Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Hi Susan,

One of the many unwitting ironies of AB’s posts is that it’s he who’s “hardened” in his position (he tells us quite readily that he cannot accept that he could be wrong) whereas the atheists here are characterised by their willingness to go where the evidence leads.

Unless it leads to God !

[Sebastian Toe]

Unless it leads to God !

Declares the hardened theist!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That is just it!

How could I possibly come into existence in a universe which is naturally indifferent, if not hostile, to the presence of life?

You’ve completely missed the point. Again.

First, the question isn’t how could you have come about, but rather how could anything have come about. There’s nothing more special about you than there would be about three-nosed bingle monsters on Betelgeuse.

Second, however unlikely you think any outcome to be the number of opportunities for it to happen is unfathomably large. You have to look at that context to realise that life is probably inevitable.   

Third, however unlikely that fact is that “you” did happen. That doesn’t though for one moment imply a divine cause. You need to look up “anthropic principle” to understand why. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Unless it leads to God !

Wrong again. You find a coherent definition for "God", find some cogent logic for it, and find some evidence that isn't just whatever you want it to be I'll become an theist.

Can you say the same about becoming an atheist if ever you managed to grasp the arguments that undo you?

Which one of us would you say is actually "hardened" in his position?

[torridon]

Your observation is not evident on other perceived planets in our solar system.  The only thing which builds up on them is increasing chaos.  If you confine your observations to what happens on this richly blessed planet we call earth, I suspect that you will get a very biased view of the natural universe.

Your own post contains its own refutation there.  Planets themselves are objects way more complex than the particles of atomic matter from which they are made; solar systems are more complex than planets; galaxies more complex than solar systems; multicellular organisms more complex than unicellular organisms.  Could go on; the overriding principle is that complexity derives from simplicity not the other way round. I've seen plenty of houses made from little bricks, but have you ever seen a little brick that was made of houses ?  This is why the idea of a first cause intelligent creator is a non-starter; intelligence is a complex derivative emergent outcome not a fundamental.

[floo]

Unless it leads to God !

If the Biblical god really exists and is as bad as it is portrayed, we should certainly be seeking it out so we can do away with it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve completely missed the point. Again.

First, the question isn’t how could you have come about, but rather how could anything have come about. There’s nothing more special about you than there would be about three-nosed bingle monsters on Betelgeuse.

Second, however unlikely you think any outcome to be the number of opportunities for it to happen is unfathomably large. You have to look at that context to realise that life is probably inevitable.   

Third, however unlikely that fact is that “you” did happen. That doesn’t though for one moment imply a divine cause. You need to look up “anthropic principle” to understand why.

So if I did win the lottery every week for the rest of my life, that would just be an unfathomably large probability of a natural occurrence?

And if you were to find no life elsewhere in the universe, would life on this earth still be probably inevitable?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. You find a coherent definition for "God", find some cogent logic for it, and find some evidence that isn't just whatever you want it to be I'll become an theist.

Can you say the same about becoming an atheist if ever you managed to grasp the arguments that undo you?

Which one of us would you say is actually "hardened" in his position?

Having come to know God, I am as hardened a theist as you will ever meet.

[floo]

Having come to know God, I am as hardened a theist as you will ever meet.

I think we have worked that one out, but does it do you any credit?

[Alan Burns]

Your own post contains its own refutation there.  Planets themselves are objects way more complex than the particles of atomic matter from which they are made; solar systems are more complex than planets; galaxies more complex than solar systems; multicellular organisms more complex than unicellular organisms.  Could go on; the overriding principle is that complexity derives from simplicity not the other way round. I've seen plenty of houses made from little bricks, but have you ever seen a little brick that was made of houses ?  This is why the idea of a first cause intelligent creator is a non-starter; intelligence is a complex derivative emergent outcome not a fundamental.

There is the chaotic complexity we see in other planets, and there is the specific complexity we see in life on this earth.  Can you spot the difference?

And all those houses built from little bricks started life in the intelligent creative minds of human beings. So big complexity creates simple complexity.

[Nearly Sane]

Having come to know God, I am as hardened a theist as you will ever meet.

And yet, your god has not been able to tell you what free means in free will, why he created diseases that cause children to die in excruciating pain, or why he hides. You may have tried to look at him from both sides but it appears you don't know god at all.

[torridon]

Having come to know God, I am as hardened a theist as you will ever meet.

if you really knew God then you'd be able to ask him would why he shows up for some people and hides from everyone else, and why he made a devil to ruin people's lives and why he made human DNA incorporating thousands of needless heritable conditions. Oh, of course, if you really knew god then you would have already asked him such questions and you would have enlightened the rest of humanity already. 

Best not make fantastic claims Alan, they only undo you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just trying to think of a way to explain to you where you keep going wrong with the reference point error.

Imagine if I flipped a coin – heads I’d win, tails you’d win and it landed tails. Nothing remarkable there right? The odds after all were only 50:50, so presumably you wouldn’t invoke divine intervention for the coin coming up tails.

OK, now imagine that there were six of us and the winner would be the one whose number came up on a rolled dice. The odds would be only 1:6 so whoever won probably wouldn’t say, “that must have been god’s doing then”. It was just dumb luck.

Notice that there’s no pre-selection going on, but notice too that someone was bound to win.

OK, now imagine that the Fred bought a ticket for the UK lottery and won. The odds are about 1:14 million, and Fred might at that point be daft enough to think there was something special about him winning. Again though, somebody had to win only Camelot neither knew nor cared who it would be.

And so on. Let’s say it was a global lottery with seven billion tickets, and someone was bound to win. Would that mean that that person was somehow predetermined to win? Of course not – if the same lottery was run again the winner would almost certainly be someone else.     

The same is true for the universe. Given the colossal number of events from which singe cell life could emerge, it would be highly likely to do so – probably many times in many places. (And remember that, unless you’re daft enough to think that Adam and Eve sprang fully formed ex nihilo then single cell life is all that’s needed to get evolution started.)

Do you see the principle here? Regardless of whether the odds are 1:2, 1:6, 1:14 million or 1:bajillion, someone would be the winner. His (and your) big mistake though would be to think that it was intended to be him all along, and thus to marvel at the unlikelihood of that turning out to be the case.

I really can’t think of a simpler way to put it for you. If you start with “you” and work back you’re always going to make the same mistake you make here. Start bottom up instead though and you’ll see that your incredulity problem dissolves when you grasp the more cogent logic.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So if I did win the lottery every week for the rest of my life, that would just be an unfathomably large probability of a natural occurrence?

Dear god man could you at least try to think before posting? Your existence is not analogous to winning the lottery over and over again, for the reasons I set out perfectly clearly in my last few posts.

Do you actually read anything that's said here?

And if you were to find no life elsewhere in the universe, would life on this earth still be probably inevitable?

That's a(nother) non sequitur. Life existing elsewhere would make no difference to the chances of life existing on Earth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Having come to know God, I am as hardened a theist as you will ever meet.

No Alan, you have a belief that you've "come to know god" and your dogmatic intransigence about that does you no credit.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just trying to think of a way to explain to you where you keep going wrong with the reference point error.

Imagine if I flipped a coin – heads I’d win, tails you’d win and it landed tails. Nothing remarkable there right? The odds after all were only 50:50, so presumably you wouldn’t invoke divine intervention for the coin coming up tails.

OK, now imagine that there were six of us and winner would be the one whose number came up on a rolled dice. The odds would be only 1:6 so whoever won wouldn’t say, “That must have been god’s doing then”. It was just dumb luck.

Notice that there’s no pre-selection going on, but notice too that someone was bound to win.

OK, now imagine that the Fred bought a ticket for the UK lottery and won. The odds are about 1:14 million, and Fred might at that point be daft enough to think there was something special about him winning. Again though, somebody had to win only Camelot neither knew nor cared who it would be.

And so on. Let’s say it was a global lottery with seven billion tickets, and someone was bound to win. Would that mean that that person was somehow predetermined to win? Of course not – if the same lottery was run again the winner would almost certainly be someone else.     

The same is true for the universe. Given the colossal number of events from which singe cell life could emerge, it would be highly likely to do so – probably many times in many places. (And remember that, unless you’re daft enough to think that Adam and Eve sprang fully formed ex nihilo then single cell life is all that’s needed to get evolution started.)

Do you see the principle here? Regardless of whether the odds are 1:2, 1:6, 1:14 million or 1:bajillion, someone would be the winner. His (and your) big mistake though would be to think that it was intended to be him all along, and thus to marvel at the unlikelihood of that turning out to be the case.

I really can’t think of a simpler way to put it for you. If you start with “you” and work back you’re always going to make the same mistake you make here. Start bottom up instead though and you’ll see that your incredulity problem dissolves when you grasp the more cogent logic.   

I do not think you have grasped the numbers involved.  The universe is vast, but not infinite.  And it has not existed forever.  So we have a big but finite number of possibilities for life to occur. But the probabilities involved in generating life as we know it from natural events without any form of intelligent intervention are truly beyond comprehension.  We take so much for granted on this little planet of ours, but the universe as I said is openly indifferent to life.

[BeRational]

I do not think you have grasped the numbers involved.  The universe is vast, but not infinite.  And it has not existed forever.  So we have a big but finite number of possibilities for life to occur. But the probabilities involved in generating life as we know it from natural events without any form of intelligent intervention are truly beyond comprehension.  We take so much for granted on this little planet of ours, but the universe as I said is openly indifferent to life.

The universe had a beginning.

But we do not know if the Cosmos did, and that could have existed forever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not think you have grasped the numbers involved.

Oh the irony! You also fail to grasp that big numbers are irrelevant to the principle of the reference point error you keep committing.

The universe is vast, but not infinite.

How do you know that?

And it has not existed forever.

How do you know that?

So we have a big but finite number of possibilities for life to occur.

Possibly.

But the probabilities involved in generating life as we know it from natural events without any form of intelligent intervention are truly beyond comprehension.

Depends what you mean by "life as we know it", and no they’re not – they’re entirely comprehensible and here’s why:

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

The point here is that each part of life itself came from many smaller incremental but directionless steps which individually weren’t nearly as improbable as you suggest, and moreover that the number of opportunities for those steps to occur was colossal.

We take so much for granted on this little planet of ours, but the universe as I said is openly indifferent to life.

Yes in the sense that “the universe” wasn’t capable of “knowing” what would emerge, but emerge it did nonetheless. How does that help you?

Incidentally, do you now understand why the fact of you is not analogous to winning the lottery over and over again?

[Alan Burns]

That's a(nother) non sequitur. Life existing elsewhere would make no difference to the chances of life existing on Earth.

Only if you assume it was a natural occurrence in the first place.

Would it not be an indication of possible outside help?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Only if you assume it was a natural occurrence in the first place.

No, only if you accept the evidence that overwhelmingly points that way.

Would it not be an indication of possible outside help?

Not really for lots of reasons, not least that any evidence of life elsewhere would have taken hundreds (or more) of light years to get here, and so by a huge margin would pre-date life on earth. 

[wigginhall]

Outside help is AB's starting point, but he has to pretend it's his end-point. 

[Gordon]

Only if you assume it was a natural occurrence in the first place.

In the absence of a non-natural occurrence detector the assumption that only natural occurrences are investigation-apt is a reasonable one: so, do you have a non-natural occurrence detector to hand?

If not, then you're up the creek without the proverbial paddle. 

[torridon]

Only if you assume it was a natural occurrence in the first place.

Would it not be an indication of possible outside help?

That's just deferment.

Where would outside help gets its outside help from ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you should, probably immigrants causing cancer with their accented bastard letters

Everybody! Sane's ''Lost'' it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your own post contains its own refutation there.  Planets themselves are objects way more complex than the particles of atomic matter from which they are made; solar systems are more complex than planets; galaxies more complex than solar systems; multicellular organisms more complex than unicellular organisms.  Could go on; the overriding principle is that complexity derives from simplicity not the other way round. I've seen plenty of houses made from little bricks, but have you ever seen a little brick that was made of houses ?  This is why the idea of a first cause intelligent creator is a non-starter; intelligence is a complex derivative emergent outcome not a fundamental.

CMB........ Complete Materialist Bollocks

We know that maths is extremely complicated and doesn't depend on stuff for it's complexity whatever any materialist tells you.