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?

[Bust Nak]

When was the book of Genesis written? About 3,000 years ago? That is how long its been since the author of the book (Moses) wrote the words that God spoke, "they (animals) will bring forth after their kind".

So in other words; that is "3,000 years worth" of observational evidence of dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish.

Which ironically, backs up evolution nicely.

Makes sense to me.

But that doesn't say much, coming form someone who couldn't make sense of the fact that there is always a finite gap between each pair of integers, in an infinite set of integers.

Oh, so it is your opinion. Gotcha.

Glad we got this sorted out, eh?

You are right...moving along..............wait a minute, didn't you just say..

"...evolution; the theory that is the cornerstone of biology, without which, nothing would make sense."

Sounds like you are presenting this "opinion" based upon facts/knowledge to me.

Nah, that's just plain old fact. But I take heart in seeing that you at least acknowledge even as an opinion, it's based upon facts and knowledge; which is quite the step up as presenting opinion as facts and knowledge like you were doing.

The requirements weren't met, neither for my retraction or for your moolah.

Incorrect. The record says otherwise, the requirements for your retraction has absolutely been met. The requirements were, and I quote:

I finished last week, after you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past - having never started but always been counting.

If you can show me where I granted you this, I will retract my statement.

Fulfilment of said requirement, can be found right here:

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.

As for the requirements for my moolah, well, that's less clear cut so I'll give you another chance to falsify my claim, that given the same condition as an eternal past, I can and have counted down, through all the positive integers and arrived at zero, you can do that simply by naming a number that I haven't counted. If you can't then it's time to pay up.

The sweet spot will be somewhere in between slow and fast.

Like the speed we are going at right now?

Did I say/imply that verbally articulating my points would improve my arguments?

Well you tell me, because that's what I asked you about and that was the answer you gave me. So, again, why would that improve your arguments? And if it won't improvement arguments, why did you bring it up as a feature that would put live debate above and over an text based one?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Which ironically, backs up evolution nicely.

Macroevolution fails the "eye ball" test.

Makes sense to me.

But that doesn't say much, coming form someone who couldn't make sense of the fact that there is always a finite gap between each pair of integers, in an infinite set of integers.

Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

Nah, that's just plain old fact. But I take heart in seeing that you at least acknowledge even as an opinion, it's based upon facts and knowledge; which is quite the step up as presenting opinion as facts and knowledge like you were doing.

Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

The requirements weren't met, neither for my retraction or for your moolah.

Incorrect. The record says otherwise, the requirements for your retraction has absolutely been met. The requirements were, and I quote:

I finished last week, after you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past - having never started but always been counting.

If you can show me where I granted you this, I will retract my statement.

Fulfilment of said requirement, can be found right here:

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.

The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

As for the requirements for my moolah, well, that's less clear cut so I'll give you another chance to falsify my claim, that given the same condition as an eternal past, I can and have counted down, through all the positive integers and arrived at zero, you can do that simply by naming a number that I haven't counted. If you can't then it's time to pay up.

We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

The sweet spot will be somewhere in between slow and fast.

Like the speed we are going at right now?

I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Did I say/imply that verbally articulating my points would improve my arguments?

Well you tell me

No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

, because that's what I asked you about and that was the answer you gave me. So, again, why would that improve your arguments? And if it won't improvement arguments, why did you bring it up as a feature that would put live debate above and over an text based one?

Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

[Bust Nak]

Macroevolution fails the "eye ball" test.

Whose eye ball? You think your opinion can settle the matter?

Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

I've already finished.

Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

Yes one is a regular fact, the other is a science labelled as opinion.

The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

But it does have something to do with the fact that the requirements for your retraction has been met?

We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

Or we can discuss this right here?

I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Not really, no. What's so good about verbal aspect? It just make things all the more difficult to track. I can't just scroll up and have the post history right in front of me.

No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

I am going with no then, given your response here.

Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

Well you do selective read things a lot.

And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

You don't need a/v for that, just share the link to this thread.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Whose eye ball? You think your opinion can settle the matter?

Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird? Did your eyeballs witness this alleged natural phenomena? Nope. Neither have mines. So to answer your question: Both of ours.

Still waiting on you to count those infinite amount of integers in the set.

I've already finished.

Disingenuous.

Fact: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish
Opinion: Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago

You do understand the difference between the two, right?

Yes one is a regular fact, the other is a science labelled as opinion.

Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion. Gotcha.

Makes my job a whole lot easier.

The problem is; I don't see anything about you "counting" there. Yet, that was clearly the challenge.

But it does have something to do with the fact that the requirements for your retraction has been met?

I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

We can discuss this and a lot more if you accept my challenge to an A/V debate on these subjects.

Or we can discuss this right here?

Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

I thought my point was that the "verbal" aspect is what is lacking on here. Or did you not understand?

Not really, no. What's so good about verbal aspect? It just make things all the more difficult to track. I can't just scroll up and have the post history right in front of me.

You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

No, you tell ME. You are the "post history" and "you said X" guru. So tell me, did say or imply what you said I did?

I am going with no then, given your response here.

Actually, you asked challenged me to "tell you what else can I do in real time that I cannot do offline"

Maybe I selectively read this, but I took that to mean "what can you do offline that you can't do online".

Well you do selective read things a lot.

Its all gravy baby.

And my response was; VERBALLY ARTICULATE MY POINTS. If that was the wrong interpretation, I will take that hit. But the bottom line is; that is what I aspire to do in the A/V format, which can be shared with others on this great forum.

You don't need a/v for that, just share the link to this thread.

Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

[Bust Nak]

Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

No, but I saw empirical evidence for it.

Disingenuous.

So says the guy would not pay up after losing a bet.

Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion.

No, just labelled as one.

I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

That's where the post history comes in. Your agreement or lack there of is irrelevant.

Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

Right you are, and in particular, naming me a number I haven't counted.

You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

But that's harder than scrolling up.

Its all gravy baby.

That's because you aren't taking this very seriously.

Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

Verbal is better because it is verbal was the whole idea? Well it's not a very well justified idea.

[William]

[Replying to post 106 by marco]

I suppose that means for the purposes of this argument we're not allowed to have an infinite regression because we need God to have started things somewhere (as seen primitively).

ALL ideas about beginnings are speculation. The unscientific one is the theory that a big intelligent being made it all, and we don't know who made him. He always was. This is the "build your own god" theory, favoured by our primitive ancestors who heard thunder as the voice of God.

The problem I see in the 'problem of IR' is that those who argue for IR, do so in an attempt to show that GOD has to fit in with their belief in this argument.

The argument of IR goes "If a GOD is required to create beginnings, then what created that GODs beginning...another GOD? - And what created that GODs beginning? Another GOD ...thus 'the problem of IR'.

The argument is faulty, and that is the only reason why it is 'a problem' for those who argue it.

The solution to the IR 'problem' is plainly that GOD never had a beginning. The existence of beginnings do not create the so-called - 'problem of IR'.

That the solution is so simply 'primitive cavemen' invented it, even before it was fashioned into a 'problem' with those who have a problem with comprehending the idea that GOD is not created but has always existed (and that creation naturally requires a beginning) the argument for IR simply stems from the idea/belief that 'everything has to have a beginning but not necessarily a cause', especially when the cause is 'A being who has always existed.'

♦ Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds. Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Whose eyeball? Opinion? Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

No, but I saw empirical evidence for it.

I didn't.

Disingenuous.

So says the guy would not pay up after losing a bet.

More disingenuousness.

Oh, so you admit that reptiles evolving into birds some x-million years ago is an opinion.

No, just labelled as one.

Wrong is wrong...whether label, unlabeled, mislabeled, etc.

I don't agree with the premise that the requirements were met.

That's where the post history comes in. Your agreement or lack there of is irrelevant.

Post history? Rule #1 when debating with Bust Nak..

Discuss it here? What does that mean? Ohh, you mean continue doing what we've been doing. Gotcha.

Right you are, and in particular, naming me a number I haven't counted.

Start counting first.

You can also rewind the footage and look up the history that way as well. The extra work might do you some good.

But that's harder than scrolling up.

And typing word after word on a keyboard is harder than verbally speaking my points.

Its all gravy baby.

That's because you aren't taking this very seriously.

Yet, I am the one with the unaccepted challenge of the A/V debate.

Sure, I can do that. But that wouldn't be verbal, would it? I could of swore that that was the whole idea.

Verbal is better because it is verbal was the whole idea? Well it's not a very well justified idea.

Reading comprehension..failure.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds.

"Over millions of generations" <---you've just left science right there.

Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?

I haven't looked into all of that. But if I do, I would expect actual SCIENTIFIC evidence to support whatever claim is being made. If I don't get it, then I will cast "mountain erosion" into the same pile of unscientific junk that I cast evolution in.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 173 by For_The_Kingdom]

Have you ever saw a reptile evolve into a bird?

It helps to understand the principle you are trying to criticise. A reptile did not evolve into a bird. A more appropriate way of summarising it is to say that populations of organisms identifiable as reptiles incorporated gradual changes over millions of generations until we have populations of organisms that are recognisably birds. Do you need to "eyeball" a mountain eroding in order to accept that it actually happened by the processes we understand to have caused it?

This has been explained ad naseum to FTK in the past. Apparently if FTK hasn't seen it, it didn't happen. Well, until FTK's favorite Bible stories get mentioned. Then apparently it only takes faith.

FTK has already been told that ancient reptiles evolved into today's birds and today's birds are technically whatever species these ancient reptiles were with some brand new labels.

This is the usual misunderstandings of taxonomy and evolution. I imagine origins of life will soon be brought up and then a request for a live chat as this will somehow clear things up.

As usual, many straw men were harmed in the process.