of whether you ever get it.

The condition was met even though absurdly improbable. Is the best explanation for things that defy odds greater than our capacity to even comprehend, intention or chance?

"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." — Freeman Dyson1

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos
​

Right, but it happened. Highly improbable, yes but it happened.

The Math says that oen cell wouldn't exist for even a second, but that's based on the conditions of what?

What is the system? Are you looking at the entire Universe? This galaxy? The Earth? Doesn't the probability change within a system that is closed?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Right and from what we see for a long time there wasn't life. Who knows there may have been failed prior attempts, and maybe one day we will discover that there use to be plenty of life in the Universe and it died out.

But what is the probability of life on the planet earth? Given the circumstances it seems to be 1. The condition no matter how improbable was met.

That isn't scientific, Franklin.

You are looking at the result (the existence of life), and using that to "prove" the cause (random selection, with probablity = 100%, which is absurd). Life exists, yes; but there are many possibilities for its cause. Intelligent design has a 100% probablility of success; random generation has a probability of 0.00000000000...00000000%.

 

[1robin]

Because it's not random.

You're like someone looking into a puddle and saying "it's incredible how the dip is exactly the right shape for the water - look how perfectly it fills all the gaps! The odds against that must be astronomical!!!"

I know it is not random. None of it is. However until you demonstrate it is not extremely improbable and that is only one of thousands of things that you would have to solve then I am sticking with statements like the one below. In fact I could use only atheist scientists quotes to demonstrate what I claimed if I wished.

As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out: "[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." 8 What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

 

[1robin]

That isn't scientific, Franklin.

You are looking at the result (the existence of life), and using that to "prove" the cause (random selection, with probablity = 100%, which is absurd). Life exists, yes; but there are many possibilities for its cause. Intelligent design has a 100% probablility of success; random generation has a probability of 0.00000000000...00000000%.

They just can't seem to understand the concept here. Thanks for helping out.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That isn't scientific, Franklin.

You are looking at the result (the existence of life), and using that to "prove" the cause (random selection, with probablity = 100%, which is absurd). Life exists, yes; but there are many possibilities for its cause. Intelligent design has a 100% probablility of success; random generation has a probability of 0.00000000000...00000000%.

Neither is the probability that you are using science either.

YOu realize that just because it is math does not make it scientific?

OF course the probability of ID as defined by Creationism is 100%. It presupposes an already existing OMNI-Max Deity.

Now what are the probabilities of an OMNI-Max Deity that did not require creation? Of course you'll say it's 100% the Deity is already supposedly all-powerful and you cannot create something more powerful than yourself right?

These probability arguments pre-suppose a lot of things.

Suppose that X had become Y then the Universe would never have been. But X isn't Y and we know that X didn't become Y, so the probabiltiy you are supposing doesn't exist not even in a theoritical sense since it's not even observable.

 

[1robin]

Right, but it happened. Highly improbable, yes but it happened.

Your assuming the result indicated by the massively improbable end of the scale. I am going with the massively larger portion of the scale. Why is it only with theology that this occurs? God is out even when his chances are almost certain and the natural is in even though the likely hood is near zero.

The Math says that oen cell wouldn't exist for even a second, but that's based on the conditions of what?

That massively more probable possible universes that could have existed. Most of what makes our universe what it is has no natural necessity. Many of the constants needed are just there without even a theoretical natural necessity.

What is the system? Are you looking at the entire Universe? This galaxy? The Earth? Doesn't the probability change within a system that is closed?

The universe. Our universe is closed or that is the most accepted model of it. The big bang has not been expanding forever and was not composed of infinite matter, space, etc... It may be big but it is almost certainly finite. It did not explode into space or time. It created both time and space as well as matter.

 

[1robin]

Neither is the probability that you are using science either.

YOu realize that just because it is math does not make it scientific?

OF course the probability of ID as defined by Creationism is 100%. It presupposes an already existing OMNI-Max Deity.

Now what are the probabilities of an OMNI-Max Deity that did not require creation? Of course you'll say it's 100% the Deity is already supposedly all-powerful and you cannot create something more powerful than yourself right?

These probability arguments pre-suppose a lot of things.

Suppose that X had become Y then the Universe would never have been. But X isn't Y and we know that X didn't become Y, so the probabiltiy you are supposing doesn't exist not even in a theoritical sense since it's not even observable.

Actually if it is math it must be scientific.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Actually if it is math it must be scientific.

Your right, Math is a Science.

But it was more to his I'm not being scientific by using life to describe the cause (which he says is random), however it still occurred.

That's the issue. You can say ID is 100% guarentee, yes but not without the supposing several factors. The big one being omnipotence, and that an omnipotent deity exists. What are those probabilities? If it does exist, then it exists outside of our system, what is that probability? And what is the probability that there isn't more Omnipotent dieties?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Your assuming the result indicated by the massively improbable end of the scale. I am going with the massively larger portion of the scale. Why is it only with theology that this occurs? God is out even when his chances are almost certain and the natural is in even though the likely hood is near zero.

That massively more probable possible universes that could have existed. Most of what makes our universe what it is has no natural necessity. Many of the constants needed are just there without even a theoretical natural necessity.

The universe. Our universe is closed or that is the most accepted model of it. The big bang has not been expanding forever and was not composed of infinite matter, space, etc... It may be big but it is almost certainly finite. It did not explode into space or time. It created both time and space as well as matter.

Then that is the issue.

Even if the Universe is "closed" it can still exchange energy. Earth for instance is a closed system despite it's mass remaining the same, it's in terms of energy not a closed system.

 

[1robin]

Your right, Math is a Science.

The way I use it my be unscientific sometimes. I actually hate math but got the degree anyway.

But it was more to his I'm not being scientific by using life to describe the cause (which he says is random), however it still occurred.

Not exactly. He was saying that to start with any random effect and then use it's cause as an argument to prove the effect is not scientific.

That's the issue. You can say ID is 100% guarentee, yes but not without the supposing several factors. The big one being omnipotence, and that an omnipotent deity exists. What are those probabilities? If it does exist, then it exists outside of our system, what is that probability? And what is the probability that there isn't more Omnipotent dieties?

That is not really my argument. At this time we have God or nature as a source of reality. I have been generous but in reality natural law can't create anything from nothing so God is all that is left at this time. Not one single natural law has pure creative potential. Natural law can't even create natural law. It is causal in a way but not creative. Multiverse both exist outside our system and have virtually no evidence yet God has plenty of evidence and exists inside this universe though independent from it. Why then are multiverses but not God legitimate concepts? The double standards get to me more than all the arguments combined.

 

[1robin]

Then that is the issue.

Even if the Universe is "closed" it can still exchange energy. Earth for instance is a closed system despite it's mass remaining the same, it's in terms of energy not a closed system.

I think it closed regardless speaking in natural terms. The energy has no where outside to go to. There is no outside the universe yet it is finite. They call it some weird unbounded finite system I think. Closed systems are important in thermodynamics but I fail to see their relevance here.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The way I use it my be unscientific sometimes. I actually hate math but got the degree anyway.

Not exactly. He was saying that to start with any random effect and then use it's cause as an argument to prove the effect is not scientific.

That is not really my argument. At this time we have God or nature as a source of reality. I have been generous but in reality natural law can't create anything from nothing so God is all that is left at this time. Not one single natural law has pure creative potential. Natural law can't even create natural law. It is causal in a way but not creative. Multiverse both exist outside our system and have virtually no evidence yet God has plenty of evidence and exists inside this universe though independent from it. Why then are multiverses but not God legitimate concepts? The double standards get to me more than all the arguments combined.

Right Natural law cannot create from nothing, but we don't presuppose nothing either. Not to mention that even Natural law itself is presupposed, at a black hole though we know that natural (physics I believe is what you mean by natural), doesn't hold up. If the time before the formation of the Universe (good ol' chaos) was like a blackhole, Natural law wouldn't matter since it only applies to now.

God is a legitimate concept, I certainly think it is, however it's the pre-supposed values given to God, Because when you say God you are speaking of something with very specific qualities and characteristics. That I think is what Atheists argue against.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think it closed regardless speaking in natural terms. The energy has no where outside to go to. There is no outside the universe yet it is finite. They call it some weird unbounded finite system I think. Closed systems are important in thermodynamics but I fail to see their relevance here.

Because if a system is closed then it is not necessarily receiving mass in the case of the earth from anything else, it keeps it's mass, that means that all interactions that occur happen with that system. I would think that would increase probabilties of occurrences within that system.

So while the probability of life is near infinitely impossible in the Universe, on earth as a closed system that probability wouldn't be as taxing.

 

[1robin]

Because if a system is closed then it is not necessarily receiving mass in the case of the earth from anything else, it keeps it's mass, that means that all interactions that occur happen with that system. I would think that would increase probabilties of occurrences within that system.

That depends on what system you are discussing. The Earth is open. The universe is not, or probably not. The Earth both losses its mass and gains to it's mass from other things. It would not affect my mathematics though it might affect other types of discussions. I was not discussing the Earth but the entire universe.

So while the probability of life is near infinitely impossible in the Universe, on earth as a closed system that probability wouldn't be as taxing.

I think you have about 3 incorrect things in one sentence here. The probabilities no matter how small for life in the universe are vastly greater than on any planet in isolation. The Earth is an open system. The Universe is almost certainly closed.

 

[philbo]

I know it is not random.

Then your probabilities are meaningless. Why bring it up?

None of it is. However until you demonstrate it is not extremely improbable and that is only one of thousands of things that you would have to solve then I am sticking with statements like the one below. In fact I could use only atheist scientists quotes to demonstrate what I claimed if I wished.

And until you demonstrate the relative probability of there being an omnipotent, time-evading creator, your probability maths is also completely and utterly meaningless.

As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out: "[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." 8 What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

As I say: isn't it utterly incredible that the dip in the ground is *exactly* the right shape for the water that fills it? What are the odds against that?

..which from a cosmic maths perspective is *exactly* the sort of argument you're making.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That depends on what system you are discussing. The Earth is open. The universe is not, or probably not. The Earth both losses its mass and gains to it's mass from other things. It would not affect my mathematics though it might affect other types of discussions. I was not discussing the Earth but the entire universe.

I think you have about 3 incorrect things in one sentence here. The probabilities no matter how small for life in the universe are vastly greater than on any planet in isolation. The Earth is an open system. The Universe is almost certainly closed.

The Earth is an open system in terms of energy, not in terms of mass.

 

[1robin]

The Earth is an open system in terms of energy, not in terms of mass.

It is in both and that is a scientific fact. Have you never heard of meteoroids? Where the tyrannosaurs all go then? The Earth is I think growing in gross tonnage on average even though it looses mass at times. Some claim the moon used to be part of the Earth. Where did all those layers come from?