Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on January 3, 2012 at 10:29pm

Faith in God is essentially something , that is based on emotion and will, and not on the intellect. If someone does not wish to live a life with God, then the best argument for Gods existence will not produce faith.

Again, what of the former believer that believed with their heart of hearts, and wanted to believe? Are you suggesting that I (and others) randomly lost that 'emotion' in spite of the fact that we were emotionally vested in the belief that we held so closely?

Many atheists believe, they got the golden answer, to cancel out god, with the virtual particle nonsense argument.

You're missing the point. You posit a god as the only possible explanation and ask us to suggest alternatives since we deny yours. So even though one needn't have an alternative to stamp a failed claim as such, some decided to suggest plausible ideas. Plausible natural explanation > supernatural explanation that has no evidence at all and causes additional problems in itself.

To our knowledge, there is exactly one tiny point of life in all of the unimaginably vast universe, and you consider that finely-tuned for life? 

absolutely. Extremely finely tuned for life.

That we know of. There are so many planets out there, I feel it's likely that there is at least another island of life out there somewhere. But Earth is far from perfect for life. It's a pretty good place for us, but we can't live on the majority of Earth's surface. For much of Earth's history, it was actually a very violent place to be. Life arrived on the scene relatively late, and even then mass extinctions have led to 99% of all the species that ever existed going extinct. The Earth may seem perfect for us. But the truth is that we have played a huge role in that. We've created shelter, AC, heating systems, running water, sanitation, clothing, etc, etc. Remove the things we've made that make life as easy as it is for us and you'll be left with a world where the going is much less easy, and areas of the world where we are no longer tops on the food chain (if we can even survive at all).

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

Again, there is no need to invoke a divine miracle. Something being rare, just means it's rare. With all the galaxies, stars and planets out there, I feel that there is a decent chance that there is more life out there somewhere. And what if there is? Doe your theology have room for other life? And what if we do find life, be it simple or complex?

SIZE AND GRAVITY: Given the unfathomable number of planets out there, it was bound to happen somewhere.

WATER: Well, at least life as well know it. And water exists on other worlds as well. It's possible that another planet in the right orbit could be another Earth.

Atmosphere/Oxygen: Well, life as we know it anyway. But what about plants? They create oxygen as a waste product. They take in oxygen at night, but less than what they make. So a plant could theoretically live somewhere with no or little native oxygen, supposing proper light and soil conditions.

Rare Earth minerals: Forged in the death of a star. So are likely all over the cosmos, but raises an interesting question. An Earth that was formed through the death of a star is contrary to what I hear from most theists. So it's interesting that you'd use them as a theistic defense.

The Sun: True, it's an average star, and we're lucky to have it be as it is. But there are tons of stars out there. Plus, our Sun will swell and destroy our little home one day. I only hope that by then we'll have ventures toward the stars.

Distance from Sun: Technically Venus and Mars are also withing the habitable zone where they could have allowed liquid water on at least portions of their surface had their planetary evolution gone differently. What more, NASA has located extrasolar planets within the habitable zone of their host stars.

...but this post has gone long enough already, so I'll move on for now.

Permalink Reply by Artor on January 4, 2012 at 12:46am

Dude, really. If you're going to cut & paste, try to pick out the relevant bits, or just post a link. Clogging up the thread with walls of text is a serious asshole maneuver. You've been called on it before. Knock it off.

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on January 5, 2012 at 10:26pm

"A baby comes from , guess what ? existing life....... not dead matter. Wann a try again ?"

So if life can only spring from life... how was it exactly Adam was created again? ... Oh,yea.. from clay. Clay which is non-living matter. So again when it comes to your religion it's 'fact', but when it comes to science the same thing couldn't possibly happen. Funny how that works.. 

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 5, 2012 at 10:38pm

So if life can only spring from life... how was it exactly Adam was created again? ... Oh,yea.. from clay. Clay which is non-living matter. So again when it comes to your religion it's 'fact', but when it comes to science the same thing couldn't possibly happen. Funny how that works.. 

But the creator was a living being as well......based on todays knowledge, atheists should adress the question, how complex, specified codified information as contained in DNA could arise by chance. Empirical proofs have shown that such information comes always from a mind.

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on January 9, 2012 at 10:47pm

How exactly do you know if the 'Creator'  was in fact living? What proof of that do you have? 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:42pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Faith in God is essentially something , that is based on emotion and will, and not on the intellect. If someone does not wish to live a life with God, then the best argument for Gods existence will not produce faith.

I agree that belief in a god is not an intellectual affair, but rather a matter of the heart. What does “…live a life with God” mean?

Many atheists believe, they got the golden answer, to cancel out god, with the virtual particle nonsense argument.

Irrelevant. You are running your army to a battlefield that is vacant. There is nothing of merit to debate here. In other words, this argument has nothing to do with the presenting issue.

absolutely. Extremely finely tuned for life.

No, it is not. Again, this has been disproven and I am awaiting a response.

Several paragraphs of your response are thus irrelevant.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:16pm

Hey Angelo,

 

The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause.

 

Which ("cause") I've proven is undefined. I'm waiting for you to challenge this proof.

 

The universe is finely tuned to life, therefore a tuner.

 

No, it is not. I've also disproven this. I am waiting for a response. See what I just posted prior to this. It disproves any idea of "fine tuning".

 

Complex, specified codified information as contained in DNA comes always from a mind.

 

No, they do not.

 

Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind.

 

No, it was not.

 

Matter cannot produce something essentially different, like conscience, information, intelligence. biological diversity cannot be explained through evolution. Many biological systems are irreducibly complex, like the eye, blood , the cell. All this is positive evidence for a intelligent designer.

 

No, it is not.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 3, 2012 at 3:23pm

As long as science doesn't provide definitive answers, religious people will resort to claiming the existence of a supernatural being. It's childish and annoying.

Science will never be able to give definitive answers to fundamental questions of our existence. Deducing God based on science, philosophy, and theology, is just one of a few different possible explanations. If you think deducing God is childish and annoying, it is your problem. Each one is free to believe, what is more compelling to each one of us. 

Permalink Reply by Sikandar Iqbal on January 3, 2012 at 6:14pm

I never said you never had the right to believe in any of it, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. Enjoy your wilful delusion. I don't have a problem with it until people start killing other people in the name of their imaginary friend.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:43pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Science will never be able to give definitive answers to fundamental questions of our existence. 

 

And neither will an undefined "god".

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:11pm

Hey Angelo,

 

It is not clear to me that the Third Axiom of Deconversion is necessary to fully defeat all teleological arguments by proof. However, it is sufficient for that purpose.

By the Third Axiom the probability of Intelligently Designed natural objects in this universe having been produced by purely natural processes is in the limit as the number of independent variables approaches infinity, which it does (by limit laws) and the probability is 100%. It is granted that to get a probability that high one must be willing to accept that any number of universes is possible. To reverse the adherent must stand the burden of proving that a very high number of universes, even up to a limit, are not possible, which they cannot do and the Intelligent Design proposition fails.

 

We imagine a bucket of marbles, say a few billion of them, and we paint each one with a unique number so that each can be uniquely identified. We choose integer multiples in the form of a count, beginning with 1 and going in order to the highest value we have. Now, suppose we take a number of marbles much smaller than that total, say 10. Now, let us randomly pick those 10 marbles and place them in another bucket, call it the bucket of Intelligent Designs. Most people can clearly see that the probability of those 10 marbles having values within an interval of, say, 100, is exceedingly slim. This is the Intelligent Design argument. It is nonsense. And the reason why is that we have no way of knowing how many marbles were placed in the Intelligent Designs bucket. So, if we placed every marble from the starting bucket into the Intelligent Designs bucket the probability would then be exactly 100%; that is 100% that human beings were created by natural events only.

Let us tighten this up.

Let us begin a causality train whose program will be to generate a set of dependent variables, effects, from a set of independent variables, the causes. To get the set of effects A and the set of causes B which caused the set A, A and B must contain members that are not strictly arbitrary. We can define a rank n order m metric tensor, ₵, of “causality” generators; each denoted ϕ¹₁, ϕ¹₁ , … , ϕⁿ_m. Then for each ϕⁱ_j we can define a domain and range for each; corresponding to the sets B and A respectively. Now, let it be observed empirically that there exists a set a and b such that a ∈ A and b ∈ B; and both a and b contain one or more elements, that is:

r ∈ a ∈ A, s∈ b ∈ B and we guarantee that an enumeration of elements exists such that:

u < v.

where u is the enumeration r_u ∈ a and v is the enumeration r_v ∈ A.

If the generators ϕⁿ_m meet the definition of a function, that is, a rule that assigns to each element b ∈ B exactly one element ϕⁿ_m(b) ∈ A, then it is likewise possible to find a set of generators which also meet the definition of a function, δⁿ_m(s) ∈ a.

Now, we let the generators ϕⁿ_m and δⁿ_m be functions that strictly assign each element of its corresponding domain randomly to exactly one element in its corresponding range.

Then the probability that there exists a generator δⁿ_m is ∝ u / (v - u). However, the probability that there exists a generator ϕⁿ_m = 1.

QED.

In other words, appeals to beauty, order and the appearance of an intelligent design, as just one example of this proof’s application, to suggest, imply or otherwise provide evidence for an intelligent actor as the cause thereof is nonsense. Let’s go back to the marbles to explain why and try to state this proof in English since we promised no advanced math here.

In the marble example the starting bucket represents all the possible independent variables of any nature or “universe”; that is, the environment variables in which, for example, something like Deoxyribonucleic Acid was first “created”. What Intelligent Design incorrectly assumes is that we are selecting only a subset of all possible independent variable values (physical properties of an environment) and placing them in Intelligent Design bucket (the thing so ordered and “intelligently designed”) for which we require the filling of a similarly narrow band of marble number values. This is not reality. The reality is that we must consider the full range of values of independent and dependent variables, which results in a 100% percent chance that intelligent design can generate something of any complexity. The probability of producing something that we subjectively call complex is proportional to the dependent variables associated with that complex object (to be exact, the dependent variables that are responsible for the complex character of the object) and all independent variables, which are essentially infinite, and thus also 100%. So, it is 100% probable that nature generated those complex structures. Ignorance and superstition never quits.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 7, 2012 at 8:14pm

 So, it is 100% probable that nature generated those complex structures. Ignorance and superstition never quits.

 a chance of 10 to 10^170 equals no chance life to come into existence randomly. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page