The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God
Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50
Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52
----------------------
Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.
1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.
Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.
Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.
Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof thereof be damned.
Another instance of such is when a simpleton or simplistic person calls one of much higher intelligence, whether standard, emotional, creative or otherwise a "kook" or some other childish dismissal or term simply because the ideas, concepts, metaphors, and so forth are merely too much for one of an IQ of 95-105 to attempt comprehension thereof (and likely a subpar EQ to boot, per Daniel Goleman), or require the training and emotional restraint of that reactive, impulsive "system 1" thinking which I aptly described and surmised above.
(Granted, there are kooks, like Ted Kaczynski, but in this hypothetical scenario, the person in question is not a "kook", but rather a genius, merely having their intellect derided by a literal, or at least relative simpleton who simply isn't at the level rightfully capable of comprehending it, or even attempting a bit of comprehension to begin with, because it would distract their time away from more important tasks, such as watching television or commenting ignorantly or maladjustedly on their favorite, childish little social media website of chose - pick your favorite?
I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
