It gets a lot more impressive than that buddy. You should read up on how incredibly fine tuned the universe is for life, like razor sharp.
My understanding and use of Logic is reasonably good. Good enough to see a straw man when I see it. I didn't have to just read up about it, either. Nobody has ever argued, but you as a straw man, that the most important minds in science are even looking for evidence to disprove god. Here's another one for you. This details your logic. To the point where people post this smiley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Throughout history it's not even close, and I'd disagree with the notion that today more scientists disbelieve than believe. As we come to know more about the world we live in the more the evidence points to "design!".
That isn't what's been said. If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being. Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being. It hasn't been twisted like Queen not a U.S. citizen; therefor she is not human. If God doesn't exists; Then there should be proof he doesn't exist; therefor he doesn't exist. As you see everything is in the same context; therefor it is NOT A STRAWMAN Notice that the question changes in the middle. I haven't changed the question in mid form.
Recent polls, that have even been quoted on Christian websites, show that 1 in 3 scientists believe in god.
Many scientists seek only natural explanations for things and rule out any supernatural possibilities before they even begin. Out of the human population, roughly 2% are atheist. Checkmate?
And let's be perfectly clear here. Denny was talking about only having the right "primordial soup". I explained in the other thread that I gave the entire universe for the "primordial soup" (Amino Acids, Enzymes, Carbon, Oxygen, Water, whatever) and still that odd is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Then the time allowed for 17.3 billion years still makes the number completely out of the question. I even gave extra time clicks by using Planck time; and still even with 100 billion years it was mathematically improbable. I will not let this get buried. I still haven't heard a decent response to this.
No proof is required that God doesn't exist, period. Can that get through to you at all? Nobody (except Maris) has ever posted he doesn't exist. Your logic is: if evidence of God, then God exists no evidence of god therefore God doesn't exist. Nobody but you us using that logic here.
Also keep in mind that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, nature doesn't organize things, it disorganizes them. This can also be used against people saying billions of years of blind chance increases the odds, when really you can make an argument it only decreases them.
In finding that "right combination", by using time, you almost seem to imply(generic argument) that there are 10 combinations, but you only have 5 minutes to figure it out, and since it would take too long to go through each combination, it is thus impossible. but that really only works if the combination found is the last or one of the last "tried". I mentioned this, and you said it took a leap of faith to believe. There's explanation, and it might be just as improbable as a creator, maybe more so to you, but it again is not proof or evidence, even if you think it is.
Wrong Denny. That was on the last thread; which claims that "Atheism is not a sound belief" That would be this question. If Atheism is sound; then atheism would have proof that God does not exist; therefor atheism is a sound belief. On this thread: If God does not exists; There would be evidence that God does not exist; therefor God exist.
If your math and reasoning were correct, it doesn't prove what you think. Even at 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds, there's a chance of success the first time. And what it might prove, if the math and logic were correct, is that life formation is rare which I think is likely true (rare). In all your odds, the universe formed with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each, with a handful of planets to each star. Your math and logic says that ONE star would be rare.
"You just have to have faith": is exactly what con artists say to their marks when they start getting suspicious. Just sayin.
