Does God Exist?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The only thing that each of these guys have on their side is the agreement of their followers, religionists in Craig's case, atheists backing Dawkins' position. Dawkins is as scientifically conscious as Craig. Both are masters of dialectic for the easily fooled.

Craig's arguments can be refuted with no more than a few tidbits of common-sense logic, but because Dawkins claims to have science on his side, it is necessary to use a few tidbits of scientifically determined information, plus some mathematical logic to refute his position.

My book includes several examples, and in a few weeks I should be able to refer you to a simple essay about the implications of codons in genetics that put the lie to random chance as the cause of genetic change. In the meantime, let's do some really simple probability math, of the sort that when properly attended to makes casino owners rich, and when ignored, makes stupid gamblers poor.

We'll need a few scientific facts to get started. The human genome consists of about 23,000 genes (segments of DNA that code for protein molecules). For the most part these genes range in size from between 900 and 1500 base-pairs (I'm trusting that, as a Dawkins fan, you know your fundamental biology). The average gene size is about 1200 base-pairs, but to keep my presentation simple, let's assume that every gene has only 900 base-pairs.

The only mechanism that science has allowed for the creation of a particular gene is random change to a DNA molecule. (Natural selection can only operate after a gene has been changed, and a new protein put to work in a critter's body.) Random changes are fairly easy to calculate at the base-pair level if one ignores difficulties such as capping or marking the beginning and end points of a gene, or how a gene might be changed in length without drastically changing the protein for which it codes, or how, if a gene is modified to code for a new protein, the next-generation of body does without the old but perfectly functional protein.

So, ignoring those factors and keeping things simple, it turns out the probability for the occurrence of a single, small, 900 base-pair gene is about 1.4 x 10exp-542. That's a decimal point followed by 541 zeroes before the 1.4.

That's an ugly small number. Scientists generally regard a probability of 10exp-40 (a decimal point followed by 39 zeroes before a "1" as impossible.

Considering the scientific fact that there are about 23,000 genes in the human genome, and that probabilities multiply, the probability of the entire human genome coming into existence via the chance rearrangement of molecules is a really ugly number-- more than a million zeroes after the decimal point.

Now, that's science. It's not the kind of science that you'll get from the likes of Dawkins and his followers.

I apologize for offending anyone by introducing an element of mathematical logic into a philosophy forum, but if you are going to claim that bogus science is on the side of a particular idea, mathematical logic is the only way to refute the arguments behind that idea and expose the bogusity of the "science" that allegedly supports it.

I contend that Dawkins and Craig are both bullshit artists, like carnival barkers in opposite tents pitching credulous audiences of different predilections. Pay your $2 to enter either tent and you will get to see (but not examine) some goofy invented structure, perhaps a mummified alien from the Roswell crash, or a beautiful hirsute woman with four tits. Choosing the carnival barker is choosing the fiction he sells. The smart choice is to take a ride on the Ferris Wheel in search of a larger perspective.

If one actually examines the logic of religion and the science behind atheism, and does so with objective honesty, it becomes clear that with respect to the workings of things, and especially with respect to the beginnings of things, that science and religion are equally full of shit.

What's philosophy doing about this? It's trusting one finger up its collective ass, and another into its mouth. Then it plays switch, ad infinitum, as if there was no other game in town.

What are individual philosophers doing about this? I'd have to say, less than nothing. They'll side up with Dawkins without checking his science. They won't study Michael Behe, whose books are full of legitimate (and therefore non-trivial) microbiological science data. They side with the simple-minded dolt because he simplifies the agreement-base they've aligned with. They freely quote the opinions of some phony scientist, but never actually study science, thereby basing their opinions on agreement while claiming to be basing their opinions on science. So far, it looks to me like you're a member of that agreement crowd.

Aha, the old 'probability' non-sequitur beloved by creationists. 'The chances of life happening by chance are 6.254 zillion to one'. Fuck knows where they get their figures from. Actually, talking about the probability of something like that occurring is pointless, because occur it did. Of course, bringing a magic man into the equation increases the odds greatly.

[Blaggard]

He's been corrected on this before but he refuses to listen, the chance of trillions upon trillions of mutations occurring over 3 billion years are actually fairly likely. He just can't accept that his mathematical fantasy is all that it is because he doesn't really understand the mechanics of sexual selection at a macro level or in detail at the scale of genes, so he just makes up some specious mathematical model that doesn't even remotely model evolution and is frankly about as sensible as marmalade rhombuses being the reason terapods are adjunct moon squirrels.

What are individual philosophers doing about this? I'd have to say, less than nothing. They'll side up with Dawkins without checking his science. They won't study Michael Behe, whose books are full of legitimate (and therefore non-trivial) microbiological science data. They side with the simple-minded dolt because he simplifies the agreement-base they've aligned with. They freely quote the opinions of some phony scientist, but never actually study science, thereby basing their opinions on agreement while claiming to be basing their opinions on science. So far, it looks to me like you're a member of that agreement crowd.

See there are hundreds of biology journals full of studies into the process of natural selection. But this sort of selective reasoning is all you expect from people who have an agenda. Since he hasn't likely read Dawkins he has no idea how well cited with research his works are by both Dawkins and in general. I suspect just as on this forum grey only reads people who agree with him, and has zero tolerance for people who do not and are well supplied with evidence to the contrary of his odd ramble through the jungle.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He's been corrected on this before but he refuses to listen, the chance of trillions upon trillions of mutations occurring over 3 billion years are actually fairly likely. He just can't accept that his mathematical fantasy is all that it is because he doesn't really understand the mechanics of sexual selection at a macro level or in detail at the scale of genes, so he just makes up some specious mathematical model that doesn't even remotely model evolution and is frankly about as sensible as marmalade rhombuses being the reason terapods are adjunct moon squirrels.

Exactly. Millions of years, let alone billions is a concept they just cant grasp.

[Blaggard]

Also the first functional cells were probably woefully simple compared to modern self replicating single cell organisms let alone complex species. They tend to think the first cells would of come complete with all the structures that today's cells have as if by some process of magic and not the gradual accumulation over millions and millions of years. What you see is a sort of slow grind until speciation meets a point where diversity is optimal and then an acceleration of speciation due to conditions, this apparently is the cause of much concern among the ID crowd. Grey is not religious but his theory is most certainly intelligent design if a rather bizarre form of it, even relative to religious peoples.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Also the first functional cells were probably woefully simple compared to modern self replicating single cell organisms let alone complex species. They tend to think the first cells would of come complete with all the structures that today's cells have as if by some process of magic and not the gradual accumulation over millions and millions of years. What you see is a sort of slow grind until speciation meets a point where diversity is optimal and then an acceleration of speciation due to conditions, this apparently is the cause of much concern among the ID crowd. Grey is not religious but his theory is most certainly intelligent design if a rather bizarre form of it, even relative to religious peoples.

He's not religious? That's a surprise. Or is he one of those fundamentalists who say 'I'm not religious, I'm a christian'?

[Blaggard]

He's a lapsed Catholic, his Beon theory is about an alien consciousness that occupies us humans, it's a sort of dualism come new age thing minus the pagan or Indian twaddle that usually comes with it. He argues that they pre exist humanity and thus it's a sort of intelligent design theory minus the God done it. As with all ID theories his is no different he uses the same intelligent design and God of the gaps arguments and assumes that any old specious made up religion is more likely on that basis which doesn't differentiate him from the common or garden brand of IDiots since he plagiarises a lot of their old arguments that were debunked ages ago, like Behe's nonsensical input into the "mystery" of evolution.

Yeah I know it's a peculiar sort of fruit loopery, but then that's religions for you...

He doesn't read or respond to me though, aside from casually tossing out insults on a regular basis to either Scientists or the posters on any thread, where he's waxing lyrical about his pet religion and completely non scientific and never likely to be so called "science of philosophy", which is presumably code for whacked out cult invented by a person who has no more regard for facts than he has for science or logic or any sort of plausible reasoning. And shamelessly proselytising and promotion of his book, which presumably is a sort of Bible that explains why Alien consciousnesses from space are our souls. Such pointless vacillation and arm waving and an extensive ignore list explains his conversion rate on this forum of 0.

[Ginkgo]

Those are the words of someone who has not perused either of his major books. Behe writes about microbiology, and the logical possibility of how complex microbiological structures might have come into existence. He does not write about God.

He doesn't write about God in his book, but when discussing his book he talks about a role for God as an intelligent designer.

How do you identify a "false dilemma" in a book you've never read? Let's hear it, with quotes from "The Edge of Evolution."

He makes that error when discussing his book in a recent interview he gave to the pro-ID Spanish website. I would post the relevant quotes but I don't think our discussion will be very productive. Perhaps we should remain incommunicado.

P.S.
My wife is Spanish

[Greylorn Ell]

Those are the words of someone who has not perused either of his major books. Behe writes about microbiology, and the logical possibility of how complex microbiological structures might have come into existence. He does not write about God.

He doesn't write about God in his book, but when discussing his book he talks about a role for God as an intelligent designer.

How do you identify a "false dilemma" in a book you've never read? Let's hear it, with quotes from "The Edge of Evolution."

He makes that error when discussing his book in a recent interview he gave to the pro-ID Spanish website. I would post the relevant quotes but I don't think our discussion will be very productive. Perhaps we should remain incommunicado.

P.S.
My wife is Spanish

Gingko,
I'd requested a quote from one of Behe's books backing up your bullshit. What do we get? More bullshit!

You report that Behe was interviewed on a Spanish language website. Not telling us the name of the website. We get to trust your interpretation of your wife's interpretation, of the Spanish interpreter's interpretation, and still have nothing more than a vague, hand-waving summary of your wife's and your interpretation of what Behe might have actually tried to say, condensed into a single vague and meaningless sentence, "...when discussing his book he talks about a role for God as an intelligent designer."

I'll make a copy of this post, in case I need to write an essay about intellectual bottom-feeders.

Behe is a thoughtful man, and well studied despite his Ph.D. You are, IMO, an intellectual weasel, a programmed phony pseudo-philosopher. That's an ad hominem insult to your personal intellectual integrity. well earned by your smarmy insult to Behe. Don't criticize a better man than you unless you have the intelligence to back it up.

[Arising_uk]

...
Behe is a thoughtful man, and well studied despite his Ph.D. You are, IMO, an intellectual weasel, a programmed phony pseudo-philosopher. That's an ad hominem insult to your personal intellectual integrity. well earned by your smarmy insult to Behe. Don't criticize a better man than you unless you have the intelligence to back it up.

And yet you do exactly this to this man:

"Clinton Richard Dawkin, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008."

So I presume that makes you an intellectual weasel and a programmed phony pseudo-philosopher?

[Ginkgo]

Don't criticize a better man than you unless you have the intelligence to back it up.

You make a good point. In future I will save my criticism for you.

[Felasco]

Greylorn, given that we are far, far, far below your level of intellectual ability, why are you still here? What's the matter? The big shots won't have you?

If it's true that you are so superior, it seems highly illogical for you to be spending so much time with us.

If it's not true that you are so superior, why don't you just admit it to yourself so that you can relax and have some pals?

All your posts read like a wild animal chewing off it's own leg to escape a trap that has snapped down on your ego.

Whatever it is that you're so disappointed and bitter about, we didn't cause it, ok?

[Blaggard]

My right finger nail has more intellect than grey as with many ignorant fools they think they are clever but spend 5 minutes discussing anything with the mushrooms and you quickly come to the conclusion they are over compensating for something.

The guys a fraud and a massive hypocrite, would you expect such people to actually measure up to their own self opinion?

[richardtod]

it turns out the probability for the occurrence of a single, small, 900 base-pair gene is about 1.4 x 10exp-542. That's a decimal point followed by 541 zeroes before the 1.4.

Can someone please work out the probability that God exists?

Also, if it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, where did God come from?

I'm sure these have been answered before but I have not found them in sifting through the pages of posts above.

[Ginkgo]

Can someone please work out the probability that God exists?

Depends on the bookmaker and type of odds being offered.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Also, if it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, where did God come from?

I'm sure these have been answered before but I have not found them in sifting through the pages of posts above.

According to Lawrence Krauss it is possible to get something from nothing.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

Krauss would probably say that where God came from is a meaningless question.

Doesn't means he is right of course.

[Conde Lucanor]

Can someone please work out the probability that God exists?

Which god, the Judeochristian god, the Aztech god, or Spinoza's god? They all have different odds.