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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I specified it. Is there enough time in the universe to create life?

Strawman arguement again.

"The" (our) universe is a speck of sand on the infinite beach of universes.

Life is and always has been. It merely transforms. It does not die and it is not born.
 
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".

So many incorrect assumptions. Pretty clear why none of it get's you any closer to answers so you end up having to throw out your empty "faith" as a proxy for evidence.

The color purple DOES NOT EXIST.

NOR DO ANY OTHER COLORS EXIST.
http://visionperspective.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/does-colour-exist/

Your assumption that a sighted individual is less observant and more easily deceived is also in error. People are fooled more often by what they think they saw than by any other sensory perception.

As for what we know and what we don't know, there's no such agreement in mankind. We all know different things. Very little of your arguement is based on anything known to anyone so it's a moot point. Your points are mostly based on theories and conjectures that have nothing to do with the thread title.

For atheism to be unsound as you posit, god must exist.

It ain't, he don't, and you seem to have conceded he doesn't by avoiding the elephant in the room entirely.
 
Last edited:
Strawman arguement again.

"The" (our) universe is a speck of sand on the infinite beach of universes.

Life is and always has been. It merely transforms. It does not die and it is not born.

LOL, you are arguing a straw man MARIS. Not only are you arguing with creationists about "God"; you have completely discredited the entire science community all in one big SWOOP! What you just said is a "Faith Driven" answer. There is absolutely no logic behind it whatsoever.
 
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.

What a heap of crap, sorry to say. What do Planck times have to do with the probability of life? There is some math in this post, but the logic is tortured.

Like saying two cars can't drive 60 miles in one hour because they can't be driven at the same time.

If there are 1 x 10 ^ 80 atoms, there are 1 x 10 ^ 80 SQUARED ways each atom could bond with another. Cube it for ways 3 atoms can combine, etc. And that's each Planck time.
 
The color purple DOES NOT EXIST.

[video=youtube;d83NnlL83mc]

shades-of-purple-1.png


Prince_PurpleRain_single.jpg
 
Strawman arguement again.

"The" (our) universe is a speck of sand on the infinite beach of universes.

Life is and always has been. It merely transforms. It does not die and it is not born.

You base these on what exactly?
 
So many incorrect assumptions. Pretty clear why none of it get's you any closer to answers so you end up having to throw out your empty "faith" as a proxy for evidence.

The color purple DOES NOT EXIST.

You are the one using "Faith" as a proxy for evidence. I am saying "If what we know proves, that the mathematical improbability given that the universe is 17.3 billion years old; and there are estimated 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the universe; and even the simplest life must have amino acids and enzymes to come together in perfect order is 1 X 10 to the 40,000 power; then the entire known universe wouldn't have enough primordial soup to make even a simple form of life."

But if you factor in a creator; one that defies the known laws of physics; one that has the power to "fine tune" the universe; that probability is much greater. So the logic choice would be that there is a creator; which would give evidence that atheism is not a sound belief.
 
t a heap of crap, sorry to say. What do Planck times have to do with the probability of life? There is some math in this post, but the logic is tortured.

Like saying two cars can't drive 60 miles in one hour because they can't be driven at the same time.

Wha

Um Planck time gives you a better understanding of the probability. I used it both ways Denny. The math works even if you take away the Planck time. I used it because it's the most precise known time measurement known right now.

Would you rather me simplify it for you? Do it without that time and see the probability. It's still just as improbable.
 
improbable does not mean impossible, correct?

I could be misreading, skimming quickly, but does it boil down to the amount of possibilities it would have to take, and the amount of time there has been, that it couldn't have basically found the ONE possibility in that short of time?
 
improbable does not mean impossible, correct?

I could be misreading, skimming quickly, but does it boil down to the amount of possibilities it would have to take, and the amount of time there has been, that it couldn't have basically found the ONE possibility in that short of time?

Yep. So since in your mind God not existing is "improbable" then it doesn't mean it's "impossible" correct?
 
7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?
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 biggest problem here has already been described pretty well by crow. You are presupposing that there are only two possible mechanisms for the formation of a living organism: random chance, or God. The number 1/10^40,000 describes the odds (estimated, by the way, not empirical) of the proper organic molecules just "falling into place". However, nobody believes that this is the right mechanism.

As an example of this, I go back again to the snowflake. The odds of water molecules just randomly "falling into place" to form the intricate patterns of a fully-formed snowflake are ridiculously small. There might not be enough time in a full human lifetime to wait for a snowflake to form, if random chance were the only mechanism at work. But snowflakes do not form by random chance -- they form through a combination of well-understood forces, meaning that the time to go from a scattered "soup" of water molecules into an organized structure is on the scale of seconds, rather than millennia.

Now of course, the complexity of life makes even snowflakes look like tinker toys, but there was a time when even snowflakes seemed impossible to explain. We don't know what influences and conditions may exist to speed along the step from "amino acid soup" to self-replicating molecule. We cannot rule out the possibility of mechanisms that shorten the time required for this step to take place down to more reasonable time scales. In other words, there exist a vast array of possible mechanisms linking the soup to the organism in between the two extremes of "random chance" and "God did it".
 
Yep. So since in your mind God not existing is "improbable" then it doesn't mean it's "impossible" correct?

As far as I can tell, only MARIS has claimed to have proof that God does not exist. You two will have to take that up in a private room sometime -- it's not an argument any of the rest of us care to indulge ourselves in.
 
The biggest problem here has already been described pretty well by crow. You are presupposing that there are only two possible mechanisms for the formation of a living organism: random chance, or God. The number 1/10^40,000 describes the odds (estimated, by the way, not empirical) of the proper organic molecules just "falling into place". However, nobody believes that this is the right mechanism.

As an example of this, I go back again to the snowflake. The odds of water molecules just randomly "falling into place" to form the intricate patterns of a fully-formed snowflake are ridiculously small. There might not be enough time in a full human lifetime to wait for a snowflake to form, if random chance were the only mechanism at work. But snowflakes do not form by random chance -- they form through a combination of well-understood forces, meaning that the time to go from a scattered "soup" of water molecules into an organized structure is on the scale of seconds, rather than millennia.

Now of course, the complexity of life makes even snowflakes look like tinker toys, but there was a time when even snowflakes seemed impossible to explain. We don't know what influences and conditions may exist to speed along the step from "amino acid soup" to self-replicating molecule. We cannot rule out the possibility of mechanisms that shorten the time required for this step to take place down to more reasonable time scales. In other words, there exist a vast array of possible mechanisms linking the soup to the organism in between the two extremes of "random chance" and "God did it".

I agree with your analogy. And there maybe many ways in the future do properly explain the mechanics; but right now; we are discussing what is known. Maybe in the next year, 20, 100, or even 1000 years; we have the mechanics you speak of. But right now we don't; therefor they cannot be logically input as evidence. That would be "Faith Driven".

Keep in mind Tango; I am not discounting the possibility or "probability" that a new formula could explain this. But it could be just as probable that science finds another mechanism that actually supports that a creator exists as well. Don't you agree?
 
As an example of this, I go back again to the snowflake. The odds of water molecules just randomly "falling into place" to form the intricate patterns of a fully-formed snowflake are ridiculously small. There might not be enough time in a full human lifetime to wait for a snowflake to form, if random chance were the only mechanism at work. But snowflakes do not form by random chance -- they form through a combination of well-understood forces, meaning that the time to go from a scattered "soup" of water molecules into an organized structure is on the scale of seconds, rather than millennia.

And what if those snow flakes are a part of God's initial design? Using things within God's creation in an attempt to disprove God doesn't work very well.
 
As far as I can tell, only MARIS has claimed to have proof that God does not exist. You two will have to take that up in a private room sometime -- it's not an argument any of the rest of us care to indulge ourselves in.

And this is why I give you a lot of respect. Even crow. This thread is only to provide the evidence or debated topics and the readers can make that assumption all by themselves.
 
LOL, you are arguing a straw man MARIS. Not only are you arguing with creationists about "God"; you have completely discredited the entire science community all in one big SWOOP! What you just said is a "Faith Driven" answer. There is absolutely no logic behind it whatsoever.

The entire science community disagrees on pretty much everything, including whether life "just is" or if it needs to be somehow created.

So it's possible I could "discredit" some of the science community, but certainly not all of them.

It's clear I and other posters have discredited your original premise, or at least proven you don't have any evidence to support it.

It's also clear you don't know the definition of the word "faith", which seems a disadvantage for someone who uses the word to supplement truth.
 
The entire science community disagrees on pretty much everything, including whether life "just is" or if it needs to be somehow created.

So it's possible I could "discredit" some of the science community, but certainly not all of them.

It's clear I and other posters have discredited your original premise, or at least proven you don't have any evidence to support it.

It's also clear you don't know the definition of the word "faith", which seems a disadvantage for someone who uses the word to supplement truth.

What is your definition of "Faith" MARIS?
 
The entire science community disagrees on pretty much everything, including whether life "just is" or if it needs to be somehow created.

So it's possible I could "discredit" some of the science community, but certainly not all of them.

It's clear I and other posters have discredited your original premise, or at least proven you don't have any evidence to support it.

It's also clear you don't know the definition of the word "faith", which seems a disadvantage for someone who uses the word to supplement truth.

What is truth MARIS? And how do you know it's true?
 
Science and a cognizance of nature.

What do you base your ignorance on? Fear, or laziness?

Where is the proof or evidence that we are one of an endless beach of universes, and that life has no beginning or end?
 
I think MARIS has a problem with the word "Faith"; probably because it's associated with theism. So I can easily put it another way.

You are making an assumption not based on evidence or proof. Does that make you feel better MARIS? Both still explain that it is not logical to credit it as true evidence.
 
Um Planck time gives you a better understanding of the probability. I used it both ways Denny. The math works even if you take away the Planck time. I used it because it's the most precise known time measurement known right now.

Would you rather me simplify it for you? Do it without that time and see the probability. It's still just as improbable.

Sure, simplify it for me. Your math and logic do not make sense at all.
 
Sure, simplify it for me. Your math and logic do not make sense at all.

Planck time is used, because atoms work much faster than actual seconds. So actually adding more "time units" give you greater probability.

If I say 17.3 billion years (17,300,000,000 years) and only add the "known" evidence that the universe has 10 to the 80th power of atoms; you would have less "units" of time to meet the "probability" of 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power. So actually adding Planck time gives you more "time units" to make it more probable. I am giving the maximum amount of known time units to match the "probability"; AND giving you the benefit of the doubt that the universe actually had all the "soup" available to make life (which isn't even factored); and still the probability is unimaginable.
 
I agree with your analogy. And there maybe many ways in the future do properly explain the mechanics; but right now; we are discussing what is known. Maybe in the next year, 20, 100, or even 1000 years; we have the mechanics you speak of. But right now we don't; therefor they cannot be logically input as evidence. That would be "Faith Driven".

Keep in mind Tango; I am not discounting the possibility or "probability" that a new formula could explain this. But it could be just as probable that science finds another mechanism that actually supports that a creator exists as well. Don't you agree?

I agree that is possible, sure. But I think, overall, we are batting pretty damn well in the game of finding mechanisms to accurately describe the natural world. You are welcome as always to put your money on us failing to fully explain the first organism -- I just don't think that's the smart bet.

It is a well-established fallacy to assume that something unexplained today will be unexplained forever (look at the last 400 years!), so how can you hold the unknowns of today as conclusive proof for anything? Way back in the day you could have made the exact same argument you are making now, except using the motion if the planets rather than the formation if life. "How can you explain their predictable patterns, except for God moving them around in circles with his cosmic hand?" ancient Mags asked ancient Trip. "I don't know man, I just think there is a simple answer for this behavior that we will understand someday." Who would have won that bet? ;)
 
You are the one using "Faith" as a proxy for evidence. I am saying "If what we know proves, that the mathematical improbability given that the universe is 17.3 billion years old;...

We don't know that, and you did your math on an age of 13.7 billion years, not 17.3 billion years.

Both are widely accepted by separate scientific groups, showing how ridiculous it is to use either for a mathematical equation.

It could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or one day. It's not relevant, as time is but a manmade concept.

You still have to prove god exists, which means you would have to prove who/what created him.

You think god created the universe. Right so far?

That would mean god is more intelligent and more complex than the universe. Right so far?

You think he has always existed. Right so far?

Ergo, it follows that if it's possible that god always existed, something simpler and less intelligent could have always existed.

Throw in the certainty that our universe does exist and the absolute dearth of evidence that god exists, and you recognize the futility of your premise.
 
Planck time is used, because atoms work much faster than actual seconds. So actually adding more "time units" give you greater probability.

If I say 17.3 billion years (17,300,000,000 years) and only add the "known" evidence that the universe has 10 to the 80th power of atoms; you would have less "units" of time to meet the "probability" of 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power. So actually adding Planck time gives you more "time units" to make it more probable. I am giving the maximum amount of known time units to match the "probability"; AND giving you the benefit of the doubt that the universe actually had all the "soup" available to make life (which isn't even factored); and still the probability is unimaginable.

In other words, roughly the same probability that Mediocre Man could ever make it with HCP's wife. I wanted to put it in terms Denny could identify with.
 
Ergo, it follows that if it's possible that god always existed, something simpler and less intelligent could have always existed.

That's why God gave us his Word, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, though. Viola! All the math (that we'll/we'd ever need) has already been done for us. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top