Q about arguments for God's existence.

[alexwenzel]

[Jenny A]

If I was to show you the odds of the entire human body it looks even scarier. Let alone the entire universe. "The miracle of evolution" hahahaha

I repeat that the odds you cited are the odds AGAINST multiple ancestry, NOT the odds of a single cell.

And yes, the odds of the human body, even as created by evolution as opposed to randomly thrown together, are probably pretty low, perhaps fantastically low (but you might at least try to find a citation that actually quotes your number whatever it is). So are the odds of any other animal in particular. But it doesn't prove much of anything. You see even though the odds are against it for any one person, the odds are almost 100% that someone will win the lottery.

If you don't get this, look at it this way: if there were an intelligent designer (and there's no evidence of that), the odds that he would choose to make any particular animal would be equally fantastic. Actually, given the vestigial organs and other design flaws in most animals, the odds against would be even higher given an intelligent designer--but who's counting 10 to 1000 here or there anyway?

Try thinking first and post again.

[Dystopia]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

[Simon Moon]

If I was to show you the odds of the entire human body it looks even scarier. Let alone the entire universe. "The miracle of evolution" hahahaha

The entire attempt to calculate the odds after the results are known, is flawed. The main flaw is that creationists think that life, or a life sustaining universe are some kind of goals.

Here's an example that may explain the problem with this way of thinking.

When one is dealt a random bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is one in 635,013,559,600 (pretty high odds, right?). Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.

Now, if someone is dealt a bridge hand of all spades all in sequence (a perfect hand), the odds are no greater than a hand of 13 random cards.

We only imbue that hand with special meaning because of the rules of the game.

[alexwenzel]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

[The Grand Nudger]

But you do have to have an explanation of machinery. Or else, how would you recognize it? Kindly point me to something that was not intelligently designed? That way, the next time I see something, a toaster or a daisy - I can recognize the difference, I'll have an explanation of machinery.

You've attempted to assume your conclusion in the example you gave (of a false dichotomy), btw.

Fail. This is the trouble with this nonsense. Not a shred of evidence....and then you can't even form a cogent argument? Jesus christ.....

[The Valkyrie]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

So, your justification is yet another argument from ignorance.

Gotcha.

[The Grand Nudger]

What else could he argue from?

[The Valkyrie]

What else could he argue from?

On behalf of creationism? Nothing ast all.

[alexwenzel]

But you do have to have an explanation of machinery. Or else, how would you recognize it? Kindly point me to something that was not intelligently designed? That way, the next time I see something, a toaster or a daisy - I can recognize the difference, I'll have an explanation of machinery.

You've attempted to assume your conclusion in the example you gave (of a false dichotomy), btw.

Fail. This is the trouble with this nonsense. Not a shred of evidence....and then you can't even form a cogent argument? Jesus christ.....

Keep reading your google bible

---

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

So, your justification is yet another argument from ignorance.

Gotcha.

Once there was nothing... BAM... then there was everything! Including matter, time and space. Show me YOUR ignorance and proof to that.

Hurry! run to your google bible!!