Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?

islamispeace wrote: You're not getting it (surprise, surprise).  I am basically questioning why an atheist who has only assumptions and opinions is even wasting everyone's time by trying to prove that religion is a matter of opinion.  Even if it was, what difference would it make?  And how would it make atheism any more or less appealing?

I'm not trying to make atheism more appealing.  I just think that maybe if people stopped to consider that it's all just a matter of opinion, they'd also stop killing each other.

So, you have only assumptions.  That's what I already said.

But you think you have proof.  That's the problem.

It always amazes me that atheists always harp about "evidence" yet when it comes to their various "theories", there is always a conspicuous absence of evidence.

Which "atheist" theories are you referring to?

Regarding the so-called "infinite universe", what you don't get is that even if there was such a universe, the impossibility of life starting spontaneously would not change.  As physicist rob Sheldon explains: "Life is just as possible in a small universe, a big universe, an infinite universe, as in our own. There is no a priori reason to think that size has anything to do with the impossible presence of life. A closed universe (that ultimately collapses into the Big Crunch), an open universe (that expands into the void forever), or a flat universe (that comes to rest in infinite time), also makes no difference to impossible life, since multiplying an impossibility by infinite time does not make it possible. Now if you hold the mistaken belief that life is only possible where there are probablistic resources to stumble over it, then you might think that the bigger the universe, the more probability resources for life. But life is not just an improbable event; it is a collection of improbable events.

Oh, really?  So if it's "a collection of improbable events", then obviously it is not an impossible event.

It is a concentration of information. So if there is an information threshold for life, it is simultaneously an information density threshold. So let us suppose that a universe was 10 times bigger, and contained 10 times the information. The information density would remain exactly the same, and therefore the probability of life would remain unchanged" [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/why_do_we_live082961.html].

The average density would remain the same, but the local density would fluctuate, if for no other reason than quantum fluctuations.  It's like saying that if the class size is ten times bigger, the average IQ remains the same so the probability of finding a genius in the class is unchanged.  Sorry Sheldon, but size does matter.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not trying to make atheism more appealing.  I just think that maybe if people stopped to consider that it's all just a matter of opinion, they'd also stop killing each other.

Oh right, right.  Just like those atheist mass murderers too. 

Anyway, how many people on this forum are "killing each other", do you think?  How many religious people in general are "killing each other", do you think? 

Ron Webb wrote: But you think you have proof.  That's the problem.

We do have proof.  The complexity and utter impossibility of life is proof.  But of course, atheist clowns think they have it all figured out.  Life just came out of nowhere, they say.  Riiiight...

Ron Webb wrote: Which "atheist" theories are you referring to?

What have we been talking about thus far, you ninny? 

Ron Webb wrote: Oh, really?  So if it's "a collection of improbable events", then obviously it is not an impossible event.

Clown logic...it gets me every time! 

You missed the point that Sheldon was making.  Life does not need just one spark to begin.  It needs many sparks, and all of these sparks are just as impossible as the other.  For example, just having a DNA molecule spontaneously form is not enough.  You also need many molecules for DNA replication.  Otherwise, the DNA molecule would simply disintegrate. 

Ron Webb wrote: The average density would remain the same, but the local density would fluctuate, if for no other reason than quantum fluctuations.  It's like saying that if the class size is ten times bigger, the average IQ remains the same so the probability of finding a genius in the class is unchanged.  Sorry Sheldon, but size does matter.

No, no, no.  You got it all wrong, Bozo.  You simply don't understand that life requires a lot of information simultaneously, but which simply cannot be present at the same time (if it is left to chance).  It's like saying that because the world is 10x bigger, the "local density would fluctuate" and thus the probability of the Statue of Liberty forming and coming together spontaneously would be a lot higher.  Of course, such an argument is quite Bozo-esque, wouldn't you say?

The same principle applies to life.  It needs far too many "pieces", each of  which is just as unlikely to form spontaneously as the others.  In an "infinite universe" (something which you haven't even proven exists), it might improve the probability of a certain "piece" forming spontaneously, but it would make it even more improbable that the other "pieces" would form at the same time and the same locality.  Rather, what would be more likely is that one "piece" would form spontaneously at one place and time, while another "piece" would form at another place and time.  Unfortunately, that would not bode well for life.  It doesn't do us any good if the head of the Statue of Liberty formed in France, but the arms formed in America.    They would first have to be formed together and then they would somehow have to come together in the right order. 

Ron Webb wrote: We know how rain comes from clouds, and we know why the sky is blue, and we know how stars form.  None of this needs God as an explanation.

Hi Ron,

Do we really?
We know how to explain how these things happen...
but who makes, or made, the laws that make them happen?

Why does light split and form the color blue in the sky?

Why does the sun lift water from the land?

Stars form from dust, but why and how, and what makes the force that pulls them together?

Who can explain the forces of gravity, or of magnetism?

We only know that they exist.
We only think we know how to explain these things.  We may know how to manipulate the forces but we do not know how they came to be, and we certainly could not create them ourselves from nothing. 

'in their wisdom they became fools' 

Peace and blessings to you,
CH




Edited by Caringheart - 30 September 2014 at 9:25pm

Ron Webb wrote: Muslim75 wrote: Man does not come down from apes. That is common sense. I am not even talking about faith.  No one ever said that man came down from apes.  Evolution says that Man and apes have a common ancestor; and DNA proves it, in exactly the same way that DNA evidence can establish that you and your brother share a common ancestor.     Similarly, when you see the clouds pouring abundant rain, or the sky with its constellations, you know the existence of an Almighty God. We know how rain comes from clouds, and we know why the sky is blue, and we know how stars form.  None of this needs God as an explanation.