Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[michaelm]

It is not irrational to reject unnecessary concepts for which there is zero evidence. We do not have to withhold judgment on a concept just because someone can imagine that it's possible. As David Deutsch pointed out, existence of entities can be decided in as much as they feature in good explanations. God explains nothing.

The problem is (and there are examples of it throughout this thread) that believers will argue that there IS evidence, yet won't subject it to accepted scientific scrutiny then reject it if it fails the test.

The other approach is of course to simply say that evidence isn't required. Which is strange, as god is invoked in the first place to answer questions that can't fully be explained by investigation.

[SoulBiter]

Well lets take Dondarion's example for instance.

For that family, the chain of events being so improbably, cemented their belief in God.

How would you prove that God doesnt exist in that moment for them? The event itself happened. You can throw probabilities around all you want, but the fact that one thing is more probable than another doesnt disprove that an improbable event happened or that it isnt the work of God.

It is highly improbable that life exists due to the sheer math involved in a group of cells combining in such a way as to create intellegent life as we know it combined with the sheer math of probabilities of the earth existing in such a way as to make life of this sort possible. The math is off the scale. So far off that you have a better chance of walking out to the parking lot, sitting down and having a porcelean toilet bowl appear directly in front of you. The scientific answer to that is a few versions of an anthropic principle that some say that no matter how improbable life existing today is, the very fact that we exist shouldnt be a surprise to us since we are here to observe it.

[Dondarion]

"Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" (John 9:25).

Regardless of what we think we can prove or not prove for certain, these kinds of events take place, and they are just as real. Scientific cosmology is not disregarded by the church in this day and age. But, as Soul Biter suggests, for our particular circumstance to have come about by mere chance would boggle the human mind to the point of disbelief entirely (if we were some other species in some other universe trying to imagine such a scenario). The chances could not be measured (certainly more than the probability of pulling a royal flush or hitting the lottery ), and therefore it would not be believed....and yet here we are.

And speaking of coincidence vs. God-incidence, and maybe just because I have been so immersed in all this lately (perhaps to the expense of some other responsibilities), I have another quick story:

A couple years ago, I was helping in the food pantry at church, and delivered a package to an older woman I never met. As I was leaving her home, she said in a weak voice..."pray for me". I stopped, went back, and we chatted, and I asked if she wanted to come to church on Sunday, and she did, but needed a ride. And so we started to take her, and she met people, and she sang in the choir. She suffers from cancer of the esophagus, and must tube feed herself every day. She is all of about 90 pounds and very frail. Her family life is horrible, kids have nothing to do with her, husband was abusive. Wow! I was overwhelmed and over my head. But others pitched in, and she became a familiar face at church, until one day she stopped calling and returning messages (I think because my dad and I went into her house one day over a washing machine problem, she might have been embarrassed by her home's condition). After learning she was physically okay, we kind of stopped trying after awhile and it's been over a year and a half.

Well today, my wife and I go shopping at the Mall. Mind you now, I am constantly yacking to her about all this debate we've been having on this blog, and so my mind is deep into how I'm possibly going to counter something michaelm said, or how I am just not as smart as these guys (especially Z). Now my wife says to me later that she had been thinking about Christina, especially because it was the holidays. We decide to duck into a particular store, and after about 1/2 hour, we go to the register....and there's Christina, trying to buy herself a $15 scarf (so she could look nice for the holidays, she told us later). She weeps and laughs when she sees us, the lady in line behind us is touched, the clerk is touched. She tells a little of her story to the clerk, and it's sad and beautiful. She apologizes for not getting back with us, but we say nothing of that, only that we miss her singing, and now she is coming this Sunday, and she wants to sing if she can, and we are picking her up. She says it was her first day out of her house in she didn't know how long. She beams, and we are glad, and yet apprehensive because her situation is still dire, she is still in just as much need if not more. And we are standing there, capable of doing something for her. Will we?

And so, how did this happen as it did? Isn't there something, someone, God, reaching out to us to help her, and at the same time reaching out to her to say "let people help you, because when they do they are helping me"? And what about the witnesses of that meeting? Perhaps they have a story to tell at the dinner table tonight. God chooses to work through his people, that's what pleases him most, and I can see why. When I left the store, I told my wife that I wish I had bought that scarf for her.

I don't know how to scientifically prove God's existence from that story, and I'm sure Mr. Dawkins would call it random or say it was bound to happen. All I know is that in the 35 years since I graduated high school and lived in my hometown area, I probably bumped into about five classmates!

[Fist and Faith]

I disagree with everybody!

My problem with Dondarion's story is that there are uncountable times when prayers were not answered. Times when an answer wouldn't have meant the survivors were made to feel better, but when the victim could have been spared tremendous suffering. And when prayer leads to the miraculous recovery of someone at death's door, why doesn't it lead to recovery for a different person, who believes as surely, whose parents believe as surely, whose parish prays as fervently? No rhyme or reason for helping one and not helping another, or saying we just aren't able to see the rhyme or reason, is not evidence of any sort.

Dawkins convinced me that agnosticism isn't as rational as I used to think. For one, it's perfectly rational to align your beliefs with the way you live your life. If you behave in a way that doesn't take into account a god, then why hold out for the possibility of something that doesn't affect your life?

I'm not holding out for the possibility. I don't believe there is any possibility.

If you're willing to risk your "eternal soul"

I don't believe I have an eternal soul.

on the proposition that religious tenets can't be proven, then why not go ahead and admit you don't believe they're true

I don't believe they're true. But that's not the same as saying they cannot possibly be true.

You're already making an enormous gamble, according to Pascal. How could that gamble be half-hearted?

I don't think I'm taking any gamble.

Despite my absolute belief that there is no God, gods, afterlife, or supernatural, I cannot say "There is no God." It is impossible to rule out the possibility that there is an omnipotent, omniscient being that, while designing only some brains to feel that certain feelings are proof of its existence, is making sure we cannot prove its existence in any objective way. An omnipotent, omniscient being would certainly be able to do that. Doesn't mean I give the idea the slightest benefit of the doubt. Just means there's no way to prove the assertion that there is no God. *shrug* Who cares if I can't prove it? Who cares if I don't say "There is no God!"?

Also, Dawkins pointed out that the god concept is actually a quasi-scientific hypothesis which can be falsified, the way it is presented to us. God supposedly created the universe (in a very specific way, according to Genesis) and then repeatedly interfered in its affairs. These interactions with the universe are physical theories. They have all been shown to be false. There was no Flood as described in the Bible. The sun cannot be made to stand still in the sky. People can't be dead for three days and then rise again. People don't live for hundreds of years. Mortality doesn't come from eating Forbidden Fruit. The Bible--the source of the Western world's concept of God--is flat out false. It's a collection of myths, just like the Silmarillion. Are you agnostic about Eru Illuvatar? Probably not.

But even a more general concept of god as Creator is being undermined by quantum cosmology. We are developing testable theories for the creation of the universe itself which do not require magical intervention. Pretty soon there will be nothing left for any hypothetical god to do. What's the point of being omnipotent if you're utterly unnecessary?

It is not irrational to reject unnecessary concepts for which there is zero evidence. We do not have to withhold judgment on a concept just because someone can imagine that it's possible. As David Deutsch pointed out, existence of entities can be decided in as much as they feature in good explanations. God explains nothing.

As I hope I've made clear, I don't withhold judgment.

[Fist and Faith]

Regardless of what we think we can prove or not prove for certain, these kinds of events take place, and they are just as real. Scientific cosmology is not disregarded by the church in this day and age. But, as Soul Biter suggests, for our particular circumstance to have come about by mere chance would boggle the human mind to the point of disbelief entirely (if we were some other species in some other universe trying to imagine such a scenario). The chances could not be measured (certainly more than the probability of pulling a royal flush or hitting the lottery ), and therefore it would not be believed....and yet here we are.

My response to this idea is that I'll probably accept any idea for the existence of this unimaginably improbable universe as you'll accept for the existence of an unimaginably improbably God. How can this unfathomably complex universe's existence be impossible without a cause, yet that infinitely more complex cause's existence is perfectly reasonable?

[Dondarion]

Z wrote:

Also, Dawkins pointed out that the god concept is actually a quasi-scientific hypothesis which can be falsified, the way it is presented to us. God supposedly created the universe (in a very specific way, according to Genesis) and then repeatedly interfered in its affairs. These interactions with the universe are physical theories. They have all been shown to be false. There was no Flood as described in the Bible. The sun cannot be made to stand still in the sky. People can't be dead for three days and then rise again. People don't live for hundreds of years. Mortality doesn't come from eating Forbidden Fruit. The Bible--the source of the Western world's concept of God--is flat out false. It's a collection of myths, just like the Silmarillion. Are you agnostic about Eru Illuvatar? Probably not.

Sacrilege! I absolutely believe in Illuvatar. We're talking Tolkien here, not the bible!

Anyway, as for these biblical events, who knows how they happened, but science can indeed explain many of them, and there have been books and documentaries on their occurrences (ie: the 10 plagues all have rational explanations, and yet tie to the biblical text as to time and place). God works through nature, not that hard to figure that one out. And how do we know how old people lived a few thousand years ago or more? There's no scientific basis to question that. And maybe not all people lived that long, but perhaps certain 'chosen' ones did. That we can't know scientifically.

Fist and Faith wrote:

My problem with Dondarion's story is that there are uncountable times when prayers were not answered. Times when an answer wouldn't have meant the survivors were made to feel better, but when the victim could have been spared tremendous suffering. And when prayer leads to the miraculous recovery of someone at death's door, why doesn't it lead to recovery for a different person, who believes as surely, whose parents believe as surely, whose parish prays as fervently? No rhyme or reason for helping one and not helping another, or saying we just aren't able to see the rhyme or reason, is not evidence of any sort.

Faith is to believe that all prayers are answered, somehow, but not necessarily in the way a particular human being thinks they should be. "Not your ways, but my ways says the Lord". We trust in His ways, and that is enough. Somehow, some way, the fruits of that prayer will come, and maybe we won't even know it or see it when it does, but it does. There are too many testimonials and accounts of this being factual that it just cannot be ignored. It is a special grace when a prayer is answered like in my story with the parents. God just doesn't choose to move in that way asa a matter of course. He knows us more than we know ourselves, and so he works through people. We are not robots, who simply see and act as instructed. That's not God's plan for having joy with his creation. He created us! Not in this way, to be toy soldiers for him. Where is the joy in that for the creator (perhaps only when the paint job is finished, but certainly nothing long term). Understand that a person of faith does not generally pray for a specific result (of course they pray for healing because we are afraid), but generally the prayer is learning to cope, or for somebody to have peace at the end, or an ease of suffering, or for wisdom and hope, etc. And not all prayer is a request. It is also praise and thanksgiving, and how often do we miss that part, and yet we expect God to do stuff for us anyway. God wants our hearts and minds. Try him out and give him a chance, and see where that prayer you offer up lands.

[Fist and Faith]

It is fortunate that God answered the prayers of the parents in your story so clearly, then. Because they had already turned away. And if it was an answer that they couldn't know or see when it came... You know what I mean?

[michaelm]

How would you prove that God doesnt exist in that moment for them? The event itself happened. You can throw probabilities around all you want, but the fact that one thing is more probable than another doesnt disprove that an improbable event happened or that it isnt the work of God.

By that same token, it also is not proof of the existence of god. Even with a 1 in 1,900 chance of it occurring, if a bible is opened daily by an adult in that particular family, it should occur about 15 times during the lifetime of each adult in that family without any assistance from god.

It is highly improbable that life exists due to the sheer math involved in a group of cells combining in such a way as to create intellegent life as we know it combined with the sheer math of probabilities of the earth existing in such a way as to make life of this sort possible. The math is off the scale. So far off that you have a better chance of walking out to the parking lot, sitting down and having a porcelean toilet bowl appear directly in front of you. The scientific answer to that is a few versions of an anthropic principle that some say that no matter how improbable life existing today is, the very fact that we exist shouldnt be a surprise to us since we are here to observe it.

Well first of all, I don't think you can know what the math involves or what the chances are. You're making a number of assumptions here, all of which are not good ones:

1. You assume the math is calculable - it isn't, so we have no clue how probable or improbably it is. We would need to know about so many variables and conditions to judge the likelihood of things occurring
2. The time scale over which evolution takes place is astoundingly large and not easy to comprehend. Human beings experience a lifetime of less than 100 years. Evolution taken place over more than 50 million of those lifetimes, so it has had plenty of chances to experiment, fail, retry, take blind alleys, and anything else on the route there. It has certainly had time on its side
3. With an estimated 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe, I don't think it so unlikely that one (or more) of them would have a planet fall into orbit around its star at a distance that makes life able to evolve. The Anthropic Principle just explains why it is our star rather than another one
4. I have no clue what the possibility of a porcelain toilet bowl appearing out of thin air is, but I would assume that it is infinitely higher than life developing as the only way I am aware that matter can be created spontaneously is through matter/antimatter asymmetry; and in a universe filled with matter, the chances of enough antimatter existing is much more so something where the math is way off the scale

[Dondarion]

Fista and Faith wrote:

It is fortunate that God answered the prayers of the parents in your story so clearly, then. Because they had already turned away. And if it was an answer that they couldn't know or see when it came... You know what I mean?

Yes, and the operative word is "fortunate". For these folks, that is what they needed, how they needed it, and when they needed it. For others, it may be different. Who can know? But, as I have said before in this thread (or forum), I believe each person will have that key moment, when they know they have been given every reason (logical, scientific, or just plain revelation) to decide for faith, for God and holiness. And it is that moment that will mean everything, not all the crud before. We will know it when it comes, it is the least we can expect, for I agree that an all omnipotent God must be able to reveal himself, and so he did, he does, and he will, to/for each person as and where that person is, not necessarily in some grand manner. And it will be in a truly just way, where nothing can be argued against it, maybe not live and in person, but in a way that the acceptance or rejection will be a real choice. It may be the culmination of the story already building in a person's life, already planted. Or it may be out of the blue if that person hadn't had the experience. Or it may be via some other special revelation known only to that person and the Lord, maybe even at the point of death. But if God is real, we must be given the choice based on some revelation of himself. For me, I have already accepted that, and so more is expected of me right now, mainly to abide in Him and give witness, maybe via some rudimentary apologetics. But for others, it will be different. Life is not all about here and now. It is a continuation of the now to and through the hereafter, and so it doesn't matter when we accept the truth, it just matters that we do. No parent leaves their children to swing in the dark about life after childhood. They are prepared, taught, loved into it. And if they are not, if they are all alone in the world, then they are blameless in their ignorance. But while a bad parent might allow this to happen, an omnipotent God will not, he will not forget a single one of his sheep for purposes of his kingdom.

I just cannot believe we've all been sold a bill of goods for all these thousands of years. The Jews were misled or made it all up, the Christians had a good thing going and profited off it. Too much history, too much tradition, too many testimonials, miracles, appearances and revelations. All manufactured, invented, by all these thousands of people whose lives have been transformed? It's time to open our eyes, open them wide.

[SoulBiter]

It is highly improbable that life exists due to the sheer math involved in a group of cells combining in such a way as to create intellegent life as we know it combined with the sheer math of probabilities of the earth existing in such a way as to make life of this sort possible. The math is off the scale. So far off that you have a better chance of walking out to the parking lot, sitting down and having a porcelean toilet bowl appear directly in front of you. The scientific answer to that is a few versions of an anthropic principle that some say that no matter how improbable life existing today is, the very fact that we exist shouldnt be a surprise to us since we are here to observe it.

Well first of all, I don't think you can know what the math involves or what the chances are. You're making a number of assumptions here, all of which are not good ones:

1. You assume the math is calculable - it isn't, so we have no clue how probable or improbably it is. We would need to know about so many variables and conditions to judge the likelihood of things occurring
2. The time scale over which evolution takes place is astoundingly large and not easy to comprehend. Human beings experience a lifetime of less than 100 years. Evolution taken place over more than 50 million of those lifetimes, so it has had plenty of chances to experiment, fail, retry, take blind alleys, and anything else on the route there. It has certainly had time on its side
3. With an estimated 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe, I don't think it so unlikely that one (or more) of them would have a planet fall into orbit around its star at a distance that makes life able to evolve. The Anthropic Principle just explains why it is our star rather than another one
4. I have no clue what the possibility of a porcelain toilet bowl appearing out of thin air is, but I would assume that it is infinitely higher than life developing as the only way I am aware that matter can be created spontaneously is through matter/antimatter asymmetry; and in a universe filled with matter, the chances of enough antimatter existing is much more so something where the math is way off the scale

Lets start with life - Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time3—and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins needed. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to 57800th power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros.Put this in perspective, there are about 10 to 80th power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ‘only’ amount to 10 to 160th electrons.

I was going to post something about the possibility of the Earth being exactly right for us to exist here, the math is crazy but my wife has told me its time to go to town. The probability that I will be smacked if I dont comply is 100% so with that math I will try to post more later.

[Dondarion]

I would like to offer one last biblically based viewpoint on the topic of explaining why bad things happen, natural disasters, etc. As I will be dealing with some family maters over the next couple weeks, and then the holidays are upon us, I am stepping aside until after the new year (sort of a sabbatical, if you will). Anyway, this "statement" covers much of the objections raised in this post on the argument over why the world is the way it is:

How Do Christians Explain Natural Disasters?

...

Christians should not shrink from giving biblical answers to the question, “How can this be if what you preach is true?” One place to begin is that these disasters prove that something is terribly wrong with our world. The world was obviously made by someone good – the sun shines, plants grow, and gorgeous beaches line the ocean like emeralds. But there is a terrible flaw – a crack, if you will – that manifests itself in both daily frustrations and epochal disasters. The Bible explains this by pointing to the terrible intrusion of sin in this world. Man’s sin has defaced the world. Adam’s entire world was a garden until he sinned. But then, God said, “Cursed shall be the ground because of you” (Gen. 3:17). Paul explains, “The creation was subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:19), and it awaits its rebirth in the coming resurrection. We may point our fingers at God, but the reality is that we are to blame: it is sin’s profound effects that have caused the very fabric of nature to be cursed. This results in rust on metal pipes, in weeds growing in gardens, in little boys and girls growing old until their bodies become lifeless, and in great, violent waves tragically silencing voices by the thousands. “The wages of sin is death,” Paul wrote (Rom. 6:23), and we should respond to disasters not by hating God but by hating sin.

Another way to answer is that, given the fragility of life and the violence of this sin-cursed world, the most important thing for us is to secure a life beyond death. This was how Jesus responded to a disaster in His time. Pilate’s Roman troops had murdered a group of Galileans while they were sacrificing in the temple. About the same time, a tower in Siloam fell and killed 18 people. Jesus asked if these people died because they were worse sinners than others, and answered that they were not. What happened to them could have happened to anyone. Jesus might have gone on to defend God for permitting these tragedies, but instead He said something significant for us. Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3).

Jesus’ point was that all of us are guilty before God’s justice. According to God’s Word, everyone who died at the temple and in the tower – and also in the recent tsunami – were not innocent bystanders but guilty sinners before God. This does not mean the tsunami was sent by God for judgment. We have no right to make such harsh statements. But it does mean that if we ask, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” we need first to recall that there are no good people in God’s sight (Rom. 3:12). God is not guilty of injustice to any human being. Our sin has ruined this world and our sin has condemned us before God. Whatever happens to us in this world, in the life to come we will all stand before God and then we will be judged unless we are forgiven through repentance and faith in Christ’s blood.

The wonder is not how bad things happen to good people. The wonder is how good things can happen to bad people in a rebel world owned by a holy God. The wonder is not that disasters happen, but that God did not long ago wipe out the entire earth. The explanation for this – and for every question about God and his goodness – is the cross of Jesus Christ. The one person who did not deserve to die – God’s perfect Son who became man – knowingly and willingly and intentionally took up the most tortuous death so that all who look to him would be saved. Jesus is the Answer, not the Problem. He is the Savior, who delivers us from a world broken and tortured by the effects of sin – personal effects in our lives and cosmic effects in the very fabric of our world. Jesus died so that sin will not cause us to be condemned by God and so that we might be freed from all the effects of sin – including hatred and anger and greed and perverted lust, and including disasters like this tsunami. None of these will exist in the new world after the return of Christ. “Behold, I am making all things new!” Jesus declares (Rev. 21:5). And his resurrection is not merely an answer but is the final remedy for sin and its brokenness in this world, if we turn to Him in faith. In the end, when Jesus’ reign is established over all the new heavens and the new earth, no one will complain about God’s goodness and mercy. What they will say is “I wish I had come to Him in faith,” or “I wish I had praised Him more while living in the old world.”

Disasters ... remind us [of] our need for God’s grace. The cross of Christ tells us that this grace is offered to all who will come to God through his Son, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. The cross – where God offers salvation to the very world that violated his justice and crucified his own Son – is the pulpit from which God’s message of grace and love and peace provide their answer to the world. In the end the cross will silence every accusing tongue, but now it preaches salvation to all who will believe.

Source: www.alliancenet.org/cc/article/0,,PTID3 ... 84,00.html

And so, the Christian view is that we are all guilty, no exceptions, and we are condemned, that's just the truth of it. The law of life. There is sin from the moment a baby is born, and evil is in the world, but it was not meant to be that way. Man's choice did it, and it infected each and everyone one of us and everything as a result. From greed, to hate, to indifference, to the environment, to food, in every walk and talk of life. At the same time, we are God's chosen, his own, made in his image, and so he seeks us out and wishes to save us, and the only way we can be saved is through dying to ourselves and waking up to a new way. And God knows that can't happen without him doing the "dirty work" himself, coming down himself into essentially enemy territory, an "invasion behind the lines" (to quote CS Lewis), if you will. And so he gets caught, and goes humbly and meekly to his suffering and death, and the world sits back and watches it happen, and lets it happen, and then regrets that it happened, and repents it, and what they were all about that caused it to happen to begin with, and that's how God gets us back, because he knows us better than we know ourselves, and he knows that's the only way it will ever happen. And when it does, we realize the truth behind it, the reason for it, and our eyes opened (by grace and spirit), and we begin to see what his purpose is all about, what life is truly all about, and we are changed....and that's Christianity.

Okay, I'm done. For those so inclined, please pray for me and my family over these next few weeks. I will be praying for the members of the Watch.

[Fist and Faith]

Have a Merry Christmas, Don.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

I was a long time agnostic myself, so I can sympathize with this position. It wasn't until I read the God Delusion (Dawkins) that I changed my mind.

I don't think the issue is absolute certainty. After all, Dawkins presented a scale of certainty, and atheism can be held long before you get to the absolute end of that scale. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is the difference between making a decision and withholding judgment. For example, most of us believe in the discoveries and tenets of modern science. We're not fence-sitting or withholding judgment on the issue of black holes or quantum mechanics. These are accepted. But we're not absolutely certain, either. These beliefs--while extremely confident--are still tentative, as are all scientific beliefs. Likewise, if God could be proven, every atheist would believe. I'm not sure what kind of proof could be found, but if any being could prove his existence, an omnipotent being should be able to do the trick.

Dawkins convinced me that agnosticism isn't as rational as I used to think. For one, it's perfectly rational to align your beliefs with the way you live your life. If you behave in a way that doesn't take into account a god, then why hold out for the possibility of something that doesn't affect your life? If you're willing to risk your "eternal soul" on the proposition that religious tenets can't be proven, then why not go ahead and admit you don't believe they're true? You're already making an enormous gamble, according to Pascal. How could that gamble be half-hearted?

Also, Dawkins pointed out that the god concept is actually a quasi-scientific hypothesis which can be falsified, the way it is presented to us. God supposedly created the universe (in a very specific way, according to Genesis) and then repeatedly interfered in its affairs. These interactions with the universe are physical theories. They have all been shown to be false. There was no Flood as described in the Bible. The sun cannot be made to stand still in the sky. People can't be dead for three days and then rise again. People don't live for hundreds of years. Mortality doesn't come from eating Forbidden Fruit. The Bible--the source of the Western world's concept of God--is flat out false. It's a collection of myths, just like the Silmarillion. Are you agnostic about Eru Illuvatar? Probably not.

But even a more general concept of god as Creator is being undermined by quantum cosmology. We are developing testable theories for the creation of the universe itself which do not require magical intervention. Pretty soon there will be nothing left for any hypothetical god to do. What's the point of being omnipotent if you're utterly unnecessary?

It is not irrational to reject unnecessary concepts for which there is zero evidence. We do not have to withhold judgment on a concept just because someone can imagine that it's possible. As David Deutsch pointed out, existence of entities can be decided in as much as they feature in good explanations. God explains nothing.

For the record I rescind my "thanks" for this post as I disagree with a great deal of it. The "thanks" was actually a failed quote. Operator error.

[Vraith]

Lets start with life - Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time3—and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins needed. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to 57800th power.

I don't know that that is acknowledged. I've run across mentions of Hoyle before...and he, and others like, make a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
Just for instance, this kind:
In the volume of space, it is pretty unlikely that H20 would happen...in a pure math way. But there is H20 all over the place. Because, in this case, due to sheer scale "unlikely" and "nearly certain" are pretty much the same thing. "Very rare" and "unimaginably vast quantities" both apply at the same time. And because the math, in these things, doesn't take into account what space is. Nor other physical laws.
There's a lot of water cuz stuff gathers together in space. And H and O are damn common. And when they do meet, they will make water a LOT.

He also assumes that a necessary building block happens by the elements just running into each other in a mass, and come into being full blown. But that isn't how it happens.
Sticking with water...it happens a lot. And once water is present, things that are mathematically unlikely become, physically/chemically common. Many become nearly certain...especially when it meets the other basic life-elements. [nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon for us-like critters, all of which are among the most common elements.]
In a way, what he's assuming is as if you or I assumed that cars came into existence by the random collision of ore-bearing rocks and rubber trees. But that isn't how it happens. [I say that being aware it could be twisted to serve the "Watchmaker" argument. That would be taking it out of context, though]
Also he assumes that ONLY the path we followed ends in life. But that isn't so. Only the path we followed leads to US, so we would be pretty rare...OTOH, if there are hundreds or thousands or millions or more different paths [and there is no reason to think there aren't] then it's neat [for us] that we ended up being the winners...but SOMEONE had to win.
WE might be highly unlikely/lucky. But LIFE might be very likely...or nearly guaranteed.
If I guess the Raiders are going to win the Superbowl next year, the odds are WAY against me.
But it is almost certain [barring rare catastrophes of various kinds] SOMEONE will win it.

There's lots of different math on these kinds of things.
There's was an article on this stuff [there are lots of articles on this stuff] I saw...had site bookmarked for a while, cuz it had lots of cool other stuff...I'll see if I can find it...
The authors tweaked the assumptions in several different arguments in tiny, but evidence-based ways...and ended up with interesting results.
In most of them, life was highly likely. In a couple of them, there was a better than 50/50 chance that there would be at LEAST 10 intelligent species in a universe like ours...
I really have to try and find it. I think one of them was a better than even chance of many thousands [at least that...it might have actually said many hundreds of thousands, but I'm not sure in my memory] of intelligent species.
[[which is both a tiny and a huge number...depending on perspective]]

[Fist and Faith]

None of it is anything more than total speculation. We don't have any way of calculating how many stars might have planets, how many planets might have life, and how many planets with life might have intelligent life. It's not like we can count these things in a universe similar to ours, and use the numbers to estimate in our universe. "If one star in a hundred billion has a planet..." is just a number pulled out of a hat.

Same with Hoyle's stuff. How did he determine that a good analogy for protein formation is a solar system full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes? He did not determine it in any scientific or mathematical way. He made it up.

All we know is, we're here. The properties of the universe allow us to exist. We don't have any evidence one way or the other on whether or not the universe would have been able to contain any kind of life if it had different properties. All we know is that the universe with its properties allows our existence, and we exist.

[SoulBiter]

None of it is anything more than total speculation. We don't have any way of calculating how many stars might have planets, how many planets might have life, and how many planets with life might have intelligent life. It's not like we can count these things in a universe similar to ours, and use the numbers to estimate in our universe. "If one star in a hundred billion has a planet..." is just a number pulled out of a hat.

Same with Hoyle's stuff. How did he determine that a good analogy for protein formation is a solar system full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes? He did not determine it in any scientific or mathematical way. He made it up.

All we know is, we're here. The properties of the universe allow us to exist. We don't have any evidence one way or the other on whether or not the universe would have been able to contain any kind of life if it had different properties. All we know is that the universe with its properties allows our existence, and we exist.

You said that much better than I would have, but yeah, you are absolutely correct. Since are are talking unknown variables, its all just wild speculation.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[Orlion]

None of it is anything more than total speculation. We don't have any way of calculating how many stars might have planets, how many planets might have life, and how many planets with life might have intelligent life. It's not like we can count these things in a universe similar to ours, and use the numbers to estimate in our universe. "If one star in a hundred billion has a planet..." is just a number pulled out of a hat.

Same with Hoyle's stuff. How did he determine that a good analogy for protein formation is a solar system full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes? He did not determine it in any scientific or mathematical way. He made it up.

All we know is, we're here. The properties of the universe allow us to exist. We don't have any evidence one way or the other on whether or not the universe would have been able to contain any kind of life if it had different properties. All we know is that the universe with its properties allows our existence, and we exist.

You said that much better than I would have, but yeah, you are absolutely correct. Since are are talking unknown variables, its all just wild speculation.

What's really funny with Hoyle is, believing in the steady state Universe (which exists eternally without beginning or end) probability to explain how "impossible" life is is pretty meaningless. When there is an infinite amount of time in a Universe and the Universal resources are replenishing themselves at the rate they are being used, even the most unlikely scenario will occur... and it will occur an infinite amount of times! At that point, it's not a question of will it happen and how often but if it is even possible.

Hoyle, like many incredibly gifted smart people, was a mixture of profound insight and utter foolishness. After all, Newton was very much involved in alchemy.

[Vraith]

You said that much better than I would have, but yeah, you are absolutely correct. Since are are talking unknown variables, its all just wild speculation.

It's wild, which is half the fun. But not totally wild, and getting less so all the time.
For instance, we can make a rough guestimate on the number of earth-like planets. In a decade or so, probably a damn accurate estimate.
There are a lot of unknown variables...but many aren't completely unknown. And the evidence trend lately is toward life being more common, not less.
People used to think that complex things required rare/complex processes to arise.
But lately it seems that simple elements easily and naturally cohere into complexity.
I'd be willing to bet that within 20-30 years, we will know for sure if life besides ourselves CAN exist...we may not survive long enough to know for sure if it DOES. The universe is has some size to it, and time can go on a bit.

[Fist and Faith]

None of it is anything more than total speculation. We don't have any way of calculating how many stars might have planets, how many planets might have life, and how many planets with life might have intelligent life. It's not like we can count these things in a universe similar to ours, and use the numbers to estimate in our universe. "If one star in a hundred billion has a planet..." is just a number pulled out of a hat.

Same with Hoyle's stuff. How did he determine that a good analogy for protein formation is a solar system full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes? He did not determine it in any scientific or mathematical way. He made it up.

All we know is, we're here. The properties of the universe allow us to exist. We don't have any evidence one way or the other on whether or not the universe would have been able to contain any kind of life if it had different properties. All we know is that the universe with its properties allows our existence, and we exist.

You said that much better than I would have, but yeah, you are absolutely correct. Since are are talking unknown variables, its all just wild speculation.

What's really funny with Hoyle is, believing in the steady state Universe (which exists eternally without beginning or end) probability to explain how "impossible" life is is pretty meaningless. When there is an infinite amount of time in a Universe and the Universal resources are replenishing themselves at the rate they are being used, even the most unlikely scenario will occur... and it will occur an infinite amount of times! At that point, it's not a question of will it happen and how often but if it is even possible.

Hoyle, like many incredibly gifted smart people, was a mixture of profound insight and utter foolishness. After all, Newton was very much involved in alchemy.

Not sure you meant that sentence the way it came out.

Anyway, no, there is no "will occur". An infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters ("Is that what you had in the olden days, daddy?") forever will not definitely type Shakespeare's plays. There is the possibility that none of them will ever type the letter E. Or maybe they'll all type nothing but the letter E. Or anything else we can come up with. Infinite opportunity does not mean every possibility will come about.