The " no evidence" argument

[Insight]

Big deal. Sorry to crash your party, but having a perfect Goldilocks scenario with a perfect moon is statistically almost bound to happen somewhere in a universe with 300 billion galaxies, each containing on average 300 billion stars, with many (or most) of them having planets.

The ‘Rare Earth’ argument is useful for arguing that intelligent life in the universe is probably very rare (while microbial life may be abundant), but it is not a good design argument. The fine-tuning argument that is even conceded by atheist cosmologists (who then turn to the multiverse as a ‘rescue’) is much better:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

When I wrote: " It also shows that when scientists rave over finding planets in the Goldilocks belts of other solar systems, they are not considering the additional requirement of having one large moon orbiting at the exact right distance", I didn’t intend to argue that it was impossible, but rare. Lately we been hearing the reports of planets being discovered in the Goldilocks belt, meaning that these planets may have surface temperatures permitting liquid water. If that is all that’s needed, there may be planets with life in nearly every solar system.

There also needs to be a stable axis. Planetary Scientists Bill Hartmann and Dr. Robin Canup found that the only computer model rendering a stable enough axis is having one large moon at the proper mass and distance. Impact Scientist Dr. Jay Melosh verified the mathematical moon model which is so rare as to me one in many billions. This is because the moon is not a captured satellite. It is too large, in every computer simulation it passes by. The only model producing the moon is an impact collision of a Mars sized planet striking the Earth at the correct angle. They even named the Mars sized planet that struch Earth: “Orpheus”. This main planet - moon ratio would also require such a collision for other life bearing planets.

Think of the derogation of the moons orbit as focusing a camera, as the moon is lost from Earth’s orbit it approaches perfect focus. The evidence I suggested of God’s interaction is the timing of the introduction of human life on our planet, at the exact 400 mark. When the moon has its greatest stabilizing effect, when the moon appears in the sky the same size as the sun.

God Bless

 

[Al_Moritz]

When I wrote: " It also shows that when scientists rave over finding planets in the Goldilocks belts of other solar systems, they are not considering the additional requirement of having one large moon orbiting at the exact right distance", I didn’t intend to argue that it was impossible, but rare. Lately we been hearing the reports of planets being discovered in the Goldilocks belt, meaning that these planets may have surface temperatures permitting liquid water. If that is all that’s needed, there may be planets with life in nearly every solar system.

There also needs to be a stable axis. Planetary Scientists Bill Hartmann and Dr. Robin Canup found that the only computer model rendering a stable enough axis is having one large moon at the proper mass and distance. Impact Scientist Dr. Jay Melosh verified the mathematical moon model which is so rare as to me one in many billions. This is because the moon is not a captured satellite. It is too large, in every computer simulation it passes by. The only model producing the moon is an impact collision of a Mars sized planet striking the Earth at the correct angle. They even named the Mars sized planet that struch Earth: “Orpheus”. This main planet - moon ratio would also require such a collision for other life bearing planets.

Think of the derogation of the moons orbit as focusing a camera, as the moon is lost from Earth’s orbit it approaches perfect focus. The evidence I suggested of God’s interaction is the timing of the introduction of human life on our planet, at the exact 400 mark. When the moon has its greatest stabilizing effect, when the moon appears in the sky the same size as the sun.

God Bless

That is all very impressive, but not as a design argument. You said “which is so rare as to me one in many billions”. Fine. As I said, statistically the scenario is almost bound to happen somewhere in a universe with 300 billion galaxies, each containing on average 300 billion stars, with many (or most) of them having planets. This is a big enough number as to include chances of one in many billions as being statistically favored.

 

[Betterave]

" there is no evidence for God. " therefore God doesn’t exist and belief in God is delusional
This is an untenable argument and here’s why.

Why not just say it’s untenable because the conclusion does not follow from the premise? Anyway, it’s a pretty dumb argument. You really shouldn’t be bending over backwards to refute it.

At age 18, widely considered the age of adulthood, most people are free to have any beliefs or lack they want, relative to what their parents presumbly taught them ( i.e. religious beliefs of some kind, if you are among the vast majority. If there is no evidence whatsoever, I have to wonder what motivates those who still maintain some theistic belief. evidence exists, and that would be in the form of whatever convinces them to maintain such beliefs. Something also causes people who have been known to convert to various theistic beliefs, after reaching the age of adulthood as an atheist. evidence is simply reason to believe or not believe a certain way. Whether the evidence is compelling enough for specific individuals may be somewhat subject to discussion, but to imply that no evidence whatsoever exists inevitably leads to the following conclusion : The only possible way an average adult could maintain theistic beliefs is either through sheer randomness, or for no reason whatsoever. stastically randomness cannot account for it, because then atheist and theistic belief would be within one standard deviation of a 50/50 split.

That sounds like another non sequitur. Absolutely nothing follows from “no reason whatsoever.”

Therefore " no evidence " is fallacious.

You mean false, not fallacious.

 

[tonyrey]

So, Tonyrey and Insight - do you both think that we can see design in humans, or do you say respectively in humans/the natural creation? Tonyrey, you mentioned the mind as an example, and Insight I think you’re talking about the non-human.

Apart from the mind, what else do you think is evidence of design?

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker” - David Hume!

 

[Insight]

That is all very impressive, but not as a design argument. You said “which is so rare as to me one in many billions”. Fine. As I said, statistically the scenario is almost bound to happen somewhere in a universe with 300 billion galaxies, each containing on average 300 billion stars, with many (or most) of them having planets. This is a big enough number as to include chances of one in many billions as being statistically favored.

No arguement there, its just that such a collision makes it more rare. My arguement was concerning the timing of the introduction of human life, at the best focal point.

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker” - David Hume!

LOL! Hume did have a way with words, didn’t he?

 

[SimonArizona]

That’s one of the key issues, atheist for some reason or other are unable to extrapolate these signs and evidence in creation.

“Consider a child in Disneyworld, unaware of the network of underground tunnels necessary for exhibit functions. The parent is aware that there is more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Likewise, the earliest cultures realized that there is more going on regarding creation than meets the eye. Most people are able to reason that there must be an intelligent design to the formation and maintenance of the Universe. Yet, even today, there are small minorities who are unable to comprehend that connection.”

ArguingWithAtheists.com
God Bless

What is going on behind what meets the eye is natural selection.

 

[Insight]

What is going on behind what meets the eye is natural selection.

I’m inclined to disagree, I think God is intricately involved in every aspect of creation.

God Bless

 

[Mark_David]

Well, some folks honestly believe that “no planes” hit the WTC towers on 9/11 - yet we have footage of the planes hitting them from various angles. There is little or no reason to doubt the authenticity of these videos. There will always be “unbelievers” of all sorts, no matter how much evidence you supply or how reasonable your arguments are. Atheists say that the burden of proof is on us; I say it’s on them, to prove that the Catholic faith is false. So far, none have been able to do this (that I know of). For instance, ShockOfGod on YouTube (though a Protestant, I think) has a lot of fun exploiting this fatal flaw in the atheist argument.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m inclined to disagree, I think God is intricately involved in every aspect of creation.

God Bless

Indeed! For a start He is sustaining everything in existence. Then He is ensuring evolution is progressive and attains the goals for which life is intended - as we can see from all the richness and beauty in nature with marvels of engineering scientists have been unable to unravel, let alone be produced by blind processes…

To have faith in natural selection as the sole agent is to regard one set of blind forces competing against another set of blind forces as more efficient and successful than the power of reason with hindsight, insight and foresight!

 

[Betterave]

I’m inclined to disagree, I think God is intricately involved in every aspect of creation.

God Bless

Isn’t your disagreement here based on a false dichotomy? We believe that God is the author of nature, so obviously God is “intricately [intimately?] involved” in every aspect of creation, and that would include natural selection.

 

[Insight]

Isn’t your disagreement here based on a false dichotomy? We believe that God is the author of nature, so obviously God is “intricately [intimately?] involved” in every aspect of creation, and that would include natural selection.

Natural selection can infer that some selection may take place without God’s Divine intervention.

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

Natural selection can infer that some selection may take place without God’s Divine intervention.

God Bless

I’m not sure what your point is. It seems to me that you are questioning the real efficacy of secondary (created) causes, something which is clearly rejected in the Catholic tradition.

 

[Insight]

I’m not sure what your point is. It seems to me that you are questioning the real efficacy of secondary (created) causes, something which is clearly rejected in the Catholic tradition.

I don’t think the Catholic Church would consider anything in creation to be accomplished outside the will of God.

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think the Catholic Church would consider anything in creation to be accomplished outside the will of God.

God Bless

That’s true, but that is because God wills the real causal efficacy of natural (created) causes. We believe in providence in the order of supernatural grace, but also in the order of nature.

 

[James1215]

Mark David, if your view is that atheists have failed to deal with all the positive evidence for Catholic faith, I agree you are very reasonable to ask them to engage with you properly, rather than stand there and say “Prove it!” “Prove it again!” “Let me see you really prove it, this time!”.

But on faith generally, to continue the aeroplane example, if I said I had built a plane out of scrap metal and offered you a lift, I could not lament your turning it down by saying ‘there will always be “unbelievers” of all sorts’. “Prove it won’t fly!”

 

[SimonArizona]

**“Nobody can see the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.”-**Jesus. Spirit is important because without being born of spirit or -coming to spiritual consciousness- it is impossible to know God who is spirit. His substance being the Holy Spirit. We claim God is a spirit, therefore it is kind of hard to look for him in matter or its processes/laws. We see the beauty and goodness and harmony of the world. How it arrived at complexities can be explained well by the only workable solution Natural Selection. God, from the beginning of Christianity, is in the biggest -gap- possible, that is, the Spirit world.

I have a question; how would God reveal himself in matter so that the whole world would believe?

bump

 

[Betterave]

I have a question; how would God reveal himself in matter so that the whole world would believe?

How about like this?:

Matthew 24: 29 And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light and the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of heaven shall be moved. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven. And then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. 31 And he shall send his angels with a trumpet and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them.

But isn’t the more important question: how has God revealed himself in matter (we might even say: in flesh, in history) so that the whole world should believe?

 

[Betterave]

**“Nobody can see the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.”-**Jesus. Spirit is important because without being born of spirit or -coming to spiritual consciousness- it is impossible to know God who is spirit. His substance being the Holy Spirit. We claim God is a spirit, therefore it is kind of hard to look for him in matter or its processes/laws. We see the beauty and goodness and harmony of the world. How it arrived at complexities can be explained well by the only workable solution Natural Selection. God, from the beginning of Christianity, is in the biggest -gap- possible, that is, the Spirit world. lol. So if you think your troubles with God are outstanding out there, they are much harder when on this side of the faith fence.

What do you mean by a ‘gap’ between God and Natural Selection, or between our material world and the Spirit world?

(It seems you might be inclined to continue: “between Jesus Son of God and Jesus the man”…?)

 

[Kay_Cee]

" there is no evidence for God. " therefore God doesn’t exist .

Sorry if this has already been covered, but that’s an excellent example of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM: An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as “appeals to ignorance.” This fallacy has two forms:

• P is true, because it has not been proven false.
• P is false, because it has not been proven true.

(source: williamjhudson.net/evolution/logic.html)