Jagella wrote:
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.

Wait a minute, humans "created" math? News to me.

Jagella wrote:
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."

Bruh, there are only two games in town..either..

1. Nature created the event by random chance

2. Intelligence created the event by...intelligence

If 1 is ruled out, then yeah..."God musta done it".

Jagella wrote:
Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero.

Right, and with the same token, the only probability that rules out the existence of God is if the existence of God has a probability of zero.

See what I did there?

Jagella wrote:
Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Let me see if I can break it down for you; You see, atheists always want to make it seem as if when apologists talk about the improbability of life (or whatever) existing without God is similar to other improbable events in nature, such as winning the lottery, or as you put it; the conception of any of us.

Well yeah, true...someone has to win the lottery, right? Regardless of how improbable it is. However, for the atheistic side of things, the improbability of the universe/life existing is even MORE improbable than the odds of a person winning the lottery.

Again, let me break it down for you; suppose every single person in the USA played the lottery. Now, since Afro-Americans are a minority, the chances of an Afro-American winning the lottery is considerable low compared to any other ethnicity, right? (not necessarily, but follow me here).

But wait, there is more; suppose by some unknown fate that the person that wins the lottery will have to be an Afro-American who has the occupation of a lawyer. The probability of an Afro-American winning the lottery has gotten lower.

But wait, there is more; suppose by some unknown fate that the person that wins the lottery will have to be an Afro-American who has the occupation of a lawyer, that lives on the West Coast. Well, the probability of an Afro-American winning the lottery has gotten even lower.

But wait, there is more; suppose by some unknown fate that the person that wins the lottery will have to be an Afro-American who has the occupation of a lawyer, lives on the West coast, and is under 5'8 in height. Well, the probability of an Afro-American winning the lottery has gotten even lower.

So, it is already improbable for an Afro-American to win the lottery, generally speaking..but it is even MORE improbable for an Afro-American to win the lottery based on those other specified parameters.

It is the improbability of an Afro-American winning the lottery in general, PLUS the improbability of an Afro-American meeting those other "improbable" parameters...which means that improbability+improbability+improbability+improbability=

**improbability**.

Hell, the probability of a Caucasian winning the lottery would even drop under those specified parameters.

And btw, work as already been done to demonstrate the improbability of our universe being life permitting by random chance alone...and the number as it relates to the improbability of it occurring is so incomprehensible, that to think that we are here based on random chance alone is to actually believe in a miracle.

You may as well just say "Goddidit" at that point.

Jagella wrote:
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.

What do you mean "if"? Not only

**can** we say the

*probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance*...but we DO say it.

Jagella wrote:
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.

LOL ok, so here is your task...I want you to count

**DOWN** from ALL of the negative numbers, in numerical order...and let me know when you've successfully counted all of the numbers in the negative set of infinite numbers leading to zero on the numbers line.

Go ahead. I will wait. But long story short; if you can't successfully count all of the negative numbers on the infinite set to arrive at zero on the numbers line...then how in the heck can you successfully traverse all of the days on a past-eternal timeline and arrive at the present day?

Can't be done. This is an inescapable problem for atheists...and no amount of science can help you. No amount of mathematical equations can help you...and no amount of philosophical thought can help you.

It is the GESTAPO for atheists.

Jagella wrote:
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?

So only atheists are good mathematicians, and they never deceive people?