Students to be taught there isn't a God, page 6

Originally posted by Notecreo
...I'm talking about empirical evidence, not "look at that mountain, it HAD to be made by god".

Before I start, I will, for example purpose, be pulling some data from a paper I once wrote and published online. So you know where I got the data from, its from this link

This begs the question of WHO says there is no evidence. Lets say I'm a student in that class and I give the following argument:

"There are 10 different astronomical factors that, if not exactly as they are now, would cause life to be incapable to exist:

1. gravitational coupling constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

It is much more statistical likely these factors ALL ending up exactly in the right proportions to allow for life to form as a result of an Intelligent Agent called God than by Chance."

Now, presuming the observations are accurate and the math is right one might still say this argument is bad evidence, or inconclusive evidence, but NO evidence? Hardly. The real problem theists such as myself have is the dismissal of what I might call very good empirical evidence without discussion. And I'm not refering to the touchy-feely stuff -- I can understand that. But arguments such as I have listed here deserve serious concideration and to have this group simply dismiss them is the height of arrogance, IMO.

But it shouldn't matter, since no one really knows if he exists, even religious people, because it's belief. You guys don't need proof either way and have gotten along without any sort of evidence (except fake evidence) for centuries.

This is factually incorrect. The definition of faith as given in the Bible is NOT belief in something that cannot be proven.

The word most often translated as "Faith" in the NT is the word "pistis". It is a word of rhetoric, defined by Aristotle as meaning "Trust based on evidence". And its used 240 times.

Your defintion is more like Soren Kierkegaard's defintion than the Bible's.

Why is it that you can mathematically show the high probability of life in other parts of the universe and still more people believe in god than extraterrestrials? It's like math doesn't matter that much.

I would argue that is not the case.