Johnnys Question regarding the 144,000

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i do not accept the possibility, its either true or its not, the truth does not lie between
two polarities. I have answered the same question now four times, i will not do so
again and just to be clear,

NO I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY that my religion could be
wrong.

how do you know?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how do you know?

Elementary my dear Watson,

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable,
must be the truth.”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Elementary my dear Watson,

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable,
must be the truth.”

how have you come to the conclusion the other variables are impossible?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how have you come to the conclusion the other variables are impossible?

through evaluation and an examination with the mind

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
through evaluation and an examination with the mind

what were the key conclusions you came to.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what were the key conclusions you came to.

The possibility that life has arisen by merely material means is mathematically not
only improbable, but almost impossible. Thus a purely materialistic explanation for life
and its diversity was not possible and thus having eliminated this, it left, however
improbable, the only explanation that intelligence is involved the consequence of which
is that one, in the search for truth cannot limit ones search to unintelligent agencies for
it gives an entirely skewed perspective. I then made room for the supernatural.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The possibility that life has arisen by merely material means is mathematically not
only improbable, but almost impossible. Thus a purely materialistic explanation for life
and its diversity was not possible and thus having eliminated this, it left, however
improbable, the only explanation that intelligence is involved and thus one, in the
s ...[text shortened]... agencies for it gives an
entirely skewed perspective. I then made room for the supernatural.

Ok well first off you can't just assert that the possibility that life has arisen by 'merely
materiel means' is mathematically impossible.
You have to prove it.

The evidence currently indicates the exact opposite, that it's in fact extremely easy for
life to form by 'merely materiel means'.


So you don't get to 'eliminate this option'.


However your proposed solution to this even if you could is in fact worse.

Because an 'intelligent' agent is vastly more complicated and harder to form than simple life.

So if it's possible for an 'intelligent' agent to spontaneously pop into existence then it's evidently possible
for simple life to do likewise.

And if you try to get around that by stipulating that your intelligent agent has existed forever and thus
didn't need to spontaneously form, then I can just as easily say that the universe could have existed
in one form or another forever... In which case it doesn't mater how improbable it is for life to form,
if the universe has existed forever then it will form at some point.


However even if that were not true, and you say that there has to be an intelligent creator...

That still doesn't get you to YOUR god, as there are an infinite number of possibilities for possible creator gods.

It still doesn't get you to the supernatural.


And this is even before I bring up hard solipsism.

The 'how can you tell you're not in the matrix?' problem.

Which widens the possible field of 'creators of our reality' to completely non-supernatural intelligent beings.


“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable,
must be the truth.”

Only works with a finite set of options.

When working with an infinite set of options it becomes impossible to evaluate all of them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The possibility that life has arisen by merely material means is mathematically not
only improbable, but almost impossible. Thus a purely materialistic explanation for life
and its diversity was not possible and thus having eliminated this, it left, however
improbable, the only explanation that intelligence is involved the consequence of which ...[text shortened]... agencies for
it gives an entirely skewed perspective. I then made room for the supernatural.

can i remind you that you said you were 100% sure your god is real. your first sentence of proof towards this uses the words 'improbable and almost impossible'. you are clearly stating with your choice of words that there is a tiny chance a purely materialistic explanation for life exists. bearing what youve just said in mind, should you revise your 100% claim, as you have already introduced a minuscule element of doubt and thats even before looking at all the very pertinent points raised by googlefudge.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
through evaluation and an examination with the mind

You're going back down this path again are you? If that's the case, i have a book waiting here for you. PM me your address and i'll pop it in the post for your good self. 🙂

Let's see you put this 'evaluating with your mind' into practice.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
can i remind you that you said you were 100% sure your god is real. your first sentence of proof towards this uses the words 'improbable and almost impossible'. you are clearly stating with your choice of words that there is a tiny chance a purely materialistic explanation for life exists. bearing what youve just said in mind, should you revise your 100 ...[text shortened]... of doubt and thats even before looking at all the very pertinent points raised by googlefudge.

actually no, the proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the
chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?
Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But
any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never
happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the
number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the
universe! so no, there is not even a sniffling of a chance or doubt in my mind. You
asked the question, you got the answer and no I will not revise my answer, you limit
your search for truth to unintelligent agencies, to me such a course is quite simply
absurd.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're going back down this path again are you? If that's the case, i have a book waiting here for you. PM me your address and i'll pop it in the post for your good self. 🙂

Let's see you put this 'evaluating with your mind' into practice.

he asked me why, so i told him, and no thanks to the book offer, unless it includes the
possibility of intelligence being involved id rather not limit my search for truth to
unintelligent agencies, if you dont mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he asked me why, so i told him, and no thanks to the book offer, unless it includes the
possibility of intelligence being involved id rather not limit my search for truth to
unintelligent agencies, if you dont mind.

Thought so. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually no, the proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the
chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?
Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But
any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never
happening. A ...[text shortened]...
your search for truth to unintelligent agencies, to me such a course is quite simply
absurd.

Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113

Haven't we been here before, and when we looked a little deeper into this it turned out this number was from creationtist material?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Thought so. 🙂

do your books provide for the possibility of intelligence being involved, no, i thought
so.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113

Haven't we been here before, and when we looked a little deeper into this it turned out this number was from creationtist material?[/b]

Indeed, where else? Its a quotation taken from one of our books, which quotes an
article from the 1980's i think and yes we have been here before.