Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[godisabullet]

I think the op could have done everyone a favour and stated his original proposal differently:

"God exists and he created everything. Prove me wrong."

 

[ragnarokx297]

Fine-tuning starts with inflation , wich must be finely tuned to 10 of the 10^120 degree.

the strength of the strong nuclear force. If it were about two percent weaker

it seems conservative to say that it was one chance out of 100 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.

I have not read most of the middle of the thread, but I just want to know, where are you getting these numbers from?

Like say the cosmological constant is C, whatever that number is. Maybe we will just say its equal to 2, might as well.

Now as I see it, with your 10^120 deviation it should mean that it has to fall under the represented green area in this simple number line:

<=========================================================================================================>
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
-inf------------------------------------------------------2 - (2)/(10^120)--------------------------------------2 + (2)/(10^120)------------------------------------------------+inf


Now the probability that the cosmological constant falls under the middle area which would allow for life or a universe or whatever you say its fine tuned for, is equal to the points inside the area divided by the total number of points. So its = infinity/infinity...
Now, how do you get numbers like a 1% chance and stuff??

What you do to get a probability is take the distribution function, normalize it (preferably to 1), and then integrate it, setting the limits to the bounds you want to find the probability of.

Such is the what you have to do to get the probability of something in quantum mechanics or thermodynamics.
But in those fields, the distribution functions are always Gaussians, allowing you to normalize it as they go to zero at + and - infinity, generally meaning they have a finite area under them. But when your talking about these constants your assuming that every possible number the constant might be is equally probable(thinking otherwise would work against the conclusion your trying to make), which turns the distribution function into just a straight line... and thus it doesn't have a finite area under it to normalize to and possibly get a definite probability from. Any constant you throw out with a specific range will still have a probability of infinity/infinity.
Unless these constants are actually both quantized and have minimum and maximum values, how do you get off with claiming certain probabilities that the constants fall under the values they are?

To me, it seems that your using words like "it seems conservative to say" to hide the fact that you guys don't have actual probabilities and are just pulling them out of your ...
But I could definitely be wrong, so maybe you can actually explain where you get these probabilities from that leads you to eventually claim fine tuning, I'd even accept a link that shows the actual math.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

So you believe the universe has existed without beginning, eternally ? so how about the energy and second law of thermodynamics ?

The law of thermodynamics is irrelevant because the universe has not always been in this state.

and the impossibility to have infinity in reality ?

Prove it.

But, lets keep your answer as valid : what mechanism do you suggest for the occurrence of the first life ?

See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.

Thats simply not true.

Prove it.

proposing what mechanisms exactly for abiogenesis?

See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.

nope. we have a debate here. So you are asked to provide answers, and propose your world view.

EGAD! Suppose you would actually read wikipedia! I know, studying is scary.

but you have failed so far to provide other mechanisms than chance.

Chance isn't a mechanism. See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.

Sure, thats possible. But you failed so far, to show me why i should be wrong. provide better , more compelling and convincing explanations, and i'll might change position.

See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.

I think the op could have done everyone a favour and stated his original proposal differently:
"God exists and he created everything. Prove me wrong."

That would've exposed his intentions, though, so he avoided phrasing it that way because he knows he carries the burden of proof. And it's just not that easy for him to prove that something came from nothing.

 

[Japhia888]

a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.

You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.

I believe God did not exist " always " , since this implies time. I believe God existed in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. That makes perfectly sense. To believe, the universe existed eternally, does not make sense, based on the arguments already presented.

Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)

10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10-50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;

nope, it does not. Thats just a pattern.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm

Patterns are simply created by matter in energy. That's all that's there. In the world of patterns there is never an exact copy. To have information you have to matter and energy and will. Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.

Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.

wow, amazing. how do you know ?

 

[Japhia888]

No. This is where you just don't UNDERSTAND. God is not the best explanation!

absolutes don't exist here. We just say our personal opinions.

An invisible, omnipotent, never-created but always alive being which is immaterial created a material universe because he was... what? bored?

what does Gods motivation have to do with God as the best explanation for our existence ?

It's still material created out of nothing!

that is certainly baffling. But what is your alternative ? nothing, aka a inefficent cause made everything ? that is certainly magic at its best. Can you really imagine, that from the absence of any thing, something could arise ? does that make sense to you ? is it logic ?

And if the material was there all along there was no need for God.

So you think, science is wrong, when it postulates a Big Bang, which leads logically to believe, the universe is finite in time ?

Hence... God is not an explanation at all, not even a bad one.

when the premise is wrong, the deduction coulnt be right, isnt it ?

Just one that gives you warm fuzzies.

honestly, keep your warm fuzzies for you. thats more , something for the feminine......

 

[Japhia888]

If it is not provided than your idea about a god(s) creating life on earth is unscientific.

And why should it be scientific, and be testable through operational science ? can you test macro-evolution ? no ? so why do you believe, its true ? or the Big Bang ?

What features of the natural world are better explained with the Genesis account? This would be news to me.

see my first post, and you will know

 

[Japhia888]

1. What evidence could you find that would demonstrate that something happened because of magic instead of some naturalistic explanation?

for example, you not being able to present evidence, natural mechanisms to be more plausible. Indeed, so far you and anyone else, have not. Chance has so far failed as efficient cause of the creation of the universe, its finetuning, and abiogenesis, to convince me, being a good explanation.

2. If you don't know how something happened, "magic" will always fit the gap.

but we know , how improbable is, the fine tuning of the universe to happen by pure luck. and so abiogenesis. So my position is not based on the lack of knowledge, quit the contrary is the case.

3. Assuming that it was magic that caused a certain thing, attempting any further inquiry into that thing is halted. We have no idea of what the nature of magic is.

Unless God reveals himself to us. what i believe, he has done very clearly.

4. All the following things were previously thought to be purely magical/supernatural, all further inquiry was abandoned because of these thoughts.

• Lightning
• Diseases
• Creation of Species
• Rain
• The Harvest
• Epilepsy
• Hereditary Genetics
• Death
• and the list goes on...

however , modern science shows us more and more, that things are far more complex, and not the contrary is the case. Abiogenesis is a good example. so not all scientific inquiry leads to clarification of natural causes. Many things indeed show us the contrary makes more sense to believe : in a supernatural cause.

If scientists assume god did these things, then why would we ever search for naturalistic explanations?

because modern science relies on a naturalistic philosophy. Everything shall be explained within our universe.

And if you believe that god has anything to do with the world (like the weather and seasons). Then you should know that these have naturalistic explanations too, why can't god and natural explanation work together? Why do they have to contradict?

i didnt say that.

that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.

Japhia, you are grabbing at straws here. If you would actually try to think about anything that is being said, maybe you could help your arguments, but you're not. You're just trying to parrot something you've read somewhere and it shows.

yes, mostly i do. But the authors which i parrot were so smart, that so far, nobody here was able to present a better explanation for our existence. I at least be humble enough to learn from them. Better than rather held to unreasonable beliefs and a unthoughtful position.

 

[nemesiss]

a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.

You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.

I believe God did not exist " always " , since this implies time. I believe God existed in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. That makes perfectly sense. To believe, the universe existed eternally, does not make sense, based on the arguments already presented.

actually, thats a contradiction.
the element of time is a need for the definition of existance.
if an object is stripped from time, its also stripped from existance.
therefor, god CANNOT EXIST without time.
this also implies that he could not exist before the beginning of the universe and there can never have created it.

Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)

10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10-50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

Chance was and still is NEVER an element in the equation of life.
this is a strawmens argument.
at best, his argument isn't even random. its specific.
"10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide" ... why can't it be a 3 amino acid polypeptide, or even a 1 amino acid polypeptide?
same goes for the ohter points.

Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;

nope, it does not. Thats just a pattern.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm

Patterns are simply created by matter in energy. That's all that's there. In the world of patterns there is never an exact copy. To have information you have to matter and energy and will. Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.

well, the thoughts in your brain is also information.
unfortunately, we can't copy the exact context from a brain.

as for the interpertation of patterns, ever heard of braille?
to many it many be just a bunch of dot's, but for blind people it's means access to the world.

Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.

wow, amazing. how do you know ?

Similar to humans, we can trace the course of language of humans through history.
our main source books, cloths, pots clay tablets, etc... anything that was used to write on.

This article might explain this more clearer
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langevol.html

it reads a bit boring, but science doesn't really care that much about style.

 

[borrofburi]

You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.

I believe God did not exist " always " , since this implies time. I believe God existed in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. That makes perfectly sense. To believe, the universe existed eternally, does not make sense, based on the arguments already presented.

This is a copout, a fancy way to try to dodge the problem, but it doesn't work. "timeless eternity" is a meaningless phrase (if it's not, please rigidly define it; or, more precisely, as has been pointed out, please propose what it means to "exist" "outside of time", because all definitions of existence that I know of include a time element); it's rather like saying "this object is blue outside of colour" or "this object is green without light".

Again "without beginning and without end"; why introduce god? Why not instead save ourselves a complexity step and presume that the universe (i.e. all there is) has existed in some form or another in some sort of "timeless eternity"? Regardless, despite you're fancy wording, your proposal amounts to "something has always existed, but it's a really special something that has always existed in a really special way.

Moreover, you have yet to encounter the other problems with a god not existing in time: that by its very nature means god is unchanging, yet SOMETHING had to change for such a being to decide to create something and to interact with beings who live inside time.

Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)

10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

(this is the only part that's relevant, the rest is worthless tripe that is irrelevant because it's just some guy's opinion)

Unfortunately, I'm coming down with the plague (err, a cold, a very nasty one (because I know who I got it from)), and right this moment I'm late to yet another meeting, so delving into your source and countering it directly is not possible at the moment (and might not be possible later if I'm sick). But a very very quick answer is: the odds that a crystal are in its exact formation are even worse than these odds; yet we don't say that crystals improve an intelligent rock creator. That is, these calculations (I've seen them before) are done (1) by pulling them out of his ass and (2) by IGNORING the physical reality and physical constraints placed on molecules; the likelihood that a crystal forms is quite high (because, you know, they do it all the time), yet if I do the same thing: ignore the physical constraints placed on molecules (read: chemistry) I can quickly find that it's 10^<very large number>. It's really a very silly way to calculate the "likelihood" of something happening.

Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;

nope, it does not. Thats just a pattern.

First: you've moved the goalposts. Second: please define, in a rigid matter, the difference between "pattern" and "information", and please specify how a "pattern" does not contain information (because, damn, I wonder why my grandma's always takling about buying fancy new crocheting patterns if there's no information contained in them...). The answer is: the way Marshall and other IDers (and young earth cerationists) do this "information has to come from an intelligence" game is to do it buy (1) borrowing terminology from information theory and (2) IGNORING the rigid definition of "information". They NEVER define "information" in a rigorous manner, and instead dance around it and make bold claims that are entirely insubstantial and unfalsifiable without a rigid agreed upon definition of information.

The fact is, according to the rigorously defined definition of "information" used in the field of science entitled "information theory", crystals contain a large amount of information, as would the string containing a list of dice rolls.

I excised your second paragraph because it contained those "bold claims" that can only be made without rigorously defining "information". Later today I'll go find a youtube explanation that I know exists (I just don't have time to go find it right now) that does a very good job of explaining how information works, and how information CAN arise from chemical reactions (which, by the way, is something you are both denying and accepting).

Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.

wow, amazing. how do you know ?

We can look back upon the way language has morphed and changed, and the various ways communication has evolved among other species and conclude that, at the very least, it is evolving and has evolved (even if, I suppose, you can argue "magic man done it" for the inception of language).

P.s. as always, please stop splitting my paragraphs.

 

[MetalMeltdown]

I have not read the whole thread, so I could be wrong, but...

You're saying that God fine tuned all those 120 costant to allow for life to form etc, right?

But then, every explanation that bases itself on those same costants through the laws of physics make no sense ?

So, God fixed the value of the nuclear force, Em force, the amount of dark matter, etc... Based on those laws and values, a biochemist says: " Well, this is how RNA could have arisen and evolved in DNA ".

And then you go " NO NO NO NO NO! THIS EXPLANATION IS IMPOSSIBLE GOD DIDIT ".

What's the point of fine tuning everything, if, after everything is fine tuned, you still have to interfere to make things work ?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

No. This is where you just don't UNDERSTAND. God is not the best explanation!

absolutes don't exist here. We just say our personal opinions.

Glad to hear a theist admit that - now your whole religion implodes as does your concept of god... congratulations

It's still material created out of nothing!

that is certainly baffling. But what is your alternative ? nothing, aka a inefficent cause made everything ? that is certainly magic at its best. Can you really imagine, that from the absence of any thing, something could arise ? does that make sense to you ? is it logic ?

So you think, science is wrong, when it postulates a Big Bang, which leads logically to believe, the universe is finite in time ?

The Big Bang theory postulates no such thing... how can you dismiss an explanation when you can't even grasp it's simplest concepts? What you're doing here is the equivalent of dismissing the possibility of a Boeing 747 being able to fly because they vastly heavier than air and you can't grasp the concepts of aerodynamics.

Just one that gives you warm fuzzies.

honestly, keep your warm fuzzies for you. thats more , something for the feminine......

Ah sexism, how wonderful it must be to be a pious man of god. Troglodyte.

 

[Independent Vision]

absolutes don't exist here. We just say our personal opinions.

what does Gods motivation have to do with God as the best explanation for our existence ?


that is certainly baffling. But what is your alternative ? nothing, aka a inefficent cause made everything ? that is certainly magic at its best. Can you really imagine, that from the absence of any thing, something could arise ? does that make sense to you ? is it logic ?

So you think, science is wrong, when it postulates a Big Bang, which leads logically to believe, the universe is finite in time ?

when the premise is wrong, the deduction coulnt be right, isnt it ?


honestly, keep your warm fuzzies for you. thats more , something for the feminine......

1. You're not even shifting the goalpost anymore. You're shifting ballparks. Hell... you're shifting sports. You wanted reason, logic and proof, not opinions. Now you only care about opinions? Am I confused here?

2. You started talking about God's motivations way before I did. "God wanted us so he created us"? I don't care about the motivation of a being I do not believe in. You should, if you think he created you

3. Just because you can't explain it at the moment doesn't make it magic. Unless you want to call everything magic, since we once didn't know the mechanics behind it. You're shifting ballparks again.

Look... I was going to put some time and effort into this, but then you went and brought the fact that I am a woman into the discussion, and I'm not even going to bother anymore. I obviously got under your skin severely if you have to resort to blabber about "the feminine".
I think I have an inkling of what I am dealing with now, and I have no wish to continue this exchange. My intelligence is way too precious to me to damage it with more of your nonsensical blabber.

 

[Rivius]

It's life's own ability to evolve that had it adapt toward the harsh conditions in the world. The mere wastefulness over the years of specie, upon specie, upon specie to get to us is just silly if done by some sort of intelligent God.

Well, i certainly don't believe in common ancestry...so your argument is pointless to me.

...What? Why... ? Does that mean you're a creationist then? Explain your position on evolution more fully then.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

What I have learned from this thread is that creationists who are ignorant aren't as bad as creationists who are ignorant and proud of it.

 

[lrkun]

A person who chose to close his or her mind will only learn to see the obvious reality of things when he or she chooses to open his or her mind. In this case, the thread starter has yet to open his or her mind. Therefore, any explanation from you or me will never suffice or overcome his or her accepted rationalization. Consequently, the only correct answer to him or her is that god made it so.

To us, this is an exercise in futility.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

And why should it be scientific, and be testable through operational science ?

Well, if it is not natural and un-testable than there is really no way of knowing about it. Science has been the only way humans have been able to observe the world around us and find real answers.

can you test macro-evolution ? no ? so why do you believe, its true ?

Actually yes. We have tested macroevolution in both the field and the lab. Macroevolution is simply change between species, which we have observed. Microevolution is change within a species.
Tell me, can you even define evolution in a biological context? The reason I am asking this is that the people that argue against evolution are usually the people that know the least about it. In addition, this statement from you leads me to believe that you have never researched this subject.

see my first post, and you will know

I read your first post. There is nothing in your first post that answers my question. Therefore, I will ask it again. What features of the natural world are better explained with Genesis?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I always wonder what happens when we find life on other planets/celestial bodies. I mean, suppose we find bacteria in the craters of the moon or under the surface of Titan.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Sorry, was having a morning croissant and trolling through threads, and I saw this. Here comes some more stuff you won't bother to listen to or think about japhia, so here you go:

then lets put it this way :

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe

Is one needed? If so, why? And, why must someone prove how the universe was created or believe in a god(s)? Saying I dont know is ok, japhia. We may figure it out someday, but we dont have to worship zeus or allah or yahweh or leprechauns or pretzels or any other mythical beings until then.

- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned

Yeah, about that... 10^120 isnt that much. I play a game called go quite often, who possible moves are 10^200, much more than the theoretical amount of protons in the universe. on a simple 19x19 board, things are more complicated than the conditions needed for us to live. 80 zeros more, in fact. So, what does this so called "fine tuning" have to do with anything? Everything is in that kind of figures if you want to make a point. look at the chances of atoms forming a human. You would have to find the #of atoms, and then the chances of each one being in that exact spot. Its also much more improbable than the conditions for life we enjoy. Also, who is to say there are not other conditions we have not seen?

- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

DNA-read a science book. I dont have time to explain that one. Someone here probably has, though, so look at theirs.
consciousness-electrical impulses in the brain are unexplainable without god? How so?
hability of thought-lots of time improves the basic wiring. Not really dependent on a god.
morality-this one is definitely not chance, but of the ones you listed, this one is the only one that even remotely sorta kinda almost maybe has some merit. this is because while we have lots of good, likely ideas (none of which is an invisible magician, btw), we do not yet know. The best guess nowadays is based on social structure and grouping of ancestors. not chance or god. Just time and improvements

chance resumes to simply " nothing " . Nothing , aka a inefficient cause, should be a more rational, more compelling, simply a better explanation, than a intelligent designer, aka a efficent cause for all that exists ?

that explanation might satisfy you ( and i really don't know why ) Certainly it does not me. Neither do i understand, why such thinking should be reasonable. Based on what should this be a league of reason ? based on NOTHING ????

More reasonable to believe in an invisible magical being that created everything and demands you worship him or burn forever but he loves you, then? :lol: :facepalm:

i know... you might say.........no no no... we simply have no answers yet..... bollock. any reasonable person can find out just by studying nature, that it makes a lot of sense to believe in a intelligent creator, by observing its complexity, its beauty, its organisation.[/quote]

No it doesn't. beauty is subjective, first. I think nature is disgusting. So theres one out of the way. Organization? Its organized into things that kill other things. It isnt organized at all except what kill and eats what, so...mind to quantify a bit? Complexity is explained adequately with time. You dont need a god for nature.


Also, FB, we have found bacteria on mars. ALIENS DO EXIST!!

 

[Jotto999]

Can you tell me the events of every place in the world on August 12, 1400 BC?

No.

 

[Story]

for example, you not being able to present evidence, natural mechanisms to be more plausible. Indeed, so far you and anyone else, have not. Chance has so far failed as efficient cause of the creation of the universe, its finetuning, and abiogenesis, to convince me, being a good explanation.

Bad argument. This was once true for the theory of evolution, but with the discovery of things such as DNA the whole concept became naturalistically explainable.

but we know , how improbable is, the fine tuning of the universe to happen by pure luck. and so abiogenesis. So my position is not based on the lack of knowledge, quit the contrary is the case.

These things could simply be explained by a mutliverse and an eternity of time or extra dimensions and M-Theory, but nothing needs to be explained. The probability of all of your ancestors meeting up and the right evolutionary mechanisms being in place to lead up to creating you is lower than any probability you can suppose for the development of the universe, but it did happen. Just the probability of your parents coming together to form you is one in around 5 billion, plus your grandparents is 1 in 25*10^18. Using your understanding of how probability works, we would then assume that the most likely explanation for your existence is magic, seeing that it is so improbable otherwise.

Unless God reveals himself to us. what i believe, he has done very clearly.

:shock: Where? :?

however , modern science shows us more and more, that things are far more complex, and not the contrary is the case.

Exactly! Because we learned that there were mechanisms that determined these things and then realised that magic was a stupid assumption to make, especially in the absence of knowledge right?

If we don't know what mechanisms decide the strength of nuclear forces and cosmological constants yet and we only understand that we can measure them, assuming that it is magic that determines them is an argument from ignorance.

because modern science relies on a naturalistic philosophy. Everything shall be explained within our universe.

That's exactly right, which why it's important to rely on naturalistic philosophy to tell us what mechanisms decide that these forces are of such strength etc.

And if you believe that god has anything to do with the world (like the weather and seasons). Then you should know that these have naturalistic explanations too, why can't god and natural explanation work together? Why do they have to contradict?

i didnt say that.

Do you think that if we found and prove naturalistic explanations for these constants (like a multiverse) it will completely disprove god?

Or do you think that you would still require an explanation for the existence of such multiverse assuming we were still working on one?

that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.

Japhia, you are grabbing at straws here. If you would actually try to think about anything that is being said, maybe you could help your arguments, but you're not. You're just trying to parrot something you've read somewhere and it shows.

yes, mostly i do. But the authors which i parrot were so smart, that so far, nobody here was able to present a better explanation for our existence. I at least be humble enough to learn from them. Better than rather held to unreasonable beliefs and a unthoughtful position.

It's not humble when you already agree with the beliefs of the writers before you begin reading their arguments. Humbleness is when you completely disagree with an idea and you are led to accept it because you understand that the people talking about it have more knowledge of the subject than you do. This is not always a valid reason to accept something either, nor is it entirely a good thing. Being humble is just the quality of being able to accept your ignorance and submitting to those that are not ignorant, which you don't seem prepared to do.