Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]A long discussion of the odds:[/i]
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-...
> 
> The heading you have given to this thread is a truly shocking distortion, as part of your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s sole purpose. The article is about the odds against life. It does not specify humans. The brontosaurus, the whale, the crow, the ant, and all the cells of which they are composed are entirely improbable. The heading should read: [b]Evolution: life is entirely improbable.[/b]
>  
> Quote: "...[i]the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low.[/i]”
> 
> Tell us something new.
> 
> QUOTE: "[i]The reason some scientists take seriously the possibility of a multiverse in which the constants vary in different universes is that it seems to explain the fine-tuning. But on closer examination, the inference from fine-tuning to the multiverse proves to be instance of flawed reasoning. So, what should we make of the fine-tuning? Perhaps there is some other way of explaining it. Or perhaps we just got lucky.[/i]"
> 
> DAVID: [i]There seems no way out. Shades of John Leslie's discussion in "Universes". Multiverses is simply gambler's fallacy as the author points out. There is no substantive scrap of real evidence, only the attempt at anything but God the designer.[/i]
> 
> Pots and kettles. EVERY explanation is “gambler’s fallacy”! Instead of an infinite, eternal universe or an infinite number of eternal universes producing the right combination, you opt for a mysterious, unknown, eternal, conscious mind without any source creating the only universe we know, containing billions and billions of stars and galaxies coming and going, in order to produce a single dot to contain life. You simply cannot grasp the fact that solving one mystery by substituting another is just as much a “gambler’s fallacy” as the atheist explanation.
> 
> [b]RNA can’t work[/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The way life evolved won't ever be found by humans is my point. Hunter and I have made the same comments many times.[/i]
> 
> And I couldn’t agree more. All explanations are unprovable theories. You have made out an excellent case for agnosticism.
> 
> However, I must stress that the purpose of this website is not to proselytize for agnosticism. All of us are looking for clues, and there is an enormous amount to be learned from the search. We should not give up. But after 13 years of discussions, it seems that even you occasionally acknowledge that all paths lead to agnosticism!