Atheism V's Theism.

You have the 10^123 wrong, btw. Penrose' number is actually nearly infinitely higher - which means the point you're attempting to make that our accidental universe is certainly not impossible using the 10^123 metric actually got quite a lot worse.

You are trying to claim that each combination of events has the exact same probability. Duh - no one contests that, and if you lean on that obvious fact as basis for proving that our existence by chance is not impossible, then you destroy the very value of the science of statistics itself.

This is about odds of arriving at only ONE combination, as every other one results in...failure.

 

I'm not talking about rules of inference. I'm citing an argument for God using non meta-physical data or information.

 

If you want to make the argument that what people think of as god is actually just a natural, superior intelligence, then you won't get any real argument from me. The theists I know think of that kind of talk as some sort of insult to their faith, though.

 

1) It was someone else who quoted the 10^123 number.
2) What is the right number? "nearly infinite" is an oxymoron.
3) As I said, the actual odds are in fact irrelevant.

Failure of what? Failure to be exactly this one? Clearly, but that's a tautology. Beside, 'failure' implies that there was a target which the universe might fail to achieve. Targets imply intelligence. Circular logic.

 

On the contrary. The 'what if' arguments are always related to the 'teapot'. Then it also seems that you did not even read the entire set of statements that I made. The possibility of 'what if things had turned out different' would include the second sentence of mine that you quoted. So, when fantasizing about things of the 'what if' nature, then you can include the fantasy about the teapot.

 

A rigorous mathematical rebuttal of Hawking's model is the only type I would take seriously. Someone's opinion piece on the use of imaginary numbers in models has nothing to do with science. That's for the religious to stroke each other's egos. A religious person can write a scientific paper, but he needs to be well versed in mathematics to do so. For all the rebuttals I found, not one contained those attributes. It's a different world that you and I each live in, Neutral. Religious rhetoric is completely irrelevant to a scientific model.

I am so hoping that Subdermal will make use of her expertise and present some serious criticism of Hawking's model.

I don't care to justify Stephen Hawking's model. That guy is a celebrity and has not been considered a serious scientist for many years. Science is a young man's game, for those of you ignorant of the process. Hawking is nothing.

 

Again, you seem to be quite confused. The fact that humans are incapable of doing something, in your logic, means the universe is incapable of doing that thing. How incredibly absurd.

On top of that, if we exist, why is our existence likely? The point I made before about the vastness of the universe, means that you have no basis for your conclusion. Even if life is infinitesimally rare, say 1 in a trillion stars will house advanced life, that still means there would be multiple examples of life in the universe, because of the near infinite vastness of the universe. So there is no basis for any of the things you are saying.

 

Again, your entire analysis comes with the assumption that the point of existence is life. Yet you have no evidence to support that assumption. Of course if conditions of the universe were different, human beings would not exist. However, they are not. That in NO WAY implies that therefore the universe was made for human beings!! I wonder how you fail to see the absurdity in such an assumption!!

PS. Human beings evolved within the confines of the universe which actually exists. Of COURSE we fit into the universe well, otherwise we would have evolved in some other manner, or not at all!! It is us who is suited to the universe, NOT the other way around.

 

Religion promotes uncivilized behavior as well. Just like state morality, religious morality is the invention of men, who use different means useful to them to promote behavior useful to the power structures in place. Prior to the modern disciplinary institutions of the state, religion was a much more useful tool for achieving that goal. The Roman empire used the Greek religion, then the Imperial Cult(and many others), and then Christianity to fulfill that role. The Arab Empires created a religion around their founding political leader, and deified him(something very common in pre-modern times, where Egyptian Pharaohs and many other empires used similar tactics). Now the state has other methods and institutions(prisons, public schools, police, mass media, etc) to create the same internalized disciplinary pressures, and so religion has become less neccesary to achieve those goals. You should stop worrying.

 

Your second sentence didn't mean anything. There are life forms that exist beside humans. There will be life forms that exist after we are gone. Did you mean intelligent life?

Edit: Changed "beyond" to "beside" because I don't want this devolving further into a definitions war.

 

The bolded is not supported by Penrose's calculations.

 

So what. Does Penrose KNOW all that there is to KNOW? No? Then he/she is just another big mouth jacking his/her jaw about something that is not provable. Probabilities amount to squat. There is also a high probability that Penrose cannot prove any of his/her calculations. Uh oh. That would mean that Penrose is practicing guesswork. OMG. Believing that something is possible when it cannot be proven... living in a fantasy world. Anybody care for another Teapot?

 

...I am not agreeing with Penrose in any sense, I am just pointing out that his calculations have been misused over and over again in this thread.

 

Cellars were created for fungi.

 

So like... believing in God?

 

Perhaps in your eyes. But then again, the 'teapot' is a thing that has been demonstrated in words on this forum by people just like you. Then there are others on this forum who claim to have the Invisible Pink Panda sitting on their couch; and still others who claim that they have been sworn to secrecy by Satan himself.... and yet others who claim to have been cuddled by the appendages of the FSM...

 

That is perhaps a decent thing to point out, because in doing so, it would also point out how useless the calculations are because those calculations prove absolutely nothing in the physical realm.

 

Agreed 100%. They are nothing but math excercises. Unless someone has a better idea.

 

Clearly you have not been touched by His noodley appendage. You need to open your heart and your mind to Him.

 

Yesm then we would fully understand the malicious intent behind deliberate mockery through fallacy.

Isn't atheism wonderful!

 

No, atheism is the lack of belief in God, not wonderful.

 

Great observation on your part. My 'needs' are my concern and are not yours to dictate to me. You have no clue as to my 'needs'.

 

O ye of little faith! I know what you need, because I have been touched, and He has told me what everyone needs, including you!

 

Great - what define atheism? Random trolling .. now, where are SFJEFF and COL K to condemn this behavior? Odd that they are adsent?

Besides D, clearly you have just rejected all rational thought and science, have regressed to being half fish, just started a bunch of religious Crusades, raped a few people (probably men), durg certain terrified atheists off to the South and sodomized them into submission with yer .. agh, noodle appendage (pun fully intended), before travelling through time in a integalatic time machine to spread evidence of your noodle (once again, pun fully intended) all over the place.

Its so logical when aimed at your religion right?

 

I don't even like my religion of Atheism, but I am stuck a member of the religion because I don't believe the other stuff.