Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:17:12 -0500
On 2006-05-03, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-04-19, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-04-11, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris Delozier wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143921203.417429.213170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I must have missed the part where you statistically proved the improbability
Ye Old One wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 12:30:47 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Universes could just be things that happen from time to time.
It would be a convenient explanation for the near-infinite complexity
and entropy of the singularity. But, let's be honest. Is such an
explanation more wishful thinking or more driven by scientific
discovery?
At least there is scientific evidence for the Big Bang. When will we
see any for "goddidit"?
--
Bob.
The evidence that this universe and life in it couldn't have
statistically happened on its own IS indeed evidence that
something/Someone more powerful than the cosmos made it happen.
of this universe. Mind sharing the math?
OK. Let's take gravity for a start. There is no reason to think that
gravity must be any value in particular.
Well, other than the fact that nobody has ever observed it having a different
value...
I am not saying that gravity changes, just that it didn't have to be
fixed at any one value when the universe was being created.
Yes, but you don't have any evidence that your claim is true.
I don't have any evidence that it isn't. Thus, I can theorize and see
how the theory plays out. Man, you really are resisting the
theoretical implications of having a universe where the forces of
nature could have been ANY amount.
I could try to imagine the theoretical implications of a universe where
the moon was really made of green cheese, but it's not really a very good
use of my time.
Perhaps, it's because you can
forsee the inference that a Designer would be necessary if the forces
of nature could be any number.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
It's OK. You can admit it.
It might be linked with the other constants of the universe. It might not.
So this gives us license to just make stuff up?
Just keeping in mind the possibilities until we know for sure, that's
all.
It is you who is drawing conclusions from this idea, not I.
It is you who do not want to even think about what the possible
conclusions might be if the forces of nature could have been any
amount.
I see no reason to draw conclusions based upon something for which
there is no evidence.
Your own science who begin to chip away at your atheistic beliefs.
You need a verb in that sentence.
Nevertheless, as we cannot conclude either way, we must consider the
range of possible values for gravity. So, if the gravitational
constant were maybe 1000x more or less than it is today, life of any
appreciable size would be impossible. In fact, there would be nothing
on the planetary scale in this universe.
I have another thought experiment. What if Superman had been born in
Nazi Germany?
What have we learned from this thought experiment?
That you probably still have the Marvel "What If" comic book from the
early 80's (?) where Superman didn't originate in America.
Or was it DC comics?
Too much gravity and planets of the Earth's mass might be 40 feet in
diameter with no ecosystem and, thus, no life.
Too little gravity and materials would have never coallesced to forms
stars which created all of the heavier elements in this universe.
What are the odds that we see gravity having the present value or
anything near it?
How can we possibly tell, without some actual measurement of the likelihood
of these proposed alternate values?
Without testing, you cannot. Then again, there is zero scientific
reason to think that they has to be the current values.
Well, other than the values that they have are the values that we observe.
If I reach into a vase full of marbles, and pull out a red marble, am I
justified in believing that the vase is full of red marbles or that the
vase contains half red and half blue marbles, or that every marble in the
vase is a different color?
You would be justified in believing...that an intelligent force placed
those marbles in there in the first place. Thanks, buddy. You did the
work for me.
Sigh.
Then again, you'd probably come up with quantum mechanics creating a
self-evolving air pressure system where marbles were created out of
thin air and gently placed into the vase (which didn't exist a few
moments before). And the vase is expanding the whole time, violating
all known laws of the universe.
Well, if you look at the potential range of values
from infinite repulsion through zero gravity to infinite attraction,
I'd say the odds are infinitestimally small.
I can only conclude after all this discussion that you are a simpleton,
unable to grasp even the most fundamental mathematical ideas.
No, I get what you seem to have difficulty handling. The chance that
gravity is what it is given that it could have been any value from
nothing to infinity is statistically zero.
But your "given" is far from given. And you are a simpleton.
You know that you've won the argument, philosophically and logically,
when your opponent calls you a name. Ha!
The strange thing is that I've never heard that claim from someone
who is smarter than I am.
If you admit this, then the
chance that the universe developed naturally from nothing with the
current gravitational amount is zero...demanding a non-natural
explanation. Uh-oh. You know what that means.
No, I don't, and you don't either. That's because it's the ravings of a
simpleton.
Oooppsss. He did it again.
How statistically lucky for us!
We can do the same for the strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force,
etc.
Yes, you can make sh*t up as much as you like.
I'll remember that you said that when I hear quantum mechanics causing
the universe to appear without cause and dark matter being invoked to
explain the illogical implications of the Big Band theory.
You should really stick to arguing things that you know something about.
I don't know what that might be, but it would make you look less stupid.
Three times a charm.
Statistical probability doesn't prove god. It proves we are very unlikely,
nonetheless here. Even if the math was correct, it wouldn't necessitate a
consciousness being the reason. It seems like you're just flipping the
statistics: a .000000001% chance of events occurring means a conscious
being is responsible and makes up the 99.000000009%.
Right. Statistical probability doesn't prove the existence of a Supreme
Being by itself. But, it certainly does INFER that One exists or
existed at one point in time. If you have relegated yourself to only
accepting a natural cause, then a 0.00000001% chance of existing is no
problem for you. But, if your mind is open just a little towards
non-natural causes, then the Supreme Being theory becomes your best
bet.
The thing is: you don't even have a statistical argument. You just made
stuff up, and then pretends it supports your rather bizarre ideas.
Sort of like evolutionists telling us that we evolved from a
proto-bacteria, declaring that fossils must fit the already-agreed upon
conclusion, and then using those fossils to show how the original
theory really is accurate.
If you'd like to shift the argument from fine tuning to fossil evidence,
we could do that. You don't seem to have any better grasp of that subject
though.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy in logic when I see it. You shouldn't
take any of this personally.
Mark
.
- References:
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Jim Spaza
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: USA & Iran
- Next by Date: Re: A hybrid evolution/creation theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
