SirJaredJammer #fundie

SirJaredJammer #fundie imdb.com

What do you atheists set it at, and how did you come to your conclusion?

My view is that no matter which way you slice it you can't explain nature with nature, therefor our universe's origins falls into the realm of supernatural. Considering the information behind nature's properties and the fact that life is made up of nano-machinery and a brilliant (perhaps even optimal) genetic code, I have very few doubts the supernatural origins of the universe is of an Intelligent nature.

Therefor my probability of God's existence would be very close to 1:1.

46 comments

old comment by Zabimaru

There's of course a lot of bullshit here. None of the things he said proves that there is anything supernatural. But what if it did?

Most people who talk like this do it because they think you should convert to (their version of) Christianity. Well, let's say he's right, let's say we KNOW that there is a supernatural, intelligent origin for everything.

Does this "there appears to be something that could be called a god" automatically equal "Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and you must accept him as your personal lord and savior"?

No. But a lot of people act like it does.

There MIGHT be a supernatural, intelligent entity out there. But there is no proof that it in that case would be any particular one.

old comment by Durane

Brilliant, yes. Optimal? Not even close. One would think that an omnipotent God would be able to create a perfect genetic code. If we're going to argue from irreducible complexity, the existence of imperfections in the system pretty much invalidates your position.

PS: For those crying "appendix," recent research supports the idea that the appendix is not vestigial as once thought, but instead is a part of the immune system: it's rich in lymphoid cells and is host to a huge amount of intestinal bactera that can both be used as a source of antigens to generate useful antibodies and as a reservoir to replenish gut flora after intense bowel movements such as acute diarrhea (I shit you not). Because developed societies are not exposed to as many diarrheal diseases, removal of the appendix can take place without any noticeable side effects. Interestingly, appendices are also regularly used to rebuild the urethral sphincter in cases where the bladder must be replaced or repaired, so even in developed countries they appear to actually be a minor evolutionary advantage now (albeit through pretty extraordinary circumstances). Of course there are other structures that do support the argument, since they really are vestigial (snake legs, etc.)
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing.

old comment by

...

Wrong at every fucking turn.

"no matter which way you slice it you can't explain nature with nature"

Why not? We can explain LOTS of shit in nature with nature. Just because we haven't gotten The Big Questions all answered to your satisfaction yet doesn't mean it can't or won't be done. There is no logical reason why we can't explain the cause of the Big Bang. We already have several hypotheses, but we can't test them yet. The LHC is actually going to answer a lot of questions in that regard.

"Considering the information behind nature's properties"

This thought is meaningless. What the fuck are you trying to say?

"and the fact that life is made up of nano-machinery"

So... your argument is that the fact that large systems are made up of smaller systems is somehow proof of a designer? Bullshit. That's a logical fallacy.

"and a brilliant (perhaps even optimal) genetic code"

Ditto my last comment, except this quote betrays your, frankly, appalling ignorance. DNA is neither brilliant nor optimal. It is ridiculously error-prone, clumsy, and most of it is "junk"-- that is, completely useless, ancient and depreciated, or duplicates of other pieces which are never used, among other shit. Humans have already developed far more intelligent and optimal systems for storing data. Your computer is proof. We're even experimenting with numerous types of artificial "DNA".

EDIT:
"Therefor my probability of God's existence would be very close to 1:1."

And where the fuck did that number come from, might I ask? How was that calculated, exactly? Oh, right, you pulled it out your ass. Well, by my calculations, the Christian God is impossible. If you'd like, I can go into a multi-page rant about how it makes no rational sense whatsoever.

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

Sigh. The human body (and life in general) is quite amazing from an evolutionary standpoint, but when you look at it from a design standpoint you'll notice just how inefficient it really is.

Male nipples, the entire reproductive system of both sexes, a trachea that attaches to the esophagus which makes it incredibly easy to choke on food and inhale dangerous agents, organs like the appendix which cause more harm than good (and before you argue against that, please explain why I got appendicitis as a child and am still alive and well after having it removed), tailbones, eyes that are wired backwards, brains that often misinterpret data and produce false images/sounds/etc., all genetic illnesses (like muscular dystrophy, which, by the way, a very good friend of mine is suffering from), CANCER (the result of cells going haywire), autoimmune diseases, mental illness, allergies, etc.

If we were designed, explain all of the above. And don't just say "It's god's will". WHY is it god's will?

old comment by

Are you suggesting that just because we can't yet explain something that your "god", out of the thousands and thousands of gods postulated by humans, just happens to be the "one true god"?

Damn, why didn't we just throw up out hands and say "We don't know, therefore mygodmustadoneit!" back when we couldn't explain fire, lightning, or disease? Why did we have to put forth all the effort to understand science, medicine, technology, or any of the thousands of things that have improved the human condition? It would be much more fun cowering in fear of eclipses, scratching messages on rocks, using leeches and drilling holes in heads to cure sicknesses, living in caves and shitting in the woods, don't you think?

“My view is that no matter which way you slice it you can't explain nature with nature,”
What is the basis of this view?
No one in science has ever come to the end of science and decided the only way to continue research was by adding magic. At least no one who could support this conclusion through peer review.
Every time they’ve come to the end of science, they’ve come back later and looked again, often with success.
The guy who proposed ocean currents based on ‘the paths of the sea’ or whatver that bible verse was, couldn’t get any support until he went out and actually collected scientific evidence.
Trumps superstition every time.
NO widely accepted science theory depends on the existence of magic to explain difficulties in natural observations.
So this isn’t a scientific conclusion, it’s just made-up bullshit for an agenda.

“therefor”
Can’t support good conclusions on a false premise.

"…and a brilliant (perhaps even optimal) genetic code,”
Harlequin babies. Shut the fuck up.

“ I have very few doubts the supernatural origins of the universe is of an Intelligent nature.”
This is the dis-science nature of creationism.. You want God to be a valid conclusion, so you work backwards from there to your hypothesis. It’s dishonest.

“Therefor my probability of God's existence would be very close to 1:1.”
How many alternatives did you consider and how did you dismiss them?
How is it 1:1 for Jehovah, and not 50/50 for Jehovah/Ptah?

SirJaredJammer #fundie imdb.com

46 comments

Confused?