The existence of a creator.

My argument is falsifiable. If no such usage of physics is possible, the argument is null.

See string theory.

 

If DNA does not have a "designer", this does not necessitate that it developed "by chance". I don't even really know how you're using that term in the context of this discussion, but it seems like a false dichotomy to me.

But why isn't it OK for you to simply say "I don't know" or "We don't know"? Just because we don't have an accurate model for something does not mean we default to "God did it". That's ridiculous.

 

Your argument is not presently falsifiable. Your argument is scientifically null until it is.

We are at a stalemate.

You will continue believing what you believe because you feel that this is most likely. I will continue believing what I believe because I feel that it is most likely.

I, of course, am right.

 

I have said throughout that I am going with "the odds." This means that I am acknowledging that there is a chance that other options are possible, if only minimally so. Do you see the others in this discussion allowing a similar possibility?

 

Actually, no we are not. I suggest reading some books. Possibly some books on modern physics.

 

Good idea. Get back to me when you have.

 

Gaming theory states that the best outcome is to believe in a creator.

 

A pathetic come back.

Here is a start:
http://www.sciambookclub.com/physics-books/

Oh, I may just have to order some books today:
http://www.sciambookclub.com/pages/...?skuId=1073685688&browse=6817749&cat1=6822325

 

What are the odds and how are you arriving at them?

 

There are simply too many intricasies in this universe that have had to have been too precise in order for life to exist and for order, even at a molecular level, to exist without a designer. Where there is the level of design that there is in this universe, it is most reasonable to assume that there is a designer.

As for the odds. I don't know. What are the odds?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/


Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won’t happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There’s an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

Electromagnetism

There won’t be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

Strong Nuclear Force

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there’s no life chemistry. It’s impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it’s impossible to make life if all we’ve got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It’s so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That’s why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn’t be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.

Electrons

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It’s essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

Gravity

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

It’s necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don’t form, then clearly life is impossible.

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power).


I will go with these odds.

 

You are looking at it backwards, refer to the anthropic principle.

We are here because of the conditions present in the universe.

The conditions of the universe are not present because we are here.

 

Lucky us! We won the lottery 20 times over!!!

Either that or there is a designer.

 

I'm unsure how you're concluding that "intricacies = God". The odds of winning the actual lottery are astounding too, except people win it all the time. This is, in part, because there are "experiments" of sorts going on every single time an individual buys 1 or more lottery ticket. Adn there are a lot of individuals that buy lottery tickets.

Yet you're assuming that there is a level of design at all.

But life exists. This does not mean we have been created by a designer. I'm asking about the odds for God, not the odds against life which, just like the lottery ticket example, has had an incredibly vast amount of space and time for its "experiments" or "lottery ticket buyers".

 

To use the lottery example where there are millions of tickets and one winner to compare our universe to one will first have to assume that there are millions of alternate universes which all exist vacant of matter and of life as we know it. Is that really more believable than a creator?

As for life, we now must win the lottery again since just because we have a universe that supports matter, we do not necessarily have a universe that supports life. Then there is DNA, there is the example that I gave of water acting differently than other molecules by expanding as it cools for only a few degrees above freezing (which allows life to exist).

You may feel differently but when all of this is put together, you have a choice.

You can believe we won the 20 lotteries in a row, buying only one ticket for each lottery, or you can believe that there was a design behind what happened and most reasonably a designer.

 

Um..... no. You do not win the argument when your argument defies reality.

 

I didn't.

What?

But we do. The odds, no matter how incredible, have gone in our favor, so to speak. Again, I'm asking for the odds that a god or gods exist.

I cannot choose to believe something.

Another false dichotomy, and another evasion of my question. Just because the odds are great, does not necessitate a designer. Just because something is intricate does not necessitate a designer. Just because we don't know the answer, does not necessitate a designer.

 

That is true. But the fact remains we have either beaten the odds by literally billions of billions to one or there was a design. This does not "necessitate a designer" but it surely insinuates the likelihood of one.

 

No. It isn't "either we beat the odds or designer". And if those are the only two options, then you've argued against your very position. By asserting these odds, and recognizign that we do in fact exist, you've argued that we've beat the odds thus, according to your logic, removing the "necessity" of this designer.

 

No, I have said that we have either beat the odds by billions of billions to one by chance or that we traversed those odds because the fix was in. You can believe that we beat the odds by billions of billions to one by chance if you like. I will believe that there is a far better chance that we beat those odds because the fix was in and that there was a designer who caused it to happen.

 

Ahh I thought you were conceding a certain point of mine when you weren't.

And you will do so with seemingly no evidence to support the claim aside from "the odds were enormous". This does not necessitate a designer, so why believe it?

 

Any event, no matter the odds will happen if given enough chances.

If you want to present an unfounded theory like a 'god' then so can I.

The Big Bang happened over and over and over and over (in rapid fire succession) till the right amount of matter was produced to sustain a universe.

Using your lottery example...if I played 60 million tickets (quick picks) and the odds were 1 in 40 million, odds are I would win. Conversely, if I played 1 ticket a week for 60 millions weeks (assuming I could live that long), odds are I would win at-least once.

You are assuming that:

1 - this is the first go around for the universe (I.E. first Big Bang)
2 - this is the only universe.

Big assumptions on your part.

 

Argument of incredibility, another fallacy at use here.

 

You are assuming this is not the first go around for the universe or that there are multiple, multiple universes.

Big assumption on your part.


Personally, belief in a creator is far more logical than belief in a cyclic universe or multiple universes without a creator. But hey, we each have our beliefs.

 

I am? Please explain how **I** am.

Because YOU are assuming:

1 - this is the first go around for the universe (I.E. first Big Bang)
2 - this is the only universe.

that means I MUST be assuming the opposite?

 

Arguing that there are and/or have been billions and billions of universes so that there can be one where there is life is not an argument of incredibility however.