What can we prove?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
No, you tell me.

You are using this list to show that the chance of life coming into existence is "astronomically high". It's up to you to defend it.

So, do tell: 1. What was the chance of the Strong nuclear force constant being any different than what it turned out to be?

Repeat and answer this question for points 2 to 34.

If you can't do this, then the above list tells you nothing about the chance of life.

Chance of life? I've already posted the statistics on the chance of life, none of which was rebutted. This simply is the chance that the material universe formed. that could sustain life. What I'm saying is that the issue is twofold. The chance that the material universe could be formed to sustain life and the chance that life would form in such a universe. Combined, the chances seem absurdly stacked against us being here.

And you must be honest here. The fact that scientists have been unable to find other life forms in the universe plagues them horribly. Why are we alone if the odds are not stacked against life existing at all? Their only conclusion is, life must exist elsewhere, otherwise the reality of the situation drives home the statistical chances that we exist by chance are overwhelmingly stacked against us being here. The only thing that gives them comfort is the fact that we have access to very little of the known universe.

There are other statistical anomalies out there as well. For example, what are the chances that an ancient religion would survive? Off the top of my head, there are two, ones that are revived from the Bible and Hinduism. What are the chances that either would survive? After all, if there was a God then he would be a God of the past, present, and future.

Let's be honest here, the only worldwide viable religions stem from the Bible. Hinduism is largely localized to the Asia.

Now what are the odds that a people, namely the Jews, would retain their religion and also retain a land as predicted by their prophets in order to fulfill end time prophecy?

Speaking of prophecy, what are the odds that the prophecies about Jesus would be fulfilled? Reading Isaiah 53 is like reading a passage in the 4 gospels. It describes Jesus to a tee. The only way for this to happen if it were not true is if the entire NT was made up to fit the OT prophecies.

However, there is the problem of Daniel 9:24-27, it is a calendar to the coming of the Messiah which Jewish rabbis later calculated to point directly to the time Jesus walked the earth. They later concluded that men should not calculate it so as not to be deceived and believe Jesus was their Messiah.

This prophesy was written some 500 years before the coming of Jesus and it points to the time of Jesus. That is a fact. Now there is no reason for Jewish rabbis to calculate the prophecy to point to the time of Jesus, but they did. Really the only way to refute Jesus as being Messiah is to say that Jesus was not really real at all. He must have been entirely fictional.

I assume that this is your position.

Originally posted by whodey
Chance of life? I've already posted the statistics on the chance of life, none of which was rebutted.

Maybe its not worth rebutting them as you rebutted them yourself? Or didn't you read your own post?

Combined, the chances seem absurdly stacked against us being here.
I call it the lottery winner fallacy. A lottery winner believes that it is so unlikely that he could have won, that he is convinced the lottery was rigged.

And you must be honest here.
Hopefully you will too, but that never happens does it?

The fact that scientists have been unable to find other life forms in the universe plagues them horribly.
Does it? Evidence of this?

Why are we alone if the odds are not stacked against life existing at all?
Not having found life yet, is not equivalent to 'we are alone'. You may not know this, but scientists are still spending billions of dollars looking for signs of life. If they had concluded that we are alone, they would be saving that money.

The only thing that gives them comfort is the fact that we have access to very little of the known universe.
Exactly the point I was about to make. We have looked at one planet very well, and found it teeming with life. We have looked at a few other planets and moons in passing and not yet found life on them, but are far from ruling it out. We are yet to look at any planet out side our solar system. So, we have looked at about 5 planets and maybe 4 or 5 moons out of over a billion billion planets, and come up with 1 positive and a few maybes. And the statistical genius whodey believes that therefore there is no other life out there? Ouch.

After all, if there was a God then he would be a God of the past, present, and future.
Well then, given that Christianity is barely 2000 years old, I think we can rule that god out.

Let's be honest here, ....
If only you would be.

Speaking of prophecy, what are the odds that the prophecies about Jesus would be fulfilled?
It depends on who fulfils them. If its a Hollywood screen writer, then the odds are pretty good he'll get it wrong. New Testament writers on the other hand tried a bit harder.(but still got some wrong).

Reading Isaiah 53 is like reading a passage in the 4 gospels. It describes Jesus to a tee. The only way for this to happen if it were not true is if the entire NT was made up to fit the OT prophecies.
Bingo.

This prophesy was written some 500 years before the coming of Jesus and it points to the time of Jesus. That is a fact.
Is it now? I thought you asked for honesty a moment ago. Please start a thread on the topic and lets see how long your 'fact' remains a 'fact'.

Really the only way to refute Jesus as being Messiah is to say that Jesus was not really real at all. He must have been entirely fictional.

I assume that this is your position.
Pretty much, yes.

Originally posted by whodey
Chance of life? I've already posted the statistics on the chance of life, none of which was rebutted. This simply is the chance that the material universe formed. that could sustain life. What I'm saying is that the issue is twofold. The chance that the material universe could be formed to sustain life and the chance that life would form in such a univers ...[text shortened]... ally real at all. He must have been entirely fictional.

I assume that this is your position.

The chance that the material universe could be formed to sustain life and the chance that life would form in such a universe. Combined, the chances seem absurdly stacked against us being here.

Your list - most, if not all, of which you absolutely do not understand and yet assume to be true BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO STRENGTHEN YOUR ALREADY EXISTING BELIEFS - tells us that the universe as it exists today would not exist if certain constants were different.

It, however, says nothing about how big or small the chance was that those constants ended up the way they are. It tells you nothing about how (un)likely it was that the strong nuclear force constant ended up being significantly larger or smaller. Nothing. Therefore, it tells you nothing how big or small the chance was that our universe ended up the way it did.

But please, ignore this, because the list appears to confirm your belief system and that is all you are interested in. You don't care about reality, you merely care about how you want reality to be.

And you must be honest here. The fact that scientists have been unable to find other life forms in the universe plagues them horribly. Why are we alone if the odds are not stacked against life existing at all? Their only conclusion is, life must exist elsewhere, otherwise the reality of the situation drives home the statistical chances that we exist by chance are overwhelmingly stacked against us being here. The only thing that gives them comfort is the fact that we have access to very little of the known universe.

You don't get to tell anybody here to be honest, Whodey. You're copy-pasting a list which you don't understand and then use that list to draw a conclusion which is not supported by said list. And when I point that out you simply ignore it. And you will do that again after this post.

Why should we have come into contact with alien lifeforms at all? We've been a species for an astronomically extremely short period of time, we've been looking for alien life forms for an even shorter period of time with extremely limited technology and all the while we're looking at a galaxy - forget about the entire universe for a moment - which is mindbogglingly big. What makes you think we should have made contact by now if there was life out there? Too much Star Trek?

For example, what are the chances that an ancient religion would survive? Off the top of my head, there are two, ones that are revived from the Bible and Hinduism. What are the chances that either would survive?

Tell me...?

Speaking of prophecy...

Yes, let's talk about how Nostradamus was clearly capable of seeing into the future, shall we? Or maybe you don't care about that since those "prophesies" aren't aligned with WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE?

WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE
WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE
WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE
WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE
WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE
WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE

I assume that this is your position.

It stands to reason that there was/were one or more people who were the inspiration for the fairy tale character you refer to as Jesus. Since your idea of this Jesus character makes him into God and also the Son of God (yeah.... let's ditch logic for a second) and God does not exist, by definition Jesus did not exist.