Bad Math Used in Apologetics

[Jagella]

Recently I've noticed that some apologists like William Lane Craig are using mathematics-based arguments to assure us that the Christian god exists. I would like to explain why those arguments use poor logic.

A very broad argument is that mathematics in general seems to explain the cosmos in a way that seems to work unreasonably well. An intelligent designer like Yahweh is then required to explain this apparent mathematical basis for the universe. He is "the great mathematician in the sky."

Not really. The reason math works so well to explain the world--in at least some cases--is because we humans created math to describe the cosmos. There is no mystery here. We are the mathematicians describing the universe.

Also, many apologists like to wow us with enormously improbable events that they say cannot be attributed to chance. Since chance is ruled out, "God musta done it."

Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero. Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Also, to state how improbable a natural event might be doesn't say much if you don't know the probability of an alternate event. So if apologists wish to argue that an event like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe by chance is only one out a a gazillion, they must compare that probability to the probability that "God musta done it." If they cannot say that the probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance, then they haven't proved anything.

Finally, a really laughable argument is that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was infinitely we could never have reached the present! Such apologists must have slept through their high-school algebra. Consider the number line with numbers increasing infinitely with positive numbers to the right and negative numbers to the left. All you need to do is have any point on that line represent a moment in time with zero being the present, points on the positive direction are the future, and points on the negative direction are the past. See that? You're at 0 (the present), but the past is infinite. You can go back as far as you want to with no limit.

I can go on, but for now let me ask the...

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 138 by For_The_Kingdom]

*Science has limitations, and CAN'T provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

Setting aside the fact that you cannot validate that claim, is it really satisfactory to invent a magical being that can theoretically do anything and use that as an explanation for everything? Please demonstrate that such a being actually exists and has all of the attributes assigned to it. If you cannot, then you need to recognise that science at least offers a lot more in terms of natural explanations even if they are incomplete.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I specifically asked you "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material?" (abiogenesis).

No you didn't, you asked me if I can go in a lab and get life from nonliving material minus the (abiogenesis) bit.

Nonsense. The "abiogenesis" bit is embedded in the concept of "getting life from nonlife".

Well, if you can't currently scientifically demonstrate abiogenesis, then the answer to the question of "can you go in a lab and get life from nonliving material" should be "No, we can't".

That doesn't follow. making life from non-living material is not necessarily the same thing as demonstrating abiogenesis.

Then explain the difference.

Please decipher that into what I actually said.

Sure, X is there are natural laws that leads to life; Y is there are natural laws that leads to card house.

So how is that a hasty generalization fallacy?

*Science has limitations, and CAN'T provide an explanation for everything under the sun and beyond.

That still doesn't answer my question, why would you think life on Earth is something that is beyond the limitation of science?

I didn't say life on Earth is something that is beyond limitation of science. I said that the naturalistic origins of life is naturally impossible under the current laws of science.

Or life, either.

You don't know that.

Here is what I do know; that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified at the current moment...so based on this fact; I have no reasons to believe abiogenesis is true or even possible.

That, followed by the fact that I have evidence against the theory.

Science does not affirm abiogenesis, so to believe it is to accept by faith.

Incorrect, we have empirical evidence for it.

What empirical evidence do you have to support the idea that life originated from NONLIVING material?

Did you get life?

Again, synthetic cells are a thing.

Those synthetic cells; are they sentient...and were they created by a mindless/blind process..or are they products of intelligent design?

Thanks for filling in those gaps, now I can comfortably reject it.

That's not very scientific or rational.

Neither is macroevolution/abiogenesis...but despite those two things being unscientific and irrational, that hasn't stopped you from believing those things.

"Had it". No need for hypotheticals; it didn't happen. That is all that is relevant to the discussion.

But evidence for abiogenesis is relevant to the discussion.

But evidence for abiogenesis is what you've neglected to offer.

I still don't even know what you were attempting to explain.

How natural formation of life does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

The natural formation of life violates observations, experiment, and prediction.

Please respond to my challenge.

I did. I told you to keep waiting while I do it, remember?

Ok.

Then what is it, then? You already said infinity ain't a number..so if it ain't a finite number, and it ain't an infinite number, what is it?

Infinity.

Makes no sense.

I said in COMPLETION. Obviously, if you are counting forever and ever, you will never "finish" counting. Reading comprehension is key, here.

But I have only started counting a few days ago. An eternal past never started remember? So keep waiting until I have had as much time as an eternal past.

Ok, I will keep waiting as long as you keep counting...deal?

I don't know if you can do it. You said you will work on it. You finished? Oh, so you counted an infinite amount of numbers in a finite amount of time?

Of course not, why would you ask such a thing?

The question that should be asked is "why do I (you) think I can do such a thing".

No possible world = no possibilities.

Right, possibilities = not the case there is no possible world.

You said "right", yet what you said afterwards doesn't reflect what I said. Makes no sense.

I don't recall stating you can't count to a finite number.

That's where the post history comes in. So you don't have to remember.

Correct. That is where post history comes in. *checks post history*. Nope, don't see it.

In fact, I admitted that you could.

Then why would you think I can't count all the past days to reach the present day?

Because all of the past days doesn't equate to a finite number. Obviously.

You counting to a finite number was never a point of contention here.

History says otherwise. You said and I quote "'All of them' is actually an infinite amount..and you just said that it will literally take forever...which means it is impossible."

Um, do you see anything about "finite" in what you just quoted me as saying? No, you don't. So what you are talking about; I don't know.

Because since I understand infinity, I know that on an infinite timeline, there is an infinite amount of points between any two points (conceptually).

That's the misconception right there. On an infinite timeline, there is always a finite amount of points between any two points (conceptually).

Again, you clearly don't understand the nature of infinity..and I mean that with all due respect. In order for today to have arrived, this would mean that "time" has successfully traversed an INFINITE amount of days to get to today.

And the point is; you cannot successfully traverse an infinite amount of days to arrive at any specific day. This would be similar to you successfully walking an infinite amount of "steps" and suddenly arriving at a grand prize of a gazillion dollars. It doesn't matter if you were walking forever and ever, or if you began to walk from single, discrete step...will never get any closer to the $$$.

Why? Because every step you take, you have an infinite amount of steps to go...so you will never get any closer to the money, no matter how many steps you take, or how long you've been "stepping".

Until you discard this so called "understanding" and "knowledge" you'll never ask the right questions.

The more you champion yourself as being able to traverse infinity, the more you are displaying your lack of knowledge as it relates to the concept of infinity. You just don't seem to get it.

Not my problem, though.

Again think number line, can you think of any two numbers where there is an infinite amount of points between them?

Sure...they can be an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2..can't there be?

Call it whatever you want, impress me by traversing the amount.

It would literally take forever.

So it can't happen, can it?

Because (back to the challenge), if you were to place a natural number on every single integer in the numbers set (with 0 being the last integer assigned a number), what natural number would you place on zero?

Zero. Obviously.

Fine, now place all of those numbers in numerical order, what will be your highest number?

The task..

Meh. Keep waiting.

Keep counting.

[Bust Nak]

The "abiogenesis" bit is embedded in the concept of "getting life from nonlife".

But there is a difference.

Then explain the difference.

Abiogenesis is how about life aroused on Earth, getting life from non-life is does not necessarily explain how life aroused on Earth. In this case manufacturing a synthetic cell does not help explain how life aroused on Earth.

So how is that a hasty generalization fallacy?

You reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence, without considering all of the variables.

I didn't say life on Earth is something that is beyond limitation of science. I said that the naturalistic origins of life is naturally impossible under the current laws of science.

And why would you suggest such a thing?

Here is what I do know; that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified at the current moment...so based on this fact; I have no reasons to believe abiogenesis is true or even possible.

But that wasn't what you said, you said way more than that.

That, followed by the fact that I have evidence against the theory.

Now we are getting somewhere, lets see this evidence then.

What empirical evidence do you have to support the idea that life originated from NONLIVING material?

Asked and answered, you were give two examples, Miller"Urey experiment and Venter and co.

Those synthetic cells; are they sentient...and were they created by a mindless/blind process..or are they products of intelligent design?

Not sentient, product of intelligent design.

Neither is macroevolution/abiogenesis...

Incorrect. That is scientific and rational.

But evidence for abiogenesis is what you've neglected to offer.

Record shows otherwise.

The natural formation of life violates observations, experiment, and prediction.

Incorrect.

Makes no sense.

That's what I am here for, to explain things, what part doesn't make sense.

Ok, I will keep waiting as long as you keep counting...deal?

Sure.

The question that should be asked is "why do I (you) think I can do such a thing".

Because it can be easily proven mathematically.

You said "right", yet what you said afterwards doesn't reflect what I said. Makes no sense.

Right, I agreeing with what you said, and pointing out the obvious.

Correct. That is where post history comes in. *checks post history*. Nope, don't see it.

Let me help you then, here is another example: viewtopic.php?p=954413#954413

"I am saying count those days down and let me know once you've arrived at zero. You said it can be done, so DO IT... From an infinite past point. You can't do it, can you..."

Because all of the past days doesn't equate to a finite number.

Why would that mean I can't count all the past days to reach the present day?

Um, do you see anything about "finite" in what you just quoted me as saying? No, you don't. So what you are talking about; I don't know.

You were talking about integers, integers are finite. Keep up.

Again, you clearly don't understand the nature of infinity..and I mean that with all due respect. In order for today to have arrived, this would mean that "time" has successfully traversed an INFINITE amount of days to get to today.

Right and there is a finite amount of days between every pair of days in that infinite amount of days. It's pretty simple, no?

And the point is; you cannot successfully traverse an infinite amount of days to arrive at any specific day.

You are wrong, because every day in that series is just a finite amount of days away from today.

This would be similar to you successfully walking an infinite amount of "steps" and suddenly arriving at a grand prize of a gazillion dollars. It doesn't matter if you were walking forever and ever, or if you began to walk from single, discrete step...will never get any closer to the $$$.

And yet here I am, so hand over the cash.

Because every step you take, you have an infinite amount of steps to go...[.quote]
Not so, every step I take, I am one step closer.

The more you champion yourself as being able to traverse infinity, the more you are displaying your lack of knowledge as it relates to the concept of infinity. You just don't seem to get it.

So says the guy who thought there is an infinite gap between days in an infinite series.

Sure...they can be an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2..can't there be?

Sure, but that wasn't what I had in mind, try integers.

So it can't happen, can it?

Sure it can, with an infinite amount of time.

Fine, now place all of those numbers in numerical order, what will be your highest number?

There isn't a highest number. That's the whole point of infinity, you do get that much, right?

[For_The_Kingdom]

The "abiogenesis" bit is embedded in the concept of "getting life from nonlife".

But there is a difference. Abiogenesis is how about life aroused on Earth, getting life from non-life is does not necessarily explain how life aroused on Earth. In this case manufacturing a synthetic cell does not help explain how life aroused on Earth.

Splitting hairs. Anyways, ok. Can you scientifically explain how life aroused on Earth? You already said the synthetic cell stuff has nothing to do with how life aroused on Earth...so I shouldn't have to see anything about that again, considering I am concerning myself with how life aroused on Earth.

So how is that a hasty generalization fallacy?

You reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence, without considering all of the variables.

Ok, give me the variables so I can consider them, and most likely reject them.

I didn't say life on Earth is something that is beyond limitation of science. I said that the naturalistic origins of life is naturally impossible under the current laws of science.

And why would you suggest such a thing?

Because saying that life can arise naturally on Earth goes against everything we know about entropy.

Here is what I do know; that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified at the current moment...so based on this fact; I have no reasons to believe abiogenesis is true or even possible.

But that wasn't what you said, you said way more than that.

But when you take away all of the fluff and feathers, that is what it boils down to.

That, followed by the fact that I have evidence against the theory.

Now we are getting somewhere, lets see this evidence then.

Admit that abiogenesis is currently scientifically unverified and we can do just that.

What empirical evidence do you have to support the idea that life originated from NONLIVING material?

Asked and answered, you were give two examples, Miller"Urey experiment and Venter and co.

And I responded to that by pretty much asking you how can an experiment that DIDN'T get life from nonlife be used as support that life came from nonlife.

LOL. Makes no sense.

Those synthetic cells; are they sentient...and were they created by a mindless/blind process..or are they products of intelligent design?

Not sentient, product of intelligent design.

You might want to get some sentience up in there, because that is what is coming up next after you admit that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified.

Neither is macroevolution/abiogenesis...

Incorrect. That is scientific and rational.

Ok.

The question that should be asked is "why do I (you) think I can do such a thing".

Because it can be easily proven mathematically.

Did you prove it?

You said "right", yet what you said afterwards doesn't reflect what I said. Makes no sense.

Right, I agreeing with what you said, and pointing out the obvious.

Yeah, as long as you keep agreeing with me, we cool.

"I am saying count those days down and let me know once you've arrived at zero. You said it can be done, so DO IT... From an infinite past point. You can't do it, can you..."

And you are quoting me to prove what, exactly?

Because all of the past days doesn't equate to a finite number.

Why would that mean I can't count all the past days to reach the present day?

Because the number placed on today (in numerical order, counting down from past days) would be a FINITE NUMBER.

Um, do you see anything about "finite" in what you just quoted me as saying? No, you don't. So what you are talking about; I don't know.

You were talking about integers, integers are finite. Keep up.

I don't recall saying otherwise.

Again, you clearly don't understand the nature of infinity..and I mean that with all due respect. In order for today to have arrived, this would mean that "time" has successfully traversed an INFINITE amount of days to get to today.

Right and there is a finite amount of days between every pair of days in that infinite amount of days. It's pretty simple, no?

But you can't traverse each discrete member of the infinite amount to arrive at the discrete finite amount. I am not gonna ask you if it is pretty simple...because I know it ain't.

Very abstract. Very complex. Not everyone can fully "get it". Can you?

And the point is; you cannot successfully traverse an infinite amount of days to arrive at any specific day.

You are wrong, because every day in that series is just a finite amount of days away from today.

No it isn't!! And to prove it, it is simple. Ok, past eternity with today included; can we safely call this series, a "set"? Can we safely do that. A point is being made here, so bear with me. Just give me a simple yes or no and I can continue with the point.

This would be similar to you successfully walking an infinite amount of "steps" and suddenly arriving at a grand prize of a gazillion dollars. It doesn't matter if you were walking forever and ever, or if you began to walk from single, discrete step...will never get any closer to the $$$.

And yet here I am, so hand over the cash.

I don't see you walking, though.

Not so, every step I take, I am one step closer.

Oh, ok...so holla at me when you walked those infinite amount of steps and the money is yours.

The more you champion yourself as being able to traverse infinity, the more you are displaying your lack of knowledge as it relates to the concept of infinity. You just don't seem to get it.

So says the guy who thought there is an infinite gap between days in an infinite series.

Truth be told..

Sure...they can be an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2..can't there be?

Sure, but that wasn't what I had in mind, try integers.

Irrelevant. You can't count all of the decimal numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..that is the point..you can't traverse this infinite amount...so if you can't traverse the infinite amount of decimals numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..then why would you think you can traverse all of the past eternal days and arrive at today?

It is literally the same concept.

So it can't happen, can it?

Sure it can, with an infinite amount of time.

LOL. Aight.

Fine, now place all of those numbers in numerical order, what will be your highest number?

There isn't a highest number. That's the whole point of infinity, you do get that much, right?

If you can't get a "highest" number in the set, then you can't get any number in the set. You do get that much, right?

[Bust Nak]

Splitting hairs. Anyways, ok. Can you scientifically explain how life aroused on Earth?

No, I cannot.

You already said the synthetic cell stuff has nothing to do with how life aroused on Earth...so I shouldn't have to see anything about that again, considering I am concerning myself with how life aroused on Earth.

Then stop asking about making life from dead material.

Ok, give me the variables so I can consider them, and most likely reject them.

There is no natural laws that makes card align with each other for a start, where as there is for the chemicals that make up life.

Because saying that life can arise naturally on Earth goes against everything we know about entropy.

But it doesn't, as I've already explained, natural formation of life does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

But when you take away all of the fluff and feathers, that is what it boils down to.

No, it does not. "life arising naturally on Earth goes against everything we know about entropy" is a much stronger claim than "I don't believe in abiogenesis."

Admit that abiogenesis is currently scientifically unverified and we can do just that.

I can admit that, how does that help you present evidence against the abiogenesis?

And I responded to that by pretty much asking you how can an experiment that DIDN'T get life from nonlife be used as support that life came from nonlife.

Because it shows there is nothing in life that goes beyond naturalistic material.

You might want to get some sentience up in there, because that is what is coming up next after you admit that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified.

Sure. We are working on that too.

Ok.

Well you aren't speaking as if it's okay.

Did you prove it?

Absolutely. I can repeat the proof here for you if you like.

Yeah, as long as you keep agreeing with me, we cool.

Well, there are lots we don't agree on.

And you are quoting me to prove what, exactly?

To prove that you said I couldn't count down from all the integers to zero.

Because the number placed on today (in numerical order, counting down from past days) would be a FINITE NUMBER.

That doesn't answer my question. Why would the number placed on today (in numerical order, counting down from past days) being a FINITE number, stop me from counting down all the past days in in eternal past to reach the present day?

I don't recall saying otherwise.

Well, you did. You said, and I quote "do you see anything about 'finite' in what you just quoted me as saying? No, you don't." Except we do see that, as integers are finite.

But you can't traverse each discrete member of the infinite amount to arrive at the discrete finite amount.

Well, that's moot since there are no such things as member of infinite amount in an infinite past. Each member is a discrete finite amount.

Somewhat abstract. Not very complex. Most can fully get it. And yet here we are.

No it isn't!! And to prove it, it is simple. Ok, past eternity with today included; can we safely call this series, a "set"? Can we safely do that. A point is being made here, so bear with me. Just give me a simple yes or no and I can continue with the point.

Yes. A past eternity with today included can be called a series.

Oh, ok...so holla at me when you walked those infinite amount of steps and the money is yours.

Are you going to grant me that I've always been walking, having never started to walk, like an eternal past?

Truth be told...

...Bad Math is still being used in apologetics?

Irrelevant. You can't count all of the decimal numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..that is the point..

Not much of a point when I can count all the whole numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2.

you can't traverse this infinite amount...so if you can't traverse the infinite amount of decimals numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..then why would you think you can traverse all of the past eternal days and arrive at today?

Because number of "days" is counted in whole numbers.

If you can't get a "highest" number in the set, then you can't get any number in the set.

False by counter-example. Trivially, the set of natural integer has no highest number; yet there are numbers in that set - 42, to name just one.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Splitting hairs. Anyways, ok. Can you scientifically explain how life aroused on Earth?

No, I cannot.

Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

You already said the synthetic cell stuff has nothing to do with how life aroused on Earth...so I shouldn't have to see anything about that again, considering I am concerning myself with how life aroused on Earth.

Then stop asking about making life from dead material.

Ok, the next time I speak on life from dead material, I will be sure to include "on Earth" in there. Cool? Whatever suits your fancy.

Ok, give me the variables so I can consider them, and most likely reject them.

There is no natural laws that makes card align with each other for a start, where as there is for the chemicals that make up life.

You've just contradicted yourself yet again. SMH.

Because saying that life can arise naturally on Earth goes against everything we know about entropy.

But it doesn't, as I've already explained, natural formation of life does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Laws of thermodynamics? First you need to scientifically prove that natural life can originate "on Earth"...before you begin to talk about what laws it doesn't violate.

But when you take away all of the fluff and feathers, that is what it boils down to.

No, it does not. "life arising naturally on Earth goes against everything we know about entropy" is a much stronger claim than "I don't believe in abiogenesis."

I stand by both of those statements.

Admit that abiogenesis is currently scientifically unverified and we can do just that.

I can admit that, how does that help you present evidence against the abiogenesis?

Consciousness ain't a physical property..so its ultimate origins can't be explained by natural law. That's it, in a nut shell.

And I responded to that by pretty much asking you how can an experiment that DIDN'T get life from nonlife be used as support that life came from nonlife.

Because it shows there is nothing in life that goes beyond naturalistic material.

So, they didn't get life from nonlife (which was the goal)..and you are somehow led to believe that the experiment shows "there is nothing in life that goes beyond naturalistic material".

Text book example of a non sequitur.

You might want to get some sentience up in there, because that is what is coming up next after you admit that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified.

Sure. We are working on that too.

Uphill battle (understatement of the century).

Ok.

Well you aren't speaking as if it's okay.

More like "Ok, whatever you say".

Did you prove it?

Absolutely. I can repeat the proof here for you if you like.

Nah.

Yeah, as long as you keep agreeing with me, we cool.

Well, there are lots we don't agree on.

Understatement of the decade right there.

And you are quoting me to prove what, exactly?

To prove that you said I couldn't count down from all the integers to zero.

I stand by that statement.

That doesn't answer my question. Why would the number placed on today (in numerical order, counting down from past days) being a FINITE number, stop me from counting down all the past days in in eternal past to reach the present day?

Today would be the last number counted, and the number placed on today would be a finite number, despite it being the highest number counted in the series.

But as you correctly stated earlier, there CAN be no highest number counted (in total completion) in infinity.

The concept is contradictory.

I don't recall saying otherwise.

Well, you did. You said, and I quote "do you see anything about 'finite' in what you just quoted me as saying? No, you don't." Except we do see that, as integers are finite.

I don't know what I was referring to when I said that..but I knew what I was referring to when I said it.

But you can't traverse each discrete member of the infinite amount to arrive at the discrete finite amount.

Well, that's moot since there are no such things as member of infinite amount in an infinite past. Each member is a discrete finite amount.

Um, each day is a "member" of the infinite set. Just like a "member" of your family is a single discrete person in YOUR specific family.

Somewhat abstract. Not very complex. Most can fully get it. And yet here we are.

Remember that DMX song "What's My Name"?..he said..

"Can't..keep it...real; now some of us do, but most of us don't...that's just how a ni66a feel".

Well..I'm saying..

"Can't..understand...infinity; now some of us do, but most of us don't...that's just how a brotha feel".

LOL.

No it isn't!! And to prove it, it is simple. Ok, past eternity with today included; can we safely call this series, a "set"? Can we safely do that. A point is being made here, so bear with me. Just give me a simple yes or no and I can continue with the point.

Yes. A past eternity with today included can be called a series.

Set/series...same thang.

Oh, ok...so holla at me when you walked those infinite amount of steps and the money is yours.

Are you going to grant me that I've always been walking, having never started to walk, like an eternal past?

If I understand you correctly, YEPPP.

Truth be told...

...Bad Math is still being used in apologetics?

Loaded question.

Irrelevant. You can't count all of the decimal numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..that is the point..

Not much of a point when I can count all the whole numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2.

The difference; one is an infinite amount, the other one isn't.

you can't traverse this infinite amount...so if you can't traverse the infinite amount of decimals numbers between 1 and 2 and arrive at 2..then why would you think you can traverse all of the past eternal days and arrive at today?

Because number of "days" is counted in whole numbers.

Whole numbers/decimal numbers; doesn't matter...it applies to both...it isn't picky.

If you can't get a "highest" number in the set, then you can't get any number in the set.

False by counter-example. Trivially, the set of natural integer has no highest number; yet there are numbers in that set - 42, to name just one.

I don't get it.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, the next time I speak on life from dead material, I will be sure to include "on Earth" in there. Cool?

That won't help, synthetic cells were made on Earth too. What you need is to add something along the lines of "originally..."

You've just contradicted yourself yet again.

And what made you think that?

Laws of thermodynamics? First you need to scientifically prove that natural life can originate "on Earth"...before you begin to talk about what laws it doesn't violate.

Why? You claimed it violated what we know about entropy. That's enough warrant to bring up the laws of thermodynamics.

I stand by both of those statements.

Maybe you do, but the point is still, one is a much stronger claim than the other, and does not boil down to the other.

Consciousness ain't a physical property..so its ultimate origins can't be explained by natural law. That's it, in a nut shell.

Oh? Prove it.

So, they didn't get life from nonlife (which was the goal)..and you are somehow led to believe that the experiment shows "there is nothing in life that goes beyond naturalistic material".

But they did get the building blocks of life from non-life, and they managed to build synthetic cells from non life. That's more than enough to justify my claim that we have empirical evidence for abiogenesis.

Uphill battle (understatement of the century).

Sure, but scientists like a challenge.

More like "Ok, whatever you say".

Well, that's not going to help build your case.

Nah.

Then affirm that I can count from every integer in the infinite set, down to zero.

I stand by that statement.

But why would you stand by something that is proven false?

Today would be the last number counted, and the number placed on today would be a finite number, despite it being the highest number counted in the series.

Highest so far, tomorrow I can add another one. It's not that hard to understand. That's how there is no highest number in infinity and still each number being finite. The concept is dare I say, trivial.

I don't know what I was referring to when I said that..but I knew what I was referring to when I said it.

I doubt that.

Um, each day is a "member" of the infinite set. Just like a "member" of your family is a single discrete person in YOUR specific family.

Right, what of it?

Can't..understand...infinity; now some of us do, but most of us don't...that's just how a brotha feel

That's what I am here for, explain things in a way that is easy enough for high schoolers to get.

Set/series...same thang.

Sure, set, series, close enough. Get to your point.

If I understand you correctly, YEPPP.

Then I am holla'ing now, I have walked those infinite amount of steps, having never started and always been walking; the money is mine.

Loaded question.

Not so. The answer was simple a yes.

The difference; one is an infinite amount, the other one isn't.

That's the point there isn't an infinite amount between 1 and 2, nor any other pairs of integers in the infinite set of integers, same goes for the set of natural numbers.

Whole numbers/decimal numbers; doesn't matter...it applies to both...it isn't picky.

Sure it is. If you can't get from 1 to 2 because there is a infinite amount of decimal numbers in between, how did you get from yesterday to today? Time to get picky, it makes a huge difference.

I don't get it.

I don't doubt this.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That won't help, synthetic cells were made on Earth too. What you need is to add something along the lines of "originally..."

But they weren't made without intelligent design, though. But according to your religion (naturalism), cells were. So you making a false equivalency.

Your argumentation is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.

You've just contradicted yourself yet again.

And what made you think that?

I don't know, it may have something to do with what you said.

Laws of thermodynamics? First you need to scientifically prove that natural life can originate "on Earth"...before you begin to talk about what laws it doesn't violate.

Why? You claimed it violated what we know about entropy. That's enough warrant to bring up the laws of thermodynamics.

I am talking about strictly order/disorder, not entropy as it relates to thermodynamics (two different concepts). Actually, the second law of thermodynamics is yet another problem that naturalism has to deal with and so far unreconciled.

I stand by both of those statements.

Maybe you do, but the point is still, one is a much stronger claim than the other, and does not boil down to the other.

Well, we can agree/disagree on that one.

Consciousness ain't a physical property..so its ultimate origins can't be explained by natural law. That's it, in a nut shell.

Oh? Prove it.

Question: Science deals with "nature" (or what is "natural")...can science prove/disprove alleged supernatural phenomena? Yes or no.

So, they didn't get life from nonlife (which was the goal)..and you are somehow led to believe that the experiment shows "there is nothing in life that goes beyond naturalistic material".

But they did get the building blocks of life from non-life, and they managed to build synthetic cells from non life. That's more than enough to justify my claim that we have empirical evidence for abiogenesis.

There are no "but's". Either they got life from nonlife in the experiment, or they didn't. They didn't.

Now, how far you believe that they DID get to life (which is in itself debatable) is irrelevant.

Uphill battle (understatement of the century).

Sure, but scientists like a challenge.

I'm sure they do.

Nah.

Then affirm that I can count from every integer in the infinite set, down to zero.

I can't, because you can't.

I stand by that statement.

But why would you stand by something that is proven false?

I am looking at abiogenesis and macroevolution..and I see you are standing right next to it. Why? As both are false.

Today would be the last number counted, and the number placed on today would be a finite number, despite it being the highest number counted in the series.

Highest so far, tomorrow I can add another one. It's not that hard to understand.

Um, apparently it is hard to understand. Even if you add another one, you are just pushing the problem one step higher. The fact will still remain, there can be no highest single/discrete integer in infinity. Point blank, period.

That's how there is no highest number in infinity and still each number being finite. The concept is dare I say, trivial.

But you just said that there is a highest number in infinity when you said "Highest so far.."

You are all over the place, amigo..contradicting yourself yet again. But I know, it is difficult to justify naturalism. We just don't run into those problems with theism.

Um, each day is a "member" of the infinite set. Just like a "member" of your family is a single discrete person in YOUR specific family.

Right, what of it?

You had said that there wasn't a "member".

Can't..understand...infinity; now some of us do, but most of us don't...that's just how a brotha feel

That's what I am here for, explain things in a way that is easy enough for high schoolers to get.

Unwarranted confidence.

Set/series...same thang.

Sure, set, series, close enough. Get to your point.

The point has already been made..and if you've somehow missed it, well..that is part of the problem.

If I understand you correctly, YEPPP.

Then I am holla'ing now, I have walked those infinite amount of steps, having never started and always been walking; the money is mine.

Makes no sense.

Loaded question.

Not so. The answer was simple a yes.

I disagree.

The difference; one is an infinite amount, the other one isn't.

That's the point there isn't an infinite amount between 1 and 2, nor any other pairs of integers in the infinite set of integers, same goes for the set of natural numbers.

You just admitted that theoretically, there are an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2. That IS the point.

Whole numbers/decimal numbers; doesn't matter...it applies to both...it isn't picky.

Sure it is. If you can't get from 1 to 2 because there is a infinite amount of decimal numbers in between, how did you get from yesterday to today? Time to get picky, it makes a huge difference.

Was there a point being made there?

[Bust Nak]

But they weren't made without intelligent design, though. But according to your religion (naturalism), cells were. So you making a false equivalency.

Not so, both are examples of life from non-life and hence analogous.

I don't know, it may have something to do with what you said.

Well, it couldn't have been, so I guess we will never know where you keep getting these strange ideas from.

I am talking about strictly order/disorder, not entropy as it relates to thermodynamics.

Same thing. You can get order from disorder without violating any laws of nature.

Actually, the second law of thermodynamics is yet another problem that naturalism has to deal with and so far unreconciled.

And what made you think that?

Well, we can agree/disagree on that one.

That doesn't help advance the conversation at all, when you can't even tell me if you agree or disagree with me.

Question: Science deals with "nature" (or what is "natural")...can science prove/disprove alleged supernatural phenomena? Yes or no.

No. The challenge remains unanswered: prove that consciousness ain't a physical property and its ultimate origins can't be explained by natural law.

There are no "but's".

Oh but there are "but's". Here is another: but that's more than enough as evidence for abiogenesis.

Now, how far you believe that they DID get to life (which is in itself debatable) is irrelevant.

That's moot since I wasn't telling you my beliefs.

I can't, because you can't.

But I can and I can prove it.

I am looking at abiogenesis and macroevolution..and I see you are standing right next to it. Why?

Because it's backed by empirical evidence.

Um, apparently it is hard to understand.

That's what I am here for, to explain it until you do understand: when you count, there is always one number higher, as such there is no highest number.

Even if you add another one, you are just pushing the problem one step higher. The fact will still remain, there can be no highest single/discrete integer in infinity. Point blank, period.

How is that a problem? It's just plain old infinity that most people understand just fine.

But you just said that there is a highest number in infinity when you said "Highest so far.."

Incorrect. That does not follow. That there is a highest so far does not imply there is a highest number in an infinity series.

You had said that there wasn't a "member".

Correction, I said "an infinite amount" isn't a member of an infinite past, that doesn't imply there aren't finite members in the infinite past.

Unwarranted confidence.

You say that, but yet here we are, with me explaining math in simple language.

The point has already been made..

Oh, so it's already been addressed then. Do you have any other point?

Makes no sense.

That's what I am here for, explain things until it make sense, even to high school children.

I disagree.

Well won't help, you disagreeing with the answer doesn't make the question a loaded one.

You just admitted that theoretically, there are an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2. That IS the point.

That was the whole point? Well it's moot since days are discrete.

Was there a point being made there?

Sure, you were wrong when you said it doesn't matter if days are discrete or continuous. It does matter.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not so, both are examples of life from non-life and hence analogous.

But one has a "intelligent design" aspect to it...while the other one doesn't...hence not analogous.

I am talking about strictly order/disorder, not entropy as it relates to thermodynamics.

Same thing. You can get order from disorder without violating any laws of nature.

Well then, tell me what laws of nature does abiogenesis act in compliance with.

Actually, the second law of thermodynamics is yet another problem that naturalism has to deal with and so far unreconciled.

And what made you think that?

The facts. But I need not get into this with you now. That is a conversation for another time.

Well, we can agree/disagree on that one.

That doesn't help advance the conversation at all, when you can't even tell me if you agree or disagree with me.

I disagree with you. Clear enough now?

Question: Science deals with "nature" (or what is "natural")...can science prove/disprove alleged supernatural phenomena? Yes or no.

No. The challenge remains unanswered: prove that consciousness ain't a physical property and its ultimate origins can't be explained by natural law.

I am thinking of an apple right now. How much does the mere "thought" weigh. How long is the thought? And what is its width?

Can you answer these questions with scientific experimentation?

There are no "but's".

Oh but there are "but's". Here is another: but that's more than enough as evidence for abiogenesis.

That is evidence that, even with intelligent design, you (generally speaking) ain't able to produce life from nonliving material.

That is the only thing that was "evident".

Now, how far you believe that they DID get to life (which is in itself debatable) is irrelevant.

That's moot since I wasn't telling you my beliefs.

Well, you weren't telling me "facts" either. So hey.

I can't, because you can't.

But I can and I can prove it.

That's ok.

I am looking at abiogenesis and macroevolution..and I see you are standing right next to it. Why?

Because it's backed by empirical evidence.

Sure it is..

Um, apparently it is hard to understand.

That's what I am here for, to explain it until you do understand: when you count, there is always one number higher, as such there is no highest number.

I agree..not sure how that helps your case..but I agree.

Even if you add another one, you are just pushing the problem one step higher. The fact will still remain, there can be no highest single/discrete integer in infinity. Point blank, period.

How is that a problem? It's just plain old infinity that most people understand just fine.

Sure, just plainnnn old infinity. No biggie.

But you just said that there is a highest number in infinity when you said "Highest so far.."

Incorrect. That does not follow. That there is a highest so far does not imply there is a highest number in an infinity series.

Actually, yes it does; because hypothetically speaking...if you were counting for an infinite amount of time ALL of the integers in the numbers set (an infinite amount), and you suddenly stopped counting...the totality of all of the numbers counted thus far will be an infinite amount, DESPITE it not being the highest number counted in the series.

You had said that there wasn't a "member".

Correction, I said "an infinite amount" isn't a member of an infinite past, that doesn't imply there aren't finite members in the infinite past.

LOL. Even that so called "correction" is incorrect.

SMH.

Unwarranted confidence.

You say that, but yet here we are, with me explaining math in simple language.

Cool. Lets make a deal; you keep explaining to me math in simple language, and I will keep explaining to you why your explanation is inaccurate.

Deal?

The point has already been made..

Oh, so it's already been addressed then. Do you have any other point?

No, because just because it was addressed doesn't mean it was refuted.

Makes no sense.

That's what I am here for, explain things until it make sense, even to high school children.

LOL.

I disagree.

Well won't help, you disagreeing with the answer doesn't make the question a loaded one.

But that is "moot", because I didn't call it a loaded question because I merely disagreed with it.

You just admitted that theoretically, there are an infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1 and 2. That IS the point.

That was the whole point? Well it's moot since days are discrete.

You can apply a decimal number to every day on the calendar, same thing.

Was there a point being made there?

Sure, you were wrong when you said it doesn't matter if days are discrete or continuous. It does matter.

I don't know the difference between discrete and continuous based on the context you are using it in.