quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Cuneiformist remarked:

quote:

---

If I were to roll a six-sided die ten times and came up with the sequence 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, and were to do it again but come up with the sequence 2 4 6 1 4 2 5 3 6 1, which would be more significant? The answer of course, is that neither is; the probability of rolling the first sequence is the same as rolling the second. But we see some significance in the first (10 3's in a row!), and so attach greater value to it.

---

I would say the first set of die rolls would be the most significant. Simply because this sequence gives a pretty fair statistical indication of a heavily loaded die.

"God doesn't play with dice," said Einstein. Correct: Using loaded dice is not "playing," it's work by a professional cheater. Not that I'm contradicting your main point, though. "Just busting your balls," as the New York mobster on "The Sopranos" said just before Tony's boys had enough of it and murdered him. ["Ducking" smiley]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

You must understand that this is hardly compelling evidence for a "creator"-- super-magical god or otherwise. All you've done is describe some aspects of the natural world, note that we don't understand all of them, and assert therefore that Yahweh is real.

---

quote:

---

This is similarly not compelling. As it notes in the wiki article, the principle "is simply tautological reasoning, an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different". If this is granted, the WAP becomes a truism saying nothing and explaining nothing, because in order for us to be here to ponder the universe, that universe has to be structured so that we can exist."

---

quote:

---

If I were to roll a six-sided die ten times and came up with the sequence 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, and were to do it again but come up with the sequence 2 4 6 1 4 2 5 3 6 1, which would be more significant? The answer of course, is that neither is; the probability of rolling the first sequence is the same as rolling the second. But we see some significance in the first (10 3's in a row!), and so attach greater value to it.

---

quote:

---

So the universe happened to fall into a range that allowed for the formation of planets like earth, and on earth, things happened to fall into a range the led to the development of life, etc. But besides our attaching significance to our creation, is that any more rare (or not rare?) than some other outcome?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

A summary of some non biblical reasons I believe that there is evidence (not proof) for a God or creator.

The universe came into being from nothing (or nothing like we can know) at a moment in time. There was a beginning, the Big Bang. The following is some evidence for the big bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang):
The universe is expanding.
Radiation can be detected from the big bang
Temperature differences in the Universe that allowed galaxies to form.
Abundance of helium predicted by models.
There are others as well.
If something came from nothing (or nothing like we can know), this is evidence of a creator.

Anthropic constants. The idea that over 100 known constants are in place to support life on earth is more evidence of a creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

quote:

---

This is similarly not compelling. As it notes in the wiki article, the principle "is simply tautological reasoning, an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different". If this is granted, the WAP becomes a truism saying nothing and explaining nothing, because in order for us to be here to ponder the universe, that universe has to be structured so that we can exist."

---

I may not be understanding your argument correctly, but wouldn't this not allow us to beleive anything or come to any conclusions about our existence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

Obviously, if the riddler is willing to give up the answer, then you'll understand. But if the riddler is dead or otherwise unavailable, then whatever answer one might come up with through whatever means may not be correct. And even when one is presented with the correct answer, one may be tempted to argue about it, due to personal desires.

---

There is this possibility. But if you accept my assumption that it was written by God, there must be a reason for the contradictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

A summary of some non biblical reasons I believe that there is evidence (not proof) for a God or creator.

The universe came into being from nothing (or nothing like we can know) at a moment in time. There was a beginning, the Big Bang. The following is some evidence for the big bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang):
The universe is expanding.
Radiation can be detected from the big bang
Temperature differences in the Universe that allowed galaxies to form.
Abundance of helium predicted by models.
There are others as well.
If something came from nothing (or nothing like we can know), this is evidence of a creator.

---

quote:

---

Anthropic constants. The idea that over 100 known constants are in place to support life on earth is more evidence of a creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

---

quote:

---

Moral or Natural Law we all have. I think we all have a sense of right or wrong whether we live by it or not. Quoting CS Lewis

“Think of a country where people were admired for running away on battle, or where a man felt proud of double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five.”

Some of the evidence for a moral law are our reactions to situations, how could we know what justice is without it, it is the basis of our rights we believe in and without it all moral positions would be acceptable like human sacrifice, the holocaust, etc.

---

quote:

---

Another thought is that for us to exist without a creator, some kind of spontaneous life generation would have to have happened. We have no evidence for this; we cannot or have not combined chemicals together to form life. Even if we could some day, isn't that evidence for a creator? The fact that it took our intelligence to create life. We have not ever observed life being created from non life in nature.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb
Another thought is that for us to exist without a creator, some kind of spontaneous life generation would have to have happened. We have no evidence for this; we cannot or have not combined chemicals together to form life. Even if we could some day, isn't that evidence for a creator? The fact that it took our intelligence to create life. We have not ever observed life being created from non life in nature.

---

quote:

---

Fair enough-- make 10 different dice rolled one after the other. Fact is, the odds of rolling one sequence of ten numbers is the same as rolling any other sequence.

Or change it to 12 rolls with the sequence of: 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 on the first 12 and then a sequence of: 3 2 4 4 1 6 2 4 5 3 1 6

The odds of doing the first is the same as the second.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.
"Men are dogs" is crystal clear, also, but is meant strictly metaphorically. How about Luke 6:46-49:
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
Does this passage not state that simple faith is not enough?

---

quote:

---

I've been waiting for quite some time for an ID proponent to bring about a similar argument. Taking it to the extreme, what you are in effect advocating is that since a scientific experiment is always "intelligently designed", the conclusion of ANY scientific experiment could be that there is a creator. Is this a reasonable conclusion? Obviously not. In the case for experimental abiogenesis, all a researcher would have done is to set up certain conditions so that the do novo creation of "life" was greatly facilitated - but it would still come about by natural processes. The creation of life would thus not reveal any evidence of a creator. All it would reveal is that under certain conditions, spontaneous formation of life is possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

quote:

---

I've been waiting for quite some time for an ID proponent to bring about a similar argument. Taking it to the extreme, what you are in effect advocating is that since a scientific experiment is always "intelligently designed", the conclusion of ANY scientific experiment could be that there is a creator. Is this a reasonable conclusion? Obviously not. In the case for experimental abiogenesis, all a researcher would have done is to set up certain conditions so that the do novo creation of "life" was greatly facilitated - but it would still come about by natural processes. The creation of life would thus not reveal any evidence of a creator. All it would reveal is that under certain conditions, spontaneous formation of life is possible.

---

I agree with the last statement. However, based on this am I safe to assume you cannot see any evidence for a creator in nature?

---

quote:

---

And that's where the logic seems to fail. "We don't know what precipitated the Big Bang" is not evidence for a creator. It's not evidence for anything, except that there's something which we mere humans do not know.

---

quote:

---

How is that logical? What is the probability that any given universe would not have constants which are favorable to life? As soon as you can calculate those odds, then perhaps you'll have something scientific. Until then, it's a guess, and not scientific evidence of a creator.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't it make sense that evolution would instill a sense of community with one's neighbors in order to successfully reproduce the genes that all of a population share? Yes, I'm saying that "moral law" is instinctual, and not God-given. The existence of "moral law" is not diagnostic between a created universe and a natural universe.

---

quote:

---

You're just missing the point of abiogenesis research here. It's not to recreate life (though that might be cool), it's to study plausible methods through which organic molecules became self-replicators and then later became "life." We will never know precisely how it happened, but there are already several very good hypotheses on the table.

---

quote:

---

Then you are rather unique among the more fundamentalist Christians, Robb.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, Matthew 7:21-23 states:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

How does one reconcile the two accounts? Your account from Mark clearly says that any Baptist (for example) who claims the Catholics are all Hell-bound is wrong to do so. Matthew says otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

quote:

---

And that's where the logic seems to fail. "We don't know what precipitated the Big Bang" is not evidence for a creator. It's not evidence for anything, except that there's something which we mere humans do not know.

---

I disagree. Something had to start the process of the big bang, whether natural or supernatural. The best explanation we have is of a creator. It is not proof by any means but put with other observations it is evidence.

quote:

---

How is that logical? What is the probability that any given universe would not have constants which are favorable to life? As soon as you can calculate those odds, then perhaps you'll have something scientific. Until then, it's a guess, and not scientific evidence of a creator.

---

This Link
has an estimate of the probability of this universe occurring. I do not know how the probability was obtained for each parameter though.

quote:

---

Doesn't it make sense that evolution would instill a sense of community with one's neighbors in order to successfully reproduce the genes that all of a population share? Yes, I'm saying that "moral law" is instinctual, and not God-given. The existence of "moral law" is not diagnostic between a created universe and a natural universe.

---

Sure I can see this. But it is not any better explanation of the Moral law than God since we cannot observe this happening. I put this with other evidence for God to exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb

quote:

---

And that's where the logic seems to fail. "We don't know what precipitated the Big Bang" is not evidence for a creator. It's not evidence for anything, except that there's something which we mere humans do not know.

---

I disagree. Something had to start the process of the big bang, whether natural or supernatural. The best explanation we have is of a creator. It is not proof by any means but put with other observations it is evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robb
This Link
has an estimate of the probability of this universe occurring. I do not know how the probability was obtained for each parameter though.

---

Have you looked at that link very carefully? Its pretty weird. To calculate the probability of life on Earth, they include such things as:

quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans
quantity of aeorbic bacteria in the oceans
quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals

And the parameters! I doubt that these are all independent, which is required for what they are doing. I'm also highly skeptical of the relevance of many of them.:

Not to mention that this king of probability argument is totally bogus in the first place. Improbable things happen all the time, and the universe is a mind-bogglingly big place.

---