Darwin Presents Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God!

[ib1yysguy]

This assumes that the creator was created. SOMETHING had to have existed for all of time... you cannot create matter from nothing (at least according to what humans have discovered with regards to physics). That said... this finding does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

hence, I will remain agnostic.

That part about mater from nothing isn't true at all. Quantum physics allows for the spontaneous generation of matter.

 

[ib1yysguy]

dude, fuck your tests....that's irrelevant to what we are discussing and I'm not going to let you play "let's change the subject"......the statement I made is true...do you deny it?.....

Gee, a guy who says he knows what an organic compound is refuses to tell us which compound is organic. I wonder if PMP was lying.

 

[ib1yysguy]

From Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_astroevidgodbible.html#Creator or chance

Even this is nullified by time. If a big bang happens and the parameters aren't perfect, it collapses in on itself and a few billion years later (not really time though, since the collapse means the destruction of the fabric of time) it happens again. Eventually, a universe with the correct/stable parameters (including the rate of expansion of the bang) appears and we have a universe that sticks around long enough for life to evolve. Even this one is going to collapse on itself eventually.

Right now, we're expanding RAPIDLY. The stars you see in the sky are going to be completely gone some day from view. The andromeda galaxy is also headed straight for us. Nothingness is coming at us very, very fast. Some design. These facts alone point out how dumb your logic is. If God created the universe specifically to support US, then he wouldn't be doing his damnedest to insure it'll destroy us at the same time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That part about mater from nothing isn't true at all. Quantum physics allows for the spontaneous generation of matter.

I am certainly not a physicist let alone a quantum physicist... do you have an article or link on this as I was not aware it was possible and would like to read up on it.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I am certainly not a physicist let alone a quantum physicist... do you have an article or link on this as I was not aware it was possible and would like to read up on it.

These series of videos are pretty great. They take complex things like quantum physics and break it down (I think for high school classroom distribution).

This explains the spontaneous creation of matter on the quantum scale and how it relates to the beginning of the universe.

 

[ib1yysguy]

If you want to know more about other spontaneous generation of mater, you should look up Hawkings radiation, which has been observed near the event horizon of black holes.

A particle of antimatter and matter generate spontaneously at the edge of the black hole. Usually the two collide immediately an annihilate each other. However, this time the hole sucks in the antimatter particle and leaves the matter to drift off into space. So the black hole deteriorates over time because the antimatter gets sucked in and annihilates the matter at the singularity very slowly after the hole stops feeding.

The result is a weakening black hole and a bunch of stranded (new) matter floating around in the universe. Crazy stuff.

 

[DamnYankee]

Even this is nullified by time. If a big bang happens and the parameters aren't perfect, it collapses in on itself and a few billion years later (not really time though, since the collapse means the destruction of the fabric of time) it happens again. Eventually, a universe with the correct/stable parameters (including the rate of expansion of the bang) appears and we have a universe that sticks around long enough for life to evolve. Even this one is going to collapse on itself eventually.

Right now, we're expanding RAPIDLY. The stars you see in the sky are going to be completely gone some day from view. The andromeda galaxy is also headed straight for us. Nothingness is coming at us very, very fast. Some design. These facts alone point out how dumb your logic is. If God created the universe specifically to support US, then he wouldn't be doing his damnedest to insure it'll destroy us at the same time.

You could ask the same question as to why God made our lives finite at all. When the universe ends I plan on being in a non-physical state, protected in His kingdom. I suppose that you and all the other non believers will end up in some black hole somewhere.

 

[ib1yysguy]

You could ask the same question as to why God made our lives finite at all. When the universe ends I plan on being in a non-physical state, protected in His kingdom. I suppose that you and all the other non believers will end up in some black hole somewhere.

The answer of course is God didn't make our lives, which solves all the problems.

 

[DamnYankee]

The answer of course is God didn't make our lives, which solves all the problems.

The mathematics says otherwise. From my earlier link:

Table 6: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system121 -139

1. galaxy type

* if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
* if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.

2. parent star distance from center of galaxy

* if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
* if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.

3. number of stars in the planetary system

* if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
* if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.

4. parent star birth date

* if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
* if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.

5. parent star age

* if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
* if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.

6. parent star mass

* if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
* if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.

7. parent star color

* if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
* if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.

8. supernovae eruptions

* if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
* if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
* if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
* if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

9. white dwarf binaries

* if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
* if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
* 10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
* if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
* if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.

11. distance from parent star

* if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
* if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.

12. inclination of orbit

* if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.

13. orbital eccentricity

* if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

14. axial tilt

* if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
* if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.

15. rotation period

* if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
* if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

16. gravitational interaction with a moon

* if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
* if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.

17. magnetic field

* if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
* if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

18. thickness of crust

* if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
* if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

* if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
* if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

* if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
* if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.

21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

* if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
* if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

22. water vapor level in atmosphere

* if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
* if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.

23. ozone level in atmosphere

* if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
* if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.

24. atmospheric electric discharge rate

* if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
* if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.

25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere

* if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
* if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
* 26. oceans to continents ratio
* if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
* if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

27. soil mineralization

* if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
* if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.

28. seismic activity

* if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
* if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

Each of these 28 parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing a planet's capacity to support life. For some, the limits have been measured quite precisely. This is typically the case for the stellar parameters. For others, the limits are more uncertain. This is typically the case for planetary parameters. Trillions of stars are available for study and star formation is quite well understood and observed. On the other hand, only nine planets can be studied, and though a fairly good theory of planetary formation is available, the details have yet to be worked out, nor can planetary formation be fully observed.

To get a feel for how confining these limits can be, the least confining would be parameters #1, #3, and #12 which would eliminate respectively 30%, 60%, and 20% of all candidates from contention. More confining would be parameters such as #2, #13, #15, and #19 which eliminate respectively about 80%, 90%, 90%, 90%, and 90% of all candidates from contention. Most confining of all would be parameters such as #6, #9, #11, #18, #21, and #25 which eliminate respectively about 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 99%, 99%, and 99% of all candidates from contention.

Of course, not all of the listed parameters are strictly independent of the others. Dependency factors could reduce the degree of confinement considerably. On the other hand, all these parameters must be kept within their limits for the total time spans needed for the support of life on a candidate planet. This will increase the degree of confinement.

About a dozen more parameters, such as the atmospheric transparency, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature gradient, other greenhouse gases, location of different gases and minerals, and mantle and core constituents and structures, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the 28 listed in Table 6 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,j we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.k

 

[ib1yysguy]

The mathematics says otherwise. From my earlier link:

I just explained that, you retard. The universe would collapse, then it would start again until it was stable enough to hold. The rate of expansion of the universe alone is enough to destine it to imploding or exploding apart before anything could coalesce into stars or planets.

By the way, repeating something someone already debunked is not a legitimate debate.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Gee, a guy who says he knows what an organic compound is refuses to tell us which compound is organic. I wonder if PMP was lying.

nice try, ibbie, but the deflection isn't going to work....the issue isn't whether I know which elements or molecules are organic, the issue is whether science is anywhere near close to creating "life" in the laboratory......you called my denial "retarded".....care to show off your acumen by telling us why you think so?......I wonder if ibbie is simply full of shit.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Even this is nullified by time. If a big bang happens and the parameters aren't perfect, it collapses in on itself and a few billion years later (not really time though, since the collapse means the destruction of the fabric of time) it happens again. Eventually, a universe with the correct/stable parameters (including the rate of expansion of the bang) appears and we have a universe that sticks around long enough for life to evolve. Even this one is going to collapse on itself eventually.

Right now, we're expanding RAPIDLY. The stars you see in the sky are going to be completely gone some day from view. The andromeda galaxy is also headed straight for us. Nothingness is coming at us very, very fast. Some design. These facts alone point out how dumb your logic is. If God created the universe specifically to support US, then he wouldn't be doing his damnedest to insure it'll destroy us at the same time.

there's more evidence for ferries.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I just explained that, you retard. The universe would collapse, then it would start again until it was stable enough to hold. The rate of expansion of the universe alone is enough to destine it to imploding or exploding apart before anything could coalesce into stars or planets.

By the way, repeating something someone already debunked is not a legitimate debate.

your statement doesn't qualify as a "debunking"....your scenario presumes the existence of natural laws having an effect on "something" at an indeterminate moment....it does nothing to explain 1) what that something is, 2) where that something came from or 3) why natural laws had no effect on that "something" the moment prior to inception......

beyond that, it does nothing to explain why those natural forces managed to simultaneously have the effects of forming just that universe which was essential to the formation of "life".......

 

[DamnYankee]

I just explained that, you retard. The universe would collapse, then it would start again until it was stable enough to hold. The rate of expansion of the universe alone is enough to destine it to imploding or exploding apart before anything could coalesce into stars or planets.

By the way, repeating something someone already debunked is not a legitimate debate.

LOL How many times would the universes have to collapse and expand again before the chance that conditions would be within acceptable ranges is less than one in a trillion?

Your argument is a failure.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's interesting this thread has gone on for 3 pages, and no one has presented definitive proof there is no God. I thought Darwin Presented Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God??? Funny, I don't see one single solitary thing to conclude such a statement.

Why is it, some people who believe in evolution theory, seem to think it somehow nullifies God? I don't understand that. Why can't BOTH be possible? Why can't evolutionary processes be the result of God's actions? Is there ANY evidence it's not? I mean, other than the fanatical and devout religious belief that there is no God? I get that some people don't believe in God, but just because you don't believe in God, doesn't prove there is no God. Sorry!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There's no parallel evidence that tells us that God exists. Therefore, he shouldn't be treated as if he exists.

If someone chooses to believe in God and it's discovered that there is no such being, that the person just wasted their time.
But if one chooses to not believe in God and it's discovered that they are wrong; well then, they're just wasted.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's interesting this thread has gone on for 3 pages, and no one has presented definitive proof there is no God. I thought Darwin Presented Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God??? Funny, I don't see one single solitary thing to conclude such a statement.

Why is it, some people who believe in evolution theory, seem to think it somehow nullifies God? I don't understand that. Why can't BOTH be possible? Why can't evolutionary processes be the result of God's actions? Is there ANY evidence it's not? I mean, other than the fanatical and devout religious belief that there is no God? I get that some people don't believe in God, but just because you don't believe in God, doesn't prove there is no God. Sorry!

You desereve a + REP.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Which attempts to put natural limits on a supernatural creature.

Which is a special pleading.

Any argument that essentially relies on making all evidence completely out of bounds is an argument that is useless and should be rejected at face value. Otherwise, I can claim that there's a dragon in my garage.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If someone chooses to believe in God and it's discovered that there is no such being, that the person just wasted their time.
But if one chooses to not believe in God and it's discovered that they are wrong; well then, they're just wasted.

Hello Pascal's Wager.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticisms
Criticisms

Pascal's Wager has been the target of much criticism, starting in its own day. Voltaire, writing a generation after Pascal, rejected the wager as "indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists." [11] But Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. [12] It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply.
[edit] Argument from Inconsistent Revelations

Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot, a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam could reason the same way".[13] J. L. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin." [14]
Pascal himself didn't address the question of other religions in his section on the wager, presumably because throughout the rest of Pensées (and in his other works) he examined alternatives, like stoicism, paganism, Islam, and Judaism, and concluded that if any faith is correct, it would be the Christian faith.
Nonetheless, as this criticism has surfaced, apologists of his wager counter that, of the rival options, only the ones that award infinite happiness affect the Wager's dominance. They claim that neither Odin's nor Kali's finite, semi-blissful promise could contend with the infinite bliss offered by Jesus Christ, so they drop out of consideration.[15] Also, the infinite bliss the rival god offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ's promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah's and Allah's (all three being identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong god is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct god results in punishment (hell). [15]
And furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the Wager[16] argue that it could even be suggested that believing in an anonymous god or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that god has the same essential characteristics (like the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the gods of history truly boil down to just a small set of "genuine options",[17] or that if the wager can simply bring one to believe in "generic theism" it has done its job.[18] Critics respond by stating that the wager must account for all potential gods and goddesses, without specifying whether they belong to a historical religion or not.[19]
[edit] God rewards belief

Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

1. a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or
2. a benevolent god does not exist.

God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead God rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.[20] Also see the Atheist's Wager as examples of assuming a different set of possibilities.
Richard Carrier expands this argument as such:
“ Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.[21] ” This would render the initial 4-box set inaccurate, because it does not include the possibility of a god who rewards honest unbelief or punishes dishonest belief. A revised set, would look like this:

God rewards theists God rewards atheists No God Belief +∞ (heaven) Undefined No result Disbelief Undefined +∞ (heaven) No result Apologists reply that hypotheses such as these lack the backing of tradition that genuine religions have, and thus should be disregarded (although see Argumentum ad populum). More precisely, these other hypotheses should be assigned zero (or perhaps infinitesimal) probability, so that they do not upset Pascal's expectation calculations. The debate then turns on what exactly rationality requires of one's probability assignments. [15]
[edit] Anti-Pascal wager

Richard Dawkins argues for an "anti-Pascal wager" in his book, The God Delusion. "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc." [22] Pascal addressed this criticism in his original account, as mentioned above.
[edit] Assumes that one can choose belief

The wager assumes that one can consciously decide. Critics argue that they cannot do this, and therefore Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. In addition, an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception. [23] Richard Dawkins writes "Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest skepticism?" However, Pascal explicitly addresses inability ("impuissance") to believe. If the Wager is valid, inability to believe is irrational, and therefore caused by the passions: "your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions." Therefore, this inability can be overcome by diminishing the passions through the practice of belief: "Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you ["vous abêtira"]."[24]

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What if God rewards atheists? Why must God reward believers? When you are relying on an argument that's based on something with no evidence, it's foolish to assume you know he would reward believers. Therefore, I have an equal chance to heaven as an atheist than a believer has as a believer. In fact, I have a greater chance, because a God that rewards atheists rewards all atheists, while a God that rewards just believers only rewards believers in his narrow sect.