Statistical evidence of god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
just like invisible missiles don't explode and invisible bacteria doesn't make you sick, eh?
I think you just answered your own question ....
I see - something like the kind shepherd of the flock
nice
Not at all; flocks belong to pastors baa, baa. I rely on reason.
What does it take to get through to you ? I have already pointed out that invisible to radar has a specifdic meaning, as the words invisible is being used colloquially. You insdist on taking it literally, which doesn't exactly engender confidence in your exegesis of the B. G. and similar texts.
I have never claimed that invisible bacteria don't make one sick; that's your invention and, as usual you are wide of the mark.Note: not all bacteria make one sick; there are "friendly" ones.
As you are now scraping the bottom of the barrel, I shall not press you any further for explanations of your "Eastern wisdom".
Place your bet ! Rien ne va plus !
:tempted:
Bravo!!!
God is proven because man's knowledge fails to understand how the eye evolved in stages.
No, that is really cheap reasoning, and you know it.
The aim of pointing out how small the statistical possibilities are for something like the eye to evolve by chance, is to open the way for the consideration that things might be completely different than we currently think, imagine or are convinced that they are.
Then the statistics are meant to open the door to the probability that nobody knows for sure and the admittance that knowledge is an ongoing process.
If I don't know how gravity works, should I pretend I do know that it's due to an intelligent, conscious supernatural guy or should I seek the explanations within nature?
But statistics also opens the door for the probability that there might be such a thing as final knowledge.
A lot depends on the things one is interested in. Whether it is gravity, worms, or the meaning of life, consciousness and what happens after death. These various areas of questioning will probably require different methodologies, different approaches, different practices.
Do they?
Then a closer examination of what mathematics and probabilities are, are in order.
You mean double-standards?
How easy.
We use empiricism up to a point and then ignore it when it become uncomfortable.
My understanding of the eye is partial and it looks complicated, therefore a God must have created it.
Excellent.
I use my senses to find and read the Bible or to have it interpreted to me, but then I deny the validity of my senses when what I percieve does not correspond to what I was told or I read in the Bible.
Another coat of paint, for me. I'm sweating.
What's going on here is intent.
I do not understand the eye, but instead of studying it or reading those that can explain it, I willfully remain obtuse and only read those that mystify it.
Crop circles happen.
The statistics reveal that they cannot be due to natural phenomena.
I do not seek an alternative explanation or I do not try to comprehend it using reality. What I do is read those that mystify them because that satisfies my original intent.
I was never interested in knowing and understanding. I was interested in finding reasons to remain faithfully obtuse.
I do not understand the eye, but instead of studying it or reading those that can explain it, I willfully remain obtuse and only read those that mystify it.
Crop circles happen.
The statistics reveal that they cannot be due to natural phenomena.
I do not seek an alternative explanation or I do not try to comprehend it using reality. What I do is read those that mystify them because that satisfies my original intent.
I was never interested in knowing and understanding. I was interested in finding reasons to remain faithfully obtuse.
Not really. All that is needed is to answer one question: Are you omniscient?
If yes, then there can indeed be no further debate or discussion to convince you one way or another.
If no, then there is the possibility that things are different than you currently think or are concinced.
Sometimes, this is the case, yes.
Other times, an empirical investigation simply cannot be conducted because the phenomena in question do not have proper scientific definitions, or the scientific definitions of those phenomena are too reductionist. This is often the case with things that are very important to people - such as the question "What is the meaning of life?"
Some people do think this way, yes. But there is no law saying that we must take seriously everything everyone says.
Agreed. People can have many reasons to ask questions and be interested in thigs. Frequent intentions seem to be -
Some people ask questions and are interested in things because they have an interest in the topic.
Some people ask questions and are interested in things because they are bored or confused, so they quickly pick up on something that catches their fancy.
Some people ask questions and are interested in things because they claim to be right and want to berate and correct others.
Some people ask questions and are interested in things because they have a hidden agenda.
Some people ask questions and are interested in things because they are angry and are looking for an opportunity to vent.
Given the variety of intentions and the fact that often, they are not stated or are misrepresented, discussion is often made difficult. So in order to have meaningful communication, it is important to assess the intentions and goals of one's fellow communicator. And of course leave open the possibility that we or our fellow communicator, or both, might be in confusion or denial of our true intentions and goals.
How do you know who can explain the eye?
I don't think anyone ever actually thinks this to themselves. They certainly might act so, though.
Can you give us a statistical analysis of the various types of questioner you have described ?
It would be absurd, but no one is suggesting that. Evolution depends on chance events, but it is not random. Natural selection is not random selection.
That would be partly a matter of definition - if evolutionary theory covers the origins of life on earth (and it seems to be by far the best bet, currently) there were no "first organisms" per se. You'd have to decide, once the sequence(s) or possibilities had been established, what you wanted to define as the "first".carcano said:
I have not read all the posts so forgive me if I am repeating something already said. Regardless, I find it worthwhile to proceed:
The first problem with the answer of “God” is that even if we accept for the sake of argument that evolution and abiogenesis are insufficient to explain the existence of life and its complexities this is insufficient affirm the answer of God or intelligent design. The argument is merely a false-dichotomy. There may be any number of alternative explanations (e.g animism, cosmo-theism, pre-destination). God does not become the answer merely because you have ruled out another answer.
The second problem with the answer of “God”, is that it begs the underlying philosophical questions and answers nothing. If one presumes that DNA, life, the human eye, etcetera could only come to exist through intelligent design rather than arising though the dynamic physical processes of chemistry and physics one must then ask how that intelligence with its associated order and complexity came into existence. “God” in regards to this question provides no insight or understanding. It merely becomes a stopping point… a catch-all term for what is unknown.
~Raithere
The first problem with the answer of “God” is that even if we accept for the sake of argument that evolution and abiogenesis are insufficient to explain the existence of life and its complexities this is insufficient affirm the answer of God or intelligent design. The argument is merely a false-dichotomy. There may be any number of alternative explanations (e.g animism, cosmo-theism, pre-destination). God does not become the answer merely because you have ruled out another answer.
The second problem with the answer of “God”, is that it begs the underlying philosophical questions and answers nothing. If one presumes that DNA, life, the human eye, etcetera could only come to exist through intelligent design rather than arising though the dynamic physical processes of chemistry and physics one must then ask how that intelligence with its associated order and complexity came into existence. “God” in regards to this question provides no insight or understanding. It merely becomes a stopping point… a catch-all term for what is unknown.
~Raithere
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
This is what Craig Venter points out in the video posted, that the LEAST complexity required for a self replicating genome is still very complex.
We know for example that viruses are far simpler than bacteria. A virus may include 5000 letters in its code, whereas the simplest bacteria known has 580,000 letters.
However, viruses are parasites, so we know that they could not have appeared spontaneously before bacteria.
Therefore, the first truly self-replicating organism must have involved not only several hundred thousand nucleotides (which are themselves composed of three or more molecular units), but also the cell required to boot it up...the genome being somewhat like the hard drive in a computer.
Overall, I would still suggest that the chances of this spontaneously appearing by chance, even given large bubbling pools of amino acids over millions of years, are not just absurd, but clearly impossible.
Then the first self-replicating entity used itself as a template for making copies. Like a self-catalyzing reaction.