Well trodden cattle paths ...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its hardly the same as making life from non life, is it!

It's the same argument though.

Event A is incredibly improbable and thus can't have happened by chance unless some intelligent
force was acting to ensure that it did happen.

This is essentially your argument against life forming.
And the same argument can be equally applied to any other improbably event.


And it's fallacious for all of them for the reasons already given.



The question is not what are the chances of THIS life forming but of ANY life forming.

And the relevant science pretty much indicates the odds of any life forming are pretty high.

All the relevant complex chemicals form naturally in the conditions found on the early earth,
(heck, many of them form in space), And do so in large quantities.

So the odds of life forming are simply a function of those complex chemicals coming together
in the right combination which is massively less unlikely than the odds you come up with.
At which point you need mearly note that there were uncountably large numbers of 'tries' to
achieve this all over the planet every day for a 100 Million years or so at which point the odds
of at least one being successful are really pretty likely.


I mean you can make the same arguments about creating exotic particles in the LHC.
Many particles require the colliding particles to hit at exactly the right angle at exactly the
right orientation to have the right interactions to generate these particles but we get masses
of those incredibly unlikely collisions happening because they produce trillions of collisions per second
and run the experiment for years.

In fact the detectors have massive supercomputers that asses terabytes of data per second looking
for 'interesting' collisions and dump the massive majority of the images because nothing interesting
happened in them because otherwise the amount of data generated would overwhelm the data storage
capacity they have.

The events they are looking for are so unlikely that we need to have quadrillions of collisions to spot
any of them.

Yet by running trillions of collisions per second we regularly and reliably get these events to occur.



The universe is unbelievably huge and unbelievably old.

The surprise factor of finding life in it is pretty much zero.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's the same argument though.

Event A is incredibly improbable and thus can't have happened by chance unless some intelligent
force was acting to ensure that it did happen.

This is essentially your argument against life forming.
And the same argument can be equally applied to any other improbably event.


And it's fallacious for all of them e and unbelievably old.

The surprise factor of finding life in it is pretty much zero.

no its not the same argument, Pasteur demonstrated that you cannot get life from a
sterile environment, this is not the same as a variety of possibilities within given
parameters. Its the equivalent of saying that throwing a six is a one and six chance as
the dice spontaneously generating itself, rolling itself with the probability of making a
six a one and six chance.

Yet by running trillions of collisions per second we regularly and reliably get these
events to occur??? while the universe in its hostile state managed to accomplish it
through trial and error and we, in a controlled environment with the use of technology
cannot do the same, i dont think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether its nonsense or not agers, is not the point, it forms a rational basis,
irrespective of whether you agree with the rationale or otherwise.

No it doesn't.

You can't use a bogus and refuted (nonsense) argument as a rational justification for holding a belief.

To be rational the reason you have for holding the belief must stand up to rational scrutiny.


For example someone could say that they have evidence that justifies belief in god and that therefore
there belief in god is rational.
You ask what that evidence is and they say the bible.
However the bible is not evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

To have an observation to be evidence FOR something that evidence must either be only possible to explain
by the existence and/or action of the thing the observation is supposed to be evidence for.
Or it must be probabilistically much more likely to be caused by the existence or action of the thing the observation
is supposed to be evidence for.

The strength of the evidence for a particular interpretation must be evaluated in terms of the probability of this
interpretation vs ALL other POSSIBLE interpretations. And with regard to all other available evidence.


Looked at from this perspective the bible can be seen to not qualify as evidence for god because there are alternative
explanations for its existence that are more plausible than the bible being divinely inspired by god.
And there is no corroborating evidence that supports the supernatural aspects of the biblical story.

Thus the bible is, and can't be evidence for god.


Given this, claiming that belief in god is rational because the bible says god exists must be considered false.

It's not rational because the evidence you are citing doesn't meet acceptable standards of evidence.




Your argument IS nonsense. (and demonstrably so)
And thus can't be a rational basis for your position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it doesn't.

You can't use a bogus and refuted (nonsense) argument as a rational justification for holding a belief.

To be rational the reason you have for holding the belief must stand up to rational scrutiny.


For example someone could say that they have evidence that justifies belief in god and that therefore
there belief in god is ratio ...[text shortened]... IS nonsense. (and demonstrably so)
And thus can't be a rational basis for your position.

if you say so, it must be true . . . . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its hardly the same as making life from non life, is it!

You stated you don't accept evolution due to 'mathematical probability', i've given you your same argument but applied to sperm fertilising eggs. Using your logic you shouldn't believe you exist due to 'mathematical probability'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... Pasteur demonstrated that you cannot get life from a
sterile environment, ...

Pasteur has never 'demonstrated' or 'proved' that life can't form in the conditions found on the early earth.

And what is more, given a definition of a sterile environment as "An environment that lacks living organic
material." neither Pasteur nor anyone else has ever shown that life can't form in such an environment.

So what you are saying is a lie, plain and simple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you say so, it must be true . . . . .

No it's true because my argument is correct not because I say it.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
To put it simply, in the words of Hindu saints and philosophers, God is beyond human mind's capacity to conceive completely or correctly, let alone describe in words. Hindu philosophy, however, asserts that God exists.

Opinions seem divided on this.

Originally posted by JS357
Opinions seem divided on this.

Not within Hindu philosophy or theology. Where and what are the different opinions that you see ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Not within Hindu philosophy or theology. Where and what are the different opinions that you see ?

It's so easy to find people who believe there are atheistic branches of Hindu philosophy, but you may doubt the notion that they are true examples of Hindu philosophy. The Samkhya school is one.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You stated you don't accept evolution due to 'mathematical probability', i've given you your same argument but applied to sperm fertilising eggs. Using your logic you shouldn't believe you exist due to 'mathematical probability'.

and i have demonstrated that its not the same equation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Pasteur has never 'demonstrated' or 'proved' that life can't form in the conditions found on the early earth.

And what is more, given a definition of a sterile environment as "An environment that lacks living organic
material." neither Pasteur nor anyone else has ever shown that life can't form in such an environment.

So what you are saying is a lie, plain and simple.

you can cry all you like about the definition of a sterile environment, the fact remains,
you cannot get life from non life, the best that the materialist can hope to claim is the
synthesis of self replicating RNA, which is not even close. Scientific fact and no amount
of postulation and dogma will change it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it's true because my argument is correct not because I say it.

sure it is, . . . .feels bum and makes sure he's not dreaming.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and i have demonstrated that its not the same equation.

No you haven't.

Originally posted by JS357
It's so easy to find people who believe there are atheistic branches of Hindu philosophy, but you may doubt the notion that they are true examples of Hindu philosophy. The Samkhya school is one.

While Charvak with his atheism and hedonism was accorded a place in Hindu philosophy and so also Kapil with Sankhya school of thought, I am talking about post Adya Shankaracharya Hindu philosophy and theology. For the last 1400 years, Hindu philosophy and theology is as laid down by Adya Shankaracharya. Nobody practices or preaches or swears by Sankhya philosophy. It is of interest only to academics.