Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

[TripTango]

FTFY.

So true!

 

[ABM]

So wait, is the world orderly, revealing a meticulous planner, or is it random, revealing a wild, unpredictable genius? It's funny how some folks take EITHER possibility to be evidence for God.

Once you've decided to accept literally everything as evidence, you will have no trouble convincing yourself.

Sorry, I should have used green font.

 

[magnifier661]

So wait, is the world orderly, revealing a meticulous planner, or is it random, revealing a wild, unpredictable genius? It's funny how some folks take EITHER possibility to be evidence for God.

Once you've decided to accept literally everything as evidence, you will have no trouble convincing yourself.

Tossing you a bone. That IS actually possible evidence for #6.

 

[julius]

Again, who's to say they were true believers in the first place? And again, I'll cite the parable of the sower.

You do know that using the term "true believers" is kind of condescending, right?

 

[ABM]

You do know that using the term "true believers" is kind of condescending, right?

No, because Jesus spoke of the same ilk. If you was to call Jesus condescending, then, well....that's your prerogative, I suppose.

(PS: If you'd like, watch the video I had posted, above. Basically, covers this point.)

 

[MARIS61]

I know there's no god, and religion is sort of the antithesis of freedom, but I believe in Freedom for all and it starts with freedom of thought.

So here's a little something for you that believe in god.

[video=youtube;98XqT4kBWT4]

 

[Paine Tablet]

How are any of you still responding to magnifier? All I ever see is magnifier saying something illogical and then saying BINGO when someone else points it out. He doesn't make any sense. What's worse is he makes some of these assertions with some odd-placed sense of bravado that is highlighted with condescending overtones. I find it rather obnoxious.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How are any of you still responding to magnifier? All I ever see is magnifier saying something illogical and then saying BINGO when someone else points it out. He doesn't make any sense. What's worse is he makes some of these assertions with some an odd-placed sense of bravado that is highlighted with condescending overtones. I find it rather obnoxious.

Ouch dude! I think Mags has been great in these threads. These types of questions have a tendency to get people upset and arguing. Mags has asked questions and defended his beliefs without insulting or belittling others.

 

[PapaG]

I know there's no god, and religion is sort of the antithesis of freedom, but I believe in Freedom for all and it starts with freedom of thought.

So here's a little something for you that believe in god.

[video=youtube;98XqT4kBWT4]

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. And I certainly don't have a horse in this race, other than laughing at you for your playing of checkers, while everybody else is playing chess.

 

[PapaG]

How are any of you still responding to magnifier? All I ever see is magnifier saying something illogical and then saying BINGO when someone else points it out. He doesn't make any sense. What's worse is he makes some of these assertions with some odd-placed sense of bravado that is highlighted with condescending overtones. I find it rather obnoxious.

I find your post illogical, obnoxious, and highlighted with condescending overtones.

 

[PapaG]

Ouch dude! I think Mags has been great in these threads. These types of questions have a tendency to get people upset and arguing. Mags has asked questions and defended his beliefs without insulting or belittling others.

What Mags did in this thread is very impressive, IMO. I don't agree with everything he said, but it seems to have come from a place of geniune conversation.

 

[Paine Tablet]

Ouch dude! I think Mags has been great in these threads. These types of questions have a tendency to get people upset and arguing. Mags has asked questions and defended his beliefs without insulting or belittling others.

He thinks he's schooling people. It's just sad. I'm sorry that you think that entails greatness.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm sorry.

FTFY

 

[Paine Tablet]

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. And I certainly don't have a horse in this race, other than laughing at you for your playing of checkers, while everybody else is playing chess.

You don't have a horse in this race, but you call me illogical for saying that magnifier doesn't make sense?

 

[MARIS61]

I'm just embarrassing myself.

Again.

FTFY.

 

[magnifier661]

Thanks sly and papa. It's okay Paine. You are very entitled to your opinion. But trying to belittle me doesn't really phase me or my stand in this matter. Like I said, this is open and I am taking a stand for my beliefs. If you want to contribute and bring something more than insults; it's much appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[MARIS61]

You don't have a horse in this race, but you call me illogical for saying that magnifier doesn't make sense?

PapaG is like that kid sitting behind you in third grade with a pea shooter.

 

[magnifier661]

PapaG is like that kid sitting behind you in third grade with a pea shooter.

Why would you say that? What part of this thread would encourage you to toss an insult in his way? Is it because he isn't siding with the atheists? You do know that he actually questions a god exists right?

 

[magnifier661]

I'm going to try and make this quick, because I want to go get a beer and watch the game.

First off, I went back and reread your points #4 and #5 post, and admit that I misread #4 the first time. I thought you said only that some of the toothpicks spelled your name, when in fact you specified that each and every one was in perfect arrangement -- very different. (For what it's worth, your probability calculation is still way off, but you're right that the chances of ONE box landing in that specific arrangement are ridiculously small). The problem with the metaphor as you framed it is this: there are no such "toothpick names" in the natural world. There are patterns to be found, yes. But I've already explained how it is not just a probability but a CERTAINTY to arrive at some form of pattern based on just a few simple rules and elementary building blocks. (And again, you are free to ask "well where did the rules and building blocks come from", but that is an old argument that we already discussed.) Simple patterns in nature arise from known and generally well-understood interactions between bits of matter all the time -- they are hardly equivalent to finding one's name perfectly spelled in toothpicks. Look again at my "spheres in a bowl" example. There's no artist, and yet we see a very clear pattern based only on geometry and gravity.

Now, if we WERE to find a message from God spelled out in the natural world, THAT would be something. I can see it now:

Scientist 1: "Finally! Our Super-powered Femto-meter Confounding Lens Awesome-scope is ready! We can probe deeper into matter than ever before!"
Scientist 2: "Great! Let's turn it on!"
(Scientists turn on scope and fist-bump)
Scientist 1: "Ok, probing atom. Going... DEEPER. Wait. What's this? There's a tiny tag attached to the atom! It says something on it! In English!"
Scientist 2: "Whoa! What does it say?"
Scientist 1: "MADE BY GOD"
Both Scientists: "WHAAAAAAA??"
(Zoom out to God, played by Ashton Kutcher)
God: "Y'all been punk'd!"

This, by the way, is ANOTHER scenario that would make me a theist. And a proud one, too -- that would be the Greatest Practical Joke in the History of the Universe.

But we have found no such tag.

Yes you have a point on your first paragraph. I wanted to give credit to that layed out rebuttal. I would agree that it is possible for chance to bring about life; but the addition of God being the designer can be another logical reason life and the universe exists. It could be much easier to accept.

On your last rebuttal; well actually it really isn't one but more an opinion. I want to give an opinion myself. I think there will be a day that something like that will happen. I have faith it will.

 

[MARIS61]

Why would you say that? What part of this thread would encourage you to toss an insult in his way? Is it because he isn't siding with the atheists? You do know that he actually questions a god exists right?

He's a backshooter.

He made four posts in this thread. He claims to be impartial on the topic but immediately insults the posters disagreeing with your arguements as a group, insults 2 more from the same group individually, then compliments the OP without ever posting an opinion.

He's like your SUPERPAC.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay so here is point #7


7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Hubert Yuckey, an information theorist, argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life be considered a given “quantity,” like matter or energy. He and some other mathematicians have challenged evolutionary biologists with the extreme improbability of the origin of life by chance chemical reactions, and of the improbability of the origin of all known species by random mutations. If the real “units of life” are bits of information (that is, the messages coded on DNA rather than the DNA molecule itself), evolutionary biology may take quite a different turn in the future.

Nobel Laureate Francis Crick writes, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going.”

Now keep in mind that I bring up creation of life “living organism”; not to debunk evolution. I am just using the probability of creating just “one living organism”. From that point; you can just assume that evolution may have had its natural process.

What we’ve learned is that you can make a “amino acid” type soup; with electricity, dust, water, etc. So all the components of life could realistically be present. But you can have all the parts to make life; but in order for life to exist; these parts must come together perfectly. So given the number of possible amino acids for even the simplest living cell, I’ve read from various math scholars the chances of life forming is around 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

Biochemist Charles Thaxton, mechanical engineer Walter Bradley and geochemist Roger Olsen in their book The Mystery of Life's Origins calculate the chance formation of life from non-life as 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

The entire universe, has 10 to the 80th power of atoms available (including the estimate of dark matter, because before it was estimated at 10 to the 79th power)

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/905633072.As.r.html

And given this basic run down of time and matter; it is put out like this.

Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years. 
31,557,600 seconds per year
 x Planck time.

In scientific notion:
Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power

Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power

Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61

So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:
2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.

Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142.

2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of "atom level" events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.
An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.

Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.

To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.

In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn't help increase the possibility of life forming without a creator.

We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.

And if you think that you may come up with the argument that life could be given by some meteor or anything else in the universe; keep in mind that I factored the entire universe being the primordial amino acid soup. That cannot be a factor.

 

[magnifier661]

So here is #7. I think this is one of the most compelling arguments and evidence that we have a creator.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Okay so here is point #7


7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?







Now keep in mind that I bring up creation of life “living organism”; not to debunk evolution. I am just using the probability of creating just “one living organism”. From that point; you can just assume that evolution may have had its natural process.

What we’ve learned is that you can make a “amino acid” type soup; with electricity, dust, water, etc. So all the components of life could realistically be present. But you can have all the parts to make life; but in order for life to exist; these parts must come together perfectly. So given the number of possible amino acids for even the simplest living cell, I’ve read from various math scholars the chances of life forming is around 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.




The entire universe, has 10 to the 80th power of atoms available (including the estimate of dark matter, because before it was estimated at 10 to the 79th power)

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/905633072.As.r.html

And given this basic run down of time and matter; it is put out like this.

Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.

In scientific notion:
Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power

Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power

Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61

So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:
2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.

Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142.

2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of "atom level" events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.
An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.

Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.

To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.

In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn't help increase the possibility of life forming without a creator.

We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.

And if you think that you may come up with the argument that life could be given by some meteor or anything else in the universe; keep in mind that I factored the entire universe being the primordial amino acid soup. That cannot be a factor.

On this week's Michio Kaku radio show he had on an astrobiologist who discussed some of the very things that you're talking about in this post. The interview is only about 20mins long but it's fascinating. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77205

Actually both guests are worth listening to.

 

[magnifier661]

On this week's Michio Kaku radio show he had on an astrobiologist who discussed some of the very things that you're talking about in this post. The interview is only about 20mins long but it's fascinating. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77205

I think this is why you can have many in the field of science that still believe in God.

 

[ABM]

On this week's Michio Kaku radio show he had on an astrobiologist who discussed some of the very things that you're talking about in this post. The interview is only about 20mins long but it's fascinating. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77205

Actually both guests are worth listening to.

The Astrobiology discipline is very intriguing to me.

 

[MARIS61]

So here is #7. I think this is one of the most compelling arguments and evidence that we have a creator.

As written, #7 is incomplete as a question. Maybe you'd like to clarify it?

7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?

Enough time and matter for what?

If that is the complete question the answer is an obvious and simple yes, the exact correct amount.

 

[magnifier661]

As written, #7 is incomplete as a question. Maybe you'd like to clarify it?

7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?

Enough time and matter for what?

If that is the complete question the answer is an obvious and simple yes, the exact correct amount.

I specified it. Is there enough time in the universe to create life? The title is a summary.

 

[MARIS61]

[So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.

Any calculation using time as a part of the equation is useless, since man does not know what time is or even if it actually exists. Time is a theory, several opposing theories actually. Like god(s), time is a creation by man to give himself the illusion that he knows WTF is going on.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The Astrobiology discipline is very intriguing to me.

Me too!

 

[magnifier661]

Any calculation using time as a part of the equation is useless, since man does not know what time is or even if it actually exists. Time is a theory, several opposing theories actually. Like god(s), time is a creation by man to give himself the illusion that he knows WTF is going on.

Here you go again MARIS. You are the blind man arguing that the color purple doesn't exist. If you haven't read the first part of the thread; I clearly pointed out that this is only based on what we know; not what we don't. If that's the case, then I can use Faith as an argument or evidence. Clearly that isn't logical, so we must strike it from the "evidence".