The Case for Theism

[Mister Agenda]

Okay genkaus now that we can put away semantics and get on with the argument how do you explain the probability of natural filtering verses Borels law of mathematical probability?

Genkaus?

Why do you suppose Genkaus is an authority on Borel's law of mathematical probability or that Genkaus has some obligation to do your calculations for you?

And are you talking about Borel's law of large numbers? I've never heard of Borel's law of mathematical probability.

Anyway, to address your earlier question, we don't know for sure how abiogenesis occurred, but a plausible pathway is self-replicating RNA (see RNA world). That may not be the explanation, and it certainly isn't a complete one, but no one in biology is proposing that step A was a fully-functioning cell that happened to self-assemble. Large molecules self-assemble all the time though, and all it would take to get the ball rolling is one self-replicating molecule in all the possible environments it could occur in with hundreds of millions of years of opportunities to do so.

---

If a universe was eternal, then it could not have happened by purely random chance, as there would be no point at which it did not exist.

So the best you can do is offer a hypothetical which you don't actually think is true.

Just as a clarification, it wasn't the idea of an eternal universe that was rejected, it was the idea of life having existed eternally.

You just want to obfuscate and cloud the issue because that's what atheists do in defense of atheism.

Is that what you did in defense of atheism?

That's why theism is an opinion...as is atheism.

Correct!