There is no serious doubt that you are a dogmatic materialist even though you infer the existence of molecules from what you perceive and have direct knowledge only of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions. Your act of faith in the power of science to explain itself (since it explains scientists!) needs justification…
Only shows that people have no idea about the meaning of probability snf odds.
So? What does that have to do with the incredibly small “odds” of that particular sequence happening?
You should know where the odds move from random to designed. Do you?Only shows that people have no idea about the meaning of probability snf odds.
So? What does that have to do with the incredibly small “odds” of that particular sequence happening?
Too bad that you are wrong here. No, scientists do not assert any of that kind. But when it comes to facts of external reality, they correctly stick to the scientific method - and the religious scientists, who are quite numerous - do not deviate from the scientific method. No religious scientist would ever submit a paper for peer review and say: "this particular phenomenon can never be explained using the physicalist / materialist method. It can only be explained by stating that “an unknowable being, using magical, inexplicable ways made it somehow happen”. That is what makes them scientists.
Yes, it WOULD be, if anyone would say that. But you really should learn that no one says it. It is really amazing that you guys keep on burning that straw-man to the ground, instead of engaging in real discussion. Wake up!!
If it’s a straw man then you can state the actual argument that you refer to?
Maybe you are going to present some peer-reviewed papers which PROVE that even a miniscule deviation would make atomic matter “impossible”. I bet it would make interesting reading.
I did.
You simply sweep under the rug both the “chance” and “necessity”. How about PROVING them impossible? I really like the way how you (in general) simply declare the unpalatable options as “impossible” - without giving the slightest reason for it.
Irrelevant. You walk of the beach and see 3 twigs forming a triangle. It may be more probable that those twigs were arranged on purpose, but probability does not count! As long as you cannot PROVE that it could not have happened by chance, you have no argument.
What you do here is invoking the odometer-syndrome.
As you elaborated below.The pattern only exists in your mind. Suppose the numbers are 31 41 592 653 589 793 238 4 6 2 6433 832 79 5 0 288 419 716 939 937 510 58 209 7494 45923 07 816 40 62 862 089 986 280 3482 5342 1170 679 821 480… etc. It would seem to be a totally “patternless” sequence. In reality it has a very interesting pattern to it. Even putting a “pattern” into the sequence it cannot be stated that it was “designed”.
No, it means that a-posteriori probabilities cannot be calculated if only one result is known.
No, we do not. The probability cannot be calculated. Ask any mathematician.
The universe is extremely hostile to life - which is not an assumption, but a hard, brute fact. Tough luck, buddy.
To my knowledge. I certianly do not. And that should be sufficient, since I do not speak for others (and do not intend to), but I do speak for myself.No one?
Perfect…
You did speak for others. Are you withdrawing that statement?
Never? How are you going to prove it?
Always? And how do you plan to recongize that pattern, if there is one? For example here:
Could be chance, could be design.
If you insist. It was an unlucky choice of words. I never speak for others.
Here’s the thing. They don’t all have perfect symmetry and there is no way of knowing if “no two are the same.”
I just need one to disprove it. So far there are none.
I have not gone through many of the posts, but I think that your are quite confused about science and about religion.They just can’t get over their ridiculous obsession to find natural explanations for natural phenomena. They simply disregard the best, most economical and simplest “explanation” of all: “An unknowable being, using inexplicable means made everything somehow happen”. And how could anything be “natural”, if everything was created? We have a perfectly valid word: “artifical”, which is the one we should use for created things. “Natural” things would “simply” exist. But they are just a figment of our imagination.
Even those scientists who are otherwise deeply religious suffer from this misguided approach just like their atheistic peers. They shamelessly conduct their research as if there were no God, as if they would gain anything by closing their eyes and pretending that there is a nature, and there are laws of nature. Of course we know that they are just fooling themselves. As it is stated in the infallible dogmas: 69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.) If God’s attention would wander for a split second, the whole Universe would crumble into nonexistence. There is no “gravity”, of course. If God would not meticulously keep the planets on their orbit, they would just wander off into some random direction. Those beautiful snowflakes! What an intricate design they exhibit. How could some random, blind, purposeless process come up with such perfect symmetry? And not two of them are the same!
Poor, blind scientists.
Are you one of them? I hope not.
Your pattern is the use of grouped symbols where the symbols are from the set 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0
But the dogma does not say that laws of nature don’t exist. If you think it does, you have not understood it at all and you have given it a meaning that no Catholic and certainly no Catholic scientist gives it.
I am glad you are.
Why don’t you read the article and find out yourself? Studying it would also inform you about the science of abiogenesis.And in that article, did you refer to God? Or did you consider the “dirty” physicalist and materialist approach - which, incidentally - is the topic of this thread? And I hope you made a differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis.
Buffalo I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here. While I agree that design always contains patterns I still do not understand this first proposition. I tend to have the same reaction that Spock has, and my knee jerk reaction is that probably you are wrong. Can you please elaborate on you proposition?
