The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Proof of Nature's God

Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (1080), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 1017), and multiplying by 1043 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

 

Now if only you could offer a single shred of evidence that this creator or intelligent designer exists...................but alas.

 

What kind of nonsense are you spewing here? A Planck time unit is 5.39 × 10−44 s. That is around a 100 million trillion trillion trillion per second.

Are you just making this crap up?

 

Just to show how ludicrous that claim is, as of November 2018, the fastest supercomputer on the TOP500 supercomputer list is the Summit, in the United States, with a LINPACK benchmark score of 143.5 PFLOPS

PFLOPS are peta flops - 10^15 floating point operations per second.

That is one thousand million million operations per seconds - or a million million times faster than your phony claim.

 

You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content

HereWeGoAgain, Today at 3:35 PM Report

If you stop to throw rocks at every dog that barks you will never get to your destination. - Winston Churchill

 

You are forced to ignore that which shatters you’re ideology. You have been given numerous scientific facts showing your beliefs are nonsense. You have no scientific argument that can rebut that, so you are forced to ignore it.

 

They need to copy the materialists and write promissory notrs! We dont have evidence yet but will later on

Meanwhile the matmatical odds against rolling a winner seem to only grow more impossible .

 

So you have no evidence what so ever if a creator or intelligent designer. Thank you.

 

"SCIENCE!" "SCIENCE!"
They should try it some time, instead of just waving the Magic Wand of Selection.

 

Some advice you should consider taking. You may also want to define your destination.

 

Again, a theory is a scientific term for an unproven explanation of the observable. It isn't a magic wand. It is the result of examining observations and developing an explanation. At some point you will have argue with an explanation of your own. That is how the scientific method works. Whining and complaining about a theory you don't like won't move things. Intelligent design isn't observable.

 

the bible was created by design.... man's design

a God would be many more times more complex than the universe, so would God need an intelligent designer?

if one does not believe a God would need a watchmaker, then why something much less complex like the Universe

 

I have no evidence life arose by pure chance given the odds involved.

But given the choice and given there is only speculation, involving some kind of unseen inteligence is more reasonable.

Biogenesis and the big bang fall into the category of, grant the miracle and science can explain the rest .

I tend to think consciousness not matter is the fundamental And also believe this is a part of the future of science. We just need more tombstones of the materialists . haha

Been reading Donald Hoffman lately an academic and physicist. Sean Carroll interviewed him.

 

Matter existed billions of years before the first life from was conscious on earth.

 

I guess anyone can suggest any value for any number of random values to add together to get a value for the probability of life.

Then one can state that the obvious fact we exist despite this ginormous probability must be because of a creator/designer/god.

I get its compelling to you. I must however reject such a belief as I make it a practice to reject any notion predicated on such an obvious logical fallacy.

 

There are certainly things that we don't know!!

The thing about the big bang is that it doesn't actually address origins - like evolution doesn't. It takes off after there is a something, and includes evidence of that somethng from more than one methodology of exploration.

I would say that assigning odds to these origin events doesn't make much sense since we don't understand the process. How the heck could we know whether this universe was likely or not??

Beyond that, the very idea of assigning odds to whether there is a god that conforms to Christianity hits me as the height of hubris on the part of humanity! How could we compare the odds of god with the odds of nature when we know so little about either??

And as for information, physicists still have no answer for what happens with black holes - let alone what could be going on in some sort of infinite environment outside of this universe.

I do like Sean Caroll! His podcast is outstanding - inclusive of people who have opposing views and giving free reign and real insigth into their views. I srongly suggest it.

I hope to see more of his discussions with his wife, who is a highly accomplished scientist who has very different religious views from his own. His clarity and understandability is seriously impressive.

Of course, I can't claim to understand his QM model, but I really like that he's working toward a model starting from QM, rather than starting from trying to reverse engineer this universe using QM - a big difference.

 

According to this "logic", every shuffle of a deck of cards is intelligently designed by a God to occur in exactly that order. Complete nonsense, of course. It mistakes the unlikely for the intentional.

 

Remember the guy that caused all the lack of belief crap, atheism is default, 100% garbage that most atheists here are incredulously devoted disciples? You might like this:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (/fluː/; 11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010)[1][2] was an English[3] philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces.[4] He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4][5] the free will defence to the problem of evil,[4][5] and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[6][4] In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[7]

However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe,[8] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[8] In order to further clarify his personal concept of God, Flew openly made an allegiance to Deism,[8][9]

Their fearless leader!
Oh yes!
The ironies of irony!

 

LOL!!

Deism rejects revelation such as is the bible, instead favoring observation of our natural world plus reason as evidence of a supernatral. Please remember that all Abrahamic faiths are based in revelation.

I doubt there are many Deists today.

As for Deism, I just don't accept the idea that observation (which IS SCIENCE) is a method of discovering god. The line of reason that goes from science to god is highly questionable.


(I see NO reason to consider Flew to be a leader.)

 

Are you kidding? The foolishness we know as Lack of belief was put into the dictionaries thanks to him!

I dont think so;

Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from Latin "deus" meaning "god") is the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe.[3][4][5]

At least as far back as Thomas Aquinas, Christian thought has recognized two sources of knowledge of God: revelation and "natural reason". The study of the truths revealed by reason is called natural theology. During the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain and France, philosophers began to reject revelation as a source of knowledge and to appeal only to truths that they felt could be established by reason alone. Such philosophers were called "deists" and the philosophical position that they advocated is called "deism".


Yep theres a God in the mix!

 

So can either you or Dougie prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it was your God that was responsible?

 

No. The point was that revelation is rejected.

Read my post.

Read your cite(!!)

Think about what you are going to say this time.

 

whats revelation?

rev·e·la·tion
/ˌrevəˈlāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: revelation; plural noun: revelations
1.
a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way.
"revelations about his personal life"

I see the word 'fact' maybe you should think about what you are going to say?

 

Try looking up what the word means in terms of religion. For an example of deist attitudes toward revelation, read some Age of Reason. He's right. Deists generally reject religious revelation in favor of reason and natural observation.

 

Your rhetorical question is another petty "gotcha" that is so typical of Richard Dawkins Hateful Followers.

1. "Prove" is something that your group would NEVER admit to.
2. You overloaded "prove" with "beyond a shadow of doubt."
3. If reason and nature are sufficient to establish the existence of a Creator, then you may call the Creator "God" or "I Am" or as the Jews do, "G-d." The point is He is NOT "nothing" as you so disingenuously claim. Nothing comes from nothing.

Now why don't YOU "prove beyond a shadow of doubt" that nothing made everything.

"Science doesn't do proofs." - David Berlinski

"Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot

I would suggest that you argue proofs with Carl Sagan, an agnostic, but he's dead. His memorial service was held, ironically, at St John The Divine Cathedral in New York City. Pretty amusing.