Improbability isn't proof for the intervention of a supernatural being

#1 09-07-2005, 04:45 AM

Alot of people, alot of the people reading this post, believe that the creation of life is so complex,that a supernatural invisible being must have had some part in creating life, that it's too complex of a thing to happen on its own. (Just reading the words "invisible being" makes me laugh at the absurdity of the idea, but that's not my point.Read on)

But for those of you who think this,you're looking at the idea backwards. You shouldn't pick an idea,and then find other idea's to help you make sense of the first idea.

Read this next part over again and again until you get it.

You look around and observe. If you find evidence of something,ie. like a tree branch lying on the ground, then you can come to a conclusion ie. there must be a tree around here. That's a hypothesis, stating a possibility based on evidence. To test your hypothesis, look around for a tree. If you find one, you were right, if you don't find a tree, you let the tree thing go.

Please bear with me...

Imagine that you took an intelligent human being that had no experience,no knowledge beyond being able to speak and reason,use his brain, and you introduced him to the world.
He has no preconcieved notions. What he sees is his reality, based %100 on what he sees (and no he doesn't have schizophrenia or anything, his observations of his physical world are sane and logical.)

Then you teach him math and biochemistry, genetics,etc so that he understands how life is formed. And through his studies he comes to the conclusion that the odds against the formation of even a one celled organism are astronomically high.

The next thing going through his head isn't "Gee this is so complicated, an invisible being that I have no evidence for existing must have had a hand in the creation of life."

Why isn't that thought going through his head?
Because remember, he's only coming to conclusions based on the evidence that he sees around him. He hasn't found any physical evidence of an invisible being, so he never even asks the question "Is there an invisible man?"

What he thinks about it is"Hey, that's neat, I just learned that somethings are way more complex than I ever imagined." and then he moves on.

Mostly I wrote this post because alot of you have thought processes that are all messed up, and I'm a jerk, so I'm bringing it up.

Thank you for your attention, and you may now tune out reality again.
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
Shooby. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

#2 09-07-2005, 05:04 AM

You make an excellent point. If it wasn't for the pre existing and accepted God hypothesis, these people would be marginalised at best.

I'd also add that if his teachings included seeing every fossil discovery made over the last 200 years, accepting the evolution hypothesis, at least back to single celled organisms, would become inevitable. If someone espoused the flood and 6000 year old earth hypotheses, he would consider the person brain damaged, or at least not far removed from a cave man.

[ QUOTE ]
(Just reading the words "invisible being" makes me laugh at the absurdity of the idea, but that's not my point.Read on)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you haven't heard it before, you might appreciate this:

"In the Bullshit Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you.

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy [censored]!"
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997

BluffTHIS! · #3 09-07-2005, 06:11 AM

You use good examples and logical deduction from them. However it all depends on one thing - observable phenomena. Now granting that all phenomena is not observable by us either in time or place because of scientific limitations which we might overcome in the future or not, it is still clear that after deducing that a quantum singularity was the source of the big bang that produced the universe, there are two indisputable conclusions.

1) There was a cause/creator of that quantum singularity; and

2) It is impossible even with the most advanced instruments, travel and unlimited time to discern what that cause was because there can be no trace of that cause observable by the physical nature of the singularity.

So then what was the cause of the singularity? As I have said before, Stephen Hawking calls it "God", even though he does not believe in a personal deity.

siegfriedandroy · #4 09-07-2005, 07:15 PM

You have no idea what this 'unbiased' person would think if presented with such a scenario. You are imposing your naturalistic presuppositions upon him. Who knows what he would think when presented with phenomena whose possibility of evolving by chance is astronomically against the odds. Personally, I usually bet against such phenomena that are nearly, if not immpossible.

#5 09-08-2005, 12:35 AM

You people make me want to throw up. Never mind.
Shooby

BluffTHIS! · #6 09-08-2005, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mostly I wrote this post because alot of you have thought processes that are all messed up, and I'm a jerk, so I'm bringing it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't logically or scientifically rebut my response which was made on scientific and logical grounds, then perhaps it is your thought processes and scientific understanding that is deficient.

KeysrSoze · #7 09-08-2005, 06:21 AM

OK then, how about that it is NOT indisputable that a creator (whether some sentient god or otherwise) was needed. For instance, Edward Tryon proposed that the universe may be a large scale quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. In other words, it could have literally appeared out of nothing.

BluffTHIS! · #8 09-08-2005, 07:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, it could have literally appeared out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something had to have been the cause of its appearance out of nothing. What do you call that cause?

snappo · #9 09-08-2005, 07:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, it could have literally appeared out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something had to have been the cause of its appearance out of nothing. What do you call that cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

something had to have been the cause of that cause. what do you call the cause of that cause?

Alex/Mugaaz · #10 09-08-2005, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, it could have literally appeared out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something had to have been the cause of its appearance out of nothing. What do you call that cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

something had to have been the cause of that cause. what do you call the cause of that cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

As it was pointed out here before, there may be naturally occuring events without a causes, search for half life.