You act like abiogenesis was a hurried process. It wasn't. It took place over millions of years and on thousands of planets. The chances, no matter how low you may think they are, are multiplied by millions because of those two factors.
This is just a twist on the "tornado in a junkyard." Your variables are too ill defined to assign probability to. For instance you don't take into account wind resistance, the peak altitude achieved by the penny after being thrown, the initial velocity, the constant velocity, the temperature (which affects air and wind resistance), and wind sheer. Without all these variables carefully and meticulously defined there is no assignment of probabily and it is merely a statement of impossibility which is no more than opinion. By your logic, God is not real. Why? Because its my opinion and if I have to take your opinion as truth you must take mine as well. Did you ever take the time to think that maybe the universe isn't designed for us? Maybe we're designed for it. Maybe if the sun had been farther, the moon absent, and the position of the earth changed that life would have arose differently and thought the same thing about its apparent place in the universe. All organisms occupy a niche of some scale. Ours just happens to be the earth at its current position with the current variables present. Is it rare? Yes. But to understand why its being rare isn't a big deal we have to talk a walk down probability lane. Flip a coin. Heads or tails? What are the chances you would get heads 10x in a row? I'm not going to give you the exact number because I don't know, so let's assume the probability of getting heads ten times is 1/50. Whats the probability you would get a pattern of heads, tails, heads, tails...? 1/50. What are the chances that you would get ANY set of heads or tails in any order and any amount? 1/50. Acquiring results is not impressive its the prediction of the result that is. Picking up a grain of sand is not vastly improbable. Predicting which grain of sand IS. So what are the chances we would have the configuration of the solar system that we do now? Let's assume 1/10,000,000,000. What is the probability of ANY possible configuration of our solar system? 1/10,000,000,000. So is our solar system rare and nearly impossible? Yes. Are all possible versions of our solar system rare and nearly impossible? Yes. It's a bad wager to attempt to predict but its going to happen one of those ways and if one of those ways contains life, then the life perhaps will ponder the perfection of the solar system and think, "was this designed all for me?" What will their answer be? What is the most reasonable answer?
I don't have omnipotent knowledge, I just view things differently. ...You were explaining something about arguments and how they require a basis..? Let me correct you: You can assign a probability to the chances of God when you have personal evidence, though. Not all logical requirements are made for people who require scientific evidence to believe in something. I think you mean the "atheists version of impossible". Or, someone else can show you what is inside the briefcase without actually opening it up. I think you mean "verifiable scientific evidence". I don't feel God has lost evidence at all. It's things like science that tends to leave behind a blinding cloud. Science, from my point of view, can justify Christianity plenty. However, from my understandings, your views are much different from mine. God desires us to prosper in the correct light. Your assumptions are going too far. People's acts of "praise and worship" also help people too, you know. You're starting to sound like God is some kind of Kim Jong Il.. But you need to see that faith helps both God and his followers... Sound knowledge, which he indeed creates through faith. Faith only helps you see the world in a different light. I can't show you what's logically possible, because my form of evidence is a lot different from yours. Plus, God's desire is to see his people develop and prosper in the correct light, as I said before. There's nothing wrong with that. According to Scarecrow, there is some sort of mechanism that "makes" life, in a sense. Am I correct? ..(answer the question) Now does that remind you of anything?
Only in the way that when the atmosphere goes through certain changes, and air molecules become ionized it's a "mechanism" that creates lightning. Faith isn't evidence. Edit: Observation leads to evidence. Faith leads to unverified or unverifiable ideas being passed on as truth.
Its not a matter of worldview; its a matter of accepted dogma and universally accepted "truths." The first quotation was taken from the end, where your argument had no basis and no reason for response. The second quotation was taken from my first argument, despite being completely dishonest and childish, its really pitiful that you think that's an acceptable way to debate. The point I was trying to make was that your second argument had no basis, regardless of faith. No please don't because you'll just embarrass yourself. Since when is evidence anecdotal? Since when do we convict people based on eye witness testimony? Since when do we use prayer to cure to the sick? We don't because there is no reason to. We don't because eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence. We don't because anecdotes shown nothing more than personal experience and mean nothing to anyone besides the person making the point. No you can't. Because, once again, prob-a-bilities ... require ... strict ... conditions ... and ... well ... known ... variables. Both of which god LACKS in ENTIRETY. Personal evidence doesn't mean anything for probability. IT may mean something to you, it may mean something to others but when using a mathematical formula of prediction to predict that which CAN NOT be known by its very DEFINITION then you have to admit that you are wrong and that probabilities can not be used. My entire post was not an argument against god. It wasn't even an argument for my side. It was so neutral my eyeballs would bleed if I could make it any less neutral. I just helped you and you respond with this? Focus. This was an argument for your side and you are trashing it without even understanding what you're talking about. If god is claimed to exist and is logical, like I said, he is unknowable. If god is claimed to exist and is illogical he is impossible. Oh I'm sorry the "atheists version" of impossible because apparently something that is impossible for me is possible for you because of some innate characteristic Christianity imparts on you. Up doesn't become down just because I'm an atheist. What amazes me still and I really want to ramble on this but my whole argument could be so beneficial to you if you would just take it, learn from it, and form arguments on god based on it. You would have a much easier time fighting atheists, an easier time converting people, an easier time saving people but you waste it; you waste it on selfish pride. You entire reply was just one big 'save-my-ass' post. Existence does not vary that greatly from person to person. I assure you, what is impossible for you is also impossible for me. Then you missed the point of the entire analogy. It's not about knowing, or anyone knowing; its about what you can and cannot claim is inside the briefcase. If you claim something logical is in the briefcase you must provide evidence for it otherwise there is no basis for belief. If you claim something illogical is not in the briefcase then you do not need evidence because absurd items like the amazon river could not possibly be in the briefcase. I think there is a pen in the briefcase. What evidence to you have? It is small enough to fit and is logical. How do you know that it is not a pencil? It is both logical and able to fit. I can not know if it is a pen, pencil or an unknown third object without evidence, therefore there is no basis of belief that either is in there. No I mean evidence. God can never HAVE EVIDENCE. If he has evidence then there is no reason for true faith which is what you said god wanted! God is unknowable. If you disagree take it up with Saint Augustine. Perfection -> desiring. What don't you get. You can't leave the subject and verb and expect that because the predicates different the logical proposition will be true. Sure they do. I never said they didn't but this doesn't make any sense. You said my assumptions went to far and brought up people as a retort. While I view that they did go to far your reasoning why is so far off the mark I'm surprised you can dress yourself in the morning. Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn't. From the god you have described he sounds more and more like him everyday. God doesn't need help he should be fulfilled. God walks by sound knowledge and by my act of imitating god by walking by sound knowledge I am damned because he'd rather me do as he says rather that do as he does. Faith doesn't change the world. It just changes your gullibility. For instance having faith that a pencil is in the briefcase doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that you suddenly are better than others for having faith whereas they have no faith in the the pencil. It just means you are more susceptible to your own prejudices of what should and should not be in a briefcase. You have no reason to believe in the pencil, yet you do. You have no reason to believe that you are better because of that faith, yet you do. You have no reason to argue against others because they do not have faith in the pencil, yet you do. Yes you can! Just do something, anything! Jump in the air. Its logically possible. Reply to my post, it's logically possible. Reply to my post with a knowledge of what I'm talking about, it's logically impossible. See what I did there? No there isn't. It really doesn't. Sorry. Tell me, though, before I answer, what is life? How do I define life is essential to know before I describe the mechanism by which it is created.
Many different people have very different views. You can't say everything a person does is based off what others have to say.. that's where you're wrong. The only way you can see proof of God's existence is through personal experience. I call it personal proof. Sure, it has it's flaws, but so does proof as we see it. Many people base their knowledge off of what they hear or see, not what they're shown. That's where personal experience isn't flawed. Personal experience "shows" you. Claiming "it doesn't have basis" is being hypocritical. Yea, you explained it later on, but I wasn't about to edit it after making that large post. Well, that's the best way to learn. I'll go back to the making a cake idea. You can't just watch someone making a cake then expect yourself to easily replicate it without notes or anything, you need to be shown. In that way, personal experience is the best way to go. BUT, you can't base everything off of personal experience. That's where the Bible, community, pastors, etc. come in. Your definition of a probability is too broad. When you come up with an experiment you use self-gathered observations. That's what I'm trying to get at. These are what you call personal observations that you get from personal experiences. I don't base my responses off of what I feel is right, I base my responses off of what is right. I don't care if you're neutral or one-sided, just as long as I get the point across. Impossible to your standards. Knowledge will always be contained to certain degrees and has many different perspectives. We will never completely figure out everything because everything is changing, even as we speak. You and my view of existence is very different. I take proof in different contexts from you. Saying something is simply illogical and impossible does not work on my side of the equation. It's like throwing a ball from Earth to outer space. Somewhere in between gravity, atmosphere, etc., things change. Again, your view on my selfish pride is my view on your unwillingness to just listen. It goes with my equation theory, things just aren't translating like you may have wanted because your views and my views are, to be safe, pretty different. Impossibility is just a word in the English dictionary. Saying something is plainly impossible is unclear and doesn't translate. I'm being redundant for a reason. I feel that you're missing my point, which relates back to the equation. You view things differently and I view things differently. Simply stating something and saying I don't have basis is just going to make me want to reply saying "no, you don't seem to have a basis", when really it's just incompatibility between a variety of categories. We don't live in two different worlds, but our beliefs come from two different worlds. I don't think I really need to repeat myself again. Again, I call this personal evidence which is very different from scientific evidence. Fine, you call it desire. I don't think there's even a word in the English dictionary to call what I think it is. Okay...... You can't base the view of God only off my posts. This is exactly what I'm talking about, even I can't get what I'm thinking across because of some kind of illusion you see in my text. I'll tell you now, I'm not entirely all too good at converting my thoughts into words. That's why I like making things, it doesn't take specific words to formulate a personal idea. That's another reason why personal experiences are good.. because they are much more understandable. You, and even I, have absolutely not a clue as to what God "does". Don't view it that way. View faith as a way to create the lightbulb, a way to make an automobile.. It's the motivation, confidence, and trust you have... Don't mistake it for gullibility. I try not to argue against the person, but rather try to get them to see a solely Christian point of view... without the 'atheism' factor or the 'questioning the religion' factor, or any of that.. I don't think I can do that myself.. just because of this thread. Yea, okay, so I didn't mean I physically am incapable of showing you, it's only that the lack of clarity can change everything. Life can be defined in so many different ways. Me saying something about it would be transferring my knowledge to thoughts to a set combination of clear, understandable words/phrases... JUST so you can completely understand what life is like in my opinion. But the fact is, I can't just tell you because it's too complicated.. I'd have to show you (and this doesn't even deal with difficulties in translations between my words/phrases to your mind). See what I did there?
You aren't Nitrous. Your beliefs are different from his. I can't reply to your reply since it diverges from the original points, whether you plan on it or not, it'll still happen. That's why I was losing before, is because 2, 3, 4, or 5 people would pass on an idea from one person to the next, thus "churning the batter", in a sense, so that once I got it, I just wouldn't know where to start, or know how to distinguish views in an easy manner, which brought in some more factors. ...It's easier if you just wait your turn.
I find the irony in this... ironic. You refuse to respond to him by responding to him that you won't respond to him. The time you took to type that out could have been spent responding to his points... just saying though. I get what you're saying about being overwhelmed by posts, but that's just one post, and no one else has posted. I'm sure you could have responded to that one. Just saying...
Well I waited for Nitrous to respond but he hasn't in a good amount of time so of course i'll roll with his idea its not like I don't have similar beliefs as him . He just brought ideas up and your responded and he didn't so I did. I see what hes talking about whether or not I am him. I made a similar response to what he probably would have posted or at least on similar guidelines. Yes you don't have to respond but its not like it would be hard for you just to have put an exscuse of "faith" as a counter to what I brought up instead of providing real evidence.
Why do stalagmites form? There's no reason for it, it's just naturally dripping water that happens to form a pattern we humans take as unique. Same with abiogenesis. There was no cause, it's just the way that our universe works, on a basic level.
It's been, what... one day since I made that post? That's your response? It just happens? Answer me again, does that remind you of anything or any form of higher being... whatsoever? ?
It really doesn't. You're confusing natural phenomenon with supernatural phenomenon. Things in the universe happen because reality follows the laws of science. They don't "just happen".
Just give me til Tuesday. I'm writing a six page rhetorical analysis on top of a five page lab report and studying for my first chemistry exam. I'm in no position to respond 'til then. I will probably get a response to you by Wednesday. I usually post on forgehub on my breaks between classes.
So you're saying that because reality makes the laws of science seem real, it therefore means it should be real. Huh, fancy that.