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]

But the intelligent designer is the driving force behind the entire process.

That does not change the fact that the process produced life from non living material. You have presented a red herring.

It isn't a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what you can prove..

You say that and yet there you are responding with your "I disagree."

So, you wasted my time with the "here are the natural laws" thing; is what I am trying to say.

But you were the one who asked me to give you the "here are the natural laws" thing. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Please post the link of the thread...and you will see.

Here is one: Does the second law of thermodynamics refute evolution?

Wait a minute, you can't prove abiogenesis with the laws (to confirm it)...yet you still conclude that this doesn't mean that abiogenesis is currently unverified?

No, and I have no idea where you got that idea from as I've not said anything of the sort. Either way, you claimed that there are no natural laws tending towards the creation of life boils down to that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified at the current moment. You are wrong.

Brain activity may be measured, but I am talking about the mere thoughts..the specific thoughts.

Right, brain activity is how thoughts are measured.

We = intelligent designers.

Right, we, intelligent designers have made living cells from non-living material.

Anything beyond proof that abiogenesis is a natural fact is irrelevant.

Incorrect. Proof that I can count down from all integers to zero, all infinitely many of them, is not irrelevant as it directly refute your claim that it is impossible.

No, I don't.

Well that's what the post history is for, least you forget.

Then you are having a reading comprehension issue. Can't help ya there, old buddy.

But I can help you understand that there isn't a highest number in an infinity series.

Well, if I don't remember or I disagree..

... Then you haven't addressed the rebuttal.

LOL.

While you are here, could you stop these pointless comments too?

On an infinite calendar, for any day to "arrive", a previous infinite amount of days would have to be traversed.

Right, what of it? Are you still under the impression that such a thing is impossible?

Now, the fact that you can't quite grasp this reality is not a strike on me, but on you.

That's not a fact at all. I have no idea why you thought something so simple is beyond my grasp. Thinking I couldn't grasp that is a strike on you, and yet another example of you being corrected by me.

I've been the corrector, you've been the correctEE.

The facts says otherwise.

All of that is independent as to whether or not an infinite amount can be traversed to arrive a finite amount.

Right, but it does prove you wrong when you said whether a series is discete or continious was not important.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That does not change the fact that the process produced life from non living material. You have presented a red herring.

The process involving living material (intelligent designer). Like I said; when you can get the process to produce living material with no intelligent designer, then we are cooking.

I am a intelligent design theorist/advocate...and all you've done is prove my point; it has only happened with an intelligent designer in the car seat.

It isn't a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what you can prove..

You say that and yet there you are responding with your "I disagree."

Because I disagree with the notion that you can/have proved anything.

So, you wasted my time with the "here are the natural laws" thing; is what I am trying to say.

But you were the one who asked me to give you the "here are the natural laws" thing. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Yeah, but if you can't use those laws to get the desire result (life from nonlife), then you've wasted my time.

Please post the link of the thread...and you will see.

Here is one: Does the second law of thermodynamics refute evolution?

Gotcha.

No, and I have no idea where you got that idea from as I've not said anything of the sort.

That's what some "post history" is for. Sounds familiar, eh?

Either way, you claimed that there are no natural laws tending towards the creation of life boils down to that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified at the current moment. You are wrong.

You already admitted that abiogenesis is unproven via science. All of the other stuff is jibber jabber and in red herring territory.

Brain activity may be measured, but I am talking about the mere thoughts..the specific thoughts.

Right, brain activity is how thoughts are measured.

Ok, so how much does my thought of an apple weigh? How tall is it? What color is it?

We = intelligent designers.

Right, we, intelligent designers have made living cells from non-living material.

First of all, I don't for one minute grant the idea that we made living cells from nonliving material, so don't get it twisted.

But what I am saying is; even if we DID..again; your "religion" is that life originated NATURALLY from nonliving material with NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So proving that life came from nonliving (via intelligent design) is NOT that same animal as your religion.

False equivalency.

Anything beyond proof that abiogenesis is a natural fact is irrelevant.

Incorrect. Proof that I can count down from all integers to zero, all infinitely many of them, is not irrelevant as it directly refute your claim that it is impossible.

Again, so let me know when you've successfully counted ALL integers in the infinite numbers set.

Then you are having a reading comprehension issue. Can't help ya there, old buddy.

But I can help you understand that there isn't a highest number in an infinity series.

But you didn't, as my original response to that has been unaddressed/unrefuted by you.

Well, if I don't remember or I disagree..

... Then you haven't addressed the rebuttal.

I'm pretty sure I did. You haven't said anything that scares me yet.

LOL.

While you are here, could you stop these pointless comments too?

Well, at this point, Im just having fun with you now, amigo.

On an infinite calendar, for any day to "arrive", a previous infinite amount of days would have to be traversed.

Right, what of it? Are you still under the impression that such a thing is impossible?

I am more than under the impression. It is more like me being behind the actual factual.

Now, the fact that you can't quite grasp this reality is not a strike on me, but on you.

That's not a fact at all. I have no idea why you thought something so simple is beyond my grasp. Thinking I couldn't grasp that is a strike on you, and yet another example of you being corrected by me.

LOL. I challenge you to an audio and/or video debate on this very subject, and we can post it to this great forum for all to see. Now you see how real I am with mines?

All of that is independent as to whether or not an infinite amount can be traversed to arrive a finite amount.

Right, but it does prove you wrong when you said whether a series is discete or continious was not important.

Accept the debate challenge and bring all of that smoke there.

[Bust Nak]

The process involving living material (intelligent designer).

Sure but that's the same red herring as before, since the process produced living cells from non living material.

Like I said; when you can get the process to produce living material with no intelligent designer, then we are cooking.

But we are cooking now.

I am a intelligent design theorist/advocate...and all you've done is prove my point; it has only happened with an intelligent designer in the car seat.

That doesn't prove your point any more than freezing water into ice proves winter only happens with an intelligent designer.

Because I disagree with the notion that you can/have proved anything.

But you just told me isn't a matter of what you think, it is a matter of what I can prove, and here you are telling me what you thing, again.

Yeah, but if you can't use those laws to get the desire result (life from nonlife), then you've wasted my time.

But we can.

That's what some "post history" is for. Sounds familiar, eh?

Well that doesn't help since the post history shows that I've said nothing of the sort.

You already admitted that abiogenesis is unproven via science. All of the other stuff is jibber jabber and in red herring territory.

Not so when you've made endless claims other than abiogenesis is unproven via science.

Ok, so how much does my thought of an apple weigh? How tall is it? What color is it?

Your questions is the result of a categorical error. Thought of an apple does not have a weight, a height nor a color.

First of all, I don't for one minute grant the idea that we made living cells from nonliving material, so don't get it twisted.

Well that's not debatable, you might quibble over whether it's counts as "creation" or not; you might quibble over whether it's "from scratch" or not; but the end result is a living cell from non-living material.

But what I am saying is; even if we DID..again; your "religion" is that life originated NATURALLY from nonliving material with NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So proving that life came from nonliving (via intelligent design) is NOT that same animal as your religion.

Word usage aside, sure, which is why I have affirmed over and over again, abiogenesis is not scientifically verified.

Again, so let me know when you've successfully counted ALL integers in the infinite numbers set.

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

But you didn't, as my original response to that has been unaddressed/unrefuted by you.

Incorrect, the post history shows otherwise. I addressed every point you raised, and even addressed some of non-points re: "can't remember" or "lol."

I'm pretty sure I did.

That's not very reassuring when you don't even remember what was said.

You haven't said anything that scares me yet.

And that's quite scary to me, because you should have been long shamed into silence by now.

Well, at this point, Im just having fun with you now, amigo.

That much was clear from the start, but I do wish you'd put more effort into this.

I am more than under the impression. It is more like me being behind the actual factual.

Like that but not actually that, got it.

LOL. I challenge you to an audio and/or video debate on this very subject, and we can post it to this great forum for all to see.

Nah, I pass. I perfer text as I can go over our words over at my own pace.

Now you see how real I am with mines?

What can you do in audio and/or video, that you can't do in text?

Accept the debate challenge and bring all of that smoke there.

Challenge declined.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sure but that's the same red herring as before, since the process produced living cells from non living material.

Did the process "produce" these "living cells" (hypothethically) without an intelligent designer...nope.

So therefore, false equivalency..since we are comparing to your religion (naturalism), which is that life originated with NO intelligent design.

I won't keep going back and forth with you on this. You can have the last word in this regard.

I will take the W and keep it moving.

I am a intelligent design theorist/advocate...and all you've done is prove my point; it has only happened with an intelligent designer in the car seat.

That doesn't prove your point any more than freezing water into ice proves winter only happens with an intelligent designer.

Well, since all things which physically exist owes its existence to the Creator, then I guess it does prove my point.

Because I disagree with the notion that you can/have proved anything.

But you just told me isn't a matter of what you think, it is a matter of what I can prove, and here you are telling me what you thing, again.

No, because I don't disagree with you based on what I think; I disagree with you based on what I know.

Nice try, though.

Ok, so how much does my thought of an apple weigh? How tall is it? What color is it?

Your questions is the result of a categorical error. Thought of an apple does not have a weight, a height nor a color.

Um, that was my point; remember?

First of all, I don't for one minute grant the idea that we made living cells from nonliving material, so don't get it twisted.

Well that's not debatable, you might quibble over whether it's counts as "creation" or not; you might quibble over whether it's "from scratch" or not; but the end result is a living cell from non-living material.

Can you get this "living" cell from "non-living" material without intelligent design?

Word usage aside, sure, which is why I have affirmed over and over again, abiogenesis is not scientifically verified.

Oh, thanks for reminding me how irrelevant the entire discussion became after you admitting that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified.

Again, so let me know when you've successfully counted ALL integers in the infinite numbers set.

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.

But you didn't, as my original response to that has been unaddressed/unrefuted by you.

Incorrect, the post history shows otherwise. I addressed every point you raised, and even addressed some of non-points re: "can't remember" or "lol."

Still don't know the difference between "addressed", and "refuted", eh?

I'm pretty sure I did.

That's not very reassuring when you don't even remember what was said.

Depends on what piece of the correspondence we are talking about.

You haven't said anything that scares me yet.

And that's quite scary to me, because you should have been long shamed into silence by now.

I meant YOU haven't said anything that scare me yet.

Well, at this point, Im just having fun with you now, amigo.

That much was clear from the start, but I do wish you'd put more effort into this.

If I am doing this well without effort, imagine if I put a little bounce to it.

LOL. I challenge you to an audio and/or video debate on this very subject, and we can post it to this great forum for all to see.

Nah, I pass. I perfer text as I can go over our words over at my own pace.

You can do the same via audio/video..it is called "listening/comprehending". Can you do that?

Now you see how real I am with mines?

What can you do in audio and/or video, that you can't do in text?

A lot.

Accept the debate challenge and bring all of that smoke there.

Challenge declined.

That's what I thought.

[Bust Nak]

Did the process "produce" these "living cells" (hypothethically) without an intelligent designer...nope.

Did the process produce these "living cells" with non-living material? Unequivocally yes. Therefore the analogy holds.

Well, since all things which physically exist owes its existence to the Creator, then I guess it does prove my point.

The premise that all things which physically exist owes its existence to the Creator needs to be demonstrated.

No, because I don't disagree with you based on what I think; I disagree with you based on what I know.

You are telling me your opinion again, quit it.

Um, that was my point; remember?

Your point was that you made categorical error? Okay, could you please stop?

Can you get this "living" cell from "non-living" material without intelligent design?

No.

Oh, thanks for reminding me how irrelevant the entire discussion became after you admitting that abiogenesis is scientifically unverified.

If that was your only point then you are to blame for brining all these "irrelevant" stuff up.

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

Easy enough:

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.

Ready to retract your statement?

Still don't know the difference between "addressed", and "refuted", eh?

Hey you were the one who stuck unaddressed/refuted together. More to the point having a proof that I can count down from all the integers to zero handily refute your claims.

Depends on what piece of the correspondence we are talking about.

That doesn't help since that's exactly what lead up to this point in the first place: you didn't remember what piece of the correspondence we are talking about.

I meant YOU haven't said anything that scare me yet.

Yes, and I meant that is scary to me.

If I am doing this well without effort, imagine if I put a little bounce to it.

I am having great difficulty imagining that.

You can do the same via audio/video..it is called "listening/comprehending". Can you do that?

Nah, not the same thing as that requires doing it in real time.

A lot.

Presumable by that you meant to shout me down and interrupt what I am saying? All the more reason to reject a live debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, since all things which physically exist owes its existence to the Creator, then I guess it does prove my point.

The premise that all things which physically exist owes its existence to the Creator needs to be demonstrated.

Been there, done that.

You are telling me your opinion again, quit it.

"I know".

Um, that was my point; remember?

Your point was that you made categorical error? Okay, could you please stop?

Selective quoting. Please quote the entirety of what I said next time, and respond in context to what was said.

Can you get this "living" cell from "non-living" material without intelligent design?

No.

There we go.

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

Ready to retract your statement?

Did you count the numbers yet? No. That was the challenge. Statement unretracted.

Hey you were the one who stuck unaddressed/refuted together. More to the point having a proof that I can count down from all the integers to zero handily refute your claims.

Makes no sense.

Depends on what piece of the correspondence we are talking about.

That doesn't help since that's exactly what lead up to this point in the first place: you didn't remember what piece of the correspondence we are talking about.

I remembered when I said it.

I meant YOU haven't said anything that scare me yet.

Yes, and I meant that is scary to me.

Makes no sense.

You can do the same via audio/video..it is called "listening/comprehending". Can you do that?

Nah, not the same thing as that requires doing it in real time.

Real time is the way to go.

A lot.

Presumable by that you meant to shout me down and interrupt what I am saying? All the more reason to reject a live debate.

Unwarranted presumption.

[Bust Nak]

Been there, done that.

It seems you are a rather low threshold for demonstration; and an inconsistent one to boot, given your rejection of evolution.

"I know".

That's still your opinion.

Selective quoting. Please quote the entirety of what I said next time, and respond in context to what was said.

Incorrect. Post history would show that, I quoted the entirety of what you said.

There we go.

You say that like I've ever disputed that.

Did you count the numbers yet?

Yes. All of them.

That was the challenge. Statement unretracted.

You said, and I quote: "If you can show me where I granted you this, I will retract my statement." I did exactly that, shown you where you have granted me the same condition as an eternal past, yet you are not retracting. Not entirely unexpected, but still disappointing.

Makes no sense.

What part of having a proof that you are wrong means you were refuted, doesn't make sense to you.

I remembered when I said it.

Well I should hope so, but that's still doesn't help when you don't remember a couple of days later, and you don't take the time to refresh your memory by checking the post history.

Makes no sense.

I am afraid of irrational people.

Real time is the way to go.

Preference noted, but you are still wrong when you said I can still take my time in a real time debate.

Unwarranted presumption.

No so, I've seen many instances of what face to face debate with theists degrade to. You want to change my presumption, tell me what else you can do in real time that that you cannot do off line.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It seems you are a rather low threshold for demonstration; and an inconsistent one to boot, given your rejection of evolution.

Evolution? What is that? Ohh, you mean that unscientific theory that the animals of yesterday were able to do stuff that the animals of today have never been observed doing?

Oh yeah, that. I do reject that.

"I know".

That's still your opinion.

Question; do you think/believe that God doesn't exist? Or do you KNOW that God doesn't exist?

Well, either way, doesn't matter...because it will just be your opinion.

Selective quoting. Please quote the entirety of what I said next time, and respond in context to what was said.

Incorrect. Post history would show that, I quoted the entirety of what you said.

Nonsense.

Did you count the numbers yet?

Yes. All of them.

Nonsense.

That was the challenge. Statement unretracted.

You said, and I quote: "If you can show me where I granted you this, I will retract my statement." I did exactly that, shown you where you have granted me the same condition as an eternal past, yet you are not retracting. Not entirely unexpected, but still disappointing.

Did you not see the part about the challenge of you regarding the counting ALL of the integers in the numbers set?

Makes no sense.

What part of having a proof that you are wrong means you were refuted, doesn't make sense to you.

Well, I guess it is just your opinion.

I remembered when I said it.

Well I should hope so, but that's still doesn't help when you don't remember a couple of days later, and you don't take the time to refresh your memory by checking the post history.

Rule #1 when debating Bust Nak on a message forum: Never check post history. It will get you nowhere.

Makes no sense.

I am afraid of irrational people.

LOL. Gotcha.

Real time is the way to go.

Preference noted, but you are still wrong when you said I can still take my time in a real time debate.

Define "take my time".

Unwarranted presumption.

No so, I've seen many instances of what face to face debate with theists degrade to. You want to change my presumption, tell me what else you can do in real time that that you cannot do off line.

Answer: Verbally articulate my points. Good enough?

[Bust Nak]

Evolution? What is that? Ohh, you mean that unscientific theory that the animals of yesterday were able to do stuff that the animals of today have never been observed doing?

No, I meant the scientific theory that is backed by 150 years worth of empirical evidence, the theory that is the cornerstone of biology, without which, nothing would make sense.

Question; do you think/believe that God doesn't exist? Or do you KNOW that God doesn't exist?

I think/believe God does not exist.

Well, either way, doesn't matter...because it will just be your opinion.

Right, but I am not the one bringing my opinion up as if it's a fact or knowledge, you are.

Nonsense.

Go on, check the post history, affirm for yourself, that I've quoted you in full.

Nonsense.

I understand you don't want to pay up but calling it nonsense doesn't help.

Did you not see the part about the challenge of you regarding the counting ALL of the integers in the numbers set?

Sure, and that's makes it okay for you to go back on your words, how? You said you would retract and now you won't.

Well, I guess it is just your opinion.

You could guess that, but you'd be wrong.

Rule #1 when debating Bust Nak on a message forum: Never check post history. It will get you nowhere.

That's because post history always side with Bust Nak. Why would any one take you seriously with a rule like that?

Define "take my time".

Go slowly in a leisurely fashion.

Answer: Verbally articulate my points. Good enough?

No, not at all. What are you, a Bene Gesserit? Why would verbally articulating your point improve your arguments?

[For_The_Kingdom]

No, I meant the scientific theory that is backed by 150 years worth of empirical evidence

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.

Anything outside of this defies science.

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

Makes sense to me.

Question; do you think/believe that God doesn't exist? Or do you KNOW that God doesn't exist?

I think/believe God does not exist.

Oh, so it is your opinion. Gotcha.

Well, either way, doesn't matter...because it will just be your opinion.

Right, but I am not the one bringing my opinion up as if it's a fact or knowledge, you are.

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.

Did you not see the part about the challenge of you regarding the counting ALL of the integers in the numbers set?

Sure, and that's makes it okay for you to go back on your words, how? You said you would retract and now you won't.

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

Define "take my time".

Go slowly in a leisurely fashion.

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

Answer: Verbally articulate my points. Good enough?

No, not at all. What are you, a Bene Gesserit? Why would verbally articulating your point improve your arguments?

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