Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Yep. So since in your mind God not existing is "improbable" then it doesn't mean it's "impossible" correct?

 

The biggest problem here has already been described pretty well by crow. You are presupposing that there are only two possible mechanisms for the formation of a living organism: random chance, or God. The number 1/10^40,000 describes the odds (estimated, by the way, not empirical) of the proper organic molecules just "falling into place". However, nobody believes that this is the right mechanism.

As an example of this, I go back again to the snowflake. The odds of water molecules just randomly "falling into place" to form the intricate patterns of a fully-formed snowflake are ridiculously small. There might not be enough time in a full human lifetime to wait for a snowflake to form, if random chance were the only mechanism at work. But snowflakes do not form by random chance -- they form through a combination of well-understood forces, meaning that the time to go from a scattered "soup" of water molecules into an organized structure is on the scale of seconds, rather than millennia.

Now of course, the complexity of life makes even snowflakes look like tinker toys, but there was a time when even snowflakes seemed impossible to explain. We don't know what influences and conditions may exist to speed along the step from "amino acid soup" to self-replicating molecule. We cannot rule out the possibility of mechanisms that shorten the time required for this step to take place down to more reasonable time scales. In other words, there exist a vast array of possible mechanisms linking the soup to the organism in between the two extremes of "random chance" and "God did it".

 

Nope. Any good?

 

As far as I can tell, only MARIS has claimed to have proof that God does not exist. You two will have to take that up in a private room sometime -- it's not an argument any of the rest of us care to indulge ourselves in.

 

I agree with your analogy. And there maybe many ways in the future do properly explain the mechanics; but right now; we are discussing what is known. Maybe in the next year, 20, 100, or even 1000 years; we have the mechanics you speak of. But right now we don't; therefor they cannot be logically input as evidence. That would be "Faith Driven".

Keep in mind Tango; I am not discounting the possibility or "probability" that a new formula could explain this. But it could be just as probable that science finds another mechanism that actually supports that a creator exists as well. Don't you agree?

 

And what if those snow flakes are a part of God's initial design? Using things within God's creation in an attempt to disprove God doesn't work very well.

 

And this is why I give you a lot of respect. Even crow. This thread is only to provide the evidence or debated topics and the readers can make that assumption all by themselves.

 

The entire science community disagrees on pretty much everything, including whether life "just is" or if it needs to be somehow created.

So it's possible I could "discredit" some of the science community, but certainly not all of them.

It's clear I and other posters have discredited your original premise, or at least proven you don't have any evidence to support it.

It's also clear you don't know the definition of the word "faith", which seems a disadvantage for someone who uses the word to supplement truth.

 

What is your definition of "Faith" MARIS?

 

What is truth MARIS? And how do you know it's true?

 

Science and a cognizance of nature.

What do you base your ignorance on? Fear, or laziness?

 

Where is the proof or evidence that we are one of an endless beach of universes, and that life has no beginning or end?

 

I think MARIS has a problem with the word "Faith"; probably because it's associated with theism. So I can easily put it another way.

You are making an assumption not based on evidence or proof. Does that make you feel better MARIS? Both still explain that it is not logical to credit it as true evidence.

 

Planck time is used, because atoms work much faster than actual seconds. So actually adding more "time units" give you greater probability.

If I say 17.3 billion years (17,300,000,000 years) and only add the "known" evidence that the universe has 10 to the 80th power of atoms; you would have less "units" of time to meet the "probability" of 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power. So actually adding Planck time gives you more "time units" to make it more probable. I am giving the maximum amount of known time units to match the "probability"; AND giving you the benefit of the doubt that the universe actually had all the "soup" available to make life (which isn't even factored); and still the probability is unimaginable.

 

I agree that is possible, sure. But I think, overall, we are batting pretty damn well in the game of finding mechanisms to accurately describe the natural world. You are welcome as always to put your money on us failing to fully explain the first organism -- I just don't think that's the smart bet.

It is a well-established fallacy to assume that something unexplained today will be unexplained forever (look at the last 400 years!), so how can you hold the unknowns of today as conclusive proof for anything? Way back in the day you could have made the exact same argument you are making now, except using the motion if the planets rather than the formation if life. "How can you explain their predictable patterns, except for God moving them around in circles with his cosmic hand?" ancient Mags asked ancient Trip. "I don't know man, I just think there is a simple answer for this behavior that we will understand someday." Who would have won that bet?

 

We don't know that, and you did your math on an age of 13.7 billion years, not 17.3 billion years.

Both are widely accepted by separate scientific groups, showing how ridiculous it is to use either for a mathematical equation.

It could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or one day. It's not relevant, as time is but a manmade concept.

You still have to prove god exists, which means you would have to prove who/what created him.

You think god created the universe. Right so far?

That would mean god is more intelligent and more complex than the universe. Right so far?

You think he has always existed. Right so far?

Ergo, it follows that if it's possible that god always existed, something simpler and less intelligent could have always existed.

Throw in the certainty that our universe does exist and the absolute dearth of evidence that god exists, and you recognize the futility of your premise.

 

In other words, roughly the same probability that Mediocre Man could ever make it with HCP's wife. I wanted to put it in terms Denny could identify with.

 

That's why God gave us his Word, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, though. Viola! All the math (that we'll/we'd ever need) has already been done for us.