Atheists - Doubt Your Doubts

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Complexity is not an argument against randomness.

And I think you may be confusing prior probabilities with conditional probabilities. You're interested in the probability of life given some observed data (such as DNA), not just the prior probability of observing the data. You're interested in this question:

L=life
O=Observed data

P(L|O)=P(O|L)P(L)/P(O)

Essentially, I think you need to show that given the observed data, the probability of life is low, then you would need to that a rare observation wasn't due to random chance.




How did you estimate those odds? Calculating probabilities and likelihoods is not always intuitive. In the Milky Way alone there are estimated to be about 9 billion earth-like planets that live in the "goldilocks zone." Sure, if you estimate the odds of an earthlike planet bearing life and found it to be high, then it might be difficult to say that it was a statistical anomaly. And the question you are interested in isn't simply the probability of life, you are interested in the probability of random chanced life vs God created life. If you were to calculate the probability of an earthlike planet bearing life, and you found that the probability was remote, you will still have some sort of statistical error term where the observation of an earthlike planet bearing life would occur by random chance. You are interested in the hypothesis that life on THIS earth (or perhaps life on ANY earthlike planet or even all earthlike planets) was created by God vs the alternative hypothesis that it wasn't. I don't know how one would actually begin to try to demonstrate this; I really doubt it could be done. I think you would have to at least begin with an axiomatic statement that God exists, which usually undermines the initial purpose of the line of inquiry.

One of the major problems related to the above is that an observational piece of data cannot statistically establish causality, probabilities, or likelihoods. My observation of X says nothing about the cause of X, the population, the distribution of observations, the variance of observed data, etc...

Somewhat separately, I don't know that there can be random chance in a theistic worldview. You could never [statistically] demonstrate a God-caused event vs. a random event without a sufficient sample of God caused events in your data from which you could make statistical comparisons - and I doubt anyone has that data without assuming God's existence as axiomatic. Without that data, a God-caused event will appear no different from a random event. Essentially, God would be a statistical error term.

Or, if your observed data indicated that the error term was correlated with the dependent variable, without the data of God-caused events, God-causation would appear as omitted variable bias, which isn't that much different from an atheist saying, "oh, it's God of the gaps."

So I think when talking probabilities and likelihoods, without a prior commitment to belief in God, or sufficient data of God-actions, God-caused explanations would appear no different from random chance or omitted variable bias. For the theist, I think God has to (a) be an axiomatic belief and (b) leave/provide/grant/give sufficient data from which you could make further statistical comparisons.

Bottom line, I doubt statistics is very useful for theistic proofs.
I smell a lab technician .... :p
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
As well as that, watch Professor Brian Cox's ''Wonders of Life''. It provides various facts and expanations that are great to open the door. Some parts might require a re-watch but it's good.
Thank you for the information. :).
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
I'll be honest with you NL, you seem to have a lot more genuine interest in science, alongside a willingness to try to understand evolutionary theory (even if only to endeavour to make coherent arguments against it) so I think, honestly, you should bookmark this page and have a look through it. It is a comprehensive list of known creationist arguments against lots of scientific theories, with short stubs refuting the arguments, stubs which are referenced and linked to vast resources and scientific journals that expand on the answers given.

Please bookmark it.

An Index to Creationist Claims
TalkOrigins is not entirely new to me but I have it captured. It is a nice taxonomy of topics. Thanks.
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
Those big, blue oceans on earth are a feature found on no other known planet. The oceans support the hydrologic cycle and rain/snow, moderate temperatures to prevent them from going to extremes, provide a cleansing function and much more.

Q. How many planets out there have oceans? A. None that we know.

Earth is a wonderful place.
I don't know whether you are aware that Europa, a moon of Jupiter, is thought to have a liquid, salt water ocean beneath its frozen ice water surface? That Mars once had substantial amounts of water on its surface for at least millions of years is now well established. There is also growing speculation that Venus too once had a more earth-like, water rich, environment. Then there is the recent discovery of substantial quantities of water ice on our moon.

Not too many months ago you pointed out the discovery of an abundance of water in deep space. Water is everywhere we look in space, Nl, you know that, so why would there not be an abundance of planets with liquid oceans beyond our solar system?
Europa has oceans. It's not a planet, but it doesn't make a difference. It's a huge celestial body with water oceans.
Hey guys, I think that we would have a better time ice fishing on Earth than on Jupiter's moon, Europa. :)

The temperatures wouldn't be as cold. We could breathe much better. We'd catch more fish on earth than on Europa (as in no known fish there).

Europa is smaller than earth's moon. Europa's surface temperature averages about 110 K (−160 °C; −260 °F) at its equator and it's colder elsewhere on Europa.

The liquid water there is projected to be miles below the surface and actual depth is unknown.

Oceans can be blue on earth (Example: Florida USA and many tropical locations) but not on Europa.

Source for some information: Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Dorothy is reported to have said from Oz: There's no place like home (Earth).

Happy New Year.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Hey guys, I think that we would have a better time ice fishing on Earth than on Jupiter's moon, Europa. :)

The temperatures wouldn't be as cold. We could breathe much better. We'd catch more fish on earth than on Europa (as in no known fish there).

Europa is smaller than earth's moon. Europa's surface temperature averages about 110 K (−160 °C; −260 °F) at its equator and it's colder elsewhere on Europa.

The liquid water there is projected to be miles below the surface and actual depth is unknown.

Oceans can be blue on earth (Example: Florida USA and many tropical locations) but not on Europa.

Source for some information: Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Dorothy is reported to have said from Oz: There's no place like home (Earth).

Happy New Year.
Oceans are never blue. The sky is blue, and oceans reflect the colour! As for the temperatures on Europas surface (I assume you mention them because such temperatures would be very dificult for life to thrive in) they are irrelevent in regards to the oceans. Water freezes at zero celcius, so the oceans must be above that temperature, and life certainly thrives in the coldest of Earth's oceans!
 
Jan 2, 2015
149
3
0
Atheism is a poor cop out..if there was no God there would be nothing for them not to believe in !!??
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
Atheism is a poor cop out..if there was no God there would be nothing for them not to believe in !!??
So if something doesn't exist... then it can't not be believed in?

That's like saying, "If there is no such thing as Mothra, then there would be nothing for non-Mothra believers not to believe in." You're arguing that anything people don't believe in must exist - that existence of an object is necessary for people not to believe in it.

I honestly don't know what else to say. Your statement is so absurd that I am completely speechless.
 
Jan 2, 2015
149
3
0
ok sorry to spoil the mood...how about...ps 14 v 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. just because there is unbelief rampant there are some who believe the Earth is flat etc to them all things are right with there world..all will die and find out ..might as well find out while you are alive....if God is and he has created universes etc he is well able to say hello...if you do it his way...!
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
Oceans are never blue. The sky is blue, and oceans reflect the colour! As for the temperatures on Europas surface (I assume you mention them because such temperatures would be very dificult for life to thrive in) they are irrelevent in regards to the oceans. Water freezes at zero celcius, so the oceans must be above that temperature, and life certainly thrives in the coldest of Earth's oceans!
How familiar are you with beaches near tropical oceans? They look different than the coastlands at colder latitudes. Europa definitely does not have tropical climates or blue, liquid oceans at its surface!
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
How familiar are you with beaches near tropical oceans? They look different than the coastlands at colder latitudes. Europa definitely does not have tropical climates or blue, liquid oceans at its surface!
Mate, water isn't blue. It's clear. The sky is blue. Oceans reflect the sky. Regardless, Europa doesn't need to have tropical climate or liquid oceans at it's surface. All kinds of life live in the depths of oceans under the North and South poles on Earth in teperatues just as cold as Europa's waters.
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
Cosmic space, planets and moons are sterile (as far as we know).

Sin is behavior that is contrary to God and contrary to neighbor.

If there were no God or neighbors, then what would people be contrary against?

Oh well, that is a hypothetical question because both God and neighbors exist.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Hey guys, I think that we would have a better time ice fishing on Earth than on Jupiter's moon, Europa.
Hi there Nl, I'd be thrilled with the discovery of tube worms or any other evidence of life.

The temperatures wouldn't be as cold. We could breathe much better. We'd catch more fish on earth than on Europa (as in no known fish there).
It is not surface temperature or the lack of a breathable atmosphere that concerns us on Europa. Also, speculation that there is no life is as valid as speculation that there is, except for one thing. In the darkest, coldest, deepest part of Earth's oceans life thrives. If there was no life on Earth in such locations you would have a better case to doubt its existence on Europa.

Europa is smaller than earth's moon.
Smaller, yes, but just slightly. However, it is estimated to have in the same proportion that much more water than does Earth. That's surprising, isn't it? Remember, what started this particular discussion was your claim that no other known planets (or moons) had a liquid water ocean. The claim, was in error, and to top it off one other planet, Mars, has been shown to have considerable evidence of possessing oceans in the past.

Your point, I think, was to argue the improbability of any other water worlds like Earth. Water, however, is abundant in the solar system, and according to all our evidence is equally abundant throughout the galaxy. Whereas once we had no evidence that other worlds existed we have now, with the development of new technologies in the last two decades, discovered over 1,800 worlds. Odds are that planets the size of Earth are common (astronomers argue that statistically there are probably billions of them in our galaxy). Some of those are likely, simply by chance alone, to be in orbits around stars that permit surface oceans. That much, Nl, we should be able to agree upon.

And, Happy New Year! :)
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Cosmic space, planets and moons are sterile (as far as we know).
Is that why bacteria and moss have been discovered on Mars?

Sin is behavior that is contrary to God and contrary to neighbor.

If there were no God or neighbors, then what would people be contrary against?

Oh well, that is a hypothetical question because both God and neighbors exist.
If there would be no people, there'd be no concept of contrary at all. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
ok sorry to spoil the mood...how about...ps 14 v 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. just because there is unbelief rampant there are some who believe the Earth is flat etc to them all things are right with there world..all will die and find out ..might as well find out while you are alive....if God is and he has created universes etc he is well able to say hello...if you do it his way...!
This does not support your previous statement:

Atheism is a poor cop out..if there was no God there would be nothing for them not to believe in !!??
Even if God is real, your claim that atheists need God to exist not to believe in him is completely absurd. Whether or not God exists is no excuse to use completely absurd arguments. It's one thing to say atheists are wrong, but to say they're wrong because you can't not believe in something that isn't real is just mind boggling. I'm trying to wrap my head around that one.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Atheism is a poor cop out..if there was no God there would be nothing for them not to believe in !!??
If Percepi is correct in his understanding of what you mean by this, then the fact that I don't believe in Lord Ganesh is in itself evidence that Lord Ganesh exists? Is that really what you meant to say?
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
Many posts are responses to other posts.

Many arguments are stated in opposition and contrary to another argument.

Contrariness may also be expressed against a person in what has been called an ad hominem attack. Hopefully, these are rare but God alone fully knows our motives and actions.

God is an infinite and All-Mighty Person. Contrariness against God is not advised. We have a life to live that He has given. We do well to seek and then serve the Source of our life.
 

Red_Tory

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
Mate, water isn't blue. It's clear. The sky is blue. Oceans reflect the sky. Regardless, Europa doesn't need to have tropical climate or liquid oceans at it's surface. All kinds of life live in the depths of oceans under the North and South poles on Earth in teperatues just as cold as Europa's waters.
Color of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?