6 numbers

[madnak]

Well, mathematically the probability of any specific occurrence is treated as 0. That doesn't mean nothing can happen.

We're talking about the fundamental structures which we use to determine probability. If we change or remove those structures, we no longer have any criterion with which to evaluate probability.

Any argument of God based on specific universal constants is just a re-framing of the argument "if the universe exists, then God must exist." Which is a valid argument to a certain degree, and does present some problems for atheists. But it is definitely not a mathematical or necessarily even a logical problem. And the line of reasoning isn't helped along based on the values of universal constants. They are irrelevant to the line of reasoning.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, mathematically the probability of any specific occurrence is treated as 0. That doesn't mean nothing can happen.

We're talking about the fundamental structures which we use to determine probability. If we change or remove those structures, we no longer have any criterion with which to evaluate probability.

Any argument of God based on specific universal constants is just a re-framing of the argument "if the universe exists, then God must exist." Which is a valid argument to a certain degree, and does present some problems for atheists. But it is definitely not a mathematical or necessarily even a logical problem. And the line of reasoning isn't helped along based on the values of universal constants. They are irrelevant to the line of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]
The valid argument is:

If existence of universe implies god exists then the existence of this universe implies that god exists.

This argument present no problems for atheists.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without knowledge of the intent of the whole, in this case humanity, no claim of malfunction can be made regarding the parts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I thought your religion was about individual salvation?

But, otoh, without knowledge of the intent of the whole (the universe) you cannot know whether you god is a god of love or not. The evidence points to the contrary. Don't quote the bible back at me, it is only a part of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer seemed to wonder around a bit. To clarify: Do you claim to have sufficient knowledge of the intent of the creation of humanity to judge whether this or that detail is a defect in the realization of the same?

[madnak]

What presents a problem for atheists is the fact that no mechanism can be described which accounts for any universe. Some part of the mechanism must always be "that's just how it is." This doesn't necessarily imply God, but it does imply that a complete understanding or description of the universe is impossible without God.

("God" defined somewhat loosely here)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What presents a problem for atheists is the fact that no mechanism can be described which accounts for any universe. Some part of the mechanism must always be "that's just how it is." This doesn't necessarily imply God, but it does imply that a complete understanding or description of the universe is impossible without God.

("God" defined somewhat loosely here)

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, just the usual athiest/agnostic confusion. By Atheist I mean someone who doesn't believe in god not someone who believes there's no god.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you claim to have sufficient knowledge of the intent of the creation of humanity to judge whether this or that detail is a defect in the realization of the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you? How did you come to that sufficient knowledge? If you don't then your conception of god may very well be invalid.

I don't aknowledge an intent. I can demonstrate to my satisfaction that attributing an intend to an omnipotent loving god is an impossibility.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, mathematically the probability of any specific occurrence is treated as 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
How did you come to that sufficient knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t claim to understand the intent of the design of humanity, consequently I don’t presume to insist on where improvements could be made.

[madnak]

That makes sense for our lack of vitamin C, for example.

But what about vestigial remnants, inactive DNA, and other artifacts of our genetic heritage? Evolution explains exactly why we possess vestigial features, but design doesn't.

[Sharkey]

The phrase “artifacts of our genetic heritage” begs the question.