Total Posts:294|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can atheists explain this?

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:53:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.

Definitely missing something, you are presupposed to a special outcome. Please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com...
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:44:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.

If the universe, or rather the multiverse is infinite then all possible configurations exist.

Even if it is not, extreme improbability does not mean impossibility.

There are other replies I can make, but basically this point is invalid.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:52:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

No it doesn't. Currently we have a set of particles that we can't break down any smaller (called elementary particles). Maybe in the future we will figure out a way to break them down but right now they seem irreducible.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Not random. The combinations follow various rules based on gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic interactions.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

How about a randomly generated God? Religion doesn't offer an answer to "why is there something instead of nothing". No one knows when it comes down to it.

Other than that, an infinite number of combinations is not required. When it comes down to it only a few things have to be just right and everything else falls into place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

An infinite number of combinations would be possible given infinite chances. But the whole idea of introducing "infinite" into this discussion is baseless as I stated above.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 12:44:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

This is incorrect.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

You are indeed wrong. Infinite combinations would also mean that it is infinitely PROBABLE, which ultimately would mean necessary. But nobody really holds this view anyway, so its moot.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:53:38 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.


Definitely missing something, you are presupposed to a special outcome. Please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com...

thanks m8, ima have to rework this theory, soon enough though I'm sure I'll prove the impossibility of evolution.

One note though, the substance of the argument is not that it is "improbable to some crazy degree" . . . but rather impossible on account of being infinitely improbable. I still feel like my argument holds to some degree or another.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:22:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:52:37 AM, Floid wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

No it doesn't. Currently we have a set of particles that we can't break down any smaller (called elementary particles). Maybe in the future we will figure out a way to break them down but right now they seem irreducible.

But science has always said that the most basic part we know of "cant be broken down" until it simply proves itself wrong.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Not random. The combinations follow various rules based on gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic interactions.

To some degree it was random . . . no outside force was "helping" them along . . . hence mindless particles floating about the great "nothing" being acted on only the laws of physics are ultimately random in their interactions with other particles. . . its semantics really and doesn't change the "meat" of the theory.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

How about a randomly generated God? Religion doesn't offer an answer to "why is there something instead of nothing". No one knows when it comes down to it.

did i mention religion in my argument?

Other than that, an infinite number of combinations is not required. When it comes down to it only a few things have to be just right and everything else falls into place.

No . . .


Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

An infinite number of combinations would be possible given infinite chances. But the whole idea of introducing "infinite" into this discussion is baseless as I stated above.

When was "infinite chances" added in? . . . There is a timeline, regardless of how large, that this had to occur in, meaning there wasn't infinite chances.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:25:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:44:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:


If the universe, or rather the multiverse is infinite then all possible configurations exist.

I didn't know there was substantial evidence for an infinite multiverse, if there is i suppose it would void this point. . .

Even if it is not, extreme improbability does not mean impossibility.

Im arguing that infinite improbability means impossibility.

There are other replies I can make, but basically this point is invalid.

Throw just one more my way.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 12:44:37 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

This is incorrect.

mind elaborating?

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

You are indeed wrong. Infinite combinations would also mean that it is infinitely PROBABLE, which ultimately would mean necessary. But nobody really holds this view anyway, so its moot.

If you presuppose that evolution is a possible explanation to the origin of life, then yes it means that it is infinitely probable. However, remove that presupposition and "erase the drawing board" if you will, and simply look at the knowns:

1) particles are infinitely complex
2) There was a limited amount of "time" for the multiverse to generate (regardless of how large it is technically possible to quantify it)
3) the universe/multiverse exists
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:56:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:22:59 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:52:37 AM, Floid wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

No it doesn't. Currently we have a set of particles that we can't break down any smaller (called elementary particles). Maybe in the future we will figure out a way to break them down but right now they seem irreducible.

But science has always said that the most basic part we know of "cant be broken down" until it simply proves itself wrong.

We know from planck's constant, that there is a smallest unit of energy, distance, and time.


If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Not random. The combinations follow various rules based on gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic interactions.

To some degree it was random . . . no outside force was "helping" them along . . . hence mindless particles floating about the great "nothing" being acted on only the laws of physics are ultimately random in their interactions with other particles. . . its semantics really and doesn't change the "meat" of the theory.

But it does make sense doesn't it. You don't know how many attempts have been done. Maybe there have been 10^100 big bangs in the past, with all or most of them having gibberish rules of physics that prevents anything from forming. But we can see that not everything lines up perfectly, quantum mechanics still appears like random chaos and doesn't fit with relativity. So it seems like not everything line up perfectly, but just enough did, which suggests lucky chance off a god that did a half assed job.


Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

How about a randomly generated God? Religion doesn't offer an answer to "why is there something instead of nothing". No one knows when it comes down to it.

did i mention religion in my argument?

It was implied.


Other than that, an infinite number of combinations is not required. When it comes down to it only a few things have to be just right and everything else falls into place.

No . . .

AMAZING REBUTAL!!!



Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

An infinite number of combinations would be possible given infinite chances. But the whole idea of introducing "infinite" into this discussion is baseless as I stated above.

When was "infinite chances" added in? . . . There is a timeline, regardless of how large, that this had to occur in, meaning there wasn't infinite chances.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.


These "parts" don't actually exist in the way that most people think they do. We divide these things up, and put boxes around them based on their behavior, but there comes a point where the boxes we put around these things get in the way of actually figuring out what is REALLY going on. What is really going on? We don't really actually know.

An atom is not really made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. It has characteristics that fulfill the purposes that these things are defined as being. Neutrons, protons, and electrons don't actually exist.

Atoms don't actually exist for that matter. People don't exist. Our perception requires us to create these things to make sense of the world. Human beings are forced to work on a relative standpoint, we can't make sense of something unless we can compare it to something else.. If there is only one thing, we divide that one.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.

I don't think many would argue for this position on grounds of probability, because by all accounts, the universe seems improbable, yet here it is.

It is a mystery we really haven't figured out yet, but no matter how ridiculous you think a hypothesis might be, it would be very hard to justify the conception of a theistic god to be any less ridiculous.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:41:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:07:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.


These "parts" don't actually exist in the way that most people think they do. We divide these things up, and put boxes around them based on their behavior, but there comes a point where the boxes we put around these things get in the way of actually figuring out what is REALLY going on. What is really going on? We don't really actually know.

An atom is not really made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. It has characteristics that fulfill the purposes that these things are defined as being. Neutrons, protons, and electrons don't actually exist.

Atoms don't actually exist for that matter. People don't exist. Our perception requires us to create these things to make sense of the world. Human beings are forced to work on a relative standpoint, we can't make sense of something unless we can compare it to something else.. If there is only one thing, we divide that one.



If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.

I don't think many would argue for this position on grounds of probability, because by all accounts, the universe seems improbable, yet here it is.

It is a mystery we really haven't figured out yet, but no matter how ridiculous you think a hypothesis might be, it would be very hard to justify the conception of a theistic god to be any less ridiculous.

or perhaps there is a better explanation than what has yet been proposed . . . maybe we have all been looking at this wrong . . . I'm not one to say yea or nay regarding this . . .but really, theres gotta be some better explanation than whats been put forward thus far
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
reasonable75
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:31:04 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 12:44:37 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.

If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

This is incorrect.

mind elaborating?

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

You are indeed wrong. Infinite combinations would also mean that it is infinitely PROBABLE, which ultimately would mean necessary. But nobody really holds this view anyway, so its moot.

If you presuppose that evolution is a possible explanation to the origin of life, then yes it means that it is infinitely probable. However, remove that presupposition and "erase the drawing board" if you will, and simply look at the knowns:

1) particles are infinitely complex
2) There was a limited amount of "time" for the multiverse to generate (regardless of how large it is technically possible to quantify it)
3) the universe/multiverse exists

What about the evidence in the way of fossils, geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, genetics, etc?

Explain why we've found Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, etc.

The list of evidence you would have to explain is insurmountable.
"There's a false assumption about science operating here. Science is not in principle committed to the idea that there's no after-life, or that the mind is identical to the brain, or that materialism is true. Science is completely open to whatever in fact is true." - Sam Harris

jimtimmy wrote:
"Look at me look at me look at me! I am a scary racist... trololololol. Oh noes somene is holding me to account for my sh1t."

Cerebral_Narcissist: "Cool story bro."
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:50:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:56:26 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:22:59 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:52:37 AM, Floid wrote:

But science has always said that the most basic part we know of "cant be broken down" until it simply proves itself wrong.

We know from planck's constant, that there is a smallest unit of energy, distance, and time.



To some degree it was random . . . no outside force was "helping" them along . . . hence mindless particles floating about the great "nothing" being acted on only the laws of physics are ultimately random in their interactions with other particles. . . its semantics really and doesn't change the "meat" of the theory.

But it does make sense doesn't it. You don't know how many attempts have been done. Maybe there have been 10^100 big bangs in the past, with all or most of them having gibberish rules of physics that prevents anything from forming. But we can see that not everything lines up perfectly, quantum mechanics still appears like random chaos and doesn't fit with relativity. So it seems like not everything line up perfectly, but just enough did, which suggests lucky chance off a god that did a half assed job.


look at the ifs and maybes and hoops you have to jump through to make this work . . . there is one if (when arguing for a God which im not doing) and that is "if he exists.)

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

How about a randomly generated God? Religion doesn't offer an answer to "why is there something instead of nothing". No one knows when it comes down to it.

did i mention religion in my argument?

It was implied.


Other than that, an infinite number of combinations is not required. When it comes down to it only a few things have to be just right and everything else falls into place.

No . . .

AMAZING REBUTAL!!!



Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

An infinite number of combinations would be possible given infinite chances. But the whole idea of introducing "infinite" into this discussion is baseless as I stated above.

When was "infinite chances" added in? . . . There is a timeline, regardless of how large, that this had to occur in, meaning there wasn't infinite chances.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:57:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:41:06 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:07:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So, as science advances we find that matter can be reduced into more and more basic parts. It makes logical sense that particles will continue to be able to be broken down into said "parts" since any entity is simply the sum of its parts.


These "parts" don't actually exist in the way that most people think they do. We divide these things up, and put boxes around them based on their behavior, but there comes a point where the boxes we put around these things get in the way of actually figuring out what is REALLY going on. What is really going on? We don't really actually know.

An atom is not really made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. It has characteristics that fulfill the purposes that these things are defined as being. Neutrons, protons, and electrons don't actually exist.

Atoms don't actually exist for that matter. People don't exist. Our perception requires us to create these things to make sense of the world. Human beings are forced to work on a relative standpoint, we can't make sense of something unless we can compare it to something else.. If there is only one thing, we divide that one.



If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

Random generation would require an infinite number of "lucky" combinations until finally we are created. Arguing for this belief on the grounds of "probability," which is what debates regarding the origin of matter are often reduced to, seems foolish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: infinite arbitrary combinations would be infinitely improbable which ultimately means its not possible/not true.

I've probably missed something, or likely confused myself while writing this, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would direct me to an answer.

I don't think many would argue for this position on grounds of probability, because by all accounts, the universe seems improbable, yet here it is.

It is a mystery we really haven't figured out yet, but no matter how ridiculous you think a hypothesis might be, it would be very hard to justify the conception of a theistic god to be any less ridiculous.

or perhaps there is a better explanation than what has yet been proposed . . . maybe we have all been looking at this wrong . . . I'm not one to say yea or nay regarding this . . .but really, theres gotta be some better explanation than whats been put forward thus far

Of course there is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:36:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Theists also have a very hard time understanding the special pleading fallacy. If they understood it, they'd realize why intelligent atheists don't find their arguments convincing in the slightest.

I wish theists would get real for a second and realize that it takes a leap of faith to be a theist that they can't reasonably expect someone else to take. It's a gamble. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of epistemology will realize it is utterly impossible to prove the things that theists tend to believe in.

All a theist is doing is trying to rationalize their gamble. They never present solid proof of anything. The really asinine ones say, "Well, prove that god doesn't exist.", because they they are completely missing the point of what I'm saying.

I respect honesty. Admit that it is a gamble. Otherwise, you are just being arrogant.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:37:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And no, I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just telling the truth.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:38:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.

I have no idea how your reply refuted his argument.

You are saying that it indeed is not logical for everyone in America who gets a license plate with their birthday laid out in the sequence to assume that someone designed the system to do it?
Even if we only had one system of license plates - the American license plates - as the only metric...
You would still not draw a conclusion it was designed to do that?

Good luck with getting hired in any gainful employment if your answer is what I think it is...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:55:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But science has always said that the most basic part we know of "cant be broken down" until it simply proves itself wrong.

You mistate the certainty with which science makes claims.

To some degree it was random . . . no outside force was "helping" them along . . . hence mindless particles floating about the great "nothing" being acted on only the laws of physics are ultimately random in their interactions with other particles. . . its semantics really and doesn't change the "meat" of the theory.

It appears you don't understand basic physics. I would suggest starting with gravity and working your way through the other forces and it might clear up some of your misconceptions about random interactions.

did i mention religion in my argument?

Yes, the title of your post was "Can atheists explain this?"

Other than that, an infinite number of combinations is not required. When it comes down to it only a few things have to be just right and everything else falls into place.

No . . .

Please explain. I would state that given the fundamental forces and matter to act upon everything else works out. If you disagree state how.

When was "infinite chances" added in? . . . There is a timeline, regardless of how large, that this had to occur in, meaning there wasn't infinite chances.

Infinite chances is added in given an infinite amount of time. I would think this idea was self obvious, but since it is not here is an example: suppose there is one chance per second. If I there are infinite seconds, how many chances are there?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:07:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:38:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.

I have no idea how your reply refuted his argument.

You are saying that it indeed is not logical for everyone in America who gets a license plate with their birthday laid out in the sequence to assume that someone designed the system to do it?
Even if we only had one system of license plates - the American license plates - as the only metric...
You would still not draw a conclusion it was designed to do that?

Good luck with getting hired in any gainful employment if your answer is what I think it is...

The problem, for a dense guy who claims to have so many degrees, is that in reality craig has not in anyway shown this result looks like that. He has intentionally held certain possibliities out of the equation to make it look special. Craigs retarded argument is the equivalent of this, the first 100 coins i put in only 1 was a dime. I pull out a dime you act shocked. The problem is I put more then a 100 coins in the pot, there were 5000 coins. how many out of the next hundred were dimes? See how that works when you tinker with the dichotomy of possible options to make it seem special, it turns to nonsense.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 9:07:06 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:38:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.

I have no idea how your reply refuted his argument.

You are saying that it indeed is not logical for everyone in America who gets a license plate with their birthday laid out in the sequence to assume that someone designed the system to do it?
Even if we only had one system of license plates - the American license plates - as the only metric...
You would still not draw a conclusion it was designed to do that?

Good luck with getting hired in any gainful employment if your answer is what I think it is...

The problem, for a dense guy who claims to have so many degrees, is that in reality craig has not in anyway shown this result looks like that. He has intentionally held certain possibliities out of the equation to make it look special. Craigs retarded argument is the equivalent of this, the first 100 coins i put in only 1 was a dime. I pull out a dime you act shocked. The problem is I put more then a 100 coins in the pot, there were 5000 coins. how many out of the next hundred were dimes? See how that works when you tinker with the dichotomy of possible options to make it seem special, it turns to nonsense.

Again I do not see you addressing the point.
Perhaps you are in saying that Craig has not proven the pattern?

To my mind the pattern is very clear. You claim you do not see the pattern of design.
Even Dawkins admits that the world looks to be designed and he has to work very hard to convince himself it is not.

Craig does not need to layout a massivily complex structure of the forest. We, who can see the forest for ourselves, also concur with Craigs assesment.

If you can only see a proverbial tree rather than the proverbial forest, then I pity you. Craig has no need to describe the obvious design of the universe. The more we learn the more it points to a designed pattern.

You did state something about not knowning all possible universes as a possible refutation but you did not address the fact that we could easily draw a conclusion of design if we only had American license plates that used our birthdates with the identifier.

You would still be obtuse not to believe that pattern was by design. No matter the other metrics unknown.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:13:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:25:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:44:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:


If the universe, or rather the multiverse is infinite then all possible configurations exist.

I didn't know there was substantial evidence for an infinite multiverse, if there is i suppose it would void this point. . .

Even if it is not, extreme improbability does not mean impossibility.

Im arguing that infinite improbability means impossibility.

You are not arguing for infinite improbability, your are arguing for an incredible level of improbability.


There are other replies I can make, but basically this point is invalid.

Throw just one more my way.

Superfluous.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:19:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable,

We don't know that this universe is highly improbable.

it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.


No it isn't, it fullly addresses it.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

Exactly.


We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.

Really? You would not chalk it down to coincidence?

The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

No, patterns may imply design, they don't show clear design. Given the theory that there is an infinite dice pool then a universe 'apparently' designed will form.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

Aren't you claiming to be a physicist?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:31:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 9:37:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 9:07:06 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:38:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.

I have no idea how your reply refuted his argument.

You are saying that it indeed is not logical for everyone in America who gets a license plate with their birthday laid out in the sequence to assume that someone designed the system to do it?
Even if we only had one system of license plates - the American license plates - as the only metric...
You would still not draw a conclusion it was designed to do that?

Good luck with getting hired in any gainful employment if your answer is what I think it is...

The problem, for a dense guy who claims to have so many degrees, is that in reality craig has not in anyway shown this result looks like that. He has intentionally held certain possibliities out of the equation to make it look special. Craigs retarded argument is the equivalent of this, the first 100 coins i put in only 1 was a dime. I pull out a dime you act shocked. The problem is I put more then a 100 coins in the pot, there were 5000 coins. how many out of the next hundred were dimes? See how that works when you tinker with the dichotomy of possible options to make it seem special, it turns to nonsense.

Again I do not see you addressing the point.
Perhaps you are in saying that Craig has not proven the pattern?

To my mind the pattern is very clear. You claim you do not see the pattern of design.
Even Dawkins admits that the world looks to be designed and he has to work very hard to convince himself it is not.

Craig does not need to layout a massivily complex structure of the forest. We, who can see the forest for ourselves, also concur with Craigs assesment.

If you can only see a proverbial tree rather than the proverbial forest, then I pity you. Craig has no need to describe the obvious design of the universe. The more we learn the more it points to a designed pattern.

You did state something about not knowning all possible universes as a possible refutation but you did not address the fact that we could easily draw a conclusion of design if we only had American license plates that used our birthdates with the identifier.

You would still be obtuse not to believe that pattern was by design. No matter the other metrics unknown.

the correct formulation concerns universes governed by the same
laws of nature as ours, but with different values of the constants and quantities.
Because the equations remain the same, we can predict what the world would be
like, if, say, the gravitational constant were doubled.

He amazingly eliminates a majority of possible universes, so that he can get his wanted result imagine this you have these sets of numbers:

(2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) (1,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1) (2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) (2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2)

Ok so then we say we can select one of those numbers. here is the set we can select from:

(2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2)

we select the 1st (1) out of all those numbers, now here is where craigs trick comes in, when discussing the probability of drawing a 1 he only refers to the first set (2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) and says it is against the odds because it is 1/14. When in reality its is 30/61 chance. The thing is we don't know the other possible universes, but it is clearly cheating to eliminate every other possible chance.

There also is another problem you fail to see as well. Inductively a majority of things that are complex have no indication of a designer. Galaxies, stars, moons, planets,solar systems, comets, gravity, all these complex things far outweigh the number of complex items we see that we know have a designer, so it still seems low odds that because something seems complex it has a designer.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:32:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:31:22 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 9:37:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 9:07:06 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:38:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:29:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:15:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Greek,
If I can propose the same breakdown from William Lane Craig on this subject that has gone unrefuted by atheists.

Athiests typically miss the argument.

Athiests will state "though this universe is highly improbable, it does not matter as one was bound to be landed on. Same as rolling 100 die. Any given combination is astronomically unlikely, yet one set of numbers must be produced. You are just presupposing this one should have been landed on our sequence of numbers in the "grand roll of the die".

However, that is missing the theistic argument of improbability with pattern.

It would be like you going to get your license plate. Any given sequence of numbers and letters to be given on your license plate is astronomically unlikely, however one will be given to you.

We wish to point out that such a statement misses our point. We point to the pattern.

If you went to get your license plate and the letters and numbers just happened to be your birth date... you would be obtuse to not recognize there was clear intent behind the sequence.
The design would be obvious. There is a practical zero chance that such a combination was not clearly designed. It is even more absurd as everyone gets their birthdate with an individual key identifier.

What we are saying is that the pattern shows clear design. A person would have to be obtuse to miss the clear pattern laid out in the sequence given to us.

It is not just high improbibility that we are discussing but the clear evidence of a pattern that unmistakably points to design.

What you miss is there is no idea about how many possible universes would look designed vs how many would not. We have 1 data set of universes. Craigs fallacy is blatant in his book. He tries to hold the laws constant in his book, while changing the constants. He is playing spin half the wheels, trying to set a false dichotomy. He isn't playing with the full spectrum of possible universes. It is clear when you read Reasonable Faith, reference to this nonsense is on page 160. Night, night fallacy machine gun Craig trampled again.

I have no idea how your reply refuted his argument.

You are saying that it indeed is not logical for everyone in America who gets a license plate with their birthday laid out in the sequence to assume that someone designed the system to do it?
Even if we only had one system of license plates - the American license plates - as the only metric...
You would still not draw a conclusion it was designed to do that?

Good luck with getting hired in any gainful employment if your answer is what I think it is...

The problem, for a dense guy who claims to have so many degrees, is that in reality craig has not in anyway shown this result looks like that. He has intentionally held certain possibliities out of the equation to make it look special. Craigs retarded argument is the equivalent of this, the first 100 coins i put in only 1 was a dime. I pull out a dime you act shocked. The problem is I put more then a 100 coins in the pot, there were 5000 coins. how many out of the next hundred were dimes? See how that works when you tinker with the dichotomy of possible options to make it seem special, it turns to nonsense.

Again I do not see you addressing the point.
Perhaps you are in saying that Craig has not proven the pattern?

To my mind the pattern is very clear. You claim you do not see the pattern of design.
Even Dawkins admits that the world looks to be designed and he has to work very hard to convince himself it is not.

Craig does not need to layout a massivily complex structure of the forest. We, who can see the forest for ourselves, also concur with Craigs assesment.

If you can only see a proverbial tree rather than the proverbial forest, then I pity you. Craig has no need to describe the obvious design of the universe. The more we learn the more it points to a designed pattern.

You did state something about not knowning all possible universes as a possible refutation but you did not address the fact that we could easily draw a conclusion of design if we only had American license plates that used our birthdates with the identifier.

You would still be obtuse not to believe that pattern was by design. No matter the other metrics unknown.


the correct formulation concerns universes governed by the same
laws of nature as ours, but with different values of the constants and quantities.
Because the equations remain the same, we can predict what the world would be
like, if, say, the gravitational constant were doubled.


He amazingly eliminates a majority of possible universes, so that he can get his wanted result imagine this you have these sets of numbers:

(2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) (1,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1) (2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) (2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2)

Ok so then we say we can select one of those numbers. here is the set we can select from:

(2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2)

we select the 1st (1) out of all those numbers, now here is where craigs trick comes in, when discussing the probability of drawing a 1 he only refers to the first set (2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) and says it is against the odds because it is 1/14. When in reality its is 30/61 chance. The thing is we don't know the other possible universes, but it is clearly cheating to eliminate every other possible chance.

There also is another problem you fail to see as well. Inductively a majority of things that are complex have no indication of a designer. Galaxies, stars, moons, planets,solar systems, comets, gravity, all these complex things far outweigh the number of complex items we see that we know have a designer, so it still seems low odds that because something seems complex it has a designer.

"the correct formulation concerns universes governed by the same
laws of nature as ours, but with different values of the constants and quantities.
Because the equations remain the same, we can predict what the world would be
like, if, say, the gravitational constant were doubled." This is from reasonable faith page 160.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:36:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Theists also have a very hard time understanding the special pleading fallacy. If they understood it, they'd realize why intelligent atheists don't find their arguments convincing in the slightest.


I wish theists would get real for a second and realize that it takes a leap of faith to be a theist that they can't reasonably expect someone else to take. It's a gamble. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of epistemology will realize it is utterly impossible to prove the things that theists tend to believe in.

All a theist is doing is trying to rationalize their gamble. They never present solid proof of anything. The really asinine ones say, "Well, prove that god doesn't exist.", because they they are completely missing the point of what I'm saying.


I respect honesty. Admit that it is a gamble. Otherwise, you are just being arrogant.

its a gamble? . . . what is there to lose? some money? . . . I know far more successful happy Christians than non . . . but that might just be due to the nature of my acquaintances. There is actually little or nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:11:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ Izbo and C_N

I do not think either of you have assented to my argument.

If you went to the DMV to get a license plate.
The license plate that was given to you had your birthday on it with a key identifier.
You would not naturally assume that it was by design?
Despite not knowing any other license plate system in any other country and not knowing any other metric you would be pretty obtuse not to go with the obvious.
Even though neither of you assented I believe you both know you would assume design.

What we are discussing is the clear pattern that is involved.
After seeing the complexity of the universe, overlaid by the mathematical odds, governed by the clockwork pattern and in light of the claim of Divine creation....

You would only naturally assume design. We could be wrong if there was no historical claim to the generation of the system and clockwork pattern that governs us... but yet there is the claim. It makes divine creation a near certainty.

Realize you are discounting the claim of design throughout history by people who have interacted with a Diety.

Izbo please stop blathering and respond to the statement. You are not arguing with a mindless book that you can take out of context. Stick with me buddy.

C_N please drill down to these facts and we can move forward. We continue to hit empasses when you do not respond to the questions with honesty.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:23:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:18:44 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
If atheists believe that our current state of being was generated from an ultimately random combination of these "parts, the belief fails on account of basic logic.

This is where so many ignorant Theists (some FAR more willfully ignorant than others) seem to get stuck...

"HOW CAN IT ALL BE RANDOM?"
This is what I believe:
-The Universe began, however it began. While lots of theories sound good, I admittedly don't know. I'm fairly sure, however, that it wasn't a supernatural being wanting to specifically create us.
-Our solar system, including Earth formed. Earth is in the Goldilocks zone. This means liquid water can exist.
-Earth had the right conditions for Abiogenesis to occur. Basic amino acids formed.
-Those amino acids began the slow process of Evolution, becoming more and more complex over time, branching out in to many different types of life, eventually becoming all life on Earth.

Nothing about this seems random to me. Somewhere (and I think in many, many places) these conditions were bound to exist. We are merely a product of those conditions over billions of years.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...