Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

You know math. Was my improbability point accurate?

 

The math was fine -- it was the starting assumptions that were inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Which starting assumptions?

 

You are operating under the assumption (and it's a BIG assumption) that the only possible mechanism other than God for the formation of patterns in the world is the random motion of individual particles. All of your calculations are based on this assumption.

 

Trip I'm using the theory of all the particles in the known universe. You can say other factors could be involved, but what others are out there? I am using the information that is known science. Using theory that hasn't been tested don't apply. You know this.

 

Pardon the language, but what the hell does this mean?

There is no "theory of all the particles" out there, unless you are inventing one yourself right now. What your calculations are doing is taking a huge soup of particles, then jiggling them up every fraction of a second and checking to see if life has spontaneously formed anywhere.

Jiggle. Any life yet? No.

Jiggle. Any life yet? No.

The natural world is FULL of patterns that form quickly and spontaneously just from simple laws and known interactions. Some of those patterns are incredibly complex, and NONE of them would happen as they do using the raw "random soup" model that you are trying to jimmy into the discussion. So you tell me: with so many examples of patterns that form much, much faster than a purely random model would indicate, how do you justify using this random model for examining the formation of the first organism?

 

P.S. Please stop telling me that I "know this".

 

I certainly don't think you are an idiot. You have a wealth of knowledge about other topics I know little about. All knowledge is valuable, especially to me.

Unless god(s) appear(s) in a physical sense for all to see, or we find his corpse, there will never be proof of his existence. Those who choose to believe in god(s) have their own reasons for doing so, just as I have my reasons to conclude beyond any doubt in my mind he does not exist.

 

Good comic. And see that key quote "I have bucketfuls of empirical evidence to support my claims". That is the census of many atheists. Yet when asked to present some; they call out "unicorn". :MARIS61:

 

Coolest post you've written in this thread. Rep'd

 

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

So you disagree that there isn't 10^80 number of atoms in the universe?

 

1) In the OBSERVABLE universe. You are aware that nobody has ever seen an edge, right?

2) But let's assume for the moment that what we see is all we get. Explain to me how this number constitutes a "theory of all the atoms", including every possible molecule and every possible interaction between them. Show all your work. Don't skip any steps.

 

1.) Um yeah! I know that; which is why I said "Observable Universe" in the first place. You are aware that the Earth is not even the size of a spec of sand to even the "observable" universe? So the improbability is sound.

2.) I already shown the work on the original point. You didn't read it? Want me to copy and paste it again? You also want the quotes from some very important minds in math and cosmology? as well?

 

Here you go trip.

Okay so here is point #7


7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?

Now keep in mind that I bring up creation of life “living organism”; not to debunk evolution. I am just using the probability of creating just “one living organism”. From that point; you can just assume that evolution may have had its natural process.

What we’ve learned is that you can make a “amino acid” type soup; with electricity, dust, water, etc. So all the components of life could realistically be present. But you can have all the parts to make life; but in order for life to exist; these parts must come together perfectly. So given the number of possible amino acids for even the simplest living cell, I’ve read from various math scholars the chances of life forming is around 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

The entire universe, has 10 to the 80th power of atoms available (including the estimate of dark matter, because before it was estimated at 10 to the 79th power)

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/905633072.As.r.html

And given this basic run down of time and matter; it is put out like this.

Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.

In scientific notion:
Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power

Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power

Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61

So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:
2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.

Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142.

2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of "atom level" events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.
An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.

Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.

To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.

In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn't help increase the possibility of life forming without a creator.

We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.

And if you think that you may come up with the argument that life could be given by some meteor or anything else in the universe; keep in mind that I factored the entire universe being the primordial amino acid soup. That cannot be a factor.

 

And let's put another wrench in the cog. Just the human body has 10-50 trillion cells.

And that's just the human body. We are talking about millions of species of life; including trees, single celled organisms, insects, etc. We are talking about a very complex life force on this planet. Take this same approach to all the life on this planet; and give the 2 billion years it would have taken to get us to where we are now; and the probility increases insurmountably.

You can still believe in evolution; but one has to question it all happened by chance. The programs would have to be met. The routes to evolution would still need "fine tuning". These are very logical questions that question why I think there was a designer involved.

 

I read the post earlier Mags. The math is not the problem -- it's your (or whomever's) justification that is faulty. You are multiplying estimated particles in observable universe by number of Planck times occurring so far, then comparing that to an estimation (note: ESTIMATION) for life developing through COMPLETELY random shufflings.

Again, I ask you: what justification do you have for eliminating the possibility of specific mechanisms leading to self-replicating molecules much faster than this random method suggests, in the same way that hydrogen bonding naturally leads to water crystals? Why is PURE RANDOMNESS the only thing you will accept other than the direct hand of God?