Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

stu · Mar 25, 2011

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Stu already copped to design.

He won't say what designs (especially after I predicted he would say "design of nature.") the design.

The real problem is the dogmatism of science, which refuses to critically look at many of the unfounded assumptions underlying the basic premises of the theories they propose.

You want to stump an atheistic science believer?

Say something like "So you believe chance is underlying our entire universe. Okay, why is that?"

They will have no answer whatsoever as to why the universe would be the product of chance...yet they are adamant that non chance is not a factor.

I discussed this before, that chance or random tables of numbers are designed by computer programs. In this case, the random generation of random numbers is not by chance actually, but by design. What appears random, is actually by design.

There is no law of chance governing nature's happenings discovered or established as fact by any field of science.

We live in a cause and effect universe, but causeless chance was the primal force in causing the universe? The universe is just an effect of non cause?

Nonsense. Nothing but non sense.

That you want to remain ignorant and in denial of answers and explanations that have nothing to do with magic and makebelieve, is your problem, arrived at clearly through your own nonintelligent designs.

jem · Mar 25, 2011

There is no evidence that life came from non life, just conjecture. No "pathway" from non life to life has yet been found.

Its funny call conjecture about abiogenesis evidence, but dismiss real evidence about fine tuning.

Regarding the quote that started this... most recent debate...
let me re quote it.

Quote from jem:

I am amazed at your lack of comprehension stu...
here is your article in pertinent part with my explanations in parenthesis.

"Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms," Dr. de Duve wrote in his textbook, "A Guided Tour of the Living Cell," "even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than one billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet.""

(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)

Then the article contintues...)

The hard part, he wrote, was getting from the simplest chemicals to the first specialized cells, after which "it took no more than 150,000 generations for an ape to develop into the inventor of calculus."

(JEM says... again Stu missed this point... evolution after the first specialized cells... but evolution did not cause the first cell per the sentence before.)

As to whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr. de Duve commented:

"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."

( Essentially science says by definition it must be chance even though De Duve and crick and others know abiogensis did not happen by chance on earth. )

But the succession of chances that created life did not operate in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including the conscious mind.""

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

The fact is that there is no proof of life coming from non life...no proof at all...

The spontaneous generation of life from non life comes from the faithful believers in the religion of Naturalism...

Quote from stu:

It's a funny blog alright, but then ID is constantly trying to help very silly people feel smart through making absurdly dumb remarks about the science they are purposefully and needfully ignorant in.

Spontaneous generation comes from religion not science. From the Goddess Gaia, and the wife of God come life from dirt or stone.
Getting the facts wrong is the first prerequisite of intelligent design.

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

That you want to remain ignorant and in denial of non answers and make believe explanations that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with make believe is your problem, arrived at clearly through your own non intelligent designs.

Quote from stu:

That you want to remain ignorant and in denial of answers and explanations that have nothing to do with magic and makebelieve, is your problem, arrived at clearly through your own nonintelligent designs.

1prometheus · Mar 25, 2011

Hell is the Atheists ultimate black swan.

The Risk reward ratio of being an Atheist (burning for eternity in boiling excrement vs. The his fleeting joys of being an anti-god pundit) is just not that fantastic.

Even if it is a billion to 1 shot why take the chance?

Pascal was correct. I fail to see the downside in believing in God.

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011

OPTIONAL777 · Mar 25, 2011