Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (atheist, quote, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't necessarily start with the question, "Is there a God?", but rather with the tangential question "Is this the best of all possible worlds?" The ramifications of your answer to the latter will inform other assumptions related to the possible existence of a deity and what that being would be willing to do and not to do.
I appreciate the number you are referring to seems incomprehensible but have you considered that it may in fact be not just wrong but completely pointless?
Any statistician worth their salt would know a difference between calculating probably of a random event as opposed to one that is non-random. Creationists that tend to rely on these probability calculations usually do so by erroneously assuming, amongst other things, that all evolutionary selection events are random. This assumption is simply incorrect, which means that the method they are using to calculate these astronomical numbers is rendered meaningless by the simple fact of them not accounting for the non-random events. The same non-random events that have the power of turning the odds of something being statistically impossible to unavoidable. What's even worse is that in making these claims these people are purposefully ignoring the caution of the mathematician - who first made the "law of chance" (not an actual law) observations they rely on - against its use for these type of calculations.
I think, I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're coming from the direction of "Even if the odds were 'a number with enough zeros that stretched from one end of the universe to the other' to 1 you'd say that means there is still the possibility that event could occur." Is that how I'm reading your post?
LearnMe claims that God doesn’t exist, yet he had his own experience of God when he was younger. Maybe his Ten Truths are his way of convincing himself that the experience wasn’t real.
I have seen mirages, where I have experienced seeing water that is not there. Maybe I am using the known science to convince myself that experience was not true.
No, I don't believe that. Statisticians have a number above which they say any event you wish to name is impossible to occur. I think, I'm trying to recall, the number was something on the order of 10 to the 153rd power. The number calculated to determine the odds of all the biodiversity on earth would be so immense it couldn't be written out.
The 10 to the 153rd power number is used to determine 'impossible' as we experience it. But if the probability landscape (the number of chances) is greater than 10 to the 153rd power, then that 'impossible' event becomes probable.
I believe the chance for a precursor to life has been calculated to 10 to the 47th power.
I think, I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're coming from the direction of "Even if the odds were 'a number with enough zeros that stretched from one end of the universe to the other' to 1 you'd say that means there is still the possibility that event could occur." Is that how I'm reading your post?
No, not at all.
The argument for improbability of evolution was popularised amongst creationists initially by Henry Morris and later by William Dembski; however, it goes all the way back to Émile Borel who first proposed his "law of chance" (again, not an actual law, just a turn of phrase) that suggested that events with small probabilities won't occur (I believe he later came to revise that position to that of degrees of certainty rather than just saying it won't happen). Borel's focus was on random phenomena but evolutionary selection and physical/chemical processes that drive molecular formations are not random and require different calculations. Creationists like Morris and Dembski argue solely from the platform of random phenomena. This means that their calculations do not include non-random aspects of these events, which makes their method fundamentally flawed. There are other errors that they make along the way but this one is by far the most egregious.
To understand why accounting for non-random events is important you have to consider that whilst the odds of a random event occurring may indeed be extremely low; the non-random processes can set in motion events that are not only highly probable but unavoidable.
Now, it is possible that you are right and the odds of a particular genome forming are astronomically low.
It is also possible, given non-random nature of evolutionary selection, for those odds to be quite favourable.
What we can't say is what those odds actually are, since calculations made by Morris and Dembski are inherently flawed and we don't know enough to accurately calculate probabilities of all non-random phenomena responsible for genome formation.
Pretending that something is (or is not) there, is the realm of the believer. Atheists and Agnostics don't have to pretend.
Anti-theists and atheists have to pretend that a single large protein could develop by chance despite the fact that the odds of it occurring are beyond 'NIL'. (probability: 10 x ^113)
The "NIL" cutoff is a probability of 10 x ^50. The odds of a single large protein developing by chance: 10 x ^113.
Anti-theists and atheists consider it much more probable that a God exists.
Anti-theists and atheists have to pretend they can justify their worldview without a few free "gimme" miracles to start off the universe and life on earth.
Firstly, which large protein are you referring too? Would that be titin? That's one large protein! The largest known. The chances of that protein occuring by chance would be a perfect zero. No need to mess around with mind boggling large (or small) numbers. And yet it does occur - in all of us. Just not by chance.
Anyway, it's you statement that atheist have to pretend that I want to ask you about. Open-D said we do not need to pretend and you countered with a statement saying that we atheists have to pretend that large molecule develops by chance. I don't see the link. Why would we need to randomly 'pretend' something like that? Can you please explain yourself?
FWIW, I think it is logical/rational (and brave, on R&S) for you to consider it possible that a God exists.
I might have seen the same probabilities information you saw regarding when the possibility is so low that its considered "NIL" (i.e. will not happen). The "null" cutoff is a probability of 10 x ^50.
Contrast that number to the odds of a single large protein developing by chance: 10 x ^113.
Except we are not talking about the probability of a large protein being formed by chance, we are talking about a smaller precursor to life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
When dealing with probabilities of such magnitude it's logical/rational to consider that there is an intelligent 'mind', intention and reason behind it all.
No, because a complex mind must be even more complex, and therefore even more improbable. Point 6, the point you have yet to refute with evidence. Logically a first cause creator god is the least likely explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
When anti-theists and atheists are asked how confident they are that God does not exist, the answers range from 95% - 99.9999% confidence (i.e. hence the reason for adding 'agnostic' to the term 'atheist').
That is 99.999999% rounded up. Those 9s continue for a very long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Reality: Anti-theists and atheists will readily accept that a single large protein could develop by chance despite the fact that the odds are beyond 'NIL'. (probability: 10 x ^113)
Reality: Anti-theists and atheists consider it much more probable that a God exists [probability: 0.00001% - 5%] than a single large protein developing by chance [probability: 10 x ^113] (aka NIL)
Reality: Nil means no chance at all, literally impossible (not figuratively). 1:10 x ^113 means there is a probability, not that it is literally impossible. 10 x ^113 is much, much, much, much, much larger than 1:0.
And once again, we are not talking about the chance of a large protein being formed, that is just an argument creationists use to pretend they are being rational while dishonestly inflating the odds.
Anti-theists and atheists have to pretend that a single large protein could develop by chance despite the fact that the odds of it occurring are beyond 'NIL'. (probability: 10 x ^113)
The "NIL" cutoff is a probability of 10 x ^50. The odds of a single large protein developing by chance: 10 x ^113.
Anti-theists and atheists consider it much more probable that a God exists.
Anti-theists and atheists have to pretend they can justify their worldview without a few free "gimme" miracles to start off the universe and life on earth.
'We are wrong because you do not understand simple mathematics about an irrelevant argument' is not a rational position.
Its easy with one improbability, but they begin to stack up when you look at cosmology.
A preponderance of improbabilities , each one beyond ludicrous to consider a coincidence.
I watched Dawkins talk about the improbability of life arising, improbability of intelligence developing as we identify intelligence, improbability of our planet being just so, with a moon to stabilize things just so, distance from the sun just so. He accepts an element of design in the cosmological constant.
No he does not. He accepts the false appearance of design, and explains why even the improbable is more probable than a first cause creator god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
Protein forming by chance...no chance. Yet it did form slowly in stages against all odds.
10 x ^113 is much, much, much, much more probable than no chance.
Proteins forming by chance are irrelevant, only the ignorant and dishonest creationists use the protein argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
What is the underlying mechanism directing it all?
Self assembly is oberved with dendrites in a petri dish, so what directs it?
theres a lot of improbability but its all at one end of the balance scale.
It can't be swept away with casual explanations and the explanations run to the absurd.
GoDidIt is a casual, absurd explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
I just don't have the blind faith necessary to be an atheist.
You do not need blind faith, you just need to have the evidence religious people do not have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
