• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116,971,997]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

gfm7175 said:
Dawkins himself agrees that the universe is fine tuned. If you move any of the fundamental constants (such as gravity) even a fraction of a fraction, there would be no life on Earth. That's pretty fine tuned if you ask me...

As to Premiss 2, if you told me that Physical Necessity has a [not actual numbers, just estimating to make my point] 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 001% chance of being correct, that Chance has a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 001% chance of being correct, and Design has a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999% chance of being correct, I would say that Design is an extremely safe bet... And, if faced with these odds in any other aspect of one's life, such as "a car appearing in their driveway", one would find those odds to be insurmountable and would believe that it was put there by design.
Click to expand...

Dawkins is not a cosmologist, nor are you quoting it. Nor, for that matter, you are showing where you give your numbers, or a link to where Dawkins actually says that.

So, fill in those blanks. And by the way, you are misrepresenting Dawkins.. , and let's look at his own statements
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

RAMOSS said:
If you can't show how you get the probabilities and you don't know what the chances are, then why should anybody accept your argument? It's like 'pulling things out of thin air'.
Click to expand...

I can do so, but zyzygy is a troll who has fully made up his mind, and because of that, it's not worth my time to dig for the exact numbers. I have a life beyond this message board...
 
RAMOSS said:
That is a question that is a diversion, and also known as 'weak analogy'. .. since the universe has always existed. https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Click to expand...

It's not a diversion, or a weak analogy, and PROVE that the universe has always existed... that's just your belief... And if you truly believe that, answer this...

If past time was actually infinite, then how did we arrive at this precise moment right now?
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

gfm7175 said:
I can do so, but zyzygy is a troll who has fully made up his mind, and because of that, it's not worth my time to dig for the exact numbers. I have a life beyond this message board...
Click to expand...

Then do so.
 
devildavid said:
Yet there is no way to demonstrate that there is a difference between random chance and design. Plus you are using a judgement hat somehing is fine tuned to show intelligent design right after you said you first have to determine it is intelligently designed. You are employing circular reasoning. Being highly improbable is not a sign of design or fine tuning; it is only a sign of improbability. And the reason it is improbable is precisely because it came together by random chance.
Click to expand...

They are different by definition... And no I'm not employing circular reasoning... I'm not using fine tuning as another word for intelligent design...
 
devildavid said:
The probability of anything is not evidence it is designed, and could very well be evidence it is a result of chance.
Click to expand...

If a car appeared in your driveway, would you say that it appeared there because of physical necessity, chance, or design?
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

blarg said:
how did you prove it was actually tuned

fine-tune
ˈfīn ˈt(y)o͞on/Submit
verb
past tense: fine-tuned; past participle: fine-tuned
make small adjustments to (something) in order to achieve the best or a desired performance.
Click to expand...

Because any little adjustment of any fundamental force (such as gravity) would make Earth life-prohibiting.
 
gfm7175 said:
If a car appeared in your driveway, would you say that it appeared there because of physical necessity, chance, or design?
Click to expand...

Cars don't appear in driveways. Your example is meaningless. Might as well say what if the universe appeared in your driveway. What if? It would change everything we know about reality. It would be a scientific mystery to solve. But we couldn't say if it was necessity, chance, or design until we investigated it. And why would necessity and design even be considered. Nothing is necessary, it either exists or it does not. If something appeared seemingly out of nothing all we can attempt to do is figure out how it happened. We can never answer why it happened.
 
devildavid said:
Cars don't appear in driveways. Your example is meaningless.
Click to expand...
How do you KNOW that though? ;)

devildavid said:
Might as well say what if the universe appeared in your driveway.
Click to expand...
Seems as if the universe "appearing" somewhere is a ridiculous concept to you... :) Glad you finally admit it...
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

gfm7175 said:
I can do so, but zyzygy is a troll who has fully made up his mind, and because of that, it's not worth my time to dig for the exact numbers. I have a life beyond this message board...
Click to expand...

Well, actually, no, you can't. I have seen people make this claim over and over again, dozens of times, and NO one , ever has been able to back up that particular claim ever. Not even the ones they are quoting... none of them have been able to do that. None of them have gotten to the point they can actually show numbers to be able to defend them. They come up with numbers, yet are unable to say how they got those numbers, or show if that number was accurate.
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

There really should be no such thing as an atheist "argument", because none is necessary. All we do is reject a notion presented to us. Period. No argument necessary. I hear the stories and I simply don't find them credible. No mystery. No nefarious agenda.
 
gfm7175 said:
How do you KNOW that though? ;)


Seems as if the universe "appearing" somewhere is a ridiculous concept to you... :) Glad you finally admit it...
Click to expand...

The universe may have a beginning, but it didn't just appear fully formed like an automobile in a driveway. Just like the fact that we don't just appear every day out of thin air.
 
In one of the videos I posted the probability of chance producing life on earth was put at 1/10 to the 120th power. The speaker likened the probability to a typhoon passing through a junkyard and producing a fully functional automobile in its wake.
 
devildavid said:
The universe may have a beginning, but it didn't just appear fully formed like an automobile in a driveway. Just like the fact that we don't just appear every day out of thin air.
Click to expand...

I love when you start supporting my positions for me... It makes discussion much easier...
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

stevecanuck said:
There really should be no such thing as an atheist "argument", because none is necessary. All we do is reject a notion presented to us. Period. No argument necessary. I hear the stories and I simply don't find them credible. No mystery. No nefarious agenda.
Click to expand...

Well, there ya go...thanks for stating the obvious truth to the atheists who don't get it...the same can be said for believers...we reject the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God...now it's settled...:applaud...
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

gfm7175 said:
Because any little adjustment of any fundamental force (such as gravity) would make Earth life-prohibiting.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
The probability of anything is not evidence it is designed, and could very well be evidence it is a result of chance.
Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:
Well, actually, no, you can't. I have seen people make this claim over and over again, dozens of times, and NO one , ever has been able to back up that particular claim ever. Not even the ones they are quoting... none of them have been able to do that. None of them have gotten to the point they can actually show numbers to be able to defend them. They come up with numbers, yet are unable to say how they got those numbers, or show if that number was accurate.
Click to expand...



Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
Illustra Media - Origin - The Mathematics of Origin
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Angel said:


Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
Illustra Media - Origin - The Mathematics of Origin
Click to expand...


The Miller-Urey experiment proved amino acids could be formed within seven days.
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

danielpalos said:
The Miller-Urey experiment proved amino acids could be formed within seven days.
Click to expand...
The video assumes the existence of amino acids in ideal conditions in early earth.
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Our solar system is composed mainly of a failure to produce life in human form. It makes perfect sense that it turned out that way if things are random. Because random chance will produce a lot of failure. Design by a supposed intelligent entity implies that there should be more success, not less. What point is there in designing failure?
 
Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

danielpalos said:
The Miller-Urey experiment proved amino acids could be formed within seven days.
Click to expand...

That arguement , by the way, is a bad calucation. That is taking one specific amino acid, and trying to figure out the chance of it assembing by random chance.

However, there are several problems with that argument. 1) Probably is acculmulative and 2) When complex amino acids form in evolution there is a filter of natural selection over billions of years.

So, that entire argument is false, and based on a misrepresentation. It also is a quote mine, because the intention of the person who came up with it wa to show how much they didn't KNOW at the time, and how much they had to learn. It was misapplied dishonestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom