Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 151

Thread: How I understand Creationism in a logical way

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

    * This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

    Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).
    But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?
    If the improbability of something is sufficiently extreme, then it is effectively impossible.

    The only other option is to reserve the word "impossible" for purely abstract mathematical and logical claims.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?
    Not the chubby Belgian that HH adores, but this works:


    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    -Sherlock Holmes.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.
    Weird. And yet here we are. Maybe.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Weird. And yet here we are. Maybe.
    Yes. Our existence is definitely not a random occurrence.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Yes. Our existence is definitely not a random occurrence.
    My Determinism agrees with you.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If the improbability of something is sufficiently extreme, then it is effectively impossible.

    The only other option is to reserve the word "impossible" for purely abstract mathematical and logical claims.
    Absolutely not. The central lesson from Calculus, is that you can add up an infinite number of things, but still get a finite result.

    Do you care to assign a numeric value to your claim that because a number is too small it's not possible?

    A game with two outcomes = 50/50.
    A game with three outcomes = 33.3/33.3/33.3
    A game with four outcomes = 25/25/25/25
    ...
    A game with a googolplex outcomes = 1 out of a googolplex.

    You can continue that process indefinitely.

    I am merely pointing out the qualitative equivalence of ruling out certain outcomes in all of the above games. Ruling out any outcome from any of the games above is the exact same act. From an "improbability" standpoint you may as well declare arriving at "heads" in a coin-flipping game to be impossible - it's no different. Where in the sequence above are you comfortable drawing the line?
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 05-04-2017 at 06:33 PM.
    Reflect the Light!

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Not the chubby Belgian that HH adores, but this works:


    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    -Sherlock Holmes.
    Chubby Belgian?
    Reflect the Light!

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Chubby Belgian?
    Christie's Hercules Poirot. From earlier in the thread. I was too stoopit to understand his point. Something about using probability to predict the past.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Absolutely not. The central lesson from Calculus, is that you can add up an infinite number of things, but still get a finite result.

    Do you care to assign a numeric value to your claim that because a number is too small it's not possible?

    A game with two outcomes = 50/50.
    A game with three outcomes = 33.3/33.3/33.3
    A game with four outcomes = 25/25/25/25
    ...
    A game with a googolplex outcomes = 1 out of a googolplex.

    You can continue that process indefinitely.

    I am merely pointing out the qualitative equivalence of ruling out certain outcomes in all of the above games. Ruling out any outcome from any of the games above is the exact same act. From an "improbability" standpoint you may as well declare arriving at "heads" in a coin-flipping game to be impossible - it's no different. Where in the sequence above are you comfortable drawing the line?
    The numerical value would depend on the context. It would not be the same in a game with two possible outcomes as it would in one with a googolplex possible outcomes.

    But, practically speaking, in any given context, no matter what the size of the set involved is, there comes a point where the probability of something is so low that it is effectively negligible.

    Practically speaking, it is perfectly rational to say that a monkey sitting down at a computer and typing out the works of Shakespeare by randomly hitting keys is impossible.

    I'm not sure if that would still be fair to say if there were a googolplex monkeys with a googolplex computers over a span of a googolplex years. At some point the size of the set would be large enough that my claim would not hold. But given the number of monkeys, computers, and years that actually exist, it does.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The numerical value would depend on the context. It would not be the same in a game with two possible outcomes as it would in one with a googolplex possible outcomes.

    But, practically speaking, in any given context, no matter what the size of the set involved is, there comes a point where the probability of something is so low that it is effectively negligible.

    Practically speaking, it is perfectly rational to say that a monkey sitting down at a computer and typing out the works of Shakespeare by randomly hitting keys is impossible.

    I'm not sure if that would still be fair to say if there were a googolplex monkeys with a googolplex computers over a span of a googolplex years. At some point the size of the set would be large enough that my claim would not hold. But given the number of monkeys, computers, and years that actually exist, it does.
    If you're curious about monkey's and improbable events, check out this site: https://libraryofbabel.info/

    Browse to Hexagon:

    15h1hfduau99x4pwac660xzehyfbrhlnhptc8rgyrw2ujx9r9n js6f5rvzfk7ddykfl92v8w16jwq6yl84lytm5rcyjdtbow5xy5 xqufwj2m2i929jtsa48jrnatkyzz43068x7i49c6tv4kwuzs9q welafsvqaekfxxujz5dtrl80jgdlvd85b5vaoznnkm9ehgoe1a g4v46paliok3ylewn70e9biy6sa5u1dsm4cewonrnucqesywd9 g056ojic3yrss8ynokk2yc72fdm7oor5tzv65d0d8y9iln9zmc pyv14kc42pctysldb408lri1khq49ygai8x3mgzkfp8fva6r79 ubghl0mkdw0aesff89rdp3zv63w6aouu8uto6jpkhjktkrylmd u06lre9vxamc0bmprmkwbhm80q85sc23k2oh4uwwnup457jeoi sldyzj2cro6yfzy5nvzq85mqbw9z5330o5uxt1f84hrcdrwxvz cqiuy7ugg9lse5h5ajaowetuj69en150u6qk52k1g0p9v7srp0 p9hwq6f3b2722mb2ox42w6rdgmhntpbm9l3dooze6za4bnjyyz 7ltjcktd6n0lh83hlhc6af79o219mgxoxrky8yxlk0wf9ief4w y0cfhht0sd67dy1w058kh60c8z8v34h6xlddey5kjmpf5o8eyr xtab21wcq84g06b0amh8vm7zhf8os6mi1tica2a4nkies3lr80 0ypo5bq8qeve8sviyfug90hkttfof2hjmc9t422d9umrv05jsv na0obmjzjrfbat4zwhg31inu59kcjfr4zcmzgotgrih7l7c804 pvc5kv95kzbhg4ttfcjz3sj4ti44s0bgts9pop8q8j7yn2vmqt pjymzoplgwmgwhpng91mtjaea50dti9ttgdcwddm4efrbzwtn5 lpr6g7m79pgqjc3emgtnnacypnjm0ivo0bvoy21iroyo4rklbi o57dc8e22d26rfhmrfgd7fzrsbdfuy8g8zubfb09ik1xgt6fp4 sce98h4rgbb7wt2huy8ywot4l3la1qgayq5eovr23wuoq2fzvs q7ktboeobk5vbefldpjew0qkrtvtzsonk9lrcwcee6nny6mm3m wdrjkv9m8rcbmhq5xuqbmcbvaecb83h4m8adbcxn56bt2gs7pe flw1ugblubnuuu7tmjukf5kd2jt50xz9jl5omjl7mulzg93v63 31iy09c1t9w3vg6xm550bpyivw2exvkgdfbq8r2c8aka0lbvjq tiqtoy2r2peabarsgfkgxvcnrwk1a77p9jxnx9zrzey6t6jpy8 eth6mwzgj3mzmv3bb4s268smgeyocvu0f3qmqpibsxq4nrd3sb sknlegehl4a7uzrmnnl21gupuraqvcpjsoitujeg7i3cburb6n oq5t0m85r0hinvpxa4moe2v7kji8wi9h9ehd4w09nuphelc49f dg4ds7ogatjesm5xk8v3qb2c4lvm550nk5blvz7lxxki7zkvzj w9yrgyqa32hqbe1su6zr0zt5so5gpmkzzapta55t2i5lo6tivo ze8ih4e9j8zooq5ha6pifovu7xveokz796fa4d7s56td4k7bs0 v74r0vvaymwy8spsq6db7ybutnrafqqg6ao02jeuyuf537toza jnaz4k19tp4ch917u0y1k84cfxy1f1diqc7vi6r5dss327fsoo ziinde09bbo7mhfqzmfb4hqxzi6iix70s70oiieovmgijuzjpg wjocxvjs277nv16nthcpcvcpve8sxk8ws6crjnakw8xjg2a6wd aj7l6lel0v1siod5ukwip50i2okn8ykspqsbbhw7k9nfqlffmt z6hfkz2zh9honkui7w5ngkok9gahb0sp0b7u90ti1105zhfwo5 ta0rvwtib8kpsj5zmh7p3n2vshbwx5rppjks0mo0oaub6er1l9 r7uth4zdmvkhj37krcls7987fv8l1x8qjwjnd280ehc06sofx6 s87ckfvvcbpfghebx1vshur5tmizb390i97dwhvgl9u3ppyhce y1jk16jybdf5n67hr39fqxlf4lytupdapk4d8f2in1sqgq09dd tuoy99om4blz6azhgd7ucgmcje7c2ftoc2ebca4kq2ew2z1xh3 x9fgqqiqakali12rl03qgjdvjyj73tmgb6pifbc6qsid8eteld 9hepicec6d5a0m9j94c5jvy4lcm4uvpvhfgcet7vsz0xzdakd6 jorzd26fgs6b2bx3xdskry3lou06019jryezun3vpoyvn34pq8 f351d5l5uoyva58i96kg2htcxjfgh3ugzbp9bfsiet472vsi8b 9h77ia8a7ewctoxcf6ltebrey395o5fi4ska7xi4154kacers4 jecvkjh0i3couyotu8wzoiq0ta8f9tnuh7e9lqz0zqcsxqnv9j 07a6ws3vdam356ik1h1bgvcb7sfnrkltlaaimrieb8ul4ioavh jvipsczmr942px692lxfa109fgvunsahu7cit2dtmnqsex6zda icfd90ylynutoccu5rbu6882itj4sny1r2qagh4lseu9niwkzx xhxejqvghufsh9j57osji53xzljkipv0gr16sqtzwpi7he206w 0sp3cafftr0dtmnc5dprhi8w463frrbv7dr4dofilvk7xaec7a ktr7tgjhb5pzglfrh9hjwpxslbwj8lrvinkfgthcz9ygrvf14q 07j8z4gmtmifvlbum9xsvsih3fbq1o9kirxzzc1oqpo62j4dcg 87ut0oqc5giaft3jcqe7556qv9blffnweopppk9a7qtwiq0cu5 92v8ty4cf01ljllbpzbnwxga0abr8stmgvug8sd2n1eskf8oh7 00jpbzacpxyzxlli7yw3rd6n9r2mp2k4hgn3o2izf4n6i2ofs9 fyazzjoernahmbg53uv2i12v79jff1ffgub59bhcgpbt2ffxfp 3juog7xa6im59601kamoamgdijw1q8ey2lw80vfonn8d5oovmu qbrbu9t874qj5ojsv589zu6ich2i006ppmn0jimmtoixmfdkib np80dspt36j2a3b3gbvukfzwnn0d7d7t5jcz1yyb41oulbxdbn 6bh92hbw032mnfhq3xnkroaqy51gecw6mwcdehrnltq2n6hada z8aa

    Wall 2
    Shelf 3
    Volume 18
    Page 268

    Tell me if you notice something interesting.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 05-04-2017 at 08:47 PM.
    Reflect the Light!

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post

    I don't claim to know the answer. I am a deist agnostic, which means there may very well be a God, but that god does not interfere/intervene in human affairs, and there is not enough evidence to support such a conclusion.

    If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe that God does not intervene in human affairs?
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.
    I don't agree with this logic.

    If we assume time to be infinite then it would be essentially a guarantee at some point conditions for life are met.

    Probability is a weak argument for that reason.

    The only universal truth is that something/some force must facilitate existence, and this "thing" cannot be subjugated to the laws of this universe itself. Just by using logic we can deduce an eternal entity; what it is, we can only rationalize.

    Probability, teleological arguments, all weak...
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    I don't agree with this logic.

    If we assume time to be infinite then it would be essentially a guarantee at some point conditions for life are met.
    We can't assume time to be infinite. Time is inseparable from space, matter, and energy, all of which must go back to an original timeless uncaused first cause.

    Also, the conditions for life include physical constants, all of which are fine-tuned to permit human life. Are you saying that with infinite time, all of the physical constants would fluctuate over that time, so that at some point they would be what they are?



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.
    Even assuming that this probability could really be calculated (which I seriously doubt), it proves nothing. If each of four bridge foursomes played ten hands, the odds against their receiving the exact cards they were dealt is 10^1,152 to 1. Yet no one would think that there was some kind of supernatural explanation for it.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?
    Obviously! I never once said improbable occurrences are equal to impossible occurrences.

    I have said, perhaps three or four times, maybe more, that improbable =/= impossible and proceeded to elucidate what I am saying, but what I am saying is manifestly too subtle or complex for you to grasp in your current frame of mind. And so I gave up. At least on the direct approach. I was trying a different approach. As I said:

    OK, here's what we'll do. Forget probability. Throw that out (for the time being). We'll start at the top instead of the bottom.
    Were the words "forget probability" not clear enough?

    I rather think they were. And you are just stonewalling, because you think that gives you the rhetorical advantage. But you are wrong. You think you have me in a corner that I can never escape from, your logic is airtight, and you don't want me to weasel out. You don't want me to, as I put it, "start at the top instead of the bottom" or indeed talk about absolutely anything else until we resolve "Probability". But I am not trying to rhetorically crush you. You may (or may not!) have a need to "win this argument" and "be right," but I do not. Indeed as anyone can see I have repeatedly put myself and my own position in an unfavorable light, self-deprecated, etc. This is not a battle that you are in.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 05-05-2017 at 11:19 AM.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Even assuming that this probability could really be calculated (which I seriously doubt), it proves nothing. If each of four bridge foursomes played ten hands, the odds against their receiving the exact cards they were dealt is 10^1,152 to 1. Yet no one would think that there was some kind of supernatural explanation for it.
    No one would think that for any combination of cards that is not special. But if they were dealt some special hand, such as one that was predicted beforehand with perfection card-for-card, we would know with certainty that it was by design and that it would be perfectly fair to call that combination impossible by way of mere random chance. Since human life is special, and makes this universe that does support our existence qualitatively different than all of the 10^1,000 possible universes that lack human life, and we all know this, take it for granted, and couldn't possibly convince ourselves otherwise, try though we might, that analogy doesn't hold.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 05-05-2017 at 08:49 AM.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?
    Look, let me try as succinctly as possible, because I know how important that is to you, explain my whole thinking from top to bottom in one post. Can I do it? Let's find out.

    1. People have many different ideas about how things work. About what is real.
    2. How do we determine which is correct? There are many ways, and at least a few different good ways.
    3. One good way turns out to be the empirical scientific method: hypothesize, test, replicate results, conclude, repeat.
    4. There are other good ways of determining truth too, for example logical deduction, but we won't get into them now.
    5. The method of 3., the empirical scientific method, only works if a hypothesis is testable. More precisely: disprovable. If one cannot devise a test to disprove his hypothesis, one is stuck in the hypothesis stage. Hypothesis alone -- a.k.a. bald assertion -- is one method for determining truth, but not (IMHO) a very good one.
    6. For many of the elements of the secular origin hypotheses (plural) which have become current and popular the past hundred to two hundred years, no one has yet devised a test to disprove them. *They have never been tested.* Very important. Some of the elements, it is difficult to see how they could be tested. They may not be testable. Thus they are stuck in the rut described in 5.: hypothesis alone. They are thus not technically a part of the method known as the empirical scientific method. They are not part of that truth-seeking project.
    7. They are just stories.
    8. How do we determine the truth of stories, or bald assertions, if we can't use the empirical scientific method? Hark back to 2. and 4.: there are other ways.
    9. One way is to assess probabilities, harnessing what we do know of reality. The less probable a story is, the less likely it is to be true. For example, let's say a murder takes place and Mr. Monk deduces that the killer is 6'5" from a crease in the blinds or something -- a very good lead! Because a very small percentage of people are that tall. Now why assume that is true rather than another possibility that the killer was wearing stilts? Because although few people are 6'5", even fewer go around wearing stilts! It's a possibility, but it's extremely far-fetched.
    10. Assessing probabilities cannot positively disprove any possibilities, just as induction cannot prove anything. There are possibilities at every turn of the case; nothing Mr. Monk says is technically airtight. For every one explanation, there are ten other extremely ludicrous ones, such as that advanced aliens came down and did it and then framed someone.
    11. Clearly probability assessment is one useful truth-seeking tool. It does not, indeed cannot, ever disprove anything (this is your repeated point, which I have repeatedly agreed with). This inability does not, however, make it completely irrelevant (this is my point, which.... never mind). It serves particularly well for reconstructing the past.
    12. In conclusion.... what's the conclusion? I haven't really had one up to now, but every line of reasoning needs a good conclusion. Hmm, lets see, how about: Every method has its weaknesses. Perhaps we can best get at truth by being willing to apply all of them, as best we can, each to the realm and situation to which it is best suited.


    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    I was too stoopit to understand his point. Something about using probability to predict the past.
    I am sure you were not the only one to not understand. I hope you understand now.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 05-05-2017 at 11:22 AM.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe that God does not intervene in human affairs?
    Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

    I am left with four possible conclusions:

    1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
    2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
    3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
    4. There is no god.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

    I am left with four possible conclusions:

    1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
    2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
    3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
    4. There is no god.
    It seems like your #3 is just another way of saying either #1 or #2.

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    It seems like your #3 is just another way of saying either #1 or #2.
    I can see that, but I would add that #3 leaves more to the unknown than the monotheistic #1/#2 possibilities. For in the Christian worldview, THAT sort of all knowing, all powerful being would either be 1 or 2. In a deist sense, god or gods may simply be a supernatural force beyond our current understanding as we have no way of understanding the infinite... and we don't claim to know through some bogus revelation like the quran, torah, or bible.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    We can't assume time to be infinite. Time is inseparable from space, matter, and energy, all of which must go back to an original timeless uncaused first cause.

    Also, the conditions for life include physical constants, all of which are fine-tuned to permit human life. Are you saying that with infinite time, all of the physical constants would fluctuate over that time, so that at some point they would be what they are?
    Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.

    Eternity exists without the confines of time (i.e, God is eternal) whereas infinity requires a timeline, one which never ends. Eternal is philosophical, infinity is mathematical. And if it never ends, regardless of statistics, it's a near guarantee that there will be conditions for life, an infinite amount of times. In other words if time just keeps going on infinitely then in perhaps another 14 billion years conditions for life elsewhere will arise again, etc.

    The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.

    ** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life

    For this reason, I don't use any theistic arguments which relate to probability, if it's possible within the confines of our natural law, then I assume it could have happened by chance.

    The atheist has a far more troubling dilemma which is explaining existence in an absolute sense. Something they cannot do while invoking the laws of nature.
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.

    Eternity exists without the confines of time (i.e, God is eternal) whereas infinity requires a timeline, one which never ends. Eternal is philosophical, infinity is mathematical. And if it never ends, regardless of statistics, it's a near guarantee that there will be conditions for life, an infinite amount of times. In other words if time just keeps going on infinitely then in perhaps another 14 billion years conditions for life elsewhere will arise again, etc.

    The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.

    ** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life

    For this reason, I don't use any theistic arguments which relate to probability, if it's possible within the confines of our natural law, then I assume it could have happened by chance.

    The atheist has a far more troubling dilemma which is explaining existence in an absolute sense. Something they cannot do while invoking the laws of nature.
    The bible doesn't say "God is infinite". Even creation isn't "infinite". Saying something is "infinite" doesn't really mean anything. "Eternity" and "forever" just means without end. Just like something having a beginning can be eternal, so also, something eternal is always finite since it has a beginning.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Mostly because I feel that there is tremendous human suffering in the world. Some people say "oh I prayed really really hard that my child's illness would go away, and it did!" so god must have intervened.... Meaning God altered the laws of the natural universe specifically in YOUR favor. While at the same time, a thousand other children whose parents were also praying for God to spare THEIR children died a horrible death.

    I am left with four possible conclusions:

    1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
    2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
    3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
    4. There is no god.
    The argument from evil is a very weak argument. It suggests that because there is evil in the world, one of three of his attributes are negated (Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscience) if he knows about the evil and doesn't stop it but can, he is not omnibenevolent, if he knows but can't stop it, despite wanting to, hes not omnipotent, or if he doesn't know but would stop it if he knew, he's not omniscient

    The problem with this argument is it's actually circular in reasoning. Meaning you must assume your own premise (that God or God's promise doesn't exist) in order to make it true.

    Because God promised to compensate pain and suffering with something infinitely better, how can we say he isn't omnibenevolent?

    People gravitate towards this argument because of their own visceral and anthropocentric reactions. To God, death is not a bad thing, it's the next stage for us. When we see death we think it's an evil because of how it affects us on an emotional level. But for that child who died of cancer, we may cry, but that child becomes one of the birds of paradise living in eternal bliss. This isn't omnibenevolence? Omnipotence? Omniscience?
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    Eternity is a distinct difference from infinite.
    I agree. Eternity does not entail time being infinite, which was what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    The weakness in this argument comes from presupposing the finite nature of time and space. If we assume it's infinite then this destroys the argument.
    But we can't assume that. Space may or may not be infinite. But time (at least time that has already past) is definitely finite. The universe had a beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    ** Also remember something can have a beginning and still be infinite. So even if time was created with space it can still be assumed to be infinite because it has no end, and thus, the time required is infinitely sufficient enough to contain the conditions for life
    This would mean that time will continue on infinitely. But it does not allow for an infinity of time already past, which is what your argument would require in order to be valid.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    The bible doesn't say "God is infinite". Even creation isn't "infinite". Saying something is "infinite" doesn't really mean anything. "Eternity" and "forever" just means without end. Just like something having a beginning can be eternal, so also, something eternal is always finite since it has a beginning.
    Nothing you said is correct.

    Eternity cannot have a beginning, because a beginning relies on temporality (relies on time)
    Infinity can have a beginning (but no end) because infinity is defined within the constructs of space and time (which is why I said it's a mathematical concept)

    So a ray in physics is infinite with a beginning point

    x~~~~~~~>

    A line is infinite in both directions

    <------------>

    Their magnitude is the same, however they both rely on the construct of time. This is why eternity is such a distinct difference from infinite. Eternity has no beginning, has no end, was not created.
    Last edited by Muwahid; 05-05-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I agree. Eternity does not entail time being infinite, which was what you said.

    But we can't assume that. Space may or may not be infinite. But time is definitely finite. The universe had a beginning.

    This would mean that time will continue on infinitely. But it does not allow for an infinity of time already past, which is what your argument would require in order to be valid.
    If time continues forever (which theoretically it could), do you agree conditions for life will arise an infinite amount of times just as a function of mathematics?

    In which case your only contention is that the 15~ bil years we've been around isn't sufficiently long enough for conditions to arise?

    If that's what you're saying I see your point, but in terms of statistics, the percentage of chance doesn't relate to time, it relates to an average. To suggest we can't be an outlier of an average, in my opinion is just a weak argument.
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Muwahid View Post
    The argument from evil is a very weak argument. It suggests that because there is evil in the world, one of three of his attributes are negated (Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscience) if he knows about the evil and doesn't stop it but can, he is not omnibenevolent, if he knows but can't stop it, despite wanting to, hes not omnipotent, or if he doesn't know but would stop it if he knew, he's not omniscient

    The problem with this argument is it's actually circular in reasoning. Meaning you must assume your own premise (that God or God's promise doesn't exist) in order to make it true.

    Because God promised to compensate pain and suffering with something infinitely better, how can we say he isn't omnibenevolent?

    People gravitate towards this argument because of their own visceral and anthropocentric reactions. To God, death is not a bad thing, it's the next stage for us. When we see death we think it's an evil because of how it affects us on an emotional level. But for that child who died of cancer, we may cry, but that child becomes one of the birds of paradise living in eternal bliss. This isn't omnibenevolence? Omnipotence? Omniscience?
    My point was about god not intervening in worldly affairs and there is no evidence that he can, does, or has in the past.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    There is tremendous human suffering in the world.

    1. God is unable to help these people = incompetent
    2. God is unwilling to help these people = indifferent
    3. There is a force that somehow set the universe in motion, but is unable to intervene in its affairs. < I am here currently
    4. There is no god.
    5. Suffering is not that bad. It's good for us! "Man up!" "To live is to suffer." Without challenge, without adversity, there is no meaning. Without meaning.... well, what would there be?

    A good parent will let his kids suffer all the time. It's good for them! Now you may say God seems to be taking this to an extreme sometimes, but that's because He's working on a larger scale.

  34. #120


    Christopher is pompous and inflammatory, but watch his video until the end... pretty entertaining and thought provoking:

    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Creationism and Global Warming
    By Madison320 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 10:58 AM
  2. Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
    By QuickZ06 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 09:14 PM
  3. Both Creationism and Evolution Are Religious
    By Theocrat in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 09:31 PM
  4. Creationism = Holocaust Denial
    By Reason in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 12:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •