An Open Letter to Atheists

[scolairebocht]

Another scenario could be if you were walking along a street and you seemed to feel that the person behind you is walking in step with you, as if you are being followed. So you look at him and scratch you head and think probably not, how can I be sure anyway?, but you note his face just in case. Then twenty minutes later you have walked to a different part of the city and look behind you and lo and behold, there he is again! Its a bit of a concern now, how could he be here just behind me now? Was he walking around the city randomly like me and he just happened to walk into this street, having earlier being beside me on the other street? What are the odds of that happening by chance? As you consider it though you might feel that it is just possible. These are two large streets with lots of people on them, maybe he is just going to the same shops you are? Now you walk through a huge thoroughfare with thousands of people jostling around each other as they go to work maybe, and you peel off into some insignificant side street where you know hardly anybody goes and look behind you and there he is again! So again, an intelligent person will now calculate the odds of this person being in the same three streets at the same time you were, and you will conclude that because the odds are too high then it had to be deliberate, it has to be ‘by design’ that he is following you.

So hopefully you begin to get the general picture here, once the odds start getting astronomical then you lift the possibility out of the realm of chance, or luck or randomness or undirected natural causes, and into the realm of design, or order or purposefulness. In fact right from the beginning this was held to be one of the great advantages of the science of probability, it was seen as a great new tool to help people identify the difference between design and chance. Here, for example, is a quote from the introduction to only the second book ever published on probability, ‘The Doctrine of Chances’ by Abraham de Moivre, a French Huguenot writing in early 18th century London:

“Further, the same Arguments which explode the Notion of Luck, may on the other side, be useful in some Cases to establish a due comparison between Chance and Design: We may imagine Chance and Design to be, as it were, in Competition with each other, for the production of some sorts of Events, and may calculate what Probability there is, that those Events should be rather owing to one than to the other. To give a Familiar Instance of this. Let us suppose that two Packs of Piquet-Cards being sent for, it should be perceived that there is, from Top to Bottom, the same Disposition of the Cards in both Packs; let us likewise suppose that, some doubt arising about this Disposition of the Cards, it should be questioned whether it ought to be attributed to Chance, or to the Maker’s Design: In this Case the Doctrine of Combinations decides the question; since it may be proved by its Rules, that there are the Odds of above 263 130830000 Millions of Millions of Millions of Millions to One, that the Cards were designedly set in the Order in which they were found.
From this last Consideration we may learn, in ma[n]y Cases, how to distinguish the Events which are the effects of Chance, from those which are produced by Design: The very Doctrine that finds Chance where it really is, being able to prove by a gradual Increase of Probability, till it arrive at Demonstration, that where Uniformity, Order and Constancy reside, there also reside Choice and Design.”

Why dwell so much on the theory of probability, I hear you ask? What has that got to do with the existence of God anyway? Because this actually is the great battle ground between theists and atheists over this question of intelligent design. In practice its accepted by all, or nearly all, that there are indeed aspects of nature and the universe which do show events, or ‘laws’, that have huge improbabilities against saying that they happened, or exist, as a blind result of randomness or chance. In these instances many atheists continue to say that they came about by undirected natural forces whereas theists are saying that they must be the result of design, because of the huge probabilities against these being caused by chance. Theists talk about three areas in particular:
a) Various constants – i.e. precise mathematical figures that are revealed by physics – that have to be very exact to allow life to exist at all on earth. Meaning that if there was the slightest difference in figures like the cosmological constant then we wouldn’t be alive here on earth at all, and what are the odds of those figures magically arising so exactly like this by accident? Because there is this huge improbability that those figures could have arisen just by chance, then, just like in the examples given above, does it not mean that earth was ‘designed’ so that life could happen here on earth? So we have some ‘designer’ for earth and who could that be if not God? This is sometimes known as the Fine Tuned Universe Argument – i.e. fine tuned to a precise point to allow life to exist – for God’s existence and in fact is becoming increasingly popular as these strange constants keep getting discovered.
b) The Laws of Physics, are called ‘laws’ because they show a precise order and structure to the universe, but again if we are into order and structure then we have to ask are we not in the ‘design,’ as opposed to ‘chance,’ bracket? Then if so, the natural question that follows is who designed them? 32 Even Euclid (c.325 BC -c.265 BC), the great Greek mathematician who lived a lot of his life in Alexandria, and is the ‘father of geometry’, said that “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.”
c) But DNA, and lifeforms themselves, form the really great battleground in this argument between atheists and theists. This is because it has been shown that life, and in particular the structure of DNA and the cell, is built on enormously complex structures which, it is felt, couldn’t possibly have arisen by chance. To give you a flavour of these odds here is a quote on the state of our knowledge of these probabilities:

“In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10 to the power of 100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10 to the power of 40,000.
...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.’
Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 10 to the power of 50 is in the realm of metaphysics – i.e. a miracle.”

The aforementioned Professor Harold Morowitz (1927- ), a PhD from Yale in 1951, Professor of Biophysics at Yale 1960-86 and Director of the Krasnow Institute (1993- ), wrote:

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism
known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”

These odds were also calculated by Sir Francis Crick (1916-2004), Nobel Laureate in 1962, and of course the joint discoverer of the double helix form of the DNA molecule:

“To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) ...Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would that be?
This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; that is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20 [to the power of] 200 and is approximately equal to 10 [to the power of] 260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros! This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10 [to the power of] 11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10 [to the power of] 80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10 [to the power of] 260.
Moreover we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. It is possible to show that ever since life started on earth, the number of different polypeptide chains which could have been synthesized during all this long time is only a minute fraction of the number of imaginable ones. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”

 

[scolairebocht]

So I invite you then to slot those figures into your new found insight into how probabilities work in helping us to distinguish between chance as opposed to design. We are just like that card player when he sees the three aces arise in the three consecutive hands. We can now solidly rule out chance, luck, randomness, accident, etc, in the creation of DNA, now that we see the very high probabilities, exactly as the card player did. Hence the DNA was created deliberately by some being, we know it couldn’t have arisen by luck or randomly or by accident, we have lifted this event out of the realm of chance or randomness or undirected natural forces and slotted it comfortably into the bracket of design and purpose etc. And that’s basically then the theory of Intelligent Design, we can see the hand of some designer at work in the creation of DNA and the many other areas that seem to be able to rule out chance or natural forces acting alone without a directing intelligence.

Sometimes atheists try to claim that over huge lengths of time these events, like the creation of DNA, could somehow come about but that is really a distortion of the doctrine of probability. To back up that last point consider here the words of Dr Émile Borel (1871-1956). This brilliant French mathematician, who authored more than 50 papers on the calculus of probability and “created the first effective theory of the measure of sets of points”, a Professor at Lille University in 1893, Professor of Mathematics at Paris 1909-1941, in 1925 Minister of Marine in the French government, and finally President of the Science Committee of UNESCO in 1948, sets out here the reality behind events with huge negative probabilities:

“The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.”

Viscount Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003), who inter alia in 1977 won the Nobel prize in Chemistry, sets out the reality behind these high probabilities when he said that:

“The statistical probability that organic structures, and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

Actually long before probability became a precise field of mathematics – the main figure here would be Pascal in early 17th century France – the issue of chance versus design was well known to philosophers and those that developed the field of Logic. For them it was a terrible logical fallacy to ever suppose that you could get order, structure or purposeful design from mere chance alone, and how right they were was proven once the science of probability took off. In any case its interesting to see how this chance versus design – or art, the ancients would call it – issue, and also the insight that design – and hence a designer – was the proper explanation for the Universe, was discussed by the great philosophers. Aristotle considered it and concluded that “as in intelligent action, so in nature,” Xenophon (Memorabilia IV 3) and Plato mention it (Phaedo 96 ff), and ascribe it to Socrates – who describes it at length –, and it was also a favourite of Cicero’s (De Natura Deorum II.5). Its mentioned by most of the big Christian philosophers, like St Augustine and St Boethius, and particularly by St John of Damascus (676-749). Cicero actually went into considerable detail on the subject, finding it absurd not to accept the presence of a divine hand in the universe, as he describes here:

“But if the structure of the world in all its parts is such that it could not have been better whether in point of utility or beauty, let us consider whether this is the result of chance, or whether on the contrary the parts of the world are in such a condition that they could not possibly have cohered together if they were not controlled by intelligence and by divine providence. If then the products of nature are better than those of art, and if art produces nothing without reason, nature too cannot be deemed to be without reason. When you see a statue or a painting, you recognize the exercise of art; when you observe from a distance the course of a ship, you do not hesitate to assume that its motion is guided by reason and by art; when you look at a sun-dial or a water-clock, you infer that it tells the time by art and not by chance; how then can it be consistent to suppose that the world, which includes both the works of art in question, the craftsmen who made them, and everything else besides, can be devoid of purpose and of reason? Suppose a traveller to carry into Scythia or Britain the orrery recently constructed by our friend Posidonius, which at each revolution reproduces the same motions of the sun, the moon and the five planets that take place in the heavens every twenty-four hours, would any single native doubt that this orrery was the work of a rational being? These thinkers however raise doubts about the world itself from which all things arise and have their being, and debate whether it is the product of chance or necessity of some sort, or of divine reason and intelligence; they think more highly of the achievement of Archimedes in making a model of the revolutions of the firmament than of that of nature in creating them, although the perfection of the original shows a craftsmanship many times as great as does the counterfeit.”

I will leave the last word on this to Professor Antony Flew, a philosopher who was the Richard Dawkins of his day until he was persuaded by the theist arguments, including with respect to DNA. When asked does he, Antony Flew, think that the new work on the origin of life points to a creative intelligence, he said at a public debate in New York in 2004:

“Yes, I now think it does...almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.”"

 

[scolairebocht]

All of it was like that, there was only sound bites in the videos I saw.

 

[Wolf]

All day, every day on all sites.
Jimbo/Kangal the shitposter.

 

[dropkickmejeebus]

Have I ever tried to dissuade you from your faith? Do you recall in our previous bout me ever saying that God doesn't exist?

Never. But even if you did, it would be no reflection on you, but a reflection of the robustness of my religious teaching.

 

[Fishalt]

lol.. They just love (the obedience of prone) 'agnostics'

I honestly think that's why atheists call themselves 'agnostic'


Wow! What did he look like, anything like Plunkett Dunning's avatar?

You see everything in terms of submission and dominance, James. Obsessed with 'winning', whatever that means in the context of this debacle. And as long as you have this mentality you will never have any form of peace. The question isn't whether they're right or wrong for doing this. The question is why you care about it all as vehemently as you do. It's immature. Here's the thing; I more or less agree with you that scholairebrocht ducks and dodges the questions you pose to him/her, and I can see why this is incredibly nettling to you. The difference between you and me, James, is that I understand that this person needs God. My understanding and compassion for this person's need outweighs my ego--that is, the need to prove him/her wrong. It is better, not worse, to not waken sleeping dogs when it comes to issues such as these.

I'm happy to engage with the religious when they query as to why I don't subscribe to any faith. Does the proselytizing become grating occasionally? Yeah, sure. But it's complicated. Sometimes it comes from a good place, sometimes it doesn't. There are Christians like Scolairebrocht who do it because they don't want to see people burn in hell. It's compassion--or at the least, it comes from a place of compassion. Then there are people like Tiger and Plunkett who do it to remind the unbelievers that they will burn, and seem to rejoice in this belief as though Hell--an entirely excessive punishment--is in way shape or form fair and reasonable. Or judicious. I am reasonably confident that they are more or less happy to believe that people--good people--will be sent into the flaming abyss for all eternity for the monstrous sin of refusing to believe what they do. Odd as it seems, I do think that somewhere at some time this started from a good place and became malevolent. They allowed their sadness at the lack of morality in the world to metamorphosize into hatred. Very probably they became jaded and warped by the cold indifference, shallowness and depersonalization of society over time. I don't even disagree with them. The quality of human beings the world produces as time goes on seems to get worse with every generation.

Regardless, I don't really judge people by their beliefs. I judge them by what's in their soul. There is more kindness and light in your average street crawler than there is in the average devil-driver.

 

[Fishalt]

Is that the difference between me and you, oh noble one, Fishalt? Could you explain this post (of mine) to me please -

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-83624

You know, limited to that particular quote, there's admittedly only mild, but nonetheless meaningful clausal difference. Here, I made my case as to why I hold no particular faith;why I find the comparison between theology and science disingenuous., and how belief in a prime creator or the refusal to rule out the existence of one is very far removed from having a faith-based system of belief. I do go on to say that I can't rule out the existence of a prime mover, or creator, which is why quote-mining such as this isn't especially useful. Moreover, I'm not attempting to dissuade anyone from their faith and, as I have stated, I'm generally of the opinion that some people and perhaps the majority of them are better off with one than without.

Unlike yourself, creating, and engaging in theological arguments isn't the sine qua non of my time on this forum. Now before you blow a gasket, I understand that's not what you've done here, and you're by no means the only poster guilty of this. You're also by no means the worst, either.

However, you do in fact have (masqueraded as they are under some adjacent issue) entire threads apparently designed to spark them up. Or at least one of them. And no, I don't think you should have been suspended from posting there, which is yet another example of why Zip shouldn't be moderating. Regardless, I'm not especially interested in any of this. I might dip my toe in occasionally, but someone who gets tipsy once every three years is not the same thing as an alcoholic. We're talking a different order of magnitude. Obviously.

I am nonetheless very disappointed that you returned to posting on Islepoli to have a whinge about it all. That was not a good demonstration of character.

 

[Fishalt]

Fishalt
So I am trying to speak to and persuade atheists, and hopefully show them that God exists. Sure there is a whole other conversation to say that Christianity is the true religion etc, but at least we can get to stage 1 here? Does that mean you are now a theist can I ask?

The fact that there are other options and theories does not mean that there is no true 'theory', so the fact that there are other religions doesn't invalidate anything as far as I can see.

Yes science is different to theology, but nonetheless it also has some similarities. I think if you study Natural Theology you can see that.

Ok. The problem with that is that Religions are not universalized, and are totally antithetical to one another in their behavioural demands, and what they require in terms of observance. It's not possible to fulfil all the conditions they impose concurrently without arriving at a place that is anything less than indescribably mad. The only way this makes sense is if a prime mover that is personally interested in the lives of individuals created a situation in which observance can be performed in more or less any way, under many names and titles, in accordance with specific cultural mores. Either this, or polytheism--otherwise the problem is irresolvable.

 

[Fishalt]

You're one heck of a bullshitter, Fish.

You said -

The difference between you and me, James, is that I understand that this person needs God.

And then I provided a quote of mine -

You need a meaning for your life (and presumably a desire for eternality), you fill that meaning with God - no problem.

So what's the difference?

Secondly, it's already been established that I'm not trying to "dissuade people from their faith".

Really, what you're doing here, is trying to frame the debate from your own pompous mind and divorced from reality

You're one heck of a bullshitter, Fish.

You said -

The difference between you and me, James, is that I understand that this person needs God.

And then I provided a quote of mine -

You need a meaning for your life (and presumably a desire for eternality), you fill that meaning with God - no problem.

So what's the difference?

Secondly, it's already been established that I'm not trying to "dissuade people from their faith".

Really, what you're doing here, is trying to frame the debate from your own pompous mind and divorced from reality.

Apologies, when I clicked that link it sent me to the quote below it--my own. I read my post, not yours. If that's truly what you believe, then why do you continue to engage in theological debates and have an entire thread that is more or less devoted to instigating them?

Sorry James, I remain unconvinced. In my estimations, this is simply something you like to argue about for whatever reason. And I suspect that reason is because you're out to prove you are intellectually superior to others by fomenting what is quite frankly a soft battle that is easily won, which if I'm honest doesn't exactly scream 'I'm a successful, happy human being'. On the contrary. It reeks of insecurity.

I've no doubt you'll reply to this post in anger because you've more or less got this problem:

Prove me wrong by engaging in some introspection instead. Either for your own benefit, or to have another win.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Anyway by popular demand [not!], I thought I might post about one of the other proofs, or 'ways' of Aquinas:

I think that Aquinas's five proofs are basically irrefutable especially when taken altogether. The problem though is most atheism in the contemporary West comes down to issues around the "Problem of Evil" and so is not really dealt by them, directly at least.

 

[scolairebocht]

Yes Zip there are a lot of other issues alright, but at least the basic fact that there must be a God is, as you say, establishable by these proofs if atheists were confident enough in their opinions to properly study them!

 

[Kangal]

Yes Zip there are a lot of other issues alright, but at least the basic fact that there must be a God is, as you say, establishable by these proofs if atheists were confident enough in their opinions to properly study them!

I'll go back to what I said before.

I don't believe I've ever seen any "proof" for a god that doesn't come across as contrived or designed to get the answer it wants. And ideas like "first mover" for example, could easily be described as some natural entity, conditions or force(s) that have yet to be conclusively confirmed (though there are a great many ideas on this topic).

You said:

So Aristotle concluded that the universe needed some original outside source of motion or energy, this sequence of moved and movers couldn’t continue ad infinitum. Hence he said there must be an original being out there from whom we get this ‘first movement’ in the sequence of motion or energy that you see around you in the universe. He thought there must be something out there, some ‘X’ being that started all this motion and energy. Aristotle, although obviously not a Christian, in fact came to the explicit conclusion that this original source of movement must be God.

And that's where the argument fails, right away. It doesn't have to be a being. It could equally be some natural entity, force or pattern existing outside of and before our Universe.

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from...

phys.org

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The hot Big Bang is often touted as the beginning of the Universe. But there's one piece of evidence we can't ignore that shows otherwise.

bigthink.com

By using the word "being", however, the argument is pre-loaded to give the answer you want.

Even then, it could very well be the wrong answer anyway. Humans are very good at imagining supernatural beings that are all seeing and all powerful. That we have had gods throughout our history suggests we are very good at imagining ideas and things that don't have the human limitations we have.

But the "being" could be something completely outside of our current ability to think or imagine, an "outside context entity" (in the same vein of an "outside context problem").

In short the 5 Ways come across as simplistic and limited, and reflective of the time they were created.

 

[Tiger]

I'll go back to what I said before.

You said:


And that's where the argument fails, right away. It doesn't have to be a being. It could equally be some natural entity, force or pattern existing outside of and before our Universe.

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from...

phys.org

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The hot Big Bang is often touted as the beginning of the Universe. But there's one piece of evidence we can't ignore that shows otherwise.

bigthink.com

By using the word "being", however, the argument is pre-loaded to give the answer you want.

Even then, it could very well be the wrong answer anyway. Humans are very good at imagining supernatural beings that are all seeing and all powerful. That we have had gods throughout our history suggests we are very good at imagining ideas and things that don't have the human limitations we have.

But the "being" could be something completely outside of our current ability to think or imagine, an "outside context entity" (in the same vein of an "outside context problem").

In short the 5 Ways come across as simplistic and limited, and reflective of the time they were created.

This is all absolute twaddle.

The authors proposal of events preceding a ‘Big Bang’ and the idea of a cyclical universe is a departure from established scientific principles. You should know that.

The complete lack of direct evidence, reliance on speculative interpretations of observable data ( i.e - making shit up), and a notable lack of transparency regarding data analysis methods undermine Penrose and Gurzadyan’s credibility.

Not unlike your own credibility.

 

[Kangal]

This is all absolute twaddle.

The authors proposal of events preceding a ‘Big Bang’ and the idea of a cyclical universe is a departure from established scientific principles. You should know that.

The complete lack of direct evidence, reliance on speculative interpretations of observable data ( i.e - making shit up), and a notable lack of transparency regarding data analysis methods undermine Penrose and Gurzadyan’s credibility.

Not unlike your own credibility.

Missing the point as usual Tiger.

Be a dear and go put the kettle on, will you?

 

[Tiger]

The two perma unemployed people react to the post the second it’s posted.

Get a job ya bums

 

[Tiger]

Missing the point as usual Tiger.

Be a dear and go put the kettle on, will you?

Get a job ya bum

 

[Tiger]

This is the same (hate-filled, rage moron religious bigot) who tried to tell us that she's as "educated as can be", PhDs falling out of her ass

Says James ‘50/50’ Dawson

James what’s the square root of 9?

 

[Tiger]

Srsly, this is the same moron who because I (somewhat mockingly) replied to her continously asking me - what is the probability of ten to ten to the ten to the t..

I jokingly replied - 50-50, it either happens.. Or it don't.

And to this day, she's still banging on about it

That's your as educated as you can get, PhDs falling out of her ears, genius folks

James you should never underestimate your contribution to the dumbest answer ever given on this forum. You should be proud of it.

 

[Tiger]

Quit spamming and go make me a sandwich

I have a job ya unemployed bum.

 

[Tiger]

For those capable of reading books, I highly recommend Vox Day’s - The Irrational Atheist

PDF link below



https://www.chcpublications.net/IrrationalAtheist.pdf