Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by OldThinker

OT,

With respect to your second post and your info concerning DNA........

In an effort to get this thread back on track I did some more research to find articles on DNA and how that relates to ID.

From the Code of Blood by Chuck Missler.......Regarding the specificity of DNA Chuck Missner writes:

Using the formula for alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 654. There are indications that some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. The current research indicates that these may be up to 10% of such positions, which would indicate that there are only 516 rather than 574 significant amino acid positions, in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 503.)

This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity! The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd.

(In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 17 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly. Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries!)

....................It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist. There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19).

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it. It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked...

Source: www.khouse.org...

reply to post by John Matrix


I take it you despise biology and chemistry. There is no such thing as chance, all these things happen because they should happen as they follow specific laws of the universe as they exist. If we leave this so called idea of chance to do the dirty work, then we have to discredit all of biology and all of chemistry and claim they are all wrong and that all of science and advancements based on them are wrong as well.

Originally posted by John Matrix
....
....................It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist. There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19).

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it. It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked...

Source: www.khouse.org...

ah, John, the crux of the issue!!!

OT

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I take it you despise biology and chemistry. There is no such thing as chance, all these things happen because they should happen as they follow specific laws of the universe as they exist. If we leave this so called idea of chance to do the dirty work, then we have to discredit all of biology and all of chemistry and claim they are all wrong and that all of science and advancements based on them are wrong as well.

Just a new excuse friend!

..."follow"???? WHO are they following?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

Just a new excuse friend!

..."follow"???? WHO are they following?

You presume a person? Why do you insist on prying your concepts into other peoples statements?

It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist. There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19).

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it. It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked.

There is a big difference between claiming disbelief in a god and claiming non existence of god. Not even Richard Dawkins claims there is no god with absolute certainty because one cannot prove a negative. I, like he, describe myself as atheist-agnostic; I don't have any reason to believe a god exists, but I don't know for certain that one doesn't exist.

After all a god could exist which has no regard for humanity, which would make more sense.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker


What? Call me crazy, but idk... Your post made absolute no sense at all. What specifically are you getting at, or are you just posting for the sake of posting? Let's dispense the weird comments and discuss with at least a tiny amount of intelligent thought in our posts.

I'm surprised I'm even replying to this post! 0_o

Originally posted by sirnex
.....specific laws of the universe as they exist. ....

LAWS, huh? How'd they get there?

What they wrote themselves? Where they get the paper and pen?



Sure I'm poking fun, because there is nothing funnier that hearing a smart guy articulate a stupid idea.....

Originally posted by Welfhard
....After all a god could exist which has no regard for humanity, which would make more sense.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Well my young scholar, that's a start....

Tell me more....

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


lawl, how god get there, he'd write himself? Where'd he get the pen and paper?

stupid is as stupid does, right?

reply to post by sirnex


your logic is 'time' based

OT the Mirror!

reply to post by OldThinker

Well my young scholar, that's a start....

Tell me more....

The uncaring god model is the one I find most plausible of all the ideas I've considered. This god would be similar or the same as the cosmic/laws-of-nature god that Einstein believed in. Ultimately humanity and all it's woes would matter for nothing to this being, we'd just be a byproduct to it's universe and it would care for us as much as we concerned by the stone that doesn't get stuck in our shoe.

It also wouldn't respond it us prompting it (if it could hear our prayers at all) and would align with whole "no evidence" thing that the current deities have.

This god is the easiest to reconcile with human experience.

LAWS, huh? How'd they get there?

What they wrote themselves? Where they get the paper and pen?

It's probably a result of variation in higher space. Modern quantum physics suggests that there are an infinity of universe bubbles created on a higher dimensional space, each with individual sets of natural laws that will differ from one another. Some universes will collapse quickly, some will expand for eternity, in some nothing will form, in one after 14.5 billion years humans will arise. The laws didn't need to write themselves.

Your thinking is too small and unimaginative.

your logic is 'time' based
OT the Mirror!

Time started at the big bang - it is one of the 4 spatial dimensions that are part of spacetime. Using your logic, the universe can't have had a cause because there was no time prior to the first event and as such, can't have been created.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker


My logic is far from that. I don't believe in time as it is written on paper, I don't believe in time as a fundamental of the universe. I'm also not an advocate of the big bang theory as I personally believe there are too many invisible inventions and paradoxical contradictions. All I believe is that the laws of the universe exist as they exist and couldn't not exist because they do exist, which is demonstratively shown to exist and not, not exist.

There is no before the universe, there is no after the universe, there was no big bang as far as I am concerned and there is no magical invisible bogeymen either. What I see out there appears to be woefully different than anything written in your bible or in the physics books, although the physics books do have a lot of proven things, yours doesn't.

Originally posted by sirnex
.....There is no before the universe, there is no after the universe, there was no big bang as far as I am concerned and there is no magical invisible bogeymen either. What I see out there appears to be woefully different than anything written in your bible or in the physics books, although the physics books do have a lot of proven things, yours doesn't.

You are describing God and don't even know it......yet - that was a time-bound pun, I admit

I Am that I Am (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה‎, pronounced Ehyeh asher ehyeh [ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje]) is a common English translation (King James Bible and others) of the response God used in the Bible when Moses asked for His name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah.[citation needed] Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as "I-shall-be that I-shall-be."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

My ole professor would drop over in his grave, OT used wiki...

Originally posted by Welfhard
....This god is the easiest to reconcile with human experience.....

Yeah, in your mind, but you forget EVIL....sorry.

OT

Originally posted by sirnex
.....and there is no magical invisible bogeymen either. ....

HE is not a human father, who failed us....

And you should look deeper, than with your eyes...



OT

reply to post by OldThinker

Yeah, in your mind, but you forget EVIL....sorry.

How? Evil is just a concept.





.... God must be an asshole.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Hi John,

As a personal observation of the comments quoted of Missner, a number of them raise objections to his conclusions.

Missner:

Using the formula for alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

Is he stating that other permutations repeat a result, unlike the permutation in which hemoglobin only occurs; or am I right in thinking that any one of the permutations only produces a specific result, and is not repeated or found to occur by any other permutation? If this is the case, then surely it makes the hemoglobin permutation equally as valid as any other permutation. In other words, the result of any permutation is equal in both potential and occurrence as any other.

Missner:

This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity! The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd.

I can't help feeling that there is something of error in this statement, because without being able to measure infinity as a whole, how can one arrive at a approximation of it...how is he able to gain a reference point to approximate infinity?
As for the likelihood of a 'specific sequence occurring by chance', again not knowing the true measure of infinity...one is not able to quantify the 'chance' potential.

Missner(?):

(In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 17 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly. Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries!)

So, through speculation he arrives at a figure stating the age of the universe in seconds (10 to the power of 17 = 3.16887646 × 10,000.000.000 years). This huge figure is for the universe we know of and observe, and does not take into account the larger volume of the universe that we don't know...that existing beyond our ability to detect and observe. The same principle applies to his figure of atoms.

Missner:

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it. It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked.

Equally (and the more probable), is that God isn't hiding behind any area of knowledge simply because there is no knowledge empirically observed behind which God has been found to be hiding, and thus, there is no need to claim to know everything.
The claim is that God is omnipresent, and therefore, if God truly exists, there would be no knowledge behind which he isn't hiding...God would in fact be present in all knowledge, which clearly is not the case. This reasoning presents evidence (allbeit circumstantial) that the blindness and fallacies are maintained by the believers (not the atheists) by their ignoring the contradictions of their claims.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Yeah, in your mind, but you forget EVIL....sorry.

How? Evil is just a concept.

.... God must be an #snip#.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

True, if you think He desires us to be robots, that say on que, " I LOVE YOU, GOD...I LOVE YOU GOD!"

You are ignoring freewill....

Your argument crumbles...

OT

PS: Once you have kids you'll (experience) this truth.

reply to post by OldThinker

True, if you think He desires us to be robots, that say on que, " I LOVE YOU, GOD...I LOVE YOU GOD!"

You are ignoring freewill....

Your argument crumbles...

There is no such thing as free will. Neither evil nor freewill exist.



... Your argument crumbles. Frankly we are robots now that adhere to determinism and still there is a great amount of suffering that god must dictate.

God must be an asshole.

PS: Once you have kids you'll (experience) this truth.

It doesn't make a difference. No one can defy causality.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

“Despite his wonders, they did not believe.” Psalm 78:32, ESV


Theophilus sits in a coffeehouse with a latté and his Bible. His classmate, Epicurus, can’t resist needling him, “I don’t get you Christians. How can you say that God sends people to hell who have never heard? A God like that can’t be true.”

What should Theophilus say? “We don’t really know what God does with the unevangelized”?

Romans 1:18–21 has a more direct answer to modern Epicurus. Those who have never heard are willfully guilty for rejecting God because God has revealed Himself clearly in the wonders of creation.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of men, who are seeking to suppress the truth by means of their unrighteous lives.” (Romans 1:18)
God is angry with us. Notice why. God’s anger swells up because men are “suppressing the truth.”

The Greek word translated “suppress” means “holding down,” like chains in a prison. This same word was used to describe Joseph’s imprisonment in Genesis 39. God seethes with anger because unbelievers attempt to “imprison” the truth by their wicked lives.

Yet no matter how hard people wrestle to suppress God’s truth, God will not let them put it in a cage. Humans are “seeking”—but failing—to suppress the truth.1

God’s anger is not ordinary anger. Paul uses the Greek word or-gē for “wrath.” This word comes from the verb that describes fruits swelling with juice. The idea is of a swollen indignation. Our sin against what we know about God has reached the point that it would be immoral for God not to act.

This or-gē “is being revealed” from heaven.2 God lets everyone know about His anger, not just once or occasionally, but continually. All of us know it . . . including Mr. Epicurus.

God directs this wrath against two things—“impiety” and “injustice.” Impiety, or ungodliness, refers to mankind’s failure to fulfill his obligation to his Creator. He holds the very molecules of our bodies together (1 Corinthians 8:4–6), and He enables the neurons in our brains to fire. So we are indebted to God, not just for health and life but for our ability to move and think. In return, we owe our Creator an infinite debt; we owe Him our complete love and devotion. Failure to pay this debt is impiety.

God’s indignation also swells against our “injustice.” Injustice refers to our failure to treat other human beings—God’s special creations—with the respect that we know they deserve. When we abuse or neglect others, we shred God’s Mona Lisa and smash His David into pieces. We commit a great offense against God’s creations, but our offense against their Creator is even greater.

more here: www.answersingenesis.org...

No evil? We'll see if you feel that way in ten years when you have to operate on an abused victim....