Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 May 2006 17:43:41 -0700
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-05-13, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-05-03, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-04-19, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 11 Apr 2006 16:31:32 -0700,
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. It might be linked with the
other constants of the universe. It might not.
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.
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? 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.
How statistically lucky for us!
We can do the same for the strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force,
etc.
You haven't shown your work, and we're right back to the fine-tuning
argument, which I thought had been dealt a death blow because God's still
omnipotent.
OK. If you want a little math and some other info, then here's a
start...
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html
Any article titled "The Intelligent Design of the Cosmos: A Mathematical
Proof" should be distrusted on the face of it. Can you tell us why?
Because it would mean that your reliance on the atheistic,
intellectual-based worldview has betrayed you?
Nope, it is because math is used to understand the universe, not define it.
There are no mathematical proofs of anything that relates to physics, because
mathematics deals with idealized objects, which are modelled by but do
not exist as mathematics.
No problem. But, what happens if the mathematical model of idealized
objects within the studied universe doesn't support a natural cause?
Perhaps you could get back to me when you have one.
But digging in, it's jibberish. Meaning, of course, that it's precisely
your argument, with all its flaws. It too, makes the claim that if these
universal constants varied from their current values by some percentage,
that means that these values were in fact unlikely, but no real work to
determine the actually probability space from which these constants are
drawn is made (or likely can be done).
You mean like the hard numbers used to show that abiogenesis occurred?
Oooopppsss.
We know abiogenesis occurred because the early universe was simply too
hot for atoms to exist, and living things are made out of atoms. Ergo:
at somepoint there was not life, and now there is. Hence: abiogenesis.
You're assuming the end result has to have a natural cause.
I'm assuming no such thing. The above argument doesn't even claim any
such thing.
Sure. Look at all the theoretical possibilities for the origin of
life:
1) Abiogenesis (purely natural cause)
2) Generic Supreme Being
3) Alien intelligence
That's about it.
Well, maybe there is a 4th one if you like to invoke the "I've painted
myself in a corner scientifically and now I need a quick and easy way
out" quantum theory extended to origin of life. You know, where life
just popped into existence from nothing without any cause.
You mean like the hard numbers used to buttress the Big Bang theory?
Uh-oh.
Yes. Like those. Those numbers you don't understand.
No one understands them.
Your ignorance is not universal.
They are purely theoretical attempts to get
some...ANY...grasp on the physics and chemistry supposedly involved.
Anyway, that math is useless until it can be used to reproduce the
conditions of the Big Bang or predict how another occurs.
Why just *that* math? Why not all math?
Some math is practical and can be used in a verifiable and repeatable
manner. Big Bang and abiogenesis theories are not that way.
You mean like the hard numbers used to show how life in this universe
can occur anywhere there is water? Ack!
You can try to argue either side of that one, but it's not irrational
to think so. After all, shortly after liquid water existed on this planet,
living things arose. Within my life time, we will likely know whether
living things have arisen on other planetary bodies with water in this
solar system.
You're assuming a natural cause again.
Not only am I not assuming such a thing, I'm not claiming such a thing.
Then why do you say that life didn't used to be here and now it
is...thus, abiogenesis must have happened. Heck! With that thinking,
I could simply say that life, or even our universe, didn't used to be
here and now it is...thus, God exists.
So, conclusions based on scientific inference without having hard
numbers can be a legitimate tool after all, huh?
It's very nice how you actually chose not to address any of the arguments
actually _in_ your cited page, or my criticisms of them.
Oh, and he makes a mistake that you didn't make: he multiplies the
(completely arbitrary) probabilities that he derived. This is only
justified if the probabilities are independent. I suppose such a claim
might be made, but it would take more heavy lifting than the author would
seem to be willing (or able) to make.
http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_justsouniverse.html
Better, but basically the same as the above.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
A laundry list of probabilities, carefully designed to multiply together
to impress the ignorant with math. In the end, the calculation itself is
of questionable utility: it's full of vague things like "if there is too
much mass, or too little mass in the galaxy, then life is impossible", but
it's not like Ross actually knows that "too much" means in any quantitative
way.
As if scientists don't have a clue what a 10% change in the strong
nuclear force would do to any elements heavier than Helium... Now,
you're disparaging any science that doesn't support your atheistic view
of the universe.
If scientists can theorize what the universe looked like at t=1*10^-34
(or whatever it is), then theorizing what a 10% change in gravity as
that Big Bang expansion occurred shouldn't be THAT difficult.
It's not. But it's silly to argue about the probability that a universe
with a 10% higher gravitational constant is. You simply have no way
of knowing.
Science isn't a buffet line where you load up with lots of Big Bang but
leave behind everything else that comes with it.
Projection, Jim. That is precisely what _you_ are doing.
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.
You haven't shown your work. You're just making numbers up, Jim.
I was just using your own 0.000000001% number.
According to the logic you've used, if I get a straight flush in poker,
I'm justified in believing that it's proof that God exists.
No, it's just proof that you're very lucky at cards. Please.
That seems a bit silly, doesn't it?
Hey! You're the one who mentioned the God and poker thing. It appears
that theology is not your only weak subject.
It is one of my weaker subjects, to be sure.
I rank it below flintknapping in its utility, so I'm not too worried about
that.
Improbability is not impossibility.
Agreed.
But neither is just pulling numbers out of your head and prancing arguments
from incredulity constitute a statistical analysis. Do you have one or not?
Yep. I pasted some links above. These are just a few that are out
there on the internet.
And they all suffer from the same sort of flaws that you've reiterated here.
So you say...so you say. Ho-hum.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Jim Spaza
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Jim Spaza
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: god exists
- Next by Date: Re: god exists
- 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
|
