Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

why not try and explain what this means and refute... (there will be other quotes from top minds... but this is a start)

I will even an accept arguments of bias or lack of expertise among other real arguments.

Please include why you do not think this may be a nobel prize winner saying there is an argument for design.

“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)

I predict few if any et atheists will proffer a cogent critique.


(7zzz please confirm or deny that this post is in accordance with your new emotion free zone. )

 

The response was to dodge it . The reason was because they change. Like William Lane Craig's own version regularly does.
So rather than query that, the fallacy apparently must be in Hitchen's position..

Thus goes the reasoning of a faither.

 

Here's why your "top mind" is not making anything like an argument for intelligent design as you proclaim he is...

• 
  “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.
  
  The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." Christian de Duve "A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell"

It's not that you like to argue for such silly issues particularly, it's the beligerence and the apparent intentional determination to remain ignorant in order to keep repeatedly pushing the same old misinformation obliviously, using only part of Christian de Duve's explanation in presumably hoping to create a false impression, that leaves you with no credibility.

 

"The response was to dodge it."

Was it? How do you know that?

Faither? There's a new made up word for stu to play with...or he has a Scots father on the brain...

 

OK stu you responded... and hurled an insult and did not really explain why your quote did anything... But. perhaps neither of us will remain ignorant but the end of our discourse.

So here I will present some new info on our previous debate about the cosmological constant...

Its just there for backgound..

note... there are 10 to the 80 atoms in our universe.
And we will compare that to the idea that string theory states there may be 10 to the 500 universes.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.

I bet you realize we will soon address the multiverse vs single universe question and fine tuning.

 

Truly, I don't understand your point.

stu believes in unguided chance, you don't.

Neither party is going to prove or disprove the alternative position, because there is no methodology by which to rule out chance, or rule in favor of design.

For some reason, which is still unexplained, science as a body (the scientists) selects chance as an explanation...which is really just a failure to find causation.

Real science, the physical sciences which study what we know through physical instrumentation is limited to the instrumentation of physical senses so it stays on that level...but real science also understands that what we don't know doesn't make what we do know ultimate fact.

All cosmologists have the same data to work with...yet they come up with different and competitive theories...explain why that is...and you find the human variable...and of course you also find the particular brand of faith that a particular scientist is most fond of...

 

Like I said , belligerently ignorant and no credibility.
It's not an insult, it's what you are being like.

You asked for a response and have just been shown why the ridiculous claim you made is completely invalid.
So what do you do rather than address it?
You run off to make some more erratic cut & paste.

Between you and ZZzz who decides what people “believe” on behalf of them and after having superciliously taken that liberty, so creates a liturgy of fallacious arguments based around the idea which says as everything is therefore belief , no one can prove anything,

It’s a contest between the two of you to see which can be the most ridiculous.

 

"Like I said , belligerently ignorant and no credibility.
It's not an insult, it's what you are being like."

"Between you and ZZzz who decides what people “believe” on behalf of them and after having superciliously taken that liberty, so creates a liturgy of fallacious arguments based around the idea which says as everything is therefore belief , no one can prove anything"

AKA, double talk from stu...you don't even realize what a fanatic zealot you are, do you?

At least if you would admit to a lack of impartiality, admit to your own faith, there could be an honest discussion...but without your being honest about your own faith...there is just your own wiggling of a worm on a hot plate...

 

I started Stu out with a quote... I expected him to be able to explain. the biologist lectures for NASA spoke at UCSD and suggests that life could have come here from out of space.

but then Stu got emotional because he knows that if there is only one universe it does look fine tuned...

Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...

But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”



http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

or the dozens of other quotes like the above he has been presented with..

 

I agree with you. I would also add physicists to the mix. They build models of forces, but cannot tell you the mechanisms of those forces (for instance we know that gravity pulls, but I want to know how is the actual pulling done). So even if one were to reproduce the world via a model, the nature of the forces that make it cannot be reproduced (at least so far).

If God exists, I would say he is wise for giving humans the ability to think so that they can contemplate signs displayed in this world, so that it may lead them to connect with the creator and learn from his creation.