I watched %75 of the Cold Case Christianity video.
I think some here ciould not stand to watch it pparently.
The flimsy excuses I see posted were dealt with in the video.
The analogy of the crime scene was excellent.
The standard excuses, like begging the question, the criminologiest dealt with and impressively referred to agnostic scientists statements. Paul Davis, for example and Michio Kaku.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThe universe has a diameter of approximately 93 billion light years. God created a mostly empty universe that large just to set up life on earth?
No, he and I have both said that the whole is set up for life for this planet. It isn't wasted space when you look at the size and scope of the forces at play; it all plays a part.
@sonship saidNonsense. The proposed conclusion (intelligent design) simply does not follow from the premises. All of his improbable probabilities (royal flushes and stuff) prove nothing. Here's why: obviously, if you are dealt only one hand at poker, the odds are against you that you will get a royal flush. How much against you? Well, just do the math: there are 2,598,960 possible 5-card poker hands, only four of which are royal flushes. So your chances of being dealt a royal flush, in one hand at one time, are 2,598,960 divided by four, or 1:649,740. Pretty slim indeed. However, given a deck of 52 and billions and billions of shuffles, the probability is 1 (=100% certain) that a royal flush will occur.
I watched %75 of the Cold Case Christianity video.
I think some here ciould not stand to watch it pparently.
The flimsy excuses I see posted were dealt with in the video.
The analogy of the crime scene was excellent.
The standard excuses, like begging the question, the criminologiest dealt with and impressively referred to agnostic scientists statements. Paul Davis, for example and Michio Kaku.
How does this apply to life? There are about 100 known elements in the universe. Given 14 billion years to shuffle them continuously, the probability is 1 (=100% certainty) that the right combination we call "life" will occur somewhere, sometime, in this vast universe. Pure chance suffices; no intelligent design required.
Don't think I don't hear the objections of Creationists: "Life cannot come from not-life." They are wrong. They are presenting us with a false dichotomy. There are in-between stages, things which are not yet quite alive, but they're not entirely not-life either. They exhibit some but not all of the functions and features we call "life." Ever hear of COVID? That alone disproves the Creationist's objection that life cannot come from not-life. A virus is not life, but it's not not-life either -- it's an in-between stage, because it exhibits some but not all of the functions and features we call "life." Photosynthesis is another example of an in-between stage. We usually associate photosynthesis with plants, which of course are alive; but photosynthesis also occurs in nature as a not-living chemical process, apart from plants. Furthermore, we know that organic chemicals exist in interstellar space. All the building blocks are there, without intelligent design. All that is required is enough time to shuffle all the ingredients, to form in-between stages, such as photosynthesis, viruses, and organic chemicals, and eventually, the shuffling results in a royal flush, life, somewhere in this great big universe. 100% certain, without intelligent design. Here we are.
Don't think I don't hear the objections of YECs: "the universe was created 6,000 years ago, there haven't been enough shuffles to get a royal flush in only 6,000 years." They're wrong. Just look up at the night sky; the lights you see were not made 6,000 years ago. If they were, they would be so close to us that we would not be here. We know how big the universe is: it is not only 6,000 light years in radius. Billions and billions of stars only 6,000 light years away from us would have fried the Earth with radiation long before life evolved from pond slime. As the speaker in the video states, and on that point he is right, the nearest stars must be much farther away from us than 6,000 light years in order for the right conditions to obtain to support life here.
@moonbus saidGreat post!
Nonsense. The proposed conclusion (intelligent design) simply does not follow from the premises. All of his improbable probabilities (royal flushes and stuff) prove nothing. Here's why: obviously, if you are dealt only one hand at poker, the odds are against you that you will get a royal flush. How much against you? Well, just do the math: there are 2,598,960 possible 5-card ...[text shortened]... way from us than 6,000 light years in order for the right conditions to obtain to support life here.
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThanks. Life is the royal flush of chemistry. It's nothing but basic chemistry and elementary probability; not matters of opinion. It requires clear thinking, not to get side-tracked by a religious agenda. A rarity here at SF, where theological opinions reign supreme. My gut reaction to this whole thread is: take it to Science, Spanky!
Great post!
Now, if you want to know when souls were created, that is a fit topic for the Spirituality Forum.
@moonbus saidHow many chances do you think played out to get it right? What do you call a chance? Having every condition met allows for a chance at getting it right all the other moments have zero possibilities for success. Moreover if the wrong thing occurs all possible future chances vanish because what maybe required gets polluted and becomes detrimental.
Nonsense. The proposed conclusion (intelligent design) simply does not follow from the premises. All of his improbable probabilities (royal flushes and stuff) prove nothing. Here's why: obviously, if you are dealt only one hand at poker, the odds are against you that you will get a royal flush. How much against you? Well, just do the math: there are 2,598,960 possible 5-card ...[text shortened]... way from us than 6,000 light years in order for the right conditions to obtain to support life here.
@moonbus saidYour 100% certainty is bogus!
Nonsense. The proposed conclusion (intelligent design) simply does not follow from the premises. All of his improbable probabilities (royal flushes and stuff) prove nothing. Here's why: obviously, if you are dealt only one hand at poker, the odds are against you that you will get a royal flush. How much against you? Well, just do the math: there are 2,598,960 possible 5-card ...[text shortened]... way from us than 6,000 light years in order for the right conditions to obtain to support life here.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThe flaw in your argument is asserting this is the only possible out come.
How many chances do you think played out to get it right? What do you call a chance? Having every condition met allows for a chance at getting it right all the other moments have zero possibilities for success. Moreover if the wrong thing occurs all possible future chances vanish because what maybe required gets polluted and becomes detrimental.
If I randomly roll six dies and happen to get the result of 4, 2, 6,1, 5 and 5, the chances of getting that *specific* outcome is near impossible. But that doesn't change the fact I still arrived at that outcome randomly.
Same with the universe. To get the specific outcome of the current universe may be low, but that doesn't mean it wasn't randomly created, or that other possible outcomes couldn't have happened.
@vivify saidAs soon as there are set ranges of limited acceptable varence everything will no longer be wide open for variations. The more set each parameter becomes the less variation is in play. Monkey with gravity the whole can be destroyed.
The flaw in your argument is asserting this is the only possible out come.
If I randomly roll six dies and happen to get the result of 4, 2, 6,1, 5 and 5, the chances of getting that *specific* outcome is near impossible. But that doesn't change the fact I still arrived at that outcome randomly.
Same with the universe. To get the specific outcome of the current uni ...[text shortened]... hat doesn't mean it wasn't randomly created, or that other possible outcomes couldn't have happened.