The existence of a creator.

You used the example of millions of lottery tickets which is only relevant if you were arguing for either millions of universes or millions of go arounds.

 

here is your quote

 

You missed this key part:

Try being a little intellectually honest.

 

Jsut to be clear, the lottery ticket example was started by me to be analogous of LIFE in THIS universe, and was not analogous of the existence of any universe itself.

 

Feel free to present any theory you wish. I will try to not be quite so judgemental of your ideas as you seem to be of mine.

 

Thanks for the clarification. It is the sum of the probabilities which really lead me to the conclusion that there must reasonably be a creator. Once you have actually entered into this universe vs the billions of other universes that others are claiming, you have already won several loteries.

 

Um.... no. Know your fallacies.

The anthropic principle is not an argument of incredibility. My argument of, we exist because of the conditions is not a fallicious argument, however your argument of the conditions exist because we exist is a fallicious argument.

The multiverse theory is based in reality, the particle wave duality of sub atomic particles occupy all states at any given time until observed (measured). Because of this ability to occupy all possible states at any given moment, there is a strong suggestion that it would be possible for all possible states to exist in universes as well. The argument is not a cop out, like "god did it", but an extension of what is observed in sub-atomic particles and some macroscopic objects.

Again. I suggest reading some books on modern physics.

 

Now Im 'judgemental'?

I present an alternative HYPOTHESIS to your creator, to demonstrate the fallacy in your HYPOTHESIS of a creator, and I get labeled as 'judgemental'.

What a joke

 

Why would he need to though? He does not need to prove his case, all he needs to do is point at the improbability of existence, point his finger, and say "god did it".

Without applying his own premise to his argument, which would be to calculate the odds of a Watchmaker's Watchmaker's (to infinity) actually existing and creating an infinite number of Watchmaker's Watchmaker's.

 

Feel free to use and name whatever rationalizations you choose. The reality is that where there is design there is most likely a designer. It really is not that difficult. Go to a nearby town. Walk up to some people and point at a nearby house. Tell them that nobody built the house. Tell them that it just happened on it's own. Let me know the reaction you get.

 

Meh. There is a reason why your argument is known in intellectual circles as a fallacy.

It is not a rationalization, but the dismissal of an illogical argument.

 

It is the most likely of the possibilities. A very small number over a much smaller number can be a very large number.

 

OK then, continue believing in your billions to one shot since you feel that it is the "intellectual" thing to do. It really makes no difference to me. Silly stupid unintellectual me, I will continue believe that where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker.

 

Give us the probability then. Give us the probability of an infinite number of Watchmaker's Watchmaker's existing and creating the universe.

1: ?

 

The blatant use of fallacies as imaginary arguments is quite unintellectual of you.

No one denies the notion of watchmakers being required to make a watch. What is disputed though, is the need to invoke a god (as a cop out) to explain the universe as we know it.

 

To add to what was stated by Wolverine; We don't recognize that a watch has a watchmaker because it's complex or tells time, we do this through experience. You cannot validly apply this same logic to the universe.

 

Nor can you, through experience, show me a cyclic universe or multiple universes.

 

I don't have to in order to point out that your presumption of design is not valid.

 

Is your presumption any more valid?

 

Which presumption would that be?

 

Then something very complex can exist on its own without need of a creator negating the need for a god in the 1st place

any being capable of designing a universe including life is going to be complicated and need to be well ordered itself

Which would mean complexity and order can exist without a god making it

Meaning you don’t need a god to design everything

 

The presumption you made here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060863213-post119.html

 

I didn't presume anything, I addressed the logic of the argument.

 

Your presumption is presuming that his was a presumption. Is either of you in possession of proof to validate in individual claim without leaning on opinions of other people?

"I don't have to in order to point out that your presumption of design is not valid."