I am starting a new thred. Although my OP is directed at Dan, all are welcome to jump in. Sorry it is so long, but his post was ...
Unfortunately, like most Religious Absolutist Apologists, you are so full of your own bullshit you cannot even smell the bullshit that you diarrhea from your own mind/mouth. Quit quote-mining William Lane Craig and go to a real university and learn some real knowledge.
Dan: "The star has run out of energy by the time it supernovas so the star system is no longer habitable. Running out of energy at some point is just natural and unavoidable. Thats why I think time is circular; everything dies and then renews itself. Stars and us included. That is God's great design. A looping game of Conway's game of life played with stars and planets."
So you base your presupposed assumptions on a computer program? Nice. Talk about delusions. Yes, life is circular. You are born. You eat. You defecate. You reproduce. You die, then get transformed into something else. In your case, I can only hope you have not and never do reproduce. We don't need more people like you in a civilized society. I would hazard a guess you also agree with William Lane Craig's hypothesis about the Divine Command Theory. If so, then you are just as deplorable a human as he is.
Dan: "Meteor strikes are incredibly rare and many a problem in the early universe; the number of meteor strikes decreases with time. It's also possible to develop technology to counter meteors, so they would not effect advanced life."
Ah, the Nemesis Event Factor huh? Completely wrong. The decrease in the number of meteor strikes decreases with time ONLY in a stellar system. Not throughout the universe. For all we know, on cosmological timescales, meteor strikes throughout the universe may actually be quite common. In all honesty with my 50+ years of studying Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, and Orbital Mechanics, I would have to admit "I do not know."
Dan: "Climate change and other extinction events: I think God expects us to develop the technology to look after ourselves. Live is very resilient and has never been under any real threat. Past extinction events have merely culled the weaker species and left the stronger to survive. That is part of God's plan."
Really? You think your deity expects us to develop the technology to look after ourselves? Well, we ain't exactly done so good so far. Did you know the Drake Equation also has a "survivability" factor that ranges from 0 to 10? And at our current technological level we only rate a 0.5 to 1? Not very good odds.
A good example is 'Oumuamua. A hyperbolic object we knew nothing about until it was on its way OUT of our stellar system. Suppose it had been on a collision course with Earth. We would not have known about it in time to do anything except to perform the Contortionist Act. FYI: The Contortionist Act comes from something me dad said one time, and I remember it thusly: Firmly place thy head between thy knees and kiss your ass goodbye. Hell, for all we know, there may be another hyperbolic object heading right for us and will impact on Wed 14 Aug 2019 @ 1951 UTC. And we would not know about it until too late. And I guess if such a Nemesis Event happened, we would be considered the weaker species and the Cockroach takes over.
And what about Climate Change due to anthropogenic modifications? Did you know if we were to stop all CO2 emissions, it would be about 500 years before the Earth's atmosphere returns to the levels before the start of the Industrial Revolution? And with all the land clearing to make farmlands and residential areas, it might be even longer.
Dan: "We would not be able to detect EMR from aliens via programs like SETI; other star systems are simply too far away for that. We have a sample size of 1 saying star systems support life. So statistically at this stage we have to assume the universe is absolutely crawling with life."
BTW: It is AEME, not EMR.
You are absolutely correct. The attached image is a map I generated in one of my Astronomy courses to show how far OUR radio and television signals had pentrated into the galaxy. See the highlighted star? Suppose that was the nearest advanced civilization comparable to us. That is about 6000LY away, meaning our signals would still take about another 5920 years to get there. Here is a summation paragraph I wrote in my report paper:
However, think on this. And please realize I am using approximations. The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. We are situated about 60% of the distance from the galactic core. The galactic radius is about 50,000 light years. That puts us about 30,000 light years from the center. Now make a circle with a 30,000 light year radius. The circumference would be about 188,500 light years. Now divide that into ten equal arcs and you have a separation of 18,850 light years. We have been broadcasting signals into space, whether intentional or not, for only about 100 years. These signals travel at the speed of light, at best. If the next intelligent advanced civilization (IAC) is 18,850 light years away, that means they will not receive our signals for another 18,750 years. Even if they were much closer, say 200 light years, they still will not receive our signals for another 100 years. And that is assuming our signals remain strong enough to still be detected. What if this other IAC was 200 light years away and they sent their first signals only 50 years ago? We will not receive them for another 150 years. Think about it. And one of my favorite quotes: "I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." — Arthur C. Clarke
Dan: "I've been through the 97% probability calculation for a creator of the universe on this site before. Once again then (apologies):"
Prove it. I have seen no such debunking. I have also read that thread. The only thing that got debunked was proving you know nothing about probability theory.
Dan: "1. The big bang looks like it must of had an artificial cause (a creator)"
Please provide objective hard empirical evidence on how the Universal Expansion looks like it must of had an artificial cause (a creator). And there never was a "bang" big or small. Big Bang was a disparagical term used as a perjorative in an attempt to debunk the Universal Expansion Theory (its original name). Like all Religious Absolutist Apologists you are so full of presupposed assumption that you assert without any evidence. Richard Dawkins even said something about this in The God Delusion (paraphrased): "The greatest problem with ALL Religious Absolutists is the very fact that there is NO evidence to support theological opinions that fosters the characteristic draconian hostility towards those of different opinion that IS supported by objective hard empirical evidence." If you cannot provide any objective hard empirical evidence, then both Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors apply.
Dan: "2. There is the fine-tuning of the multiverse for life which implies an intelligent creator"
"No universe fine-tunes itself for life. Life tunes itself with the universe." — Arakish.
You can alter any or all of those fundamental parameters of which you speak and life may still come to exist. Just life fundamentally different than we know of now.
Dan: "3. Why is there ‘something rather than nothing?’ Logically there should be nothing. The fact that there is anything at all is amazing and enough to invoke a Deity as a possible solution."
Ah quote-mining. You got this quote from William Lane Craig who quote-mined it frim another Religious Absolutist Apologist. However, you are so dense and thick that you cannot even realize there is no such thing as "nothing." Nothing cannot exist except as an abstract idea.
Dan: "4. Various logical arguments (prime mover / necessary being) point to some sort of intelligent creator"
And those are not "logical arguments." They are presupposed assumptions that you are asserting without any objective hard empirical evidence along with all those dumb ass Religious Absolutist Apologists you listen to who nothing about any science. Ever watch the debate between Sean Carroll and Willian Lane Craig? Sean Carroll tore Willian Lane Craig a new ass so badly that Craig has probably never been able to sit down since.
Dan: "So the above constitutes evidence in favour of the existence of ‘God’ (where God is defined as the creator of the universe ONLY). I’m not aware of any evidence against God (please let me know if you have any)."
The above constitutes NO EVIDENCE. It is all presupposed assumptions made by other Religious Absolutist Apologists you stole by quote-mining. And you never attributed these quotes. That is plagiarism. As for evidence against god: "NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE" (Arakish's Razor). Then one can also apply Hitchen's Razor.
Dan: "For each argument I assign a probability that it is evidence for Gods’ existence. This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:"
Actually, the above statement should have been worded thusly:
Dan: "For each argument I assume a probability that it is a presupposed assumption for Gods’ existence. This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:"
You know, you should quit digging around in the toilet bowl after dropping those brown logs to pull numbers from your ass.
Dan: "1. 50% chance god exists"
The first presupossed assumption is actually 0%. You have to remember one thing in probability theory, everything starts at 0% probability.
Dan: "2. 75% chance god exists"
"No universe fine-tunes itself for life. Life tunes itself with the universe." — Arakish.
Thus, this one also has a 0% probablity. Think critically about it.
Dan: "3. 25% chance god exists"
Another guess estimated from a presupposed assumption. Another 0% probability.
Dan: "4. 25% chance god exists"
Again another guess estimated from a presupposed assumption. Again another 0% probability. Thus, you have a 0% probability due to presupposed assumptions. Use the Scientific Method instead.
Dan: "Starting at 50% chance God exists (always starts at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition), combine the probabilities:"
Dan: "1. 50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance god exists
2. 75% + 25% x 75% = 94% chance god exists
3. 94% + 6% x 25% = 96% chance god exists
5. 96% + 4% x 25% = 97% chance god exists"
Again, you have it wrong. With your presupposed assumptions, the probabilities of which you speak are all multiplicative, NOT additive. Thus it would actually be:
1. 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25
2. 0.25 × 0.5 = 0.1875
3. 0.1875 × 0.25 = 0.046875
4. 0.046875 × 0.25 = 0.01171875
Or a 1.17% chance your deity exists. Not very good odds.
Dan: "So going on the available evidence, there is a 97% chance a creator God exists. I’m not claiming that any such God has magic powers like Omniscience, just that he created the universe."
And where is your objective hard empirical evidence your deity exists and/or created the universe? All you have shown us is how illiterate you are in your presupposed assumptions quote-mined from William Lane Craig, who quote-mined his presupposed assumptions from others. As said, Sean Carroll completely debunked everything William Lane Craig ever said in his retarded presupposed assumptions. And Sean Carroll actually used objective hard empirical evidence we currently have to show how retarded William Lane Craig is with his retarded presupposed assumptions.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.