The Atheist Premise...

[89Hen]

Hmmm...
I haven't experienced many - yes a few - but not many Atheists who just blurt out "There is no god, period"
Mostly they say: "If there were any evidence of God I'd change my mind in a minute"
and they seem to settle on: "There is just no evidence to support it"

Bunch of pussies.

[kalm]

I just want to point out that subatomic particles and antiparticles do appear from nothing all the time.

Air Supply postulated that some folks made love out of nothing at all, but Air Supply didn't know how those people did it.

And in the end they were all out of love. Perhaps it never existed in the first place.

[CID1990]

Air Supply postulated that some folks made love out of nothing at all, but Air Supply didn't know how those people did it.

And in the end they were all out of love. Perhaps it never existed in the first place.

[kalm]

Meanwhile, "baptist is ok by 8theist isn't on New Jersey license plates.

A New Jersey woman says the state discriminated against her on the basis of her beliefs when it rejected her request for a license plate reading "8THEIST" as "objectionable."

http://gawker.com/woman-suing-new-jerse ... 1564820456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

quote="Skjellyfetti"]

the universe instantaneously sprang into existence out of nothing.

Except, that's not at all what science argues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

Yes. The second link contains the first reference to the thing about the "branes" associated with string theory but I was familiar with the singularity thing. Years ago I bookmarked a page with a metaphysics essay by some University Professor where he argued that, based on his Bayesian probability calculations, it is more likely that the universe sprang from a singularity, which he described as a "timeless, dimensionless point," than that it was created by "God."

The main reason I wasn't convinced is that I don't like Bayesian statistics. It involved using a "prior" probability that is often just an opinion.

But just the idea of the universe arising from a singularity is a pretty difficult one. I'm sure there are answers or at least proposed answers that arise but, as I understand it, you're talking about all "existence" being a "point" that has no dimensions because there is no space. And there's no time. So it's hard to think about an "instant" in which something "happened" to cause that point to suddenly explode into what we now know as the universe. So on and so forth.

And to me the fact that there is the existence of a competing concept whereby instead of having an infinitely "small" (and actually nonexistent in terms of space) theoretical point you have "membranes" that are much larger than the universe that collide to create mass and energy pretty much convinces me that there's a whole lot of uncertainty involved.

Anyway, to me saying that the universe arose from a "timeless dimensionless point" is equivalent to saying it came from nothing in terms of what "nothing" is in our experience. It's describing no mass, no energy, no space, no time. Yet somehow everything that the universe is was "in there."

[JohnStOnge]

On the subject of evidence for the existence of God:

For many years I've thought along the lines of what we now call the "intelligent design" thought process. Let's say we see something like this:



We immediately conclude that there was an intelligence involved in shaping those objects.

Yet we something like this:



And we say it is the result of life spontaneously arising in the form of single celled organisms on this planet billions of years ago, making the leap to multicellular organisms, then evolving through natural selection, mutation, and chance. It all just happened. All purely due to the physical laws and chance (and even the existence of the physical laws raises questions).

To me it's absurd to say there's "no evidence" pointing to the possibility of some kind of intelligence behind what we see around us. That doesn't prove that there is. But to say there's "no evidence" is, to me, kind of ridiculous.

[houndawg]

On the subject of evidence for the existence of God:

For many years I've thought along the lines of what we now call the "intelligent design" thought process. Let's say we see something like this:



We immediately conclude that there was an intelligence involved in shaping those objects.

Yet we something like this:



And we say it is the result of life spontaneously arising in the form of single celled organisms on this planet billions of years ago, making the leap to multicellular organisms, then evolving through natural selection, mutation, and chance. It all just happened. All purely due to the physical laws and chance (and even the existence of the physical laws raises questions).

To me it's absurd to say there's "no evidence" pointing to the possibility of some kind of intelligence behind what we see around us. That doesn't prove that there is. But to say there's "no evidence" is, to me, kind of ridiculous.

We do? How do we know those rocks didn't evolve like that?

Organic/inorganic. Apples/oranges, John-o.

[Chizzang]

Aren't we skipping over 4 billion years... Good lord John, Spontaneously arising!!! of a falcon
There is NOTHING "spontaneous" about evolution (other than genetic defects)

Strange point of debate John... and deceptive as usual

Your fundamentalism is showing again
You'll want to tuck that back into your pretend scientist trousers there fella

[BlueHen86]

On the subject of evidence for the existence of God:

For many years I've thought along the lines of what we now call the "intelligent design" thought process. Let's say we see something like this:



We immediately conclude that there was an intelligence involved in shaping those objects.

Yet we something like this:



And we say it is the result of life spontaneously arising in the form of single celled organisms on this planet billions of years ago, making the leap to multicellular organisms, then evolving through natural selection, mutation, and chance. It all just happened. All purely due to the physical laws and chance (and even the existence of the physical laws raises questions).

To me it's absurd to say there's "no evidence" pointing to the possibility of some kind of intelligence behind what we see around us. That doesn't prove that there is. But to say there's "no evidence" is, to me, kind of ridiculous.

There is no evidence. It wouldn't be faith if there was evidence. It's cool if you want to believe in God, but there is no evidence that He exists.

[SeattleGriz]

Aren't we skipping over 4 billion years... Good lord John, Spontaneously arising!!! of a falcon
There is NOTHING "spontaneous" about evolution (other than genetic defects)

Strange point of debate John... and deceptive as usual

Your fundamentalism is showing again
You'll want to tuck that back into your pretend scientist trousers there fella

Uh, aren't genetic defects the creative force behind evolution and thus the main driver? If so, then evolution would be spontaneous, kind of like the...oh, Cambrian explosion, especially if we are using 4 billion years as the benchmark.

[Chizzang]

Aren't we skipping over 4 billion years... Good lord John, Spontaneously arising!!! of a falcon
There is NOTHING "spontaneous" about evolution (other than genetic defects)

Strange point of debate John... and deceptive as usual

Your fundamentalism is showing again
You'll want to tuck that back into your pretend scientist trousers there fella

Uh, aren't genetic defects the creative force behind evolution and thus the main driver? If so, then evolution would be spontaneous, kind of like the...oh, Cambrian explosion, especially if we are using 4 billion years as the benchmark.

Right... mutations and defects are spontaneous
Not Falcons

(Falcons take a few billion years)

[BlueHen86]

Uh, aren't genetic defects the creative force behind evolution and thus the main driver? If so, then evolution would be spontaneous, kind of like the...oh, Cambrian explosion, especially if we are using 4 billion years as the benchmark.

Right... mutations and defects are spontaneous
Not Falcons

(Falcons take a few billion years)

No, falcons take a thousand years, hence the name Millenium Falcon.

[Chizzang]

No, falcons take a thousand years, hence the name Millenium Falcon.

Not to be confused with the Spontaneous Falcon...


*Zing

[JohnStOnge]

Aren't we skipping over 4 billion years... Good lord John, Spontaneously arising!!! of a falcon

I didn't refer to a falcon spontaneously arising. I referred to life spontaneously arising to start the process.

We could quibble about the definition of "spontaneous." But the idea is that it is said that life just appeared through action of the physical laws. Yet at our current stage of development we cannot make that happen. We cannot say, "These are the conditions and circumstances that create life," perform an experiment in which those conditions are created, and have the experiment yield life. We, as intelligent beings, cannot create life where there was no life before. Yet many of us say "it just happened" with complete faith that such is the case.

[JohnStOnge]

There is no evidence. It wouldn't be faith if there was evidence. It's cool if you want to believe in God, but there is no evidence that He exists.

What I referred to is "some kind of intelligence." And, again, I think it is ridiculous to say there "is no evidence" suggesting that. It's all around us. Is it sufficient evidence to say it's absolutely established? No. But to say there is "no evidence" is absurd.

It's cliche but contemplate the DNA molecule and what it does. Do we say that we're absolutely confident that "just happened"? Really?

[JohnStOnge]

We do? How do we know those rocks didn't evolve like that?

Organic/inorganic. Apples/oranges, John-o.

Would it be better if I showed something man made that was made of plastic? That way both would be organic.

The point is that it really does take a HUGE leap of faith to be absolutely convinced that something like the hawk depicted arose through natural processes and chance without some kind of intelligence influencing the process.

We, as intelligent beings, cannot even generate a living single celled organism from materials that were previously entirely non living.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, just as a matter of semantics, "spontaneous" does not necessarily mean "quickly." it is possible to have something happen "spontaneously" over 4 billion years.

Here are some of the alternative definitions of the word:

produced without being planted or without human labor

developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment

not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Note that time is not a factor in any of those definitions. With the last one, in particular, the idea of a hawk arising over 4 billion years from a process in which life arose through natural processes then evolved does indeed describe a "spontaneous" event.

It's not what I was saying. I was referring to the onset of life in the form of single celled organisms as "spontaneous." But you could also correctly refer to the concept of a hawk arising through the 4 billion years of unguided process as "spontaneous."

[BlueHen86]

There is no evidence. It wouldn't be faith if there was evidence. It's cool if you want to believe in God, but there is no evidence that He exists.

What I referred to is "some kind of intelligence." And, again, I think it is ridiculous to say there "is no evidence" suggesting that. It's all around us. Is it sufficient evidence to say it's absolutely established? No. But to say there is "no evidence" is absurd.

It's cliche but contemplate the DNA molecule and what it does. Do we say that we're absolutely confident that "just happened"? Really?

There is no evidence of God's existence. If you were being honest with yourself you would see that, you really would.

As for being confident, I'm not confident either way. You're the one who has taken a position and is arguing your opinion as if it is fact. You do that a lot, you really do.

[Chizzang]

By the way, just as a matter of semantics, "spontaneous" does not necessarily mean "quickly." it is possible to have something happen "spontaneously" over 4 billion years.

Here are some of the alternative definitions of the word:

produced without being planted or without human labor

developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment

not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Note that time is not a factor in any of those definitions. With the last one, in particular, the idea of a hawk arising over 4 billion years from a process in which life arose through natural processes then evolved does indeed describe a "spontaneous" event.

It's not what I was saying. I was referring to the onset of life in the form of single celled organisms as "spontaneous." But you could also correctly refer to the concept of a hawk arising through the 4 billion years of unguided process as "spontaneous."

Okay for lack of a better word... Sure
But John one could also just as easily argue that millimetrical mutations and infinitesimal corrections over 4 billion years mathematically over time - how could this system NOT create a Falcon..?

Just as plausible a point of departure for an argument on evolution

Even you yourself acknowledged that - of all the life on earth - something like 99% of species have gone extinct over the eons... that's a LOT OF UPDATING going on

[JohnStOnge]

It's nothing new but it's just contemplating the existence around you and the probability. You can see an example of the thought process by Christian Apologist Oxford mathematician John Lennox at http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He provides a lot of examples of incomprehensibly long odds, but I'll pick one on the odds of having even one planet in the universe capable of sustaining life:

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross[7] lists many such parameters that have to be fine-tuned for life to be possible, and makes a rough but conservative calculation that the chance of one such planet existing in the universe is about 1 in 10 to the 30th power.

I had to write out "...to the 30th power" and thereby slightly change the quote because I don't see a way to to superscripts. But anyway we're talking about an astronomically small chance of even that one thing necessary in the chain of events required to have happened. And there are many, many other astronomically low probability things in the chain of events that had to have happened. Countless things.

There are counter arguments such as the one at http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/ ... nd-others/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But I don't think they are convincing. The author of that article, for example, says that creationists/intelligent design adherents calculate a probability of one particular thing happening at one chance in 10 to the 183rd power and it's really more one chance in 10 to the 33rd power.

I don't know if changing that particular chance to one in 10 to the 33rd power is enough to "...neutralize the probability based argument against evolution..." or not. I'd have to read the reference. But it doesn't change my outlook either way because 1) that one event that has one chance in 10 to the 33rd power of happening is just one of many low probability events that would have to have happened and 2) he's only talking about evolution. Before you could have evolution you had to have had the universe unfold in certain ways, have that planet that had only a one in 10 to the 30th power of existing, and have life arise from non living materials on that planet to begin with before it could be sustained then evolve.

The convention is to reject chance as an explanation when the probability is <=0.05. As as a qualitative matter I think the probability of the physical laws interacting with chance to result in what we see around us is a whole lot smaller than that. A WHOLE lot smaller.

I am accustomed to screening things through that lens of probability. The first thing to do with data is test it to see if its characteristics can be reasonably explained by chance. Then if the conclusion is that they can't reasonably be explained by chance, with the cutoff point being p = 0.05, one starts looking for explanations for what DID cause those characteristics. And when I look at the existence around me I just don't see it as reasonably explained by chance interacting with the physical laws.

Does that prove the existence of "God?" No. Even being 100% sure that something can't be explained by chance does not confirm what it IS. But, really, it's just not correct to say there is "no evidence" that would make one consider the possibility of an intelligence behind the way things are. Something that guided the process.

I don't know if Lennox correctly represented how one atheist mathematician/astronomer reacted to his realization of the probability associated with one characteristic of the universe necessary for the existence of life. But the way he describes it in the first article linked above is this:

Hoyle later confessed that nothing had shaken his atheism as much as this discovery. Even this degree of fine-tuning was enough to persuade him that it looked as if ‘a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology,’ and that ‘there are no blind forces in nature worth talking about.’"

I'm sure the guy remained an atheist. But that's the effect I'm talking about.

[Vidav]

It's nothing new but it's just contemplating the existence around you and the probability. You can see an example of the thought process by Christian Apologist Oxford mathematician John Lennox at http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He provides a lot of examples of incomprehensibly long odds, but I'll pick one on the odds of having even one planet in the universe capable of sustaining life:

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross[7] lists many such parameters that have to be fine-tuned for life to be possible, and makes a rough but conservative calculation that the chance of one such planet existing in the universe is about 1 in 10 to the 30th power.

I had to write out "...to the 30th power" and thereby slightly change the quote because I don't see a way to to superscripts. But anyway we're talking about an astronomically small chance of even that one thing necessary in the chain of events required to have happened. And there are many, many other astronomically low probability things in the chain of events that had to have happened. Countless things.

There are counter arguments such as the one at http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/ ... nd-others/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But I don't think they are convincing. The author of that article, for example, says that creationists/intelligent design adherents calculate a probability of one particular thing happening at one chance in 10 to the 183rd power and it's really more one chance in 10 to the 33rd power.

I don't know if changing that particular chance to one in 10 to the 33rd power is enough to "...neutralize the probability based argument against evolution..." or not. I'd have to read the reference. But it doesn't change my outlook either way because 1) that one event that has one chance in 10 to the 33rd power of happening is just one of many low probability events that would have to have happened and 2) he's only talking about evolution. Before you could have evolution you had to have had the universe unfold in certain ways, have that planet that had only a one in 10 to the 30th power of existing, and have life arise from non living materials on that planet to begin with before it could be sustained then evolve.

The convention is to reject chance as an explanation when the probability is <=0.05. As as a qualitative matter I think the probability of the physical laws interacting with chance to result in what we see around us is a whole lot smaller than that. A WHOLE lot smaller.

I am accustomed to screening things through that lens of probability. The first thing to do with data is test it to see if its characteristics can be reasonably explained by chance. Then if the conclusion is that they can't reasonably be explained by chance, with the cutoff point being p = 0.05, one starts looking for explanations for what DID cause those characteristics. And when I look at the existence around me I just don't see it as reasonably explained by chance interacting with the physical laws.

Does that prove the existence of "God?" No. Even being 100% sure that something can't be explained by chance does not confirm what it IS. But, really, it's just not correct to say there is "no evidence" that would make one consider the possibility of an intelligence behind the way things are. Something that guided the process.

I don't know if Lennox correctly represented how one atheist mathematician/astronomer reacted to his realization of the probability associated with one characteristic of the universe necessary for the existence of life. But the way he describes it in the first article linked above is this:

Hoyle later confessed that nothing had shaken his atheism as much as this discovery. Even this degree of fine-tuning was enough to persuade him that it looked as if ‘a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology,’ and that ‘there are no blind forces in nature worth talking about.’"

I'm sure the guy remained an atheist. But that's the effect I'm talking about.

I recently read that the chance of a higher power existing is placed at about 1 in 10 to the 31st power.

[SeattleGriz]

It's nothing new but it's just contemplating the existence around you and the probability. You can see an example of the thought process by Christian Apologist Oxford mathematician John Lennox at http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He provides a lot of examples of incomprehensibly long odds, but I'll pick one on the odds of having even one planet in the universe capable of sustaining life:



I had to write out "...to the 30th power" and thereby slightly change the quote because I don't see a way to to superscripts. But anyway we're talking about an astronomically small chance of even that one thing necessary in the chain of events required to have happened. And there are many, many other astronomically low probability things in the chain of events that had to have happened. Countless things.

There are counter arguments such as the one at http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/ ... nd-others/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But I don't think they are convincing. The author of that article, for example, says that creationists/intelligent design adherents calculate a probability of one particular thing happening at one chance in 10 to the 183rd power and it's really more one chance in 10 to the 33rd power.

I don't know if changing that particular chance to one in 10 to the 33rd power is enough to "...neutralize the probability based argument against evolution..." or not. I'd have to read the reference. But it doesn't change my outlook either way because 1) that one event that has one chance in 10 to the 33rd power of happening is just one of many low probability events that would have to have happened and 2) he's only talking about evolution. Before you could have evolution you had to have had the universe unfold in certain ways, have that planet that had only a one in 10 to the 30th power of existing, and have life arise from non living materials on that planet to begin with before it could be sustained then evolve.

The convention is to reject chance as an explanation when the probability is <=0.05. As as a qualitative matter I think the probability of the physical laws interacting with chance to result in what we see around us is a whole lot smaller than that. A WHOLE lot smaller.

I am accustomed to screening things through that lens of probability. The first thing to do with data is test it to see if its characteristics can be reasonably explained by chance. Then if the conclusion is that they can't reasonably be explained by chance, with the cutoff point being p = 0.05, one starts looking for explanations for what DID cause those characteristics. And when I look at the existence around me I just don't see it as reasonably explained by chance interacting with the physical laws.

Does that prove the existence of "God?" No. Even being 100% sure that something can't be explained by chance does not confirm what it IS. But, really, it's just not correct to say there is "no evidence" that would make one consider the possibility of an intelligence behind the way things are. Something that guided the process.

I don't know if Lennox correctly represented how one atheist mathematician/astronomer reacted to his realization of the probability associated with one characteristic of the universe necessary for the existence of life. But the way he describes it in the first article linked above is this:



I'm sure the guy remained an atheist. But that's the effect I'm talking about.

I recently read that the chance of a higher power existing is placed at about 1 in 10 to the 31st power.

Ha, good one!

[SeattleGriz]

Hate to crash the party, but check out neutral theory of molecular evolution if you want to know the latest thoughts.

By the way, the atheists are getting their asses kicked in this thread. As expected, NOTHING to progress atheism forward, but very uninformed counter arguments.

St Onge is a one man wrecking crew, and all you big mouths are getting schooled by him.

I expect you heathens to continue wetting the bed after this beat down. Pathetic.

[Chizzang]

Hate to crash the party, but check out neutral theory of molecular evolution if you want to know the latest thoughts.

By the way, the atheists are getting their asses kicked in this thread. As expected, NOTHING to progress atheism forward, but very uninformed counter arguments.

St Onge is a one man wrecking crew, and all you big mouths are getting schooled by him.

I expect you heathens to continue wetting the bed after this beat down. Pathetic.

So ^ this is what you have to add to the conversation....

[HI54UNI]

I recently read that the chance of a higher power existing is placed at about 1 in 10 to the 31st power.

Kind of like my chances of having sex with Kate Upton. But at least there's still a chance!