Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Darkstar]

Where have I seen this before?
google-it

I thought you meant this.

[Simon Moon]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

Is anyone really taking this guy seriously anymore?

[Mister Agenda]

Therefore god?

Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"

That would be "therefore God is conceivable"

Of course God is conceivable. God has been conceived, 1:1. Is God more probable than a natural explanation? That is definitely not 1:1.

[Darkstar]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

If by 'it' you mean god, then yes.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

Hoyle's fallacy
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
In a nutshell, life evolves in a way inanimate matter cannot, and it does so in observable steps that build on each other naturally, rather than all at once, or in a totally random fashion.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/...ossibility
Quantum fluctuation

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Random violation of all know scientific laws? Seems a bit exaggerated. Finely tuned for what? Considering that most of the universe is lifeless, I don't know how well tuned it is. Not to mention the possibility that other forms of life than our own could exist.

Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

Unicorns make it rain by crying as they fly across the sky. Undetectable unicorns. WadduIwin?

[Mister Agenda]

Improbable event: My cup of coffee floating up towards the ceiling at 6:30 pm
Rhythm claims the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1
6:31 pm, a 1:1 event, predicted to be inevitable, has not taken place.

Only if at 6:30 the cup actually floated up to the ceiling. It's the occurrence of the event that changes an improbability into a certainty, not the amount of time that has passed.

Probability applies to things we don't know the outcome of, things we do know the outcome of didn't probably happen, they actually happened.

The odds of drawing a particular bridge hand are billions to one. The odds of having the particular hand you have already drawn is 1:1. There's not a 90% chance you drew the hand you drew, it's a 100% chance. If you look at the hand you've drawn a million times, there won't be any times that it's a different hand than the one you drew. And it's stupid to claim you didn't get the hand you drew because the odds were billions-to-one against it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Improbable event: My cup of coffee floating up towards the ceiling at 6:30 pm
Rhythm claims the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1
6:31 pm, a 1:1 event, predicted to be inevitable, has not taken place.

Rhythm, do you have any closing comments?

Sure, you're as bad at drawing analogies as any other apologist.

Rhythm makes no such claim, so it falls apart right there. I don't have to make predictions about events that have already occurred. They're 1:1.
(closing comments eh lol.........)

[Kirbmarc]

nd ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Life adapted to the universe, Vinny. There's no such thing as fine tuning. A sentient puddle might think that the hole she inhabits is fine tuned to her, but it's actually the other way around.

Life isn't a necessity. There was a time when it didn't exist, and there will be a time when it won't exist anymore. The universe will carry on. Life is a by-product of the universe, not the reason for its existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course God is conceivable. God has been conceived, 1:1. Is God more probable than a natural explanation? That is definitely not 1:1.

Well, strictly speaking the probability that the universe came to exist by any means is 1:1. The probability of a specific means existing would be a different story, but so long as we're just granting causes like god for shits and giggles...we're drawing from two wells (one inappropriate and one bare assertion) and then hoping to reach some sort of conclusion. Down this road lay only tears.

[Mister Agenda]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

You mean imagine we don't know where Pagani Huaryra's come from so as to play along with a really bad analogy?

You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"

Why shouldn't there be something?

We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.

We don't know that at all. We don't even know if such a state is possible.

How in the hell did nothing give rise to something?

What property are you ascribing to nothingness that would make it impossible for something to come from it?

There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.

It happens all the time, naturalistically, at the quantum scale. In fact, it starts to happen right about where it starts to look like nothingness.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

Except for virtual particles, which happens all the time, apparently just because there's 'nothing' to stop it from happening.

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Well, now that you know it doesn't involve the violation of any known scientific laws, I trust that you will do the rational instead of emotional thing and lower your estimate of the probability of God accordingly.

That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.

For all we know, it could be inevitability multiplied by probabiity. We only have one example of a universe, that the physical constants could have been different is thus far speculation.

I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.

On the contrary, what we find is that every cubic nanometer is chock-full of things popping into being out of nothing.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

So you're saying that when you brought up God's conceivability, it was irrelevant?

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

The existence of the legends of unicorns can only be explained by unicorns existing, or unicorns being made up.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

You can't add a mystery to a mystery and claim the second mystery explains the first.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I notice you didn't respond to my previous rebuttal of your claim. May I assume then that you concede my point?

Improbable event: My cup of coffee floating up towards the ceiling at 6:30 pm

OK

Rhythm claims the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1

Which means that the event actually occurred

6:31 pm, a 1:1 event, predicted to be inevitable, has not taken place.

Yes it has. You said that it had in your previous statement. That's what the expressions 'certainty' and '1:1' mean; that a factual occurrence has been observed. It's the actual occurrence of the event that changes the probability from a possibility to a certainty.

How the fuck can it be improbable and certain at the same time you fuckwit?

The two are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. It's like saying the value of a constant is six and fifteen at the same time.

---

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

If by 'it' you mean god, then yes.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

Hoyle's fallacy
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
In a nutshell, life evolves in a way inanimate matter cannot, and it does so in observable steps that build on each other naturally, rather than all at once, or in a totally random fashion.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/...ossibility
Quantum fluctuation

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Random violation of all know scientific laws? Seems a bit exaggerated. Finely tuned for what? Considering that most of the universe is lifeless, I don't know how well tuned it is. Not to mention the possibility that other forms of life than our own could exist.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

Unicorns make it rain by crying as they fly across the sky. Undetectable unicorns. WadduIwin?

Both of Dawkins ideas are bullshit.

They all boil down to "who designed the designer".

Which leads to an infinite regress and thus fails.

You need to graduate from Dawkins are read smarter atheists. Nobody takes him seriously in universities anymore.

BTW, invisible unicorns who are also omnipotent and can create the universe? So you're a theist now?