How to know that God exists.

[Temujin]

No thing.

Agreed

Ok, so because it is absent it means there can be no-thing?

No thing means, no thing

No thing exists.

Because it suits you right.
Lets say that some-thing did exist like the laws of physics and even the law of entropy. You say the probability of ontological life is 1.
Why then ignore the analogy of the watch?

Are you saying the probability of the watch having evolved into ontological beings as per my analogy is 1.

Can you define the scale of probability for us perhaps?

Nothing, as a concept, is impossible to achieve. If the laws of physics and logic are not present, then there is no reason why anything should not spring into existence, from the universe we know to the pudding that ate Chicago, everything is as likely as everything else .

If on the other hand the laws of physics and logic do apply, then something is coming into existence all the time, in the form of quantum foam. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Negative energy can cancel out positive matter. There's no logical reason why a universe like ours should not exist, since the amount of matter and the amount of negative energy taken together add up to nothing.

As for ontological life forms are concerned, that's where the weak Anthropic Principle comes in. There is no reason why a universe should have particular properties. A universe which contains intelligent life, must have particular properties that allow such life to exist. We exist, therefore the universe must have the properties that allow us to exist. We have no way of knowing how many other universes have come and gone before ours. It doesn't matter. The winning lottery ticket exists. The probability of the winning lottery ticket taking the prize is 1. That's not affected by how many other tickets were sold.

 

[Manfred]

Nothing, as a concept, is impossible to achieve. If the laws of physics and logic are not present, then there is no reason why anything should not spring into existence, from the universe we know to the pudding that ate Chicago, everything is as likely as everything else .

If on the other hand the laws of physics and logic do apply, then something is coming into existence all the time, in the form of quantum foam. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Negative energy can cancel out positive matter. There's no logical reason why a universe like ours should not exist, since the amount of matter and the amount of negative energy taken together add up to nothing.

As for ontological life forms are concerned, that's where the weak Anthropic Principle comes in. There is no reason why a universe should have particular properties. A universe which contains intelligent life, must have particular properties that allow such life to exist. We exist, therefore the universe must have the properties that allow us to exist. We have no way of knowing how many other universes have come and gone before ours. It doesn't matter. The winning lottery ticket exists. The probability of the winning lottery ticket taking the prize is 1. That's not affected by how many other tickets were sold.

In your paradigm, the same person wins the jackpot lottery ten times in a row.
For you to conceive of that happening would be ludicrous.

 

[Lucian]

I gave you an answer. You keep failing to see what it is.
it is suppressed through the darkening of their hearts

Can you conceive of what it means to darken your heart in this context?

I'm more interested in how you conceive of it in this context, since it's your suggestion that your interlocutor was lying about not believing in God. You've repeated a few times this notion (taken from Romans) of 'suppressing through the darkening of their hearts' and such, which makes it seem as though you would accept something like this:

Is the idea that your interlocutor knows that God exists on some subconscious level, or something like that?

But you've denied this, while also denying the alternative that he knows that God exists quite consciously, and is baldly lying when he says he believes no such thing. So one is left to wonder.

 

[CrowCross]

You've already been told that the flood waters would have separated the pebbles from the sandstone, which we don't see.

I never bought into that false "fact". And you never demonstrated that it would.
You post as if there is 100% separation. There won't.
Depending on the flow velocity the amounts would vary.

Keeping in mind sandstone doesn't really contain pebbles like a conglomerate does....so what does that tell you?

Keep in mind these sandstone formation cover continents...often with a second sandstone of a different makeup laying on top.

If you ever drove throughTexas there is a portion that for miles upon miles you can drive and see the top of buttes and the strata that make up the buttes...with the buttes separated by miles....and you know the area between the buttes were once filled with sediment that washed away...perhaps as the flood waters receded....This is yet another example of a large flood, a flood that was described in the Bible.

 

[Temujin]

In your paradigm, the same person wins the jackpot lottery ten times in a row.
For you to conceive of that happening would be ludicrous.

Where do you get that from? Perhaps you should be explaining your probability estimations instead of relying on the notoriously inaccurate "it's obvious".

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well, you are suppressing it as stated before.

So says the Bible.

Prove it - without invoking the Bible.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Put another way. If you took Some-thing like a watch, and disassembled it and placed all the pieces in a box attached to a shaker and you removed the law of entropy from the equation, and you had 20 billion years to spare; what would be the probability that the watch would not only put itself back together, but become ontological beings both male and female with different sexual organs, who are able to reproduce, and some other species of life thrown in.

Zero - the box is a closed system, and no components of a watch will ever become capable of developing into life under those circumstances.

Even more inane than that "tornado in a junkyard" nonsense.

 

[Whatsisface]

Rational thinking.

Do you know the law of probabilities?
What is the probability that Some-thing came out of No-thing.

Probably zero, but I and my fellow atheists don't think the universe came out of nothing. What we have is a universe that we don't have all the information about, particularly when it comes to why it exists rather than not. Considering this unknown factor, I don't see how we can accurately calculate probabilities.

If that probability exists, what is the probability, that Some-Thing (whatever that may be) given any amount of time, became as ordered as the universe is.

You seem to assume that a natural universe wouldn't be ordered.

If the universe is natural, it couldn't come about as we see if it wasn't ordered in some way.

Put another way. If you took Some-thing like a watch, and disassembled it and placed all the pieces in a box attached to a shaker and you removed the law of entropy from the equation, and you had 20 billion years to spare; what would be the probability that the watch would not only put itself back together, but become ontological beings both male and female with different sexual organs, who are able to reproduce, and some other species of life thrown in.

Probably zero, but it's not too accurate an analogy. A disassembled watch has all it's parts designed and made for one purpose right from scratch. It has no potential to be anything but that watch. The universe of atoms has the potential to be many things due to the vast amount of chemical reactions it's capable of, and if those chemical processes create something step by step, each being built on what has gone before then that is something totally unlike a watch reassembling itself.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Rational thinking.

Do you know the law of probabilities?
What is the probability that Some-thing came out of No-thing.

Before you ask this, make sure that this is your interlocutor's actual position.

Otherwise, it's a strawman.

 

[Manfred]

I'm more interested in how you conceive of it in this context, since it's your suggestion that your interlocutor was lying about not believing in God.

That is what was imposed on what I said, that my Interlocutor was a liar.
So by false implication you create a false premise.

You've repeated a few times this notion (taken from Romans) of 'suppressing through the darkening of their hearts' and such, which makes it seem as though you would accept something like this:

Is the idea that your interlocutor knows that God exists on some subconscious level, or something like that?

Why do you suppose there is no other alternative. That is why I asked you what you suppose it means in context that they have "darkened their hearts" Does that point to some level of subconsciousness to you or could it be something else?

But you've denied this, while also denying the alternative that he knows that God exists quite consciously, and is baldly lying when he says he believes no such thing. So one is left to wonder.

Perhaps your query is answered above?

 

[Manfred]

Where do you get that from? Perhaps you should be explaining your probability estimations instead of relying on the notoriously inaccurate "it's obvious".

Ok, when I wrote I wrote it I knew it would elicit a response.
I know a lot of research has been going into predicting probabilities.

What do you think the chances are that you will randomly without purpose get 10 mutations in a row working towards "improving" and organism in order for it to adapt to an environment.

 

[Temujin]

Ok, when I wrote I wrote it I knew it would elicit a response.
I know a lot of research has been going into predicting probabilities.

What do you think the chances are that you will randomly without purpose get 10 mutations in a row working towards "improving" and organism in order for it to adapt to an environment.

Probably zero. But as evolution uses natural selection, which is neither random nor purposeless, the chances of 10 mutations in a row working towards improving an organism's chances of reproducing successfully, are very high indeed. We are surrounded by examples of this happening. Indeed, we are examples of it happening ourselves.

 

[Manfred]

So says the Bible.

Prove it - without invoking the Bible.

Why? What are you doing here debating me on a Christian apologetics site, if I cannot stand on what I believe is true as written in scripture?
Can you not face truth?

Christianity is spiritual, and we are spiritual beings.
Some are made spiritually alive, while others remain spiritually dead.

 

[Manfred]

Probably zero. But as evolution uses natural selection, which is neither random nor purposeless,

There does it get purpose from. The need to survive perhaps. Where does the need to survive come from

the chances of 10 mutations in a row working towards improving an organism's chances of reproducing successfully, are very high indeed.

Speculation based on what you said below.

We are surrounded by examples of this happening. Indeed, we are examples of it happening ourselves.

Proof that is not conjecture, estimation, prediction?

 

[Manfred]

Zero - the box is a closed system, and no components of a watch will ever become capable of developing into life under those circumstances.

Even more inane than that "tornado in a junkyard" nonsense.

Oh, so if it were in an open system it would be 100% possible right?

 

[Manfred]

Before you ask this, make sure that this is your interlocutor's actual position.

Otherwise, it's a strawman.

Ok, but it's to late I already asked.
sorry.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Why? What are you doing here debating me on a Christian apologetics site, if I cannot stand on what I believe is true as written in scripture?
Can you not face truth?

Prove that it is true.

Oh, so if it were in an open system it would be 100% possible right?

No - both aspects need to be present.

Life as we know it requires the building block of amino acids, and watches don't contain them.

Ok, but it's to late I already asked.

OK - "the universe came from nothing" is not my position.

Anything further?

 

[Manfred]

Prove that it is true.

Well first of all you evoking that I cannot use scripture is true.

No - both aspects need to be present.

So in the analogy make them both present, sans the shaking.

Life as we know it requires the building block of amino acids, and watches don't contain them.

Where did amino acids come from?

OK - "the universe came from nothing" is not my position.

Amino acids did tho?

Anything further?

Not really. I am sure you will want to have the last word at least. So go for it?

 

[Gus Bovona]

What do you think the chances are that you will randomly without purpose get 10 mutations in a row working towards "improving" and organism in order for it to adapt to an environment.

Out of how many tries? Your question is like asking, "What are the odds of ever seeing a 6 turn up on a die that was rolled?" without saying how many rolls you get.

And, that's not the end of it either, because of natural selection, as others have pointed out.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well first of all you evoking that I cannot use scripture is true.

The Bible is the claim, not evidence for the claim.

"My dad says you're scared of the dark."
"Prove it.
"I just did - my dad said it."

So in the analogy make them both present, sans the shaking.

Er... OK - given the required ingredients for life, would life arise naturally?
Yeeees...?

Where did amino acids come from?

From pre-existing matter, as far as we can tell.

Amino acids did tho?

See above.

Not really. I am sure you will want to have the last word at least. So go for it?

Asking "where did that come from?" until you get your interlocutor to the point where they say "I don't know" does not prove your argument.