Play Trap the Atheist (The atheist delusion)

by David Turell , Friday, December 07, 2012, 01:50 (4371 days ago) @ hyjyljyj

hy: if Michael Corey is even close to being on target, essentially "indistinguishable from a miracle" even if it IS by chance: "The odds for the spontaneous appearance of the first living cell have been conservatively calculated to be approximately 1 in 10 to the 78,436th, a number so vast that it is trillions of times greater than the total number of vibrations experienced by all the subatomic particles in the universe from the beginning of time until the present" (M. Corey, Back to Darwin). ..... As the famous bloke once said, "Not bloody likely."-Michael Denton uses the number 10^2,000 for his odds against it but Harold Morowitz is well beyond your quote at 10^100 billion! Both great biologists.-
> hy: countless different arrays, for hundreds of millions of years without stopping is, again IMHO, simply not conceivable as being a chance event as much as one that was designed somehow, in some manner I don't know or even need to know in order to successfully function as one of those homeothermic animals. -You are presenting information that sounds just like me. The atheist approach as you well know is to point to one little itty-bitty step at a time (Dawkins especially)with natural selection waving its wonderful wand. After all entropy is solved. The never ending energy from the sun solves all.:>))
> 
> hy:This may sound like escapism, but really it's looking back & forth at two diametrically opposed options (is there a third? More?) and just picking the one that least violates one's innate sense of reason and logic. IMHO, postulating an uncaused, invisible, uncreated, infinite cause as a creator because nothing can create itself is far from an easy cop-out of a conundrum; as Darwin spoke of "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man...as the result of blind chance", it feels like the only possible explanation left when the alternative seems not even remotely reasonable. Neither one does. What a pickle.-I'm still with Aristotle and St. Thomas: Something has to be eternal. Causation is still causation. And chance cannot work. You are asking for a third way. So does Raymond Tallis in Aping Mankind, 2011 his brilliant atheistic commentary, but there is no third way as far as I can analyse. There is only chance or design with a background of 'something' eternal.I don't think, and Tallis agrees, that an inorganic universe can invent consciousness. He just doesn't want to take my next step. Consciousness is what has been eternal. After all the universe is just energy in several material forms, all starting with a quantum mechanical background. Consciousness is at a quantum level; there is no other way to look at it, and I can quote a whole number of 'expert' scientists on the subject, probably starting with David Bohm.