(March 31, 2016 at 9:42 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 4:47 am)AJW333 Wrote: When God created the universe, he created the dimension of time. He is not subject to age in the way we measure it because he is outside of time. Therefore it is not necessary that God has a creator - he is eternal.

Right, so what's the probability of that even happening?

Probabilities are so important, remember?

Better than abiogenesis and better than the vast multitude of species all evolving from pond slime by pot luck.

Until it's even established as possible, it's not probable.

God exists (assumption 1), and he predated our reality (assumption 2). He can act without having any sort of time to act in (assumption 3, apparent contradiction to itself and to assumption 2) and managed to create our reality (assumption 4) out of nothing (assumption 5). He also "created time" (assumption 6).

And...after all that, we're no closer to understand any of it. We have no mechanism, no model, no practical applications, not even a vague idea about how any of it works or could even work. And God now has to answer to all the questions that our reality did.

"He's just there, he doesn't need a creator" (assumption 7; you could just assume this about reality, and you're done in one assumption rather than 7).

We have a magical story, because some people just can't imagine things happening any other way. They think it's the default position, if they can discredit the current established theory.

Did I mention that "God" is a non-answer?

Yeah, I think I did.

Some people are just that uncomfortable saying "I don't know how the universe came to be, or whether it's always been here." They must have an answer, even if it's based on nothing but arguments from incredulity.

(April 1, 2016 at 5:55 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 8:23 am)Stimbo Wrote: How do you know this?

Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

I wonder how you arrive at the chance of "there being a super intelligence that designed it all".

You seemed to be quite happy to lay out nice round numbers for the chance of evolution happening.... how about this super intelligence? No numbers?

(April 1, 2016 at 6:00 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: Right, so what's the probability of that even happening?

Probabilities are so important, remember?

Better than abiogenesis and better than the vast multitude of species all evolving from pond slime by pot luck.

Lol, I would LOVE to know how you determined that. And where are your exact numbers to the Nth degree like you were giving a few pages back on evolution? Suddenly your math is not quite so specific. As in, non-existent. Why is that?

(April 1, 2016 at 6:29 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:55 am)AJW333 Wrote: Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

I wonder how you arrive at the chance of "there being a super intelligence that designed it all".

You seemed to be quite happy to lay out nice round numbers for the chance of evolution happening.... how about this super intelligence? No numbers?

JINX! You owe me a Coke! *runs*

(April 1, 2016 at 6:29 am)Tpocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:55 am)AJW333 Wrote: Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

I wonder how you arrive at the chance of "there being a super intelligence that designed it all".

You seemed to be quite happy to lay out nice round numbers for the chance of evolution happening.... how about this super intelligence? No numbers?

How about 100% 

(March 31, 2016 at 5:31 pm)athrock Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Which kinda demonstrates what I'm talking about: with your sphere, you've got no way to determine design just from looking, and if the sphere were impenetrable to probes- as is the pre-big bang universe to our current technology- then there are no other means currently available for figuring it out. There's no sense in which you could conclude design there, certainly not just based on the fact that the sphere is there.

In the case of the sphere, scientists would analyze its chemical composition, no? What elements it is made of? They could measure its weight, temperature, attempt carbon dating, etc. Kinda like we might do with the universe itself: they would study it to determine all they could about it. In the case of creation, however, there is NOTHING pre-Big Bang. So, why is there something rather than nothing?

Quote:So, we've just established that time doesn't necessarily even work at that point: why are you now expecting a progression of events in linear "first thing, second thing" form? If there's no time, there's nothing for events to occur in: there is no "first domino" because there is no "first," prior to the start of time at the point that the big bang had already happened.

The truth is, we don't know yet. Whatever the answer ends up being, there's a strong possibility that it will actively resist attempts to explain it in our current temporal lexicon and physics. We will need an entirely new suite of terminology to describe it, most likely. The point I'm making is that the assertion that the universe had a cause is unjustifiable given everything we currently know in science.

If there was nothing and then there was something (or better yet, then there was everything), what changed? And why?

Something CAUSED everything to come into existence. Things don't simply pop into existence uncaused.

*citation needed*

(April 1, 2016 at 7:07 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:29 am)Tpocaracas Wrote: I wonder how you arrive at the chance of "there being a super intelligence that designed it all".

You seemed to be quite happy to lay out nice round numbers for the chance of evolution happening.... how about this super intelligence? No numbers?

How about 100% 

Do you realize how idiotic this makes you appear after pages and pages of harping about calculations?

You guys pretend like you care about science; waste weeks of people's lives; people with a wide breadth of knowledge willing to take the time to talk through evolutionary biology with you in detail; but in the end it always comes down to:

it's god, because I want it to be god."