Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[LuisDantas]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero).

If you say so, I must assume that it is true for you.

Other than that, I don't think there is any way to validate such a claim.

Why be an Atheist?

Because we have no belief in God's existence, of course.

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

Uh, no.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific.

Indeed, it is not. Why would a scientific affirmation refer to god at all? Why even talk about "godless"?

This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Trouble is, your model is not just unproven or even speculative. It can charitably be called tentative.

 

[questfortruth]

So God is a form of life, right?

So what created God?

Created god is idol. Idol is not God, and God is not idol.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Created god is idol. Idol is not God, and God is not idol.

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

If life has to come from life, and God is a form of life, what life produced God?

 

[questfortruth]

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

If life has to come from life, and God is a form of life, what life produced God?

It is nonsense: "what Being has made the very first Being."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is nonsense: "what Being has made the very first Being."

The supposed nonsensical question proves a point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is nonsense: "what Being has made the very first Being."

If life comes from life, God must have come from life. So, either your rule isn't true, or God came from life - which is it?

 

[wandering peacefully]

1) Do not mix the god of atheism with the God of Theism. The god of atheism can not produce life, because he is not existent. The God of Theism miraculously (it means without laws of physics) can.
2) Dr. Pasteur has found following law, in his formulation: "life can only be produced by life" (to my memory). Then, because laws of nature are scale-invariant, on the macro scale of billion years there are no Frankensteins either.

Just to point out again, atheists do not have any "idols" relating to gods. We just don't think God is a real entity. There has never been any scientific validation of the existence of such a being. So there can be no atheist god vs a "real God". I also wonder why this would bother you enough to mention it? What should atheists repent about? Why is is so important for to you to try to "prove" God is real and created life? Atheists usually only talk about "God" in response to people insisting they are real, making laws based on their beliefs or insisting we are wrong to not believe in them. Otherwise, it is not a concern just like thinking about unicorns and FSMs is not a concern. Believe as you wish but don't lie about science or tell others they need to repent or believe what you do.

 

[Prestor John]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Even though I believe that God created the Universe, I am not willing to deny one absolute truth because of my faith in another absolute truth.

The belief that God is the Creator of all things and the idea that life forms may have experienced great changes over time are not mutually exclusive.

The scriptures only give us the barest minimum and briefest view of the nature of God and the Universe and many churches and doctrines have attempted to expound on little to explain everything.

The same could be said of many who argue against the existence of God. Mankind has seen only the smallest speck of Time and the Universe and we think we know it all.

The search for Truth, no matter the perspective, should be encouraged, rewarded and honored.

 

[Prestor John]

I've grown fond of asking "what if god has a god?" It's not only a stumper for fully convinced theists who have never pondered such a thing, it really reflects on how little we know about anything.

Mankind has always seemed to glean too much from very little.

We like to fill in the gaps with our own bias and agenda.

Not our best quality.

 

[Prestor John]

If life comes from life, God must have come from life. So, either your rule isn't true, or God came from life - which is it?

What is life?

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me...

 

[Prestor John]

I remember asking myself that many years ago. What kind of a being would a god find worthy of worship?

Perhaps His God and Father?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Zero Probability of Evolution. YES
Atheism wrong? I VOTE YES

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Zero Probability of Evolution. YES
Atheism wrong? I VOTE YES

Good arguments. Well made.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

1) Do not mix the god of atheism with the God of Theism. The god of atheism can not produce life, because he is not existent. The God of Theism miraculously (it means without laws of physics) can.
2) Dr. Pasteur has found following law, in his formulation: "life can only be produced by life" (to my memory). Then, because laws of nature are scale-invariant, on the macro scale of billion years there are no Frankensteins either.

What is the God of Theism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Pantheism, Paganism, Socialism, Communism, or Agnosticism? What is the God of Atheism? Especially, since atheists don't believe in any God?. Are you trying to change the definition of Atheism to suit your blind narrative? it is a position, not a Religion. All Gods are created by man, and all Gods are culturally specific. Maybe when you stop proselytizing and exposing your level of subjugation and blind ignorance, you might try and support your assertions with tangible evidence. If you choose to believe that a supernatural being is responsible for, and controls every aspect of your reality, then the logic of science has no value to you. If you believe that when you die you will live again forever, then a little bit of knowledge for some is truly a dangerous thing.

Why is it that creationist and fervent believers never answer obvious questions that even a child would ask? Do true miracles exist? Does the power of prayer work? Why is your Belief the right one, and the other Beliefs wrong? By definition, how can there be more than one God? Finally, what do you think would happen to the size of the congregation, if the likeness of Jesus was truly depicted, according to most religious scholars? I don't expect you to address any of my points. It is much easier to bathe in your own self-deluding and self-serving convictions, that is, until you start preaching outside of the choir. Don

 

[David T]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

So a believer, a non believer and an Agnostic were hiking in the sierras and came upon a great mountain and began to argue......

 

[Prestor John]

So a believer, a non believer and an Agnostic were hiking in the sierras and came upon a great mountain and began to argue......
View attachment 20355

...and then she said, "Hey! Get your own monkey!"

 

[Phantasman]

On this point you are correct. A fact is a statement that can be proven with evidence.



This is where you go off the rails. Once again scientific theory is built upon evidence. Conclusive evidence. Scientific theory is a compilation of facts.

I provided you a definition in my last post. Please provide a definition of 'scientific theory' that states it is based on inconclusive evidence.

Whatever. I could care less how things came to be but more on where they are going. It's a useless waste of time since either side cannot prove or disprove each other.

 

[Phantasman]

Sure it is. Question is, how do you determine that it's reasonable to assume that's the case?


How do you assert that just because we can't "create" matter, that minds must "come from somewhere non physical"? Especially considering we have absolutely no reason to assume "non physical" is even a sensible concept.

Non physical is just a concept that matter is reactive and created by a power higher than we can "see or know", yet conceived. Just this paradigm makes it a possibility.

 

[Phantasman]

This is incorrect. At best you are trying to claim a false equivalence. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by almost endless evidence. There is no reliable evidence for creationism at all. It is a myth that has been shown to be wrong The theory of evolution has been tested countless times and continually passes all major tests and minor tests merely result in clarification. Those that believe in creationism are afraid to even put their beliefs into a testable format. The fear of the scientists that believe in that story tell us that deep down inside they know that it is wrong.

It's not incorrect. Who determines correct and incorrect? A majority belief? Almost endless evidence has put innocent people in prison. Killed "witches". Made harmful prescription drugs.

If the planet is as old as science says it is, why didn't man over populate the planet eons ago? Instead of just the past 6,000 years? He doubled population in just the last 100 years. If man has been here over a million years, was he impotent until the last few millennia? Evolution has more holes in it that you're willing to acknowledge.

 

[Shad]

No math presented thus no indication of probability. The quote is problematic as per the word life and it definition as it uses life in a specific way creating infinite regression. To break infinite regression one must redefine life so God is "life" while being unable to demonstrate any qualities of life God holds. One merely defines God into existence and calls it a day.