My argument has a built in proof. No monkey have produce any Shakespeare work and no man has a clue how to produce life nor does he know how many cores he needs to get there. And I do know why and I know someone that also knows why. You have faith but no knowledge and millions agree with you, but have no idea why, nor have they ever done the math.
Funny you should mention that monkey theory. I always find it extremely contradictory that an atheist is fine using these hypothetical concepts, then completely discount others that use the concept of God. As you mentioned, it hasn't been observed, but the logic is okay because it came from a fellow atheist.
I have no problem discussing a hypothetical God or assuming such in some specific thought experiment. But what you are asking is for us to accept that God exists in order to demonstrate a formula that shows that God could exist. Asking to assume in this case goes contrary to the intended goal of the formula, to prove that God exists with math and science and not with assumptions or religious views. It just doesn't work. If you want me to assume God exists for some other reason, I can play games too.
No I am asking you if you think creation is positive? You keep bringing up "if God exists" as the base axiom. I am not using that axiom. So I will ask you again "do you think creation is a positive"?
So here is the net result of you position. You have faith that God does not exist and that we got here by random chance even though accredited mathematicians tell you the math does not work. You do not need to do the math because you have faith that you are correct. That is fine if it is your position. Do I understand you correctly?
If I believed in God, I would likely think creation is a positive, so for the purpose of this rabbit hole, yes it's positive.
Wait a minute... I am not talking about theistic creation. I'm talking about creation like "a baby being born" or "the sun giving life to plants".
So let's ask this again, and don't use The term "if I believe in God". I'm asking you as if you, without the axiom, "if God exists"
Good, so you think creation is not positive then? You think baby birth is not positive? You think the sun giving life to a plant not positive?
That's actually an interesting question. From the point of view of positive and negative in a force type of view, such as magnetism or electricity, I would say yes, creation is a positive in that it is the opposite of nothing. From a moralistic view (helping being positive and hurting being negatives) I would say creation is neither positive or negative but neutral. It tears apart and destroys just as it brings together and builds. Me being alive is nice for me, but it is not a positive from a universe perspective. I'll have to give this more thought. From the point of view of loved ones or the like, I could see it as positive. It really depends on structure and perspective.
Take your time... But remember, in your death, there is creation of other things. Or universally, when a star dies, new creation forms. So keep that in mind when you think about it.
If we include that we must also include the solar system collapsing and the universe either contracting into nothing or expanding to obliteration.
How do you think the universe can contract into nothing? That doesn't seem logical. Are you talking about contracting to singularity? Also, expansion to obliteration is also equally illogical, since the definition itself would mean mass gets destroyed. Do you think that?
That is not my position, exactly. The processes of forming molecules are not random. So every permutation of molecules and atoms that make them up need not be "tried." Water is easy enough to make if you get two hydrogen atoms near an oxygen atom. The valences of the atoms determine how they combine. The randomness, or chaos actually, is where in space these atoms get close together. From looking at what's in space, close by and very far away, we can see clouds of gases that are the process of billions of years of chemical and nuclear reactions. We can identify the specific molecules via chromatography. This article describes how we've detected complex organic compounds in deep space: http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...complex-organic-molecules-detected-2009-04-22 No creator or designer involved. Not one needed to see these things happen in nature. To boot, these things are light years away. What we are detecting are complex organic molecules that existed long ago. This might be a clue that the formation of these molecules is not a hard thing to happen and that it doesn't take very long for them to occur. God of the gaps might seem reasonable, but the gaps have already shrunk to nothing in so many cases. It is truly a matter of a relatively short time before there are no gaps left for anyone to claim as god's.
contracting to a singularity would give rise to heat and the same issues that affected during the initial moment of the Big Bang, when no laws of nature existed and time were unconstructed. So what would happen at that moment I have no idea. It would make sense that if we sprung from nothing (true creation) then we would return to such order. If we simply came from some othe singularity that expands and contracts or morphs or some crazy thing I can't conceive, well then we would likley return to such state, but that wouldn't really be creation in the first place. As far as obliteration, I mainly used that term wrong. If we expand forever eventually every atom would be ripped apart to its most rudimentary parts and so although everything in this case would still exist weight-wise, nothing but building blocks would exist.
"The mechanism could produce even more complex molecules, such as the amino acids that form proteins on Earth, but the signatures of such organics have yet to be found. "
