'Seeking' God

[lucent]

Offering odds of 50/50 you should not go into running betting rings. You have just plucked that right out of thin air haven’t you.

When you remove all other considerations, there are only two possible answers to the question, "was the universe deliberately created?". That's 50/50.

Wheras the mathematical models of the wave function of the universe suggest there is over 95% chance of the universe coming into existence in its current state uncaused from nothing. So you have something which is not even a conjecture which you assert is a better explanation than a genuine conjecture with mathematical proof.

It's a logical proof, perhaps you're familiar with logic? 95 percent chance is a number pulled out of hat, there is no basis for that figure, and the illogic of being arising from non being shouldn't even have to be mentioned. Math has demonstrated all sorts of theories that weren't actually true, and this particular one is contridictory to reason.

Not saying either are right, because no one knows. But the arguments you present aren’t good they are terrible…I admit they seem to convince you. By the way who mentioned an infinite regress?, there is no natural explanation that explores this possibility.

Either you have an eternal first cause, or an infinite regress of causes. Since time space matter and energy had an absolute beginning, the cause must be timeless, immaterial and transcendent.

Hint…gravity

The model doesn't work. The expansion pressure outweighs the gravity, making it physically impossible to form a star.

Stick to the point. Don’t speak about probabilities if you don’t understand them

Without any other consideration, everything is equally unlikely.

Define information before you take one step further. You boys really like to harp on about it, but I can name you at least 5 recent (as in the last few hundred years) mutations on the human genome that have taken hold in their populations and have led to improved human characteristics for certain environments and features. These have encoded new ’information’ into that DNA. You will deny this of course opting for the line “well that isn’t new information”, but refusing to define what you mean by information.

The question isn't what is information, because we already know what information is, and where it comes from. The question is, does DNA fit into any known categories of things that contains information? The answer is yes. DNA is a highly sophisticated code; more sophisticated than any code we have developed. It contains digital information and is an information storage and retrieval system. It is highly optimized and contains redundancy and error correction. The amount of information in DNA could fill 12 sets of the encyclopedia brittanica. It is also a language. It has an alphabet, a coding system, correct spelling, grammar, meaning, and intended purpose.

Since DNA qualifies as both a code and a language, and we know that codes and languages only come from minds, it is reasonable to conclude that DNA also came from a mind. There is no naturalistic process which can account for DNA. I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Info...e/dp/08905 14615

Thank you for the clarification, I’ll answer.

Oh but I could. I can point to 3 atheistic arguments just to start with:

1) The god concept and supernaturalism are meaningless. I have given you that argument already (maybe in another thread?). But you cannot invoke a god concept if it is meaningless and has no explanatory power. Supernaturalism can never be true. If we validated supernaturalism (eg ghosts etc), then they would just be a hitherto unknown extension of the natural world. A new branch of physics if you prefer. Supernaturalism is just a fairy tale for adults I’m afraid.

This is an argument? This is you stating your personal beliefs as fact and offering conclusions based on those beliefs which are not supported by a logically coherent argument. Please give me something to work with.

2) The necessity of naturalism. Human knowledge is limited. The necessity of a transcendent knowledge base is a Category 1 presupposition. And we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way:
1. Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.
2. Negation of material causes would only be possible if humans had no limit of knowledge.
3. A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.
4. Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3)
5. Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4)

Your premise that supernatural effects can only be deduced by humans without unlimited knowledge is false. Limited beings can deduce such effects by information given to them by the Creator.

The impossibility of divine creation.

1. Divine creation implies an ex ante facto empty state of the universe.
2. Empty states are atemporal and without potentiality.
3. As an action, divine creation requires time and potentiality. (from 1)
4. Divine creation is impossible. (from 2 and 3)

Premise one is false, Divine Creation does not assume any such thing. Divine Creation is instantaneous and timeless.