Junk DNA: goodbye!: Review article (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, March 16, 2015, 00:34 (3541 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You think that I am trivializing the origin of life and the conditions that allow for life because of the odds against them. In the context of what may be the infinity of our universe, or at least of numbers so vast that they might just as well be infinite, you argue that our pathetically limited life and consciousness can only have been designed, whereas the eternal consciousness creating and controlling let's say 92 times whatever billion light years of space and matter and the zillions of stars and the intricate complexities of our own life and consciousness simply IS. Yet you regard the view that our own life simply IS as a cop-out. -What does size have to do with anything? You have a strange approach to the discussion. The issue is why are there human being on Earth? That fact is more in favor of a God than if the universe were teeming with life. That fact suggests a special creation doesn't it. We know the Earth is very, very special. Tony has told you how special the universe is. And the CMB was created 350,000 years after the BB; the universe is 3.78 billion years old so it is not so infinite after all. The 'infinite universe' is a is a claim the atheist folks are making as a substitute for the multiverse, if that unprovable conjecture doesn't fly. Two unprovable conjectures are just that, nothings. 
> 
> dhw: If one side in the battle between theism and atheism is guilty of trivialization, so is the other. (And I haven't even mentioned the history of the gods.) However, one of you is closer to the truth than the other, so my scepticism towards both chance AND a designer is patently wrong.-Thanks for admitting that you are wrong. The only trivial point the atheists make is to refuse to accept a first cause. That is why we get the jokingly stupid 'something-from-nothing' junk being published (see Krauss as a philosophic marvel). Tony and I are not trivial. We are making pointed criticisms of the atheists argument. They don't have one. Non-belief is a difficult position. Proving a negative is an almost impossible proposition. Reasoning to a reasonable positive solution makes the most sense, but I admit at that point one has to take Pascal's leap. You are a jumper or you are not, hence agnosticism as a refuge.