Reviews for The Existence of God
Arn-The-Silent-Scream chapter 1 . 5/24/2005
"Probability deals with areas of knowledge that have more than one unknow variant or variableSuch proofs include the existence of human life. The human DNA sequence consists of 46 chromosones within each chromosones there are hundreds of millions of 'slots.' Each slot must be filled with one of the four codings. If even one of these is out of place, humans would not exist. The probability of this strand of DNA forming on its own, or by chance without an intelegent creator is calculated below. Also, the number of 'slots' in each chromosone pair is given in a chart."

NO ONE CAN DENY YOUR ENGLISH SKILL BUT YOUR BIOLOGY NEEDS A LOT OF WORK. EVERY HUMAN HAS DIFFERENT BASES IN EACH SLOT. AM I ANY LESS HUMAN BECAUSE I HAVE ONE BASE PAIR DIFFERENT FROM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.

"This expression means that there is a one in 11,388,0,0 chance that the human DNA strand could have ben randomly generated. The expression also means there is a 113879 of 113880 chance that this intelegent creator exists."

WRONG, NOT ONLY IS YOUR MATH BASED ON AN EXTREMLY SKEWED BIOLOGICAL PREMIS BUT IT IN AND OF ITS SELF IS INCORRECT. THE RATIO THAT YOU PROVIDE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CHANCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR. IT ONLY REPRESSENTS THE CHANCE THAT THE RANDOM COMBINATION OF GENES WOULD BE HUMAN. AS A COUNTER EXAMPLE, THE ODD OF "YOU" BEING "YOU" BASED on the random combination of one sperm and one egg is 80 to 1 (based on 2 million sperm per ejaculation and 400 thousand eggs in the average female, this stat does not include any variable such as crossing over of genes, the sperm in a male life time or any other of a million variables you could come up with and that for only one generation). Despite these heavy odds your here aren't you?

"If from this we assume the existence of an intelegent creator we must also accept that he is outside of time because such a being would have been multitudes smarter than the human race. This would mean that it's own DNA must have been longer than the humans, requiring more years to be generated than the universe has existed."

This entire paragraph is based on false conjecture and failed logic. You have no reason to assume that the creator is intelligent, you offer no explanation for why he exists out of time (also isn't that another deminition that he exists in, wouldn't this prove that he existed in no demintions since the only other option you offer is all demintions) And after all that let me ask you a sensible question, what are the odds that this being would come into existence. If your answer is that he has always been then why can't I assume that the human genome has always been.
UltraViolet1 chapter 1 . 5/12/2005
I don't believe in the christian god. When people ask me to prove that god doesn't exist, I can't. It's something where you just have to go on faith. And even with all your fancy calculations, that doesn't prove christianity (or whatever religion you are trying to prove) is correct. Let's say an intelligent life form did create humans: it could be one god, two, or twenty. There's no proof towards your religion, just religion in general.
Christian-soldier chapter 1 . 4/23/2005
Belief in God has to be taken as faith even though the world could not exist without the existance of a designer. I Believe in God, But the Bible says even the Devil believes and Trembles. A Belief is not enough, you must accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation. Please pray and reveive Christ today
Rach chapter 1 . 4/20/2005
HI!. a very intesting essay I do believe in God and I don't think there are any loop holes

expect peharps that if you read Genies (I don't think that's spelled right) you'll find out that God intended humans to live forever until one of God's angels began proud and wanted ruleship over the earth and he went down digused as a snake and tempted Eve to eat the fruit then she tempted Adam and he ate.

so humans were meant to be pefect but we're not thanks to a proud angel(who is now Satan)

anyway I enjoyed reading this essay.

see ya
Flyne chapter 1 . 4/19/2005
First off, sorry for being so harsh, but it is my style. Anyways, my counter-arguements.

"5. Any reasonably immprobable belief may be held true because probability is based on varriables. The number variables known and the accuracy of probability are directly variant. By this we mean they increase and decrease, together but not neccesarly at the same rate. By this we know that to know truth for sure, just by probability we need 99.9 ,repeating, of information in the universe to get the last peace of information."

The number of variables is not known, unless you say that it is infinte, which lowers the probabilty to 0.99.9 repetend is exactly 100. If you don't believe that, you're a next part I am critiquing is much, much stupider.

"The Probability may be calculated by combining the sequence length and multiplying by four and putting this under the one.

1/ 113880"

No, it may not. At least not correctly. What level of math have you gotten through? 2nd grade? Anyways, even assuming this calculation was accurate, it would the probability of a particular DNA strand forming on Earth. Now, the probability of any DNA strand forming on earth is increased greatly. However, let us say by only a factor of 100, putting the probablity at 1/113880. And we have still only dealt with one planet. There are many planets in the universe, and the chances of any given one being habitable for a carbon-based life form is something like 1/10,0. However, with over 100 quadrillion known planets, that is nothing. Still, that leaves it at 10 billion known planets that would be habitable. Now let's multiply that by the aforementioned probablity 1/113880. That leaves us with the probablity of human-like carbon based life at over 10/113880. A very high probablity indeed. And, of coarse, you are dissregarding time! We had all of time to evolve. That puts the probablity at 99.9 repetend percent. Aka: 100%.

"This expression means that there is a one in 11,388,0,0 chance that the human DNA strand could have ben randomly generated. The expression also means there is a 113879 of 113880 chance that this intelegent creator exists."

No, it doesn't. Let us assume that your aforementioned probability was, in fact, accurate, and it applied to what you wanted it to apply. First, there is still the chance that a God does not exist, so this is not a proof. Second, the you have your cause and effect mixed up. One does not logically follow the other. Because something was not randomly generated doesn't mean that it was created by something itelligent.

I will get back to this later.
flerix chapter 1 . 4/19/2005
Okay, first of all I believe in god... But this statement is incorrect I believe: "This expression means that there is a one in 11,388,0,0 chance that the human DNA strand could have ben randomly generated. The expression also means there is a 113879 of 113880 chance that this intelegent creator exists."

I believe so only because of the simple fact that there is an unknown amount of area in the universe, but seeing even what we have seen we know that there must be more than enough to randomly generate our own DNA.
Krismet chapter 1 . 4/18/2005
Please don't say "prove" or something "exists" as though you knew for sure. What I see here are a large group of loopholes because we "cannot understand God" etc. etc. Whatever.

Besides the point is that you should definately look up things about DNA before making assumptions like you did. The face is that if there is one of these "slots" as you ever-so delightfully called them is out of place, in your mind the person would not exist. This is not true. There are numerable possibilities to fill any one "slot" and the fact that deletions and insertions and alterations to DNA are present in today's society further proves you wrong. What do you think Downs Syndrome is? It's an infliction caused by an incorrect arrangement of the molecules that form each of the DNA strands. Your DNA stuff is just pulled out of thin air, isn't it?

Think it through before you write. Oh, and you write like a hypnotized cult member. -.-"
Tiefling chapter 1 . 4/18/2005
I think you're probably wasting your time trying to prove the existance of God (I'm an Agnostic, so I don't think it's possible). However, I can understand your wanting to try, and I find this sort of thing interesting to read.

Your essay is well written. There quite a few typos though(you put in extra letters in some words, and mispelled 'Bible' at one point). but nothing major. I suggest printing things off to proof read them rather than reading them on screen. It's easier. I'm pretty sure I remember writing the same thing in reviews of your work in the past, and it comes across as a bit disrepectful to the reader if you continually make the same mistakes over and over.

'4. Beliefs held by Faith alone are of blind faith and dangerous because it may take the place and block truth. It may also compromise future reason.'

Very good point.

'4. "Therefore, although the human reason cannot grasp the truths that are above it, yet, if it somehow holds these truths atleast by faith, it acquires great perfection for itself." (Aquanis 70)'

I'm not sure I follow... Is he saying that it is virutuous to believe something that happens to be true? Wouldn't that just be a case of good luck?

'This expression means that there is a one in 11,388,0,0 chance that the human DNA strand could have ben randomly generated.'

That old argument again. Can't be bothered going into it again. Have you read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker?

'If from this we assume the existence of an intelegent creator we must also accept that he is outside of time because such a being would have been multitudes smarter than the human race. This would mean that it's own DNA must have been longer than the humans, requiring more years to be generated than the universe has existed.'

That's only if you assume that the creator is a physical being and based on DNA.

'We may also assume that in all probability this being is not of matter but of light or energy or something altogether unknown to us.'

Ah, there we go. Yes we may assume that.