Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
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.”
Click to expand...


an honest man wouldn't appeal to god of the gaps.
 
TripTango said:
I read the post earlier Mags. The math is not the problem -- it's your (or whomever's) justification that is faulty. You are multiplying estimated particles in observable universe by number of Planck times occurring so far, then comparing that to an estimation (note: ESTIMATION) for life developing through COMPLETELY random shufflings.

Again, I ask you: what justification do you have for eliminating the possibility of specific mechanisms leading to self-replicating molecules much faster than this random method suggests, in the same way that hydrogen bonding naturally leads to water crystals? Why is PURE RANDOMNESS the only thing you will accept other than the direct hand of God?
Click to expand...

I am not saying your snow flake theory is wrong. It's just improbable. I am proposing an entirely different theory; that many of you all claim you refuted rationally. I completely disagree. BTW, that theory I proposed isn't my theory; I am just simplifying it for everyone.

Your theory on hydrogen bonding naturally would make sense; but the biggest concern isn't just the bonding Trip. We are talking about the DNA/RNA even catching in the primordial soup. That isn't even factored in my improbability. And even making up a 2" square of DNA strand would have enough information to print enough encyclopedias to travel from here, to the sun and back again.

So even though the randomness, could take place; the improbability that this happened by chance are some of the worst odds in the known universe. 17.3 billion years, all the soup being the universe into a spec known as earth; to make up billions of different organisms without a designer is completely "not logical". Seriously Tango; how can you refute this?
 
crowTrobot said:
an honest man wouldn't appeal to god of the gaps.
Click to expand...

The simple approach of "I don't know, so it doesn't matter" isn't sound. And honest men would agree. This is why many in the science realm are trying their damnedest to solve the gaps.

So we are left with what we know now. If most atheists, like the comic given by hoojack, say they have bucketloads of empirical evidence to support their belief; then the "God of gaps" doesn't apply. Now you see why I think this belief isn't sound.

You, trip or Denny are taking the "logical approach" to this question. But the majority isn't. They truly believe there are insurmountable evidence to support their belief. Obviously that's not the case.
 
So Garbage in garbage out doesn't apply. I think I've brought up a serious question here. And to take it lightly is being arrogant and ignorant.
 
magnifier661 said:
I am not saying your snow flake theory is wrong. It's just improbable. I am proposing an entirely different theory; that many of you all claim you refuted rationally. I completely disagree. BTW, that theory I proposed isn't my theory; I am just simplifying it for everyone.

Your theory on hydrogen bonding naturally would make sense; but the biggest concern isn't just the bonding Trip. We are talking about the DNA/RNA even catching in the primordial soup. That isn't even factored in my improbability. And even making up a 2" square of DNA strand would have enough information to print enough encyclopedias to travel from here, to the sun and back again.

So even though the randomness, could take place; the improbability that this happened by chance are some of the worst odds in the known universe. 17.3 billion years, all the soup being the universe into a spec known as earth; to make up billions of different organisms without a designer is completely "not logical". Seriously Tango; how can you refute this?
Click to expand...

Damn. Wrote a long response, and Tapatalk crashed. Here goes again.

The snow flake image isn't a theory, it is an analogy. By your completely random methodology, water crystals wouldn't form in minutes, or days, or even years -- they would simply be too improbable! How can you explain that? How can something so complex form in mere SECONDS, defying all odds?

Once a self-replicating molecule forms, the rest is actually quite easy to justify in terms of probabilities. We are talking about that very first model; the first thing that spontaneously made copies of itself from stuff around it. I don't know what it looked like. Do you? Does Dr. Crick? How complex was it? How many atoms were in it? Does it seem "fuzzy" to generate odds on the formation of something, when we don't even know what it was composed of? It does to me. This raises my second concern (besides the issue of mechanism): how exactly was that 1/10^40,000 number derived? What assumptions were made? Was there anything empirical about it? I don't have the book that you got it from -- could you walk me through the derivation of it, step by step?
 
magnifier661 said:
So Garbage in garbage out doesn't apply. I think I've brought up a serious question here. And to take it lightly is being arrogant and ignorant.
Click to expand...

It DOES apply. If your input numbers or methods are not sound, it doesn't matter how many significant digits you round your results to.
 
magnifier661 said:
The simple approach of "I don't know, so it doesn't matter" isn't sound. And honest men would agree. This is why many in the science realm are trying their damnedest to solve the gaps.

So we are left with what we know now. If most atheists, like the comic given by hoojack, say they have bucketloads of empirical evidence to support their belief; then the "God of gaps" doesn't apply. Now you see why I think this belief isn't sound.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it doesn't matter. The honest response to a mystery is "I don't know, so I shouldn't make any big assumptions."

If you want to debate the atheist in that comic, go right ahead. If you want to characterize scientists and/or atheists as trying to kill god, that's your prerogative. If you want to discuss these matters with real human beings, though, you're going to have to address their actual views, not some caricature based on what you read or hear.
 
TripTango said:
Damn. Wrote a long response, and Tapatalk crashed. Here goes again.

The snow flake image isn't a theory, it is an analogy. By your completely random methodology, water crystals wouldn't form in minutes, or days, or even years -- they would simply be too improbable! How can you explain that? How can something so complex form in mere SECONDS, defying all odds?

Once a self-replicating molecule forms, the rest is actually quite easy to justify in terms of probabilities. We are talking about that very first model; the first thing that spontaneously made copies of itself from stuff around it. I don't know what it looked like. Do you? Does Dr. Crick? How complex was it? How many atoms were in it? Does it seem "fuzzy" to generate odds on the formation of something, when we don't even know what it was composed of? It does to me. This raises my second concern (besides the issue of mechanism): how exactly was that 1/10^40,000 number derived? What assumptions were made? Was there anything empirical about it? I don't have the book that you got it from -- could you walk me through the derivation of it, step by step?
Click to expand...

The 1 /10^40,000 number has been derived from many scientific journals. Here are just a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle This was the orginator of the formulation.

http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/6thdim2.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

And you based that those "snow flakes" formed in mere seconds; but I broke it down to planck time. Meaning, you have 1 click of planck time for every possibility. That is 10^-44 seconds. So even that phenomenom isn't even close to the improbability as the first living organism.
 
TripTango said:
Nobody is saying it doesn't matter. The honest response to a mystery is "I don't know, so I shouldn't make any big assumptions."

If you want to debate the atheist in that comic, go right ahead. If you want to characterize scientists and/or atheists as trying to kill god, that's your prerogative. If you want to discuss these matters with real human beings, though, you're going to have to address their actual views, not some caricature based on what you read or hear.
Click to expand...

LOL, atheism can't kill God. I doubt any mere mortal would have the ability to take out the creator of the universe.

And I am not debating atheism in that comic. I gave you the athesim.org website. This is popular atheist belief. They truly believe they have enough "empirical evidence" to support their belief that God (s) don't exist.
 
TripTango said:
It DOES apply. If your input numbers or methods are not sound, it doesn't matter how many significant digits you round your results to.
Click to expand...

Forget the rounding. Who cares? You don't even need the rounding to make the improbability make sense. That is just what "mathmaticians" would do. So I give you an extra 10^10 and it's still just as improbable.
 
And this is for Denny; since he keeps bringing up the dice analogy. This is how you can mathmatically make "designer" 100% probable, accident 0% probable and "not sure" 0% probable. Denny kept trying to talk about things can happen at the exact same time. This has been factored on this link.

Astrophysicists estimate that there are no more than 1080 infinitesimal particles in the universe. Assuming that each particle could participate in a thousand billion 1012 different events every second (an impossibly high figure, by the way), then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could be made) in all of the universe throughout its entire history is only 10110. Most mathematicians believe that this figure is much lower, about 1050.
Click to expand...

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Yeah LOL garbage in garbage out my ass!
 
magnifier661 said:
LOL, atheism can't kill God. I doubt any mere mortal would have the ability to take out the creator of the universe.

And I am not debating atheism in that comic. I gave you the athesim.org website. This is popular atheist belief. They truly believe they have enough "empirical evidence" to support their belief that God (s) don't exist.
Click to expand...

Something you repeatedly fail to understand is that there is no church of atheism. There is no gospel of godlessness. There is no version of an atheist pope. I don't give two shits what someone wrote on an atheism-based blog -- it doesn't necessarily represent me or my beliefs. So who are you railing against? Are you shadow boxing with the atheists in your mind?
 
TripTango said:
Something you repeatedly fail to understand is that there is no church of atheism. There is no gospel of godlessness. There is no version of an atheist pope. I don't give two shits what someone wrote on an atheism-based blog -- it doesn't necessarily represent me or my beliefs. So who are you railing against? Are you shadow boxing with the atheists in your mind?
Click to expand...

Not correct. Majority establishes the opinion Trip. Just like a "Christian" has a majority belief on their God. Or the Jew with theirs. Or the democrat with theirs. Or the Republican with theirs. Political parties aren't religions; but most republicans share the same views on major topics.

I would think that "No God" is a pretty important view for the atheist. Don't you agree?
 
magnifier661 said:
And this is for Denny; since he keeps bringing up the dice analogy. This is how you can mathmatically make "designer" 100% probable, accident 0% probable and "not sure" 0% probable. Denny kept trying to talk about things can happen at the exact same time. This has been factored on this link.



http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Yeah LOL garbage in garbage out my ass!
Click to expand...

But you look at that link, and they say the odds of it happening, but then they use the playing card analogy. The odds of drawing 100 cards in an order is 10 to the 158th power. So you go back to what trip had said before about seeing the cars. The very first time I lay out the 100 cards, there is only a 10 to the 158th power chance that they would lay out that way. But, instead of having to lay them out that trillion whatever times, I laid them out once, and I got that specific 100 card sequence. The odds of getting that specific one I laid out are astronomical, but I got it on my first try.
 
RR7 said:
But you look at that link, and they say the odds of it happening, but then they use the playing card analogy. The odds of drawing 100 cards in an order is 10 to the 158th power. So you go back to what trip had said before about seeing the cars. The very first time I lay out the 100 cards, there is only a 10 to the 158th power chance that they would lay out that way. But, instead of having to lay them out that trillion whatever times, I laid them out once, and I got that specific 100 card sequence.
Click to expand...

And you are the designer of that model. And you have proved my point. Of course if it was layed out right the first time; all the probability is tossed out. Another factor comes in. It's the one that can intelligently sequence the problem without happening by chance.
 
it did happen by chance. It was laid out. The thing with the probability is, the odds are impossible, or next to, to RE-CREATE that happening. I will likely NEVER recreate that draw, and it's probable scientists could never recreate that specific beginning sequence. But every combination does not need to be tried for it to happen once.
 
magnifier661 said:
And you are the designer of that model. And you have proved my point. Of course if it was layed out right the first time; all the probability is tossed out. Another factor comes in. It's the one that can intelligently sequence the problem without happening by chance.
Click to expand...

No -- YOU are missing the point here. The odds of laying out SOME order, WHATEVER that may be, is 100%. And whatever order that turns out to be is astronomically improbable, individually.
 
magnifier661 said:
Not correct. Majority establishes the opinion Trip. Just like a "Christian" has a majority belief on their God. Or the Jew with theirs. Or the democrat with theirs. Or the Republican with theirs. Political parties aren't religions; but most republicans share the same views on major topics.

I would think that "No God" is a pretty important view for the atheist. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Yup. That's the only uniting view, in fact. Where do you get the "and we've got proof" addendum? Was that in the fine print of my membership application?
 
RR7 said:
doesgodexist.org isn't a scientific journal?
Click to expand...

Psst. You are aware that, like wikipedia; there are links on the bottom for references. I bet you just looked at the title and assumed it was dogma huh?
 
magnifier661 said:
http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/

His work has been put in scientific journals. Are you debating this is some fluke?
Click to expand...

That's not how these things are done. Publishing a paper in one area does not imply authority in another. Hell, it doesn't imply authority at all, but at least it helps ensure a minimum standard.

I got some more info on Hoyle's methods for getting that number. Apparently, it doesn't refer to the odds of forming the first self-replicating molecule at all. It refers to his calculations for generating not one, not ten, but ALL 20,000 KNOWN ENZYMES IN BIOLOGY from scratch, all at once. Are you kidding me? This isn't anything close to what modern biologists believe happened, and it makes the 1/10^40,000 number 100% meaningless.
 
magnifier661 said:
Psst. You are aware that, like wikipedia; there are links on the bottom for references. I bet you just looked at the title and assumed it was dogma huh?
Click to expand...

How Did the Universe Begin?
by Ralph Epperson

There are only three possible answers to this question.
1. It was created by something larger than itself since the first law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created, only changed.

The universe had to be created by something outside itself, because of the same law. We also know that man could not have created it.

2. It was begun by chance (or accident); or

3. The answer is not sure.

Shown this way, the question is:


Let us first examine the probabilities of chance (accident) accounting for the initial creation of energy. Chance is not really chance! Mathematicians can accurately measure the probability of anything occurring once they know the nature of the things that chance will be acting upon. For example, a quarter has two sides, and if tossed up into the air and allowed to land on the ground, it will land only one of two ways: either it will land on one side (called heads) or on the other (called tails). We can say, therefore, that the chances of a quarter landing on heads is one in two (barring the unlikely and extremely low percentages of time that it could land on its side. Even this probability could be scientifically determined once scientists tossed the coin enough times. But, for the sake of argument, we will say that there are only two ways that the coin can land, either on one side or on the other.)

If we toss up two quarters, there are now four ways that the coins can land: either they will both land on heads; they will both land on tails; the first will land on heads and the other will land on tails; or the first will land on tails and the other on heads. There are two ways that these things can be measured: scientists can actually toss the coins into the air enough times and record their actual observations, or mathematicians can calculate the probabilities involved by using the laws of mathematics without actually tossing the coins.

Let us now examine the number of times that ten consecutively numbered cards can come up in a random fashion (meaning by chance), one being drawn out of the ten at a time. There are 3,628,000 different ways that those cards can be drawn out; In other words, 4,7,5,9,1,8,3,2,10, and 6 would be one such example. The chances of this sequence coming out of such a single random drawing would be one in 3,628,000.

If we increase the number of cards to 100, there would be 10158 ways that the numbered cards could come out in any random drawing.

Let me explain what the number, 10158, represents for those not familiar with such things. The result of multiplication of 10 times 10 is 100. When written as a square, it is written as 102. When written as a number, it is a 1 followed by the number of zeroes shown after the number, in this case, one followed by two zeroes, or 100.

10 times 10 times 10 is 1,000, written as 103, or 1 followed by three zeroes (1,000).

10(158) would be the number 1 followed by 158 zeroes or:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

What are the chances of any particular sequence of, say all odd numbers occurring, in increasing numbers, and then all even numbers, in decreasing numbers, coming out of a randomly drawn series of just 100 numbers? The answer to that question can be determined by the laws of mathematics. The answer is, once again, one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes.

The age of the universe has been estimated by some scientists at 30 billion (30,000,000,000) years. There would be 1018 seconds in those 30 billion years (1 followed by 18 zeroes, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds). Notice how much smaller that figure is compared to 10158.

Astrophysicists estimate that there are no more than 1080 infinitesimal particles in the universe. Assuming that each particle could participate in a thousand billion 1012 different events every second (an impossibly high figure, by the way), then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could be made) in all of the universe throughout its entire history is only 10110. Most mathematicians believe that this figure is much lower, about 1050.

Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10110, therefore, cannot occur by chance. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe. Thus, the sequence of the ascending and then descending numbers of 100 components has a ZERO probability of happening by chance.

Some scientists have measured the chance of a replicating (defined as a repetition of an experiment under controlled conditions so that a specific result may be observed) molecule occurring by chance at 10450.

Frank Salisbury has calculated the probability of a typical DNA chain arising by chance to be 10600. (DNA is the basic building block of life, and it has a zero probability of occurring by chance).

Mike Stubbs has calculated the chance of insulin, an important protein hormone secreted by the pancreas, developing by chance at 3x10158. He states that even if there was a machine which could sort the amino acids that make up insulin into groups of 512 at a rate of one billion per second, it would take 1052 years to produce 1068 combinations, only one of which would be insulin. In other words, you could expect to get the insulin combination only once in 1052 years. Yet there are only 1018 seconds in a 30 billion year universe!

Other scientists have made some calculations of the probability of life originating by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading scientists of this age, has computed the number of chances necessary for even the simplest life imaginable to have evolved by chance to be one chance in 1040,000. (That is roughly comparable to the probability of rolling double sixes, 12 on two dice, 50,000 times in a row!)

Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, has concluded that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 followed by one billion zeroes! Yet any chance with less than one chance in 10 followed by 110 zeroes has NO CHANCE!

Lastly, Edward Conklin, a biologist, has stated that, "The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop." In other words, the universe originating by chance has NO CHANCE!

If the universe did not originate by chance, what then are the other alternatives? Either the universe was started by something or someone capable of creating a universe (a master designer) or no one is sure how it got started.

First, we will examine the thought that the universe was created by a designer. Presume that you are someone who has lived in a forest all of your life, by yourself, and you suddenly decide to take a long walk into the neighboring desert. As far as you know, there are no other human beings because you have never seen anyone else. As you are walking, you look down and spot a shiny object in the sand. You pick it up, and examine it carefully. You do not know what the object is because you have never seen one before. (It is a wrist watch, but it is an unknown object as far as your experience extends.) There are only two ways that this shiny object could have gotten there: either it was made by something or someone, or else it got there by accident or chance.

If it got there by chance, its origins would have to be no different than any other object in your view: for instance, the rocks or bushes nearby. You examine the unknown object and notice that parts of it are moving, and if you examined it long enough, you would discover that every time the little moving part got to the unknown symbol "12", it was either totally dark or the sun was directly overhead. Your mind starts to tell you that this is no ordinary object. It seems to have some function, one not associated with a random happening. You start thinking that it could not have gotten there by chance. You conclude that it was actually created by someone or something, with an actual purpose in mind. You look around the area and find no other objects of a similar nature. If the object did not get there by chance, it had to have been created by something or someone more powerful than chance. But you see no one in any direction, nor anything capable of making such an object. Yet, your mind tells you that it was actually created; it could not have gotten there by chance. What are your conclusions? Even though you cannot identify who or what made this shiny object, your mind tells you that it was not created by accident. It had to have been created; there is no other option.

The universe is far more complex than that watch. Yet we are being asked by some to believe that it got there by accident, by some random happening known as chance. The human mind screams at the observer, "The universe is too complex to have been assembled by chance. It had to have been the result of a conscious design of a designer."

Perhaps another example of the human mind's unwillingness to logically conclude that there was a designer in the universe occurred a few years ago when scientists looked at some pictures of parts of the planet Mars. These pictures had been taken by a flyby space mission, and appeared to show a monkey face on the surface of the planet. The almost immediate response by some in the scientific community was that the face had to have been created. It seemed to show that some form of intelligent mind had physically created the face. These scientists were jubilant. They had found what appeared to be evidence of intelligent life on another planet. Yet, it appeared that those who wanted to believe that the face had been created by some sort of conscious design, had excluded the possibility that the face could have been created by chance. Anyone would have had to conclude that there was at least a possibility that the face could have been created by wind, erosion, or just simply by chance. But the scientists were quick to point out that the face had been made by an intelligent form of life. Chance was almost dismissed as having no chance. The face had to have been created.

Many of these same skeptical scientists look at the universe, with all of its precise laws, and claim to see no evidence of design, nor any designer. Yet these same scientists had determined with precise accuracy just how far away from Mars their probe had to be so that it would not crash into the planet itself. They had to know precisely just how far it would have to be so that it would not fly by into a trajectory that would not allow it to orbit. These scientists were making their projections based upon scientific laws, in a universe that is structured on precise laws. Yet, they reasoned that the universe was not created. As we have examined, there is absolutely no chance that the universe was created by chance. But, many skeptics are quick to believe that it had to be created by chance, because they refuse to believe in a designer. A universe that could not have occurred by chance had been created by chance. A monkey face that could have been created by chance had been created solely by intelligent life. It does not make sense unless you think like an atheist. The human mind screams at the observer, "The universe is too complex to have been assembled by chance. It had to have been the result of a conscious design of a designer!"

America's founding fathers said that the fact that man had human rights was a "self-evident truth." They recognized that certain things were self-evident. That meant that they were not debatable. They were true simply because they were true. They wrote the following into America's Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.."

A "self-evident truth" is not debatable. There are no other options. It is true simply because it is true. That is the way it is. The fact that the universe was created by a Master Designer is a "self-evident truth." The human mind is compelled to conclude that there is a creator, a first cause. That thought is a "self-evident truth." Unless you think like an atheist!

Back to Contents Does God Exist?, JanFeb05.
Click to expand...

There is the entire page you linked. I don't see reference links.
 
TripTango said:
That's not how these things are done. Publishing a paper in one area does not imply authority in another. Hell, it doesn't imply authority at all, but at least it helps ensure a minimum standard.

I got some more info on Hoyle's methods for getting that number. Apparently, it doesn't refer to the odds of forming the first self-replicating molecule at all. It refers to his calculations for generating not one, not ten, but ALL 20,000 KNOWN ENZYMES IN BIOLOGY from scratch, all at once. Are you kidding me? This isn't anything close to what modern biologists believe happened, and it makes the 1/10^40,000 number 100% meaningless.
Click to expand...

LOL, so, #7 refuted, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Quite Reasonable that : God Does Exist
3 4 5
Replies
149
Views
5K
Sedatedfork
Sedatedfork
Eastoff
the universe is not ageless/eternal
Replies
3
Views
377
crowTrobot
crowTrobot
magnifier661
Give your best answer... Did the universe have a beginning or not
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
3K
BlazerCaravan
BlazerCaravan
magnifier661
  • Poll Poll
Religion Are Christians believing in life outside Earth compatible?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
jlprk
jlprk
SlyPokerDog
Science Our universe may have a twin that runs backward in time
Replies
11
Views
644
UncleCliffy'sDaddy
UncleCliffy'sDaddy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top