Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Mr.Obvious]

Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

[Baruch]

Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

Can it be used to predict the value of the basis of the natural logarithms (e)?  Otherwise per Solomon, it is irrelevant.

People who are against analogies, use them all the time.  Humans are inconsistent, by nature.  All conversation is empty rhetoric ... which is useful.

[sdelsolray]

Just get in your time machine and prove me wrong ;-)
...

You're the one who made the affirmative claim.  You have the burden of proof, not me.

...
What may or may not have happened before humans, isn't very relevant to daily life.
...

It's quite relevant to the truth value of your claim.

...
Mostly what we know of physics is unconscious, the motion of the body etc ... consciousness is just a little narcissism that rides on top of the sea of unconsciousness.

Not relevant.

[Baruch]

Truth = falsehood.  I don't worry about epistemological truth.  I worry about integrity ... that is what makes someone trustworthy, not their PhD in Epistemology.

[Solomon Zorn]

Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

That was more of a hypothetical, than an analogy, as I recall.

Can it be used to predict the value of the basis of the natural logarithms (e)?  Otherwise per Solomon, it is irrelevant.

If that is what you are using an analogy for, then it is most certainly irrelevant.

People who are against analogies, use them all the time.  Humans are inconsistent, by nature.

I am not against analogies. I am against the misuse of them, which in this case, is the probability comparison, between monkeys typing and biogenesis.

All conversation is empty rhetoric ... which is useful.

All your conversation seems to be, at least.

[Baruch]

"I am not against analogies. I am against the misuse of them, which in this case, is the probability comparison, between monkeys typing and biogenesis."

I agree, biogenesis and monkeys typing are both bull shit.  Either you observe it happening and report on it, or you don't.  I know of no cases of observed, let alone controlled experiment biogenesis (just a few organic chemicals) .. for obvious reasons.  But apply skepticism to that, not just god claims.  And I certainly don't want to be the PhD grad student who has to clean up after all those monkeys while they are typing away making a statistical approximation to the Encyclopedia Britannica ;-(

"All your conversation seems to be, at least."

As I pointed out before, it is useful to at least one person, me.  If it is useful to anyone else, that is on them.  People pontificate on an atheist web site ... my stars!

[Solomon Zorn]

All conversation is empty rhetoric ... which is useful.

All your conversation seems to be, at least.

As I pointed out before, it is useful to at least one person, me.  If it is useful to anyone else, that is on them.  People pontificate on an atheist web site ... my stars!

Pontificating, may be one way to characterize your posts. Contrarian is the word I use. Your initial response to me, on this thread, has a similarity to so many of your posts: contradiction of a sound premise, simply for the sake of conflict(I really don't even think you honestly disagree with what I said, this time). Like The Youngbloods said: "Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong." You seem to have made a mission out of reminding us, that all knowledge is ambiguous.

Sorry if I'm being too personal. It's meant as a complaint, more than an attack.

[Baruch]

No offense taken ... but  I still think you are mis-reading.  My specific pointing to "pontification" wasn't toward the theists, but to the atheists, so I am not including myself.  I am adhering to strict empiricism, not blow hard pseudo-rationalism (of theists or their opponents).  Drew isn't pontificating, he is simply being repetitious.  He is out of ideas, time to head to the gas station before he ends up stranded on the side of the highway ;-(

Yes, I am contrarian, because I find atheists too doctrinaire ... they repeat like a theologian.  I am a skeptic, but not a nihilist.  So when atheists make claims, I see no reason not to be skeptical (if they have no direct empirical backing) ... in the hope that their arguments might improve, rather than just repeat.  Yes, and in humility, everyone is wrong, we are apes man!

[fencerider]

how do you go from monkeys typing to bull shit? Shouldn't that be monkeys typing to monkey shit?

If you need a lesson in pontification just watch Trump for a couple hours.

Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

Sounds like a butterfly on the opposite side of the earth changing the outcome of a thunderstorm on this side of the earth. I think it is correct, but you're gonna need a supercomputer to model the compound effects of all those small changes.

[Sorginak]

So when atheists make claims

The difference between an atheist making a claim and a theist making a claim is that at least the atheist has the benefit of the doubt considering there is no actual evidence of god's existence.

If a man approaches you and makes claims to something existing that is apparently supernatural where there is no evidence of its existence, it is more logical to consider that individual of being mentally ill than to follow his faith merely because he has faith.

If any actual evidence of god's existence was ever provided, any logical individual would believe (which is not to be confused with worship) in that god.  There is no question of that.  Yet faith is not evidence, and it never will be.

[Baruch]

Yes, in ordinary terms, as usually framed ... the evidence says that the usual gods aren't real.  Belief in them is real.  And that can get you killed.

Anyone, who thinks their notions are unique, or unchallenged ... is not self-aware ... however.  Being convinced of whatever one might say or believe, is a psychological state ... not proof.

[Unbeliever]

That is pedantic and irrelevant, but also correct.

No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

[Drew_2017]

Mr Obvious

Well, seeing as I don't have a secret universe stashed away somewhere, yes, I'm aware this is 'speculation'. But seeing as some form of life can happen in our universe which happens to have the certain combined set of laws of nature and physics that it does, doesn't imply that no other combination would be viable to bring forth 'something else'. However relative and different that may be. 

You're a funny man, you assume the laws of nature in this universe were the result of happenstance, then extrapolate that belief to another universe that doesn't even exist and yet claim that universe might also result in sentient beings.

Basically, all it's just trying to do is explain to you that saying: if the laws of physics in our universe were any different, there couldn't be anything, is not a viable conclusion.

You reject the conclusion because your a hard core naturalist. This is a summary of Sir Martin Ree's book 'Just six numbers'. No he's not a Christian apologist he claims he's an atheist.

One can marvel, almost indefinitely, at the balance between the nuclear forces and the astoundingly feeble but ultimately inexorable power of gravity, giving us N, a huge number involving 36 zeroes, and nod gratefully each time one is told that were gravity not almost exactly 1036 times weaker then we wouldn't be here. One can gasp at the implications of the density parameter Ω (omega), which one second after the big bang could not have varied from unity by more than one part in a million billion or the universe would not still be expanding, 13.7bn years on.

But who'd have thought that we also needed D for dimension to equal three, because without that value the show would never have got on the road? We go up the stairs, down the hall or across the living room so often that we tend to imagine that those are the only imaginable dimensions, but there could have been just two, for instance, or perhaps four.

Had there been four dimensions, gravitational and other forces would have varied inversely as the cube of the distance rather than the square, and the inverse cube law would be an unforgiving one. Any orbiting planet that slowed for whatever reason in its orbit would swiftly plunge into the heart of its parent star; any planet that increased its speed ever so slightly would spiral madly into the cold and the dark.

Under the inverse square law, however, a planet that speeds up ever so slightly â€" or slows down â€" simply shifts to a very slightly different orbit. That is, we owe the stability of the solar system to the fact that spacetime has, on the macroscale, only three physical dimensions.

All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen, and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratio between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays.

The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water.

Einstein's supposed "biggest blunder", the cosmological constant λ for lambda, is a number not only smaller than first expected; it is a number so small that the puzzle is that it is not zero. But this weakest and most mysterious of forces â€" think of a value with 120 zeroes after the decimal point â€" seems to dictate the whole future of the universe. It seems just strong enough to push the most distant galaxies away from us at an unexpected rate. Were it much stronger, there might be no galaxies to accelerate anywhere.

[Solomon Zorn]

None of what you posted lends any weight, to the notion that any other set of natural laws is actually possible. And some awestruck physicist, marveling over their intricate balance, does not make them divine.

[Drew_2017]

You need to learn to read what I say if we're to have a decent convesation. I'm not claiming something will arise invariably. I'm saying it could in a number of combinations, not just the one that allowed us specifically to come into existance.

You don't know that it could...you just believe that it could. I commend you on your faith.

And seeing as a miracle is by definition a supernatural phenomenon.

Its naturalists and atheists who characterize theism as a supernatural act. When scientists, engineers and computer programmers create a virtual universe are they performing a supernatural act? If a creator caused this universe to exist it would only be supernatural act from our perspective.

You can keep saying existance of sentience is proof of divinity. But we'll keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong about that. It's proof of sentience. You're looking for purpose and that's why you tag it on. I'm not looking to disprove purpose or meaning or intent. But I don't find anything to back it up either.

I claim no proof of anything I do claim existence of sentience is evidence of design by a Creator. You on the other hand believe life and sentience were caused by lifeless, mindless unguided forces that didn't plan or intend life, sentience, a universe, planets or stars to exist. You realize that is so outlandish to believe happenstance would get it right that you then imagine there are other universes. No evidence required.