I see you have been cutting and pasting this argument around the internet for over a year now. At least you shortened it for us (thank you Jesus). I also see that you ignore every comment ever made and fail to engage anyone in any real discussion. So, don't complain about not getting quality answers here, we have seen posts like this before. Read this]. At the bottom there is a link to TalkOrigins.org. If you can come up with good counter arguments to anything said on those two websites, come back and we'll talk.ALTER2EGO -to- LAUSTEN: I debate the same topics wherever I go because I and others find them to be meaningful and because I want to discuss them with as many different people as possible. BTW: I do not click bare weblinks. You need to briefly quote the relevant portion from your source, in addition to providing the weblink. You also need to explain what point the quoted portion from your source is supposed to be making. A. You aren't debating. B. You want to lecture, not discuss. C. What is a "bare" link? The link is to Iron Chariots, an established site with excellent information, no ads, no spam, no pop-ups. D. You need to learn about the topic you posted. Others have already provided ways for you to do that and you have not taken their advice. Why should I waste my time?
A troll, is a troll, is a troll. Even if they don’t know they are a troll. A righteous troll indeed.
A troll, is a troll, is a troll. Even if they don't know they are a troll. A righteous troll indeed.The worst kind.
I think our universe is the result of a failed physics experiment somewhere else. This makes our universe an example of unintelligent design.
What’s sad is, actual mathematicians will debate whether math is discovered or created, is it written in nature or is it a description of nature. It is as the heart of how do we know what we know, what is truth and other classic philosophical questions. But A2E turns it into a pointless exercise of defending the argument from ignorance.
DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT": a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary) The fact that all of the first 60-discovered elements are precise and they are all interrelated is the first clue that theirs is not an "unfortunate result" because an "unfortunate result" would have caused them NOT to be interrelated and would have caused NOT to each be precise.I think I see the problem, Alter. You START with a definition of "accident" as "an unfortunate result", in other words "something bad" and go from there. No wonder your conclusion is skewed! So let's just drop the word "accident". The question you're asking is this: Is the order inherent in the universe a natural consequence of what it is, Or was this order deliberately imposed on the universe by some outside intelligence? We Naturalists go with the former. When the big singularity happened and created the universe we live in, these are just the laws of nature we ended up with, like it or not. The fortunate result for us is that these laws allowed the evolution of complex living things like ourselves. If they hadn't, we would not be here arguing about it. Either way it was not an "accident" the way you definite it. It is simply natural. Try to look at it from our point of view for a change. Your challenge to us is to explain how this "precision" just randomly appeared. The question makes no sense to us because it's simply the way the universe is. Could YOU explain why it was necessary for this "precision" to be deliberately imposed? Chances are you can't. It's just the way you were brought up to believe is normal.
Excellent post, Advocatus. Too bad the OP isn’t around to address it.
Yeah, I almost always come in late for these things. 
I believe you missed my post: If scientists proved that there was an intelligent creator, and it turned out to be a female who believed Islam was the true religion, would you accept their proof? I just want to find out if you're in this for the truth or for some not-so-obscure ulterior motive?ALTER2EGO -to- LAUSTEN: Stop trying to change the goal post. I am not interested in your speculations. My OP says nothing about which religion anyone is supposed to belong to. It simply presents the scientific evidence that precision could not have occurred in the natural world by accidental or by spontaneous means. Deal with that. Now you are being intellectually dishonest, as shown by the quote in my post above. You put in the "aka Jehovah" bit. Now you say your original post does not say anything about religion. While technically true, your later posts expose your agenda. Busted!I'm glad you responded as you did. These GOGMAT's always have an ulterior motive. And as soon as you suggest that they do, they get all defensive and play the ol' "we're talking science here". No they're not.
Excellent post, Advocatus. Too bad the OP isn't around to address it.Trolls usually go away just before the opposition makes a good point. Small loss, anyway.
My OP says nothing about which religion anyone is supposed to belong to. It simply presents the scientific evidence that precision could not have occurred in the natural world by accidental or by spontaneous means. Deal with that.Actually it doesn't present "scientific evidence" at all. It merely presents your argument that precision could not have occurred by natural means. WHY do you think so?
I decided to present an argument against the OP’s precision one, and it had to be fewer than 300 words. I’m sure it won’t convince anyone, but it was fun to write.
Occam
Infinity is easy to define but exceedingly difficult to conceptualize, especially when using it with probabilities. An example is the extent and origins of our universe. Astronomers have traced its beginning to approximately fourteen billion years ago, and have an idea of how far our three dimensional space extends.
‘What existed before then?’ and ‘What caused our universe to come into existence?’
Imagine nothingness existing in our terms for an infinite time and over an infinite number of physical dimensions. We think in large numbers such as fourteen billion years, but an infinite number of years could be expressed as one followed by far far more zeros than could be written to completely fill our universe. Similarly, the size of this nothingness would be an infinite number of times as large as our universe.
Consider the probability of a universe springing into existence from nothingness at any point in time and point in space. It could be expressed as a zero followed by a decimal point and an infinitely long string of zeros ending with a one. The probability of that happening over a time period would be the instantaneous probability times the time period. The probability of it happening anywhere in an infinite space would be that times infinity. We now have an infinitely small probability times an infinite space times an infinite time. Stated as an expression it would look like this:
(1/∞) * ∞ * ∞
Infinity times infinity divided by infinity is indeterminate, but it’s not necessarily zero. In other words, the proposal by theists that the universe couldn’t have come into existence without a cause is invalid. There IS a probability of unknown amount that the universe could have just popped into existence without any cause.
Consider the probability of a universe springing into existence from nothingness at any point in time and point in space. It could be expressed as a zero followed by a decimal point and an infinitely long string of zeros ending with a one. The probability of that happening over a time period would be the instantaneous probability times the time period. The probability of it happening anywhere in an infinite space would be that times infinity. We now have an infinitely small probability times an infinite space times an infinite time. Stated as an expression it would look like this: (1/∞) * ∞ * ∞ Infinity times infinity divided by infinity is indeterminate, but it’s not necessarily zero. In other words, the proposal by theists that the universe couldn’t have come into existence without a cause is invalid. There IS a probability of unknown amount that the universe could have just popped into existence without any cause.This needs to be spread widely. Very widely. This should be the new meme against the bullshit argument that the universe required a creator. Doing the math, not only is a universe such as ours inevitable, but all sorts of universes should be popping up spontaneously. One divided by infinity is a vanishingly small number, but when you multiply that by infinity squared you should get a very large number. I'll leave that for theoretical mathematicians to work that out. Come to think of it, one of my friends (daughter of long-time friends) just got a degree in math. I'll run this by her.
That doesn’t sound right, Occam. Neither space nor time existed before the universe did.
The problem is nothing cannot exist. Occam has the mathematical angle covered, but the philosophical angle is a different beast.
As for neither space nor time existing before the universe I’d say you are technically correct but conceptually wrong. The latest cosmological thinking is a multiverse exists separate from our universe and universes arise from this primordial quantum soup. This is neither space nor time, but it is something.
The problem is nothing cannot exist. Occam has the mathematical angle covered, but the philosophical angle is a different beast. As for neither space nor time existing before the universe I'd say you are technically correct but conceptually wrong. The latest cosmological thinking is a multiverse exists separate from our universe and universes arise from this primordial quantum soup. This is neither space nor time, but it is something.Is the primordial quantum soup Minestrone? If so, I'll have some, please.
The problem is nothing cannot exist. Occam has the mathematical angle covered, but the philosophical angle is a different beast. As for neither space nor time existing before the universe I'd say you are technically correct but conceptually wrong. The latest cosmological thinking is a multiverse exists separate from our universe and universes arise from this primordial quantum soup. This is neither space nor time, but it is something.Is the primordial quantum soup Minestrone? If so, I'll have some, please. Yea, but with spaghetti
Returning to the topic of the thread…
A couple decades ago I came across a book (I think by Time/Life) it listed the 100 most common molecules
from simplest to complex, with wonderful diagraming.
And though I was aware of how various molecules “looked” I’d never seen it organized so systematically from simplest to most complex.
No wordy text, every molecule was given one page. You could almost do that leaf-through to create an animation.
I tell you the way those building blocks fit together and build on each and the utter simplicity of the stacking,
I was truly astounded - one of those books that changed the way I looked at (appreciated) the world around me.
Looking through the pages I couldn’t help thinking about that Einstein quote,
“god doesn’t play dice” and thinking bull poopy god doesn’t play dice,
it looked like tossing dice was exactly how god operated.
The precision comes into being
because only the parts that fit together happened, what didn’t fit precisely never had a chance to exist.
by and by through the winning of a gazillion cosmic-coin tosses does a gem like our home planet Earth evolve into existence.
It’s all very precise while also quite chaotic and always flowing forward.
It’s one of those realization I found amazingly moving and deeply spiritual
and solid, resonating like nothing the shallow human-centric words of the Bible or Koran or Kabbala texts can offer.
That doesn't sound right, Occam. Neither space nor time existed before the universe did.I agree, George, and I slipped in a qualifying word to cover that. What I was saying was that even if space and time, as we know and define them, didn't exist, even nothingness has (strangely enough) existence. And mathematic and probabilities don't need our physical and temporal dimensions to function.
Imagine nothingness existing in our terms for an infinite time and over an infinite number of physical dimensions.Geez, I cringe as this discussion becomes more philosophical. I sure hope we don't end up discussing the non vs. deterministic aspects. :lol: Occam
We’re talking to ourselves, anyway. ALTER2EGO took off at the first sign of opposition–all too common among trolls and theists.
Lois