Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

i don’t know how stuff happened so stuff i don’t understand was made by someone i don’t understand aka god and im not going to bother with figuring out how the harder to understand explanation could come about or work and will ignore all the problems I used my explanation for within my explanation itself

So no who crated god or how could god just exist

Instead god just exists

 

i don’t know how things work but someone said god did it we can know god did it because someone said god did

also some one described god and the traits in the desecration exist so the being described must not be fictional
because we all know fictional characters have no described traits

 

things have a nature i don’t know why so god who has a nature must exist and his nature is making nature for the rest of nature and saying gods nature just is works better then saying nature just is um because

 

Complexity can’t just exist so complexity just existed and that’s god

 

iv done as you asked wasn’t any better the 2nd time around you just gave opinions mostly contradictory ones along the lines of (*)(*)(*)(*) happens so a higher form of (*)(*)(*)(*) must exist to make it happen the end

 

You can’t explain away any and all complexity existing by saying an all complex god just always existed and poofed it into being
Well you can and do but that’s stupid because your god violets the problem you use your god to solve
Saying complexity can’t exist in nature so complexity always existed in nature is a self-defeating contradiction your god is either not needed or less likely to exist then anything whose existence you use god to explain away

 

It's all right, mate. As far as I've read, you've only presented one argument, you only need one post for that.

From my perspective, he fails in that he assumes that life must look like our life. His argument is equivalent to rolling a million-sided die, getting 238,472 and claiming that it is a miracle because it rolled "precisely" 238,472. Probability is number of beneficial cases divided by total number of cases. He's completely ignored the fact that if there are a lot of beneficial cases, the probability of there being a beneficial case can be high, and exactly which beneficial case can be random.

 

Works better then saying nature can’t just exist so a more complicated nature always did who built it

and god may exist it’s just less likely to by your standards

 

sorry i like to go over bored and your right I’ve only got one basic message i like to repeat over and over same as him

 

INCORRECT. Semantically you could argue 'precision' indicates deliberation, but it is simple not true that complexity necessarily indicates deliberation.

You keep using the word 'fact'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

For instance, what you posted appears to be a syllogism. Two premises (not facts, but premises - assumptions, if you will) which support a consequent conclusion (which is also not a fact).

 

Inconceivable!

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
The simplest code requires an intelligent human to write it. The DNA code is the most complex code in existence and--get this--it was not written by humans. Since all codes require someone intelligent to write them, who wrote the DNA code? Below is further evidence of intelligent design, this time, presenting info on the complex DNA code that no human could possibly have written.

http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/

 

god would be more complex so either complicated stuff can come from simple things or it can just magically exist for no reason no god needed either way

your idea is self-deafening because it contradicts itself

 

Don't monopolize Intelligent Design. It is obviously true, I'll grant you that, unlesss to someone who believes that Randomness and Chaos have supernatural powers to create precision. But an unsuperstitious belief in design would lead to the realization that the organism's own intelligence made it capable of designing itself. Etymologically, intellect means "choose between." There has never been a life form without intelligence. Even the most primitive were capable of choosing between what random molecules they wanted to reject or what they wanted to attach to their DNA.

 

It's pretty obvious you're a theist posing as an atheist so as to discredit atheists, so you need to camouflage yourself a lot better.

 

Conway's Game of Life. Simple rules and random starting conditions can result in complex systems. Some of them can even replicate themselves.

There are at least 10^22 stars in the universe, and a large proportion of those have planets. The universe is also 14 billion years old. You really maintain that in all the time with all that space, a self-replicating bit of matter never could formed by chance?

 

Written by no one?

Why would that impress anyone?

The idea of anything happening by chance is hopelessly retarded.

 

true, how can a God exist without a creator if he exists, would be the same argument

 

exactly...

 

If you believe in god, you believe that things can exist without being created. And you can mess with the rules of Life; you just get different patterns.

Exactly.

So when you get dealt a good hand in poker, that isn't chance?

 

Non sequitur, since God is not a "thing".

Thank you for admitting that your claim is utterly pointless.

Definitely not. Any perception to the contrary is purely subjective, with no other basis than the inability of a human observer to predict what my hand will be.

 

So you would agree with the statement "There's no such thing as God." Glad we've established that.

And thank you for acknowledging that complex systems arising for simple starting conditions is nothing special.

Ok, fine - when a photon decides which slit to go through, that's not chance?

 

Sure, as long as it is acknowledged that that statement is not equivalent to "God does not exist."

If photons do that, there is no chance involved.

Of course not. If we don't know which slit it will go through, calling it a matter of chance is at best a placeholder for our ignorance.

 

So a century of scientific consensus on quantum mechanics means nothing to you?

 

Aside from the normal problems with this sort of logic (and there are a great many of them), I've always wondered one thing:

Wouldn't a universe controlled by impersonal natural laws look precise? And couldn't a universe held together by supreme divine will look like absolutely *anything*?

If a creator willed it to be so, the universe could make as much sense as an MC Escher drawing. Gravity could arbitrarily turn off, up could become down, time could skip, etc