Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists? (page 2)

KateWild

UA,

It's my understanding that if you have more evidence of one thing than another then one thing is more proabable than the other. Please tell me what is wrong with this understanding?

Kate xx

Jeffro

KateWild:

The knowledge I have in my personal experience increases the probability of a intelligent Creator

I guess Ultimate Axiom beat me to it, but it deserves mentioning again...

You clearly do not understand probability.

Asserting that the structure of carbon 'makes something more likely' has no actual effect on the probability of anything at all. I could just as easily assert that the structure of carbon makes UFOs or fairies or bunyips 'more likely'.

It's my understanding that if you have more evidence of one thing than another then one thing is more proabable than the other.

The only facts you've shown are some properties of carbon; you haven't provided any evidence of anything else.

KateWild

Jeffro,

I did not assert that the structure of carbon makes God more likely. Probabilities are about gaining a good sample of data. The structure of carbon is one piece of data, the suffering of human kind is another piece of data. This is not enough data to draw a substantial conclusion. If this was all the data I had I would conclude there is no God.

But with my knowledge and personal experience I have much more data to draw a more accurate concusion. This is my understanding of proababilities what is your understanding?

Kate xx

Jeffro

KateWild:

The structure of carbon is one piece of data, the suffering of human kind is another piece of data. This is not enough data to draw a substantial conclusion.

It's not the right kind of data to draw any conclusion about probability.

But with my knowledge and personal experience I have much more data to draw a more accurate concusion.

Your 'evidence' is entirely anecdotal and does not form any basis for the probability of 'an intelligent creator'.

KateWild

Jeffro,

I see your point, but you haven't given me your understanding of probabilities. You are just saying my understanding is a joke. Well that is your opinion. I am afraid I disagree with you as you have no substance to support your position of knowing what probability is. Probabilities can be predicted in many ways.

Thank you for your posts on this thread you made me smile

Kate xx

prologos

Ex-JW atheists are overlooking two of their best arguments against Wild Kate's presentation:

1) from next week's bible reading: Rev13:18,

the number 6 seen again again again, like C6H6 embodied in the benzene carbon rings, or even in snowflakes, are the most anti-god numbers you can find. not a good pro-god creationist argument device.

2) the six ring is for dummies, not intelligence, why? it is the EASIEST to construct, try it,

it divides the circumference by the the radius in 60 degrees. using a kid's compass divider.

so, the universe constructed itself using brute force and simplicity, and not avoiding biblical anti-god numbers.

cantleave

Love your logic prologos.

KateWild

Angus you have a PM ans a FB message. Sam xx

besty

@kate

It does not prove God exists, there is no substantial evidence God is real.

true. no arguments there. we agree.

If one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see Gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

"Objection! Conjecture, Your Honour...the witness is speculating on atheists thought process".

Some atheists (me included) would be delighted to see evidence for the existence of God - I would still wonder why he is such a jerk though.

If one is a believer as I am, we think of God all the time and see him in work, play and education.

Confirmation bias.

Jeffro

KateWild:

I see your point, but you haven't given me your understanding of probabilities. You are just saying my understanding is a joke. Well that is your opinion. I am afraid I disagree with you as you have no substance to support your position of knowing what probability is. Probabilities can be predicted in many ways.

I'm not saying your 'understanding' (=opinion) is a joke (but nor is it a particularly new idea). It just has nothing to do with probability.

Concluding that there is probably an intelligent creator on the basis that carbon is complex is an (untestable) hypothesis.

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

Share this