Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

an honest man wouldn't appeal to god of the gaps.

 

I am not saying your snow flake theory is wrong. It's just improbable. I am proposing an entirely different theory; that many of you all claim you refuted rationally. I completely disagree. BTW, that theory I proposed isn't my theory; I am just simplifying it for everyone.

Your theory on hydrogen bonding naturally would make sense; but the biggest concern isn't just the bonding Trip. We are talking about the DNA/RNA even catching in the primordial soup. That isn't even factored in my improbability. And even making up a 2" square of DNA strand would have enough information to print enough encyclopedias to travel from here, to the sun and back again.

So even though the randomness, could take place; the improbability that this happened by chance are some of the worst odds in the known universe. 17.3 billion years, all the soup being the universe into a spec known as earth; to make up billions of different organisms without a designer is completely "not logical". Seriously Tango; how can you refute this?

 

The simple approach of "I don't know, so it doesn't matter" isn't sound. And honest men would agree. This is why many in the science realm are trying their damnedest to solve the gaps.

So we are left with what we know now. If most atheists, like the comic given by hoojack, say they have bucketloads of empirical evidence to support their belief; then the "God of gaps" doesn't apply. Now you see why I think this belief isn't sound.

You, trip or Denny are taking the "logical approach" to this question. But the majority isn't. They truly believe there are insurmountable evidence to support their belief. Obviously that's not the case.

 

So Garbage in garbage out doesn't apply. I think I've brought up a serious question here. And to take it lightly is being arrogant and ignorant.

 

Damn. Wrote a long response, and Tapatalk crashed. Here goes again.

The snow flake image isn't a theory, it is an analogy. By your completely random methodology, water crystals wouldn't form in minutes, or days, or even years -- they would simply be too improbable! How can you explain that? How can something so complex form in mere SECONDS, defying all odds?

Once a self-replicating molecule forms, the rest is actually quite easy to justify in terms of probabilities. We are talking about that very first model; the first thing that spontaneously made copies of itself from stuff around it. I don't know what it looked like. Do you? Does Dr. Crick? How complex was it? How many atoms were in it? Does it seem "fuzzy" to generate odds on the formation of something, when we don't even know what it was composed of? It does to me. This raises my second concern (besides the issue of mechanism): how exactly was that 1/10^40,000 number derived? What assumptions were made? Was there anything empirical about it? I don't have the book that you got it from -- could you walk me through the derivation of it, step by step?

 

It DOES apply. If your input numbers or methods are not sound, it doesn't matter how many significant digits you round your results to.

 

Nobody is saying it doesn't matter. The honest response to a mystery is "I don't know, so I shouldn't make any big assumptions."

If you want to debate the atheist in that comic, go right ahead. If you want to characterize scientists and/or atheists as trying to kill god, that's your prerogative. If you want to discuss these matters with real human beings, though, you're going to have to address their actual views, not some caricature based on what you read or hear.

 

The 1 /10^40,000 number has been derived from many scientific journals. Here are just a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle This was the orginator of the formulation.

http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/6thdim2.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

And you based that those "snow flakes" formed in mere seconds; but I broke it down to planck time. Meaning, you have 1 click of planck time for every possibility. That is 10^-44 seconds. So even that phenomenom isn't even close to the improbability as the first living organism.

 

LOL, atheism can't kill God. I doubt any mere mortal would have the ability to take out the creator of the universe.

And I am not debating atheism in that comic. I gave you the athesim.org website. This is popular atheist belief. They truly believe they have enough "empirical evidence" to support their belief that God (s) don't exist.

 

Forget the rounding. Who cares? You don't even need the rounding to make the improbability make sense. That is just what "mathmaticians" would do. So I give you an extra 10^10 and it's still just as improbable.

 

And this is for Denny; since he keeps bringing up the dice analogy. This is how you can mathmatically make "designer" 100% probable, accident 0% probable and "not sure" 0% probable. Denny kept trying to talk about things can happen at the exact same time. This has been factored on this link.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Yeah LOL garbage in garbage out my ass!

 

Something you repeatedly fail to understand is that there is no church of atheism. There is no gospel of godlessness. There is no version of an atheist pope. I don't give two shits what someone wrote on an atheism-based blog -- it doesn't necessarily represent me or my beliefs. So who are you railing against? Are you shadow boxing with the atheists in your mind?

 

Not correct. Majority establishes the opinion Trip. Just like a "Christian" has a majority belief on their God. Or the Jew with theirs. Or the democrat with theirs. Or the Republican with theirs. Political parties aren't religions; but most republicans share the same views on major topics.

I would think that "No God" is a pretty important view for the atheist. Don't you agree?

 

But you look at that link, and they say the odds of it happening, but then they use the playing card analogy. The odds of drawing 100 cards in an order is 10 to the 158th power. So you go back to what trip had said before about seeing the cars. The very first time I lay out the 100 cards, there is only a 10 to the 158th power chance that they would lay out that way. But, instead of having to lay them out that trillion whatever times, I laid them out once, and I got that specific 100 card sequence. The odds of getting that specific one I laid out are astronomical, but I got it on my first try.

 

And you are the designer of that model. And you have proved my point. Of course if it was layed out right the first time; all the probability is tossed out. Another factor comes in. It's the one that can intelligently sequence the problem without happening by chance.

 

it did happen by chance. It was laid out. The thing with the probability is, the odds are impossible, or next to, to RE-CREATE that happening. I will likely NEVER recreate that draw, and it's probable scientists could never recreate that specific beginning sequence. But every combination does not need to be tried for it to happen once.

 

No -- YOU are missing the point here. The odds of laying out SOME order, WHATEVER that may be, is 100%. And whatever order that turns out to be is astronomically improbable, individually.

 

Yup. That's the only uniting view, in fact. Where do you get the "and we've got proof" addendum? Was that in the fine print of my membership application?

 

I'm still waiting for the scientific journals... Did I miss a link?

 

doesgodexist.org isn't a scientific journal?