The Dillahunty case

The Dillahunty case

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6671

Playlist of my call-ins to Talk Heathen, and The Atheist Experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_l8-JNGJ5s&list=PLrxwAUWaV9qpOVs3nOmgZdzQf1YlaY4Cs


Matt Dillahunty vs Braxton Hunter (Does the Christian God Exist)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Uktg9nLx8

Matt Dillahunty ducks, and does not respond to my challenge

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-biological-cells-are-equal-to-a-complex-of-millions-of-interlinked-factories#6642

Is it not telling, that i wrote to

Matt Dillahunty at the comments section of the YouTube video published on Mar 2, 2019

Atheist Debates - Does the Christian God exist? Matt Dillahunty and Braxton Hunter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASpBVVhC9Kk&lc=z23fwbohnpjet3s1facdp4355lh4kmiyvviu532dzkdw03c010c.1551820152625604

after the comment of  Rusti One: Thus far, almost every atheist, almost because I've actually come across a few who would think, rethink, and perhaps give God a chance after speaking with them myself.

i posted following syllogism:

1. Blueprints and buildings made upon its instructions are always sourced back to an intelligent cause.
2. The instructional information stored in DNA directs the make of biological cells and organisms.
3. DNA, biological Cells and organisms are therefore most probably the result of intelligent design.

to which Matt answered:

Matt Dillahunty : @Otangelo Grasso cool story bro... now bring some evidence.

i replied:
Otangelo Grasso @Matt Dillahunty I just did. Why am i not surprised that you simply ignored all the information i just provided ?  What about YOU provide some evidence why naturalism should top theism in explanatory power ?  What about you stop hiding behind your: " You make the claim, you have to demonstrate it ? "

Helicases are astonishing motor proteins which rotational speed is up to 10,000 rotations per minute, and are life essential. They are a class of enzymes vital to all living organisms. Their main function is to unpackage an organism's genes. They require 1000 left-handed amino acids in the right specified sequence. Each of the 1000 amino acids must be the right amongst 20 to chose from.  How did they emerge by natural processes? The chance to get them by random chemical reactions is 1 to 20^1000..... there are 10^80 atoms in the universe.

So you have NOTHING, Matt.  Are you seeking honestly for truth ? If you are , demonstrate it. You have the opportunity. Right now !!

Matt Dillahunty @Otangelo Grasso I just asked you for evidence... and you respond like this? Goodbye

Otangelo Grasso @Matt Dillahunty  running away ? Refute my claims.  Did you not confirm at the debate that you are seeking truth ? Now its your opportunity.

If we sum up the total number of amino acids for a minimal Cell, there would have to be 560 proteins x 400 amino acids  =  224.000 amino acids, which would have to be bonded in the right sequence, choosing for each position amongst 20 different amino acids, and selecting only the left-handed, while sorting out the right-handed ones. That means each position would have to be selected correctly from 40 variants !! that is 1 right selection out of 40^224.000 possibilities !! Obviously, a gigantic number far above any realistic probability to occur by unguided events. Even a trillion universes, each hosting a trillion planets, and each shuffling a trillion times in a trillionth of a second, continuously for a trillion years, would not be enough. Such astronomically unimaginably gigantic odds are in the realm of the utmost extremely impossible.

You claimed during all your career, nobody ever provided you with a sound syllogism, with a sound premise and conclusion. Here you have it. Positive evidence for a creator.
If you run away and do not answer, everybody will know, that is for sure !! Stand for what you claim: To be an honest seeker of truth.

KEvronista @Matt Dillahunty  block that fuck, matt. he's been dropping those same mega-posts all over your comment section.

Otangelo Grasso @KEvronista  So that is your answer ? Ignore and block ? You are just testifying the bankruptcy of your worldview.

Atheist Debates - Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQFYgyEACI&t=408s

" we are physical beings in a physical universe that dictates what the consequences of our action is going to be as far as we can tell and that should be enough to evaluate hey this action helps me thrive does it hurt other people this action helps all of us thrive this action really diminishes our well-being this action diminishes our ability to survive and thrive it's reality that is as far as I can tell the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.


Did Matt reinvent the wheel, aka morality ?

Matt 22:39
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself”


my call begins at 1h 23min 50s 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

Matt wanted me to play magician. He wanted me to say with an authoritative voice and screaming: ABRACADABRA, WHITE ELEFANT, APPEAR IN THE ROOM.  Had it not happened, my point would have been granted. Since I didn't want to play the clown, he got frustrated.... and ended the call. What a pity.

Maybe you do not realize, but at the moment Matt ended the call, his worldview ( and yours )  literally EXPLODED. finish. The end. Unbelievers have NO excuse.

But since that would have meant the end of the TAE show, and the show must go on, he simply ignores what is rationally obvious and evident.

The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic manifestly evince that God must be.   Only the abandonment of rationality imagines that it makes sense to conclude that existence can arise from nonexistence, that an infinite regress of causative events is possible, that actual infinities are possible or that the effect of a mechanical cause is not given from eternity.  

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. The universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a cause.
3. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.
4. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the hypothesis of an eternal universe.
5. Therefore an eternal & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.


Nothing is the thing that stones think of

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of

"Nothingness" is a philosophical term that denotes the general state of nonexistence 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Argument: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response:  Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. 0 x 0 = 0.  That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident,  and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated. 

The Dillahunty case

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case

I called in to his The Atheist Experience show, on March 10, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

My argument: Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.

I would have proceeded with the philosophical cosmological argument of Gods existence, but it did not come that far:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2832-the-philosophical-cosmological-argument-of-gods-existence

Matt's Objection: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response:  Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident,  and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated.

If there is is no logical contradiction contained within the concept of 'nothing' then it could, in principles, and in fact, exist. The state of non-being could be. But then , we would not be here to talk about non-being. And since we ARE here, non-being has never been, but being has always been. In time, and in eternity. An eternal being without beginning, and without end, exists. Fits perfectly with the one that named himself " I AM". I don't know of any other deity calling himself " I AM". That should be telling.

I can even make fun of this ( Sadly, i didn't at the show: )
Matt wanted me to play magician. He wanted me to say with an authoritative voice and screaming: ABRACADABRA, WHITE ELEFANT, APPEAR IN THE ROOM. Had it not happened, my point would have been granted. Since I didn't want to play the clown, he got frustrated.... and ended the call. What a pity.

Maybe you do not realize, but at the moment Matt ended the call, his worldview ( and yours ) literally EXPLODED. finish. The end. Unbelievers have NO excuse.

But since that would have meant the end of the TAE show, and the show must go on, he simply ignores what is rationally obvious and evident.

Matt Dillahunty ducks, and does not respond to my challenge
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6671

My post at Matt's patreon page:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/atheist-debates-25086132?cid=20698023

Otangelo Grasso
Matt: I contacted you by messenger, and you blocked me for no reason. I challenged you to explain how 560 proteins could have formed without guidance to kick start life, and you ignored to answer. I said yesterday on your show that there is no need to demonstrate that non-being can't do something, because by definition, nothing is the absence of anything, and you hang up, running away again. A commenter wrote on the YouTube timeline: SCIENCE
46 minutes ago
i just saw cowardice from the atheists side toward the brazilian guy./// You have buried your worldview and don't recognize it. Logic and reason is not on your side. What you accuse believers, is what you do: making fallacious arguments. Besides this, why do you not scrutinize a worldview without God? Being skeptical towards one side, means you need to be gullible towards the other option of origins. And saying : " I don't know" is NOT justified. Atheists: what they must believe in order to refute creationism

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2716-atheists-what-they-must-believe-in-order-to-refute-creationism

AtheistDebates - Argument From Design, Part 2: What are the odds?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6687

Responding to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsw8VXAcHz4&t=79s


1.17 - 56

What are the odds? Can the odds be calculated to explain for example the origin of life?  If we ask this question in regards to the origin of life, we need to know first, what is the minimal complexity to have a self-replicating cell.
Science has a pretty clear picture on that, and the minimal number of proteins that keep the essential functions of life have been calculated to be 561 proteins: 

The proteomic complexity and rise of the primordial ancestor of diversified life
A more recent study of 184 genomes identified 669 orthologous protein families, which cover 561 detailed functional classes that are involved in almost all essential biological processes of extant life, including translation, transcription and its regulation, DNA replication, recombination, and repair, transport and membrane-associated functions, electron transfer, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123224/

We can also make an estimate of the average size of each protein: 

Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life
The average protein length of these 110 clusters of orthologous genes COGs is 359 amino acids for the prokaryotes and 459 for eukaryotes.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5650/aaa06de4de11c36a940cf29c07f5f731f63c.pdf

and come to about 400 amino acids. 

Based on this information, we can calculate the odds to get a minimal protein set for the origin of life by random prebiotic events: 

Objection: every sequence is just as improbable as another.
Answer: It's true that any particular equal-length sequence is just as improbable as any other. But if the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order. The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 ..........  500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horsepowers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artefact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Let's suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do. . Now
We know by experience, that intelligence is able to produce factories, engines, machines, codes, computers, software, hardware etc. The odds are 1, since it happens and are a proven, it's a fact.Now you take a random character generator. The odds to have a specific string of 470 characters, equivalent of a medium-sized protein of that length are 1:10^451. So there would have to be this number of trials and errors to get the right sequence. 

3.53 - 4.07: In respect to the Universe, what are the odds?

Argument: The odds can't be calculated
Response: There are many parameters which are necessary for the origin of the Universe to take place. A very balanced fine-tuning is necessary. Following some numbers:

The universe required the number of electrons equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 37th power. If it were not so, galaxies, stars, and planets would never form (because electromagnetic forces would so overwhelm gravitational forces).

Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other. However, during the creation of the universe, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced. It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form.

Upon the finetuning of the cosmological constant,  the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 10^123.

The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
The chance to get the force of gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The chance to get the strong nuclear force  just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21

4.10 - 23

Question: How do they know this isn't possibly the only possible Universe?
Response: 

Paul Davies: 
“There is not a shred of evidence that the Universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders of reality” (“The Appearance of Design in Physics and Cosmology,” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil A. Manson [London: Routledge, 2003], 148–49).

Physical Necessity
First, let’s talk about physical necessity. As I just explained, according to this alternative the universe has to be life-permitting. The constants and the quantities had to have the values that they do. It is literally physically impossible for the universe to be life-prohibiting. It is physically necessary that the universe be a life-permitting universe. 1

String theory, the current best candidate for a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe. [url= 3]https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCp]3[/url][/url]

Implausibility
On the very face of it, this is an extraordinarily implausible explanation of the fine-tuning. It would require us to say that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible – such a thing could not exist. And that is an extremely radical view. Why take such a radical position? The constants, as we have seen, are not determined by the laws of nature. Nature’s laws could hold, and the constants could take any of a wide range of values, so there is nothing about the laws of nature that require the constants to have the values that they do.

Arbitrary Quantities
As for the arbitrary quantities, remember those are completely independent of the laws of nature – they are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature then operate. Nothing seems to make these quantities necessary in the values they have. The opponent of design is taking a very radical line which would require some sort of evidence, some sort of proof. But there isn’t any proof that these constants and quantities are physically necessary. This alternative is just put forth as a bare possibility; and possibilities come cheap. What we are looking for is probabilities or plausibilities, and there just isn’t any evidence that the constants and quantities are physically necessary in the way that this alternative imagines. 4

Steven Weinberg   Department of Physics, University of Texas
Anthropic Considerations
In several cosmological theories the observed big bang is just one member of an ensemble. The ensemble may consist of different expanding regions at different times and locations in the same spacetime,7 or of different terms in the wave function of the universe.8 If the vacuum energy density ρV varies among the different members of this ensemble, then the value observed by any species of astronomers will be conditioned by the necessity that this value of ρV should be suitable for the evolution of intelligent life. 5

The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. As Barr notes, “In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are, and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.” Our options, therefore, are between chance (the anthropic coincidences truly are coincidences) or design (the parameters needed for life were purposely arranged). While it cannot be established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that design is the most probable explanation.

Paul Davies, Information, and the Nature of reality, page 86:

Given that the universe could be otherwise, in vastly many different ways, what is it that determines the way the universe actually is? Expressed differently, given the apparently limitless number of entities that can exist, who or what gets to decide what actually exists? The universe contains certain things: stars, planets, atoms, living organisms … Why do those things exist rather than others? Why not pulsating green jelly, or interwoven chains, or fractal hyperspheres? The same issue arises for the laws of physics. Why does gravity obey an inverse square law rather than an inverse cubed law? Why are there two varieties of electric charge rather than four, and three “flavours” of neutrino rather than seven? Even if we had a unified theory that connected all these facts, we would still be left with the puzzle of why that theory is “the chosen one.”

"Each new universe is likely to have laws of physics that are completely different from our own."  If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, by pure odds at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things. “In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics,” Linde says. “They will not see our universe. They will see only theirs. In 2000, new theoretical work threatened to unravel string theory. Joe Polchinski at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Raphael Bousso at the University of California at Berkeley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 10^1,000*.   Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This meant that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory.

4.49 - 5.09

Argument: What if we live in a multiverse? 
Response: Atheists love to use Occam's razor. Remarkable, that arguing that there is no evidence of God because he cannot be perceived by our senses, in order to explain fine-tuning, he sticks to infinity of completely made-up, undetectable and unobservable parallel universes and claim the proposal to be entirely scientific and disregarding Occams. Me thinks. Occam's would not be amused.

The multiverse hypothesis is plagued by two problems: first, as Dr, Robin Collins, an acknowledged authority on fine-tuning, has argued, it merely shifts the fine-tuning problem up one level, as a multiverse capable of generating any life-supporting universes at all would still need to be fine-tuned; and second, as physicist Paul Davies has pointed out, even the multiverse hypothesis implies that a sizable proportion of universes (including perhaps our own) were intelligently designed. By default, then, Intelligent Design remains the best viable explanation for the origin of replication and translation, and hence of life on Earth. Why? Because it’s the only explanation that posits something already known to be capable of generating life, in order to account for the emergence of life on Earth. That “something” is intelligence.

Argument: How to calculate the probabilities of supernatural means to create a universe? 
Response: The probability would be one. Because we have empirical knowledge and experience that intelligent minds can create rules under which objects and things can exist and operate. Intelligence can also calculate and figure out, what solutions permit certain things to operate in the way intended. God, in his eternal power and knowledge, can have known what it would take to make a life-permitting universe, with the right constants, and finely tuned to permit life. 

6.05 - 23: 

Argument: How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? none
Response: I believe exactly the opposit: Namely that we cannot exist without a creator. 

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.
3. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning of time, therefore, it had a cause.
5. Therefore a non-physical, eternal, non-created & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.
7. That cause must be supernatural in nature, (as He exists outside of His creation), Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known), Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space), Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it), Timeless and changeless (He created time),  Immaterial (because He transcends space), Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality), Necessary (as everything else depends on Him), Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites),  Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity),  Intelligent (supremely, to create everything), Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything), Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver), Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

7.33 - 8.02 

Argument: Abiogenesis: In regards or proteins: Improbability does not mean impossibility. 
Response: I think really the calculations of the odds demonstrate the impossibility. Let's just take one protein, for example Helicase:

Helicases are astonishing motor proteins which rotational speed is up to 10,000 rotations per minute, and are life essential. 

How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2227/
We propose a minimal gene set composed of 206 genes. Such a gene set will be able to sustain the main vital functions of a hypothetical simplest bacterial cell with the following features.

(i) A virtually complete DNA replication machinery, composed of one nucleoid DNA binding protein, SSB, DNA helicase, primase, gyrase, polymerase III, and ligase. No initiation and recruiting proteins seem to be essential, and the DNA gyrase is the only topoisomerase included, which should perform both replication and chromosome segregation functions.

Helicase is a class of enzymes vital to all living organisms. Their main function is to unpackage an organism's genes. They require 1000 left-handed amino acids in the right specified sequence. Each of the 1000 amino acids must be the right amongst 20 to chose from.  How did they emerge by natural processes? The chance to get them by random chemical reactions is 1 to 20^1000..... there are 10^80 atoms in the universe. 



8.24 - 42: 

Question:  Why do you calculate the structure of a modern, complex protein structure? If you accept that there was a simpler protein which then could evolve into a more complex protein, you accept the theory of natural selection. 
Response: Proteins were never simple. A fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth, with profound repercussions for planetary exploration and exobiology. The estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth.
http://sci-hub.hk/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250805002676

Life was never simple: 

A minimal estimate for the gene content of the last universal common ancestor—exobiology from a terrestrial perspective
A fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth, with profound repercussions for planetary exploration and exobiology. The estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth.
http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250805002676



Argument: Creationists claim that the origin of proteins happened by one trial, and one single chance. A pool of chemicals in a primordial soup offers the opportunity of countless simultaneous trials. 
Response: It is irrelevant how many trials in parallel would/could have occurred. 

1. The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of pre-biological ( chemical) evolution.
2. The formation of amide bonds without the assistance of enzymes poses a major challenge for theories of the origin of life. 
3. The best one can hope for from such a scenario is a racemic polymer of proteinous and non-proteinous amino acids with no relevance to living systems.
4. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favoured in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favours depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed.
5. Even if there were billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates, even if, as is claimed, there was no oxygen in the prebiotic earth, then there would be no protection from UV light, which would destroy and disintegrate prebiotic organic compounds. Secondly, even if there would be a sequence, producing a functional folding protein, by itself, if not inserted in a functional way in the cell, it would absolutely no function. It would just lay around, and then soon disintegrate. Furthermore, in modern cells proteins are tagged and transported on molecular highways to their precise destination, where they are utilized. Obviously, all this was not extant on the early earth.
6. To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end. If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.

Argument: The physical laws, the laws of biochemistry, those aren't chance. The interaction of proteins, molecules, and atoms, their interaction is dictated by the laws of the universe. 
Response: While it is true, that the chemical bonds that glue one amino acid to the other are subdued to chemical properties, there are neither bonds nor bonding affinities—differing in strength or otherwise—that can explain the origin of the specificity of the sequence of the 20 types of amino acids, that have to be put together in the right order and sequence, in order for a protein to bear function.  What dictates in modern cells the sequence of amino acids in proteins is the DNA code. 

DNA contains true codified instructional information, or a blueprint.  Being instructional information means that the codified nucleotide sequence that forms the instructions is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar-phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

11.10 - 20

Argument: There is no reason to assume that a supernatural cause, is possible, let alone, probable until such thing has been demonstrated. 
Response: Chance of intelligence to set up life: 
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.

Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:


Proteins are the result of the DNA blueprint, which specifies the complex sequence necessary to produce functional 3D folds of proteins. Both improbability and specification are required in order to justify an inference of design.
1. According to the latest estimation of a minimal protein set for the first living organism, the requirement would be about 560 proteins, this would be the absolute minimum to keep the basic functions of a cell alive.  
2. According to the Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life, there is an average between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells of about 400 amino acids per protein. 8
3. Each of the 400 positions in the amino acid polypeptide chains could be occupied by any one of the 20 amino acids used in cells, so if we suppose that proteins emerged randomly on prebiotic earth, then the total possible arrangements or odds to get one which would fold into a functional 3D protein would be 1 to 20^400 or 1 to 10^520. A truly enormous, super astronomical number. 
4. Since we need 560 proteins total to make a first living cell, we would have to repeat the shuffle 560 times, to get all proteins required for life. The probability would be therefore 560/10^⁵²⁰.  We arrive at a probability far beyond  of 1 in 10^^200.000  ( A proteome set with 239 proteins yields odds of approximately 1/10^119.614 ) 7
Granted, the calculation does not take into consideration nor give information on the probabilistic resources available. But the sheer gigantic number os possibilities throw any reasonable possibility out of the window. 

If we sum up the total number of amino acids for a minimal Cell, there would have to be 560 proteins x 400 amino acids  =  224.000 amino acids, which would have to be bonded in the right sequence, choosing for each position amongst 20 different amino acids, and selecting only the left-handed, while sorting out the right-handed ones. That means each position would have to be selected correctly from 40 variants !! that is 1 right selection out of 40^224.000 possibilities !! Obviously, a gigantic number far above any realistic probability to occur by unguided events. Even a trillion universes, each hosting a trillion planets, and each shuffling a trillion times in a trillionth of a second, continuously for a trillion years, would not be enough. Such astronomically unimaginably gigantic odds are in the realm of the utmost extremely impossible.

13:01 - 12

Argument: You have to provide evidence for your proposed counter mechanism. 
Response:  All the design proponent has to do, is to demonstrate why the origin of proteins, and life, is more likely to have occurred by intelligent design, rather than by unguided random events. That has been done and has demonstrated sufficiently, that design is CLEARLY a capable cause, while random events are too unspecific. 

To: Eric, and the board of directors of ACA.

At the end of this call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7SybLnNihc

Eric said AFTE I DID HANG UP, and had no chance to defend myself:

" These conversations are worth having, but they are worth having when we are dealing honestly and the level of dishonesty there is just mindblowing, and anyone saying something about Otangelo, he will blast them with bullshit. "

Eric also said: " I don't know why you lied to your friends".

Eric has accused me of lying to my friends, being dishonest, and blast people in the comments section with bullshit.

I want either Eric to back up and demonstrate where I have been dishonest, or making a public announcement where he retracts from these accusations. If this is not done, I will consider this as cowardice, and it will an open issue until this has been dealt with accordingly.

I want Eric also to respond what exactly of ANYTHING that I have posted in the comments section is bullshit, and why.

Otangelo

What qualifies the hosts of ACA and TH to be " judges" , if there is evidence of God's existence?

One of the most relevant qualifications is to be UNBIASED and permit the evidence to lead WHEREVER IT IS, and actually, admit when a theist made a good point.  
Already here, the hosts, ALL of them, have already been disqualified, since they hold DEMONSTRATIVELY an agenda - which is to keep the " NO-GOD hypothesis" alive. At ALL costs.
Even at the cost of sacrificing reason and sound thinking. If they would permit to the God hypothesis a chance, the crowd which weekly religiously assists the show would be disappointed. How many titles on YouTube are: Theist DESTROYED by Dillahunty? That's what the crowd wants, and what Matt and cohorts think, they are able to deliver. Destroy the enemy. Disqualify him. Make him look like a fool. And when the hosts reach that goal, the production team behind the screen has a good laugh. Goal achieved.

Matt is the worst of the God-haters team. He goes to the point to even question if the God hypothesis is possible !! And IF God actually COULD exist, he might be dead, and we are alone. So far his wishful thinking goes....

Wow !!

Wherever he finds a reason to question Gods existence, he attempts to explore the idea, and formulate it into ( philosophically ), supposedly sound elaborated arguments, which he then, proud of himself, through his ( in his imagination) higher intellectual philosophical capacity, presents. Atheology at its best. ( sic )

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God!' Corrupt up and injustices committed detestable; there is none who does good "(Psalm 14: 1). But Matt thinks he can re-invent the wheel and makes videos of how to frame a sound moral framework ( sic ). Sorry, Matt, the ten commandments are a bit older than you..... and there cannot be a binding moral standard if it is not given by above higher entity, above you and me.

This is one of the statements that the Bible makes about atheism. We highlight two points:
Atheism is nonsense
Denying the existence of God is foolish because the existence of God is obvious. The Bible in no time seeks to defend the existence of God because it is the most basic of all truths. The Bible begins already stating categorically: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1: 1)

Matt and Eric are, in reality, misotheists.  God-haters. Even name-calling Jesus is not off the table at the show ( Done at his life rant on his parent's letter on his 50th birthday ).

Furthermore, the hosts, ALL OF THEM, have NO scientific education, but a very shallow, superficial grasp of epistemology, philosophy, biochemistry, biology and astronomy, and ( badly ) parrot what their fore(thinkers) like Krauss, Dawkins et al claim.

When a caller actually calls in and wants to discuss biology, the common answer is: This is an atheist show, if you want to discuss biology, seek knowledgeable people in the field. Well, actually having an education ( a formal one with PhD and titles is not required ) seems to me to be a BASIC requirement to be a judge of the quest of Gods existence if theology and religious books do not suffice. So the hosts FALL SHORT as well in this regard.

So this show is basically consisting of ULTRACREPIDARIANS with high ego, little substance, and, another point, are even unable to conduct a fruitful debate.

They are unable/unwilling to permit a theist which actually HAS A CASE to expose his thoughts. How many times have I been interrupted in my calls, at my attempts to expose my argument? The hosts HAVE NO INTEREST at all to listen and permit a caller to actually eloquently expose the evidence.

How many times have the hosts actually admitted: That sounds like a fairly good argument for Gods existence? Has a caller been granted to provide a good reason to believe in God? In all the shows which I have seen, also older ones, I have NEVER seen this occurring.

An honest epistemological framework is to scrutinize the evidence for both worldviews, one with God, and one without, weigh them one against the other, and say: Upon this and that, it seems that the God hypothesis versus the no-God hypothesis makes more sense or vice versa.

But no. Only when the miserably faulty epistemological framework is exposed, the justifications come out. " Oh, I have already checked if naturalism makes sense " ( So, Dillahunty ). Well, that does not suffice. The whole framework of the shows is a lie. Be honest and confess that you guys are agnostics would be a good start.

That would demonstrate how SENSELESS your show actually is.

If the God of the Bible exists and will judge mankind as promised in the Bible, then these promoters of unbelief will have a lot to explain to God. Why do they attempt to bring believers down to unbelief? Matt has trumpet how he has led thousands to unbelief. So, if the God of the Bible exists, you have basically turned yourself into a spiritual mass killer. And crowds will spend eternity in hell. Because of your already 20 years lasting campaign of lies.
Heavy will be your burden of killing the hope of thousands.  

False Dichotomy of Theism and Naturalism | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vYXETmSv_w&lc=z232zd4qconcidcdmacdp432jukcea4ip0bssawfnj1w03c010c.1563651753228770

There Are Only Two World Views? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.04 Published on Feb 5, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_l8-JNGJ5s&t=1181s

God Encoded His ID in the Natural Forces | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.06  Feb 15, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d2i4gl-s7Q&t=758s

Something Can't Come From Nothing? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.07  Feb 20, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28NzBFSKLA&t=1016s

It's impossible for god not to exist | Otangelo - Brazil | Atheist Experience 23.10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0W8sPKaGPQ&t=1s

Talk Heathens, 1h 23min 50s  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

Exploring the Blind Watchmaker | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9LiACghEI&t=5s

Willing to Change Beliefs? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7SybLnNihc












express their skepticism and provide reasons why they think the caller's evidence is not sound

I was officially banned to call in the Atheist Experience, and Talk Heathen. When i asked for the reason, the attendee told me that the hosts had a meeting, and agreed that i was not being productive, that i was not understanding what they were doing there,, that i was not listening, and that i was preaching.

Reply by Paul Arnt from the ACA when i tried to join a ACA group on FB recently:

Otangelo, hi I'm the moderator of the ACA Facebook pages as well as the call screener for Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen so we've talked a few times.  Do you seriously think we're going to let you join one of our groups?  You've been banned from our shows and were removed and blocked from all our other groups in record time...all you want to do is preach, please leave us alone.

Remarkable is, that THEY tried to discuss the Bible with me, and I avoided it, precisely in order not to be accused of preaching. I have no problem with their ban. But their justification is deceptive and unjustified. The real motivation for their ban is in my view that I was not " good for business " . In other words, they were not able to justify their willingly chosen ignorance at any time, nor reaching their goal, to drag e down to their views.

Matt Dillahunty in a show a few months back bragged and boasted how he draws thousands down to atheism. That was an explicit admission of their goals: To convert believers into atheism. If they were honestly analyzing the reasons provided by thousands of callers along decades, they would have no reasons to continue the show, but that, of course, can't happen.  

Otangelo Grasso - Truthful or Troll?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTt5-am-UZg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1rI-9XO1hf3X3ftoTQ16mrIO1KakfRFnu8HN83VPFYoVKzAjX9TQt-n2E

I was officially banned to call in the Atheist Experience, and Talk Heathen. When i asked for the reason, the attendee told me that the hosts had a meeting, and agreed that i was not being productive, that i was not understanding what they were doing there,, that i was not listening, and that i was preaching.

My interpretation:
1. I was not being productive and not understanding what they are doing there:

What the ACA wants, are weak believers calling the show, that do not have a good understanding on epistemology ( we do not have to prove Gods existence ), that are illiterate in science, philosophy, and theology, that they can drag down to ignorance and unbelief, and say: We have a family here. Come and join us. So their proselityzing to unbelief is successful, and Matt can boast how many have been deconverted to atheism, and how smart he is.
And they are also eager for a good laugh at the end of the calls, when an illiterate theist makes himself look like a fool.

2 I was not listening
Have THEY listened to the evidence that was provided to them?

The Dillahunty case
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case

No.
I provided a ROCKSOLID case for design, and

Matt's answer?

" I just asked you for evidence. And you respond like this ? Good bye. "

Who is self delusional and was not listening? Todays president of the ACA, Matt Dillahunty, and his pupills, the cohosts, which he indoctrinates with his own Gospel, where he is the king, where he makes videos with his own moral standards....and they faithfully repeat what he says.

3. I was preaching

I did NEVER preach. I actually avoided to discuss the Bible. So thats a false accusation.

But i will preach here now. Jesus said:

Mark 9:42
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Heavy will be the burden, and what the hosts of ACA, will have to respond to the King and judge of heaven.

I can only say: REPENT, before its too late. The lord is coming.

Romans 2:6
God "will repay each person according to what they have done."

24/10/2020 email reply from Matt Dillahunty:

Your e-mail address has been blocked. You are receiving this automated response to let you know that your message was received and then archived, unread.

Why? Well, I really can't say. This message is sent to trolls, sock puppets, crazy people, dishonest debaters, idiots and anyone who sends threats or hate mail. If you feel you've been added to this list unjustly...oh well.

- Matt Dillahunty

www.patreon.com/AtheistDebates

If you enjoy The Atheist Experience, Godless Bitches and/or The Non-Prophets programs, and you're able to donate, please feel free to do so. The programs are freely offered to the world and funded by donations from members and non-members.(http://atheist-community.org/donate/)

to :


Matt

It is evident why you refused to debate John Maddox. You smell from far when someone is able to expose your lack of understanding of science. You only accept the "weak fruits", which do not have knowledge of biochemistry. Since you do not have any education, you are UNQUALIFIED to make informed judgments in regards to God's existence based on scientific evidence in biochemistry. John would have immediately exposed your shallow sophistry, and you would have been left to deny his arguments with irrational denialism ( which is what you always do, like during my call-ins at your show, since you are not open-minded to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is ). John would have smacked and destroyed your worldview with this argument:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2895-syllogistic-arguments-of-gods-existence-based-on-positive-evidence
1. The assignment of a word to represent something, like the word chair to an object to sit down, is always of mental origin.
2. On top of that, the translation of a word in one language, to another language, is also always of mental origin. For example the assignment of the word chair, in English, to xizi, in Chinese, can only be made by intelligence upon common agreement of meaning.
3. In biology the genetic code is the assignment ( a cipher) of 64 triplet codons to 20 amino acids.
4. Since we know only of intelligence to be able to do so, this assignment is best explained by the deliberate, arbitrary action of a non-human intelligent agency.

Science, in fact, confesses of having NO CLUE about the origin of the genetic code, as exposed in this science paper by Eugene Koonin, advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made. Summarizing the state of the art in the study of code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

In your debate yesterday, you claimed that the lack of evidence on one side is not evidence for a contrary proposition. FALSE.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. Either life emerged by a fortuitous accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided stochastic coincidence, natural events that turned into self-organization in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical non-biological, purely physico-dynamic kinetic processes and reactions influenced by environmental parameters, or through the direct intervention, creative force and activity of an intelligent cognitive agency, a powerful creator. Since either life was created by God, or not, either one or the other is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however not fully comprehensible, but logically possible, must be the truth. Eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.

The irreducible interdependence of information generation and transmission systems
1. Codified information transmission system depends on:

a) A language where a symbol, letters, words, waves or frequency variations, sounds, pulses, or a combination of those are assigned to something else. Assigning meaning of characters through a code system requires a common agreement of meaning. Statistics, Semantics, Synthax, and Pragmatics are used according to combinatorial, context-dependent, and content-coherent rules.
b) Information encoded through that code,
c) An information storage system,
d) An information transmission system, that is encoding, transmitting, and decoding.
e) Eventually translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one language to another )
f) Eventually conversion ( digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers)
g) Eventually transduction converting the nonelectrical signals into electrical signals

2. In living cells, information is encoded through at least 30 genetic, and almost 30 epigenetic codes that form various sets of rules and languages. They are transmitted through a variety of means, that is the cell cilia as the center of communication, microRNA's influencing cell function, the nervous system, the system synaptic transmission, neuromuscular transmission, transmission b/w nerves & body cells, axons as wires, the transmission of electrical impulses by nerves between brain & receptor/target cells, vesicles, exosomes, platelets, hormones, biophotons, biomagnetism, cytokines and chemokines, elaborate communication channels related to the defense of microbe attacks, nuclei as modulators-amplifiers. These information transmission systems are essential for keeping all biological functions, that is organismal growth and development, metabolism, regulating nutrition demands, controlling reproduction, homeostasis, constructing biological architecture, complexity, form, controlling organismal adaptation, change, regeneration/repair, and promoting survival.

3. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer. Since no humans were involved in creating these complex computing systems, a suprahuman super-intelligent agency must have been the creator of the communication systems used in life.

Romans 1:19–23
19 because that which may be known of God is manifest ||in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; ||so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

You claimed on several occasions that you are morally superior to God. First of all, you need to borrow from the Christian worldview, to set up an objective moral standard. Since you deny God's existence, this is unjustified. You also frequently come up with your lame accusations of God's supposed commands on slavery. A bit of investigation of the subject would have helped you to remove your prejudices.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2823-slavery-the-bible#8091

Your entire epistemology also SUCKS.
You are ONLY skeptical towards theistic claims. But: Rather than be so, only one-sided, an HONEST thinker and truth seeker scrutinize BOTH worldviews: The one with God, and the one without. Despite during one of my calls claiming that you did, you NEVER do so in regards to materialistic claims in your shows. This is DISHONEST. You can keep deluding the crowd, that blindly follows you. And if that is your goal, you will keep doing it successfully. But if, as you say, you want to know as many truth claims as possible, then you are not doing so coherently and applying the same standard of skepticism to materialism. And that leads to self-delusion ( as you most certainly are). I do not know how we can exist without a creator. Do you?

Some questions to proponents of naturalism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2408-some-questions-to-proponents-of-naturalism

Oh, and now you will probably play your "I don't know" card.

Limited causal alternatives do not justify to claim of " not knowing "
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing

Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2793-worldviews-there-are-basically-just-two-in-regards-of-origins


All which you will do now, of course, again, will be to reject the provided POSITIVE evidence of God's existence, block my email account, and continue your crusade against God. You are a willingly blind, leading the blind. How do you think you will escape God's just judgment? God has provided an escape from the forthcoming revenge which will come against all ungodliness and his enemies.

But the only escape is to repent.
Be well

Otangelo

Matt: Saying "Explain how any other...." is dishonest because you're saying "Show me a better explanation than the one I accept" - but you haven't shown that the one you accept is reasonable. 
Reply:  I totally understand why you avoid the burden of proof. You always scream " show me", and " it has to be demonstrated".  We both KNOW that if the burden of proof was placed on your shoulders, they would IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE!! Your worldview is irrational and pathetic. I don't mind to demonstrate why intelligence is an infinitely more adequate potent cause in comparison to - wait - what exactly ?!! There is NO ALTERNATIVE to an eternal necessary powerful Creator; 

Burden of Proof : Are Theists the Only People Who Have it ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1873-burden-of-proof-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-it

Matt: Well, first of all, they won't be a Christian any more - isn't that benefit enough?
Reply:  Are Christian that follow Christs command contributing to a better society? Yes or no?

What good has the Christian faith brought to us
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1452-what-good-has-the-christian-faith-brought-to-us

Matt: Second, it opens up a world of exploration and truth - by ditching things that aren't reasonable.
Reply: Or maybe it opens up a world of exploration of lies - by rejecting the truth for decades?

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matt: When I say you don't have the right toolset - I'm basically saying you have no good understanding of logic, reason, burden of proof, the nature of evidence, standards of evidence, theism, atheism, philosophy and probably gardening, but we haven't discussed that yet, and won't.
Reply: And you figured all that out because i challenged you to put the cards of your worldview on the table? Are you butthurt because you have none to present?

Had you done your homework 15 years ago, you would not be in this pitiful situation of not wanting to give up atheism because of pride and a limited set of benefits, like recognition in the atheist community.
If you are wrong, which you most certainly are, then the consequences are eternal. You are not listening to whom most loves you - your family.

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

Btw. here my debate last night....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs3yY3c1ek&lc=UgyyMFNriwfTfZaiw594AaABAg.9IQB3DXnE4S9IQwoF9x6SX

Kind regards
Otangelo

Asking Matt Dillahunty: Why should a Christian become an atheist anyway? What good has it to offer? Nothing that I can think of..... feel free to clarity.
His reply: Well, first of all, they won't be a Christian any more - isn't that benefit enough?
Second, it opens up a world of exploration and truth - by ditching things that aren't reasonable.

Atheism in its most cruel form

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#8575


Atheism is exposed in its most cruel form, when someone needs and looks for answers to the most profound and most hurting experiences in life, and seeks relief and consolation at the wrong address, like with Matt Dillablowiator. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGO5ukn5C2U

After 33min: Katie and matt how are you hi

hi um i thought i could get through this but i'm not quite sure i can all right um after my son died uh i just realized that atheists we don't we don't have the structures that religious people have when something like this happens you know

first of all first of all I'm very sorry to hear about your son yeah
um thank you how

i i want to make sure we help however we can but i honestly i mean please continue i i i don't know what to say i want to trample yeah don't force yourself  we don't have god to scream at and ask why we don't have any chance to i'm sorry

it's fine

religious people have all these structures and they seem ridiculous until this happens sorry

no you're you're fine don i'm I'm i'm sorry so first of all i mean like always i'm going to recommend that you reach out to like secular therapist project and and grief beyond belief

https://www.seculartherapy.org

At this website, they link to: https://www.recoveringfromreligion.org

Claim: Our passion is connecting others with support, resources, community, and most of all, hope.
Reply: Atheism gives no hope. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell,  believed that we have no choice but to build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.”

All, an atheist can justifiably say, if his worldview is true, is: From stardust, we came to stardust we go. There is no reason for our existence. And all we face is death. But not only man but also the universe are inevitably doomed to death.

As William Lane Craig succinctly says:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/

Whether it comes sooner or later, the prospect of death and the threat of non-being is a terrible horror. When we internalize it and look at it from the first-person perspective—"my death: I am going to die"—that the threat of non-being becomes real. If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.

All that a caller into one of these organizations will find, is a disappointment because they are not there to show and lead to the ONLY answer that can give relief: God.

There are MANY versicles in the Bible directed to those that gried because they lost a beloved family member, or a child:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/loss_of_a_child

Matt: in particular is an organization that is its entire purpose is to help secular people uh deal with grief um you don't have to have a god or god belief to scream out in futility screaming at the universe about why does this happen is exactly as productive as screaming at a god as to why this happens because neither one of them are going to answer you and neither one of them actually cared it is absolutely like i i'm going to have difficulty finding any words but you can scream at the universe you can scream into the void um that can be cathartic but if you're if you're looking at the fact that religions provide comfort where a lack of religion doesn't provide comfort you are correct but i would point out that the comfort that religions often provide is false comfort it's a lie
Reply: Not true. As following testimony demonstrates:

A Powerful Word For Those Who Have Lost Loved Ones
https://www.bible-knowledge.com/lost-loved-ones/

Claim:  it is to pretend that god needed a new angel or god had a plan or there was something for which god needed your precious child more than you did and everything about it is vile and disgusting and diminishes the value of life here
Reply:  Without God, there can be no intrinsic, sanctity, or inherent value of human life, there can be no measure to distinguish why a cockroach is less valuable than man. The universe does not care about our lives, nor anything that we do.

Meaning from meaninglessness ?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/refereed-paper-in-cellular-and-molecular-life-sciences-uses-irreducible-complexity-in-same-sense-as-id-theorist-behe/

Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
“The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.

Claim: and i don't i cannot derive any comfort from that and i understand to some extent i mean i i haven't lost a child but i understand to some extent your frustration at not having a ready-made answer or something that's going to make you feel better um and maybe the the reason is go ahead those kind of promises are very seductive yeah and i understand why they i think that's why a lot of people are attracted to a religion but  i i think you're i think you're right i i i think you're right about that being an appealing part of religion because it's so much nicer to think that the people that we've loved to have died are not gone that they're somewhere else waiting for us that's incredibly appealing but what it ultimately ends up doing is it makes us devalue the one and only life we know we're gonna get it 
Reply:  We are the most miserable of all, if our life has no meaning, and if all we are, is a mere byproduct of a lifeless universe. But worse than that, the answer is a miserable lie. God gives us meaning and value.

Meaning and purpose of life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1903-meaning-of-life

You have a loving heavenly Father who created you to be a part of His family... Our purpose is simple and elegant: To love God, love others, and be loved by Him.

makes it so that there's not an incentive to treat people right the first time uh to to settle rifts like if i if i had a rift between me and my parents i would want to fix that as quickly as possible because after they're dead there'sno opportunity for me to fix that and yet their religion tells them that can wait wait take it to heaven everything will be fine there and their religions even telling them that i'm going to be in hell and they're not going to be sad about that which is bizarre so yeah well do you have you are you alone in dealing with this

no i have my wife and actually uh our friends and families have been reaching out and that's very nice uh i just wanted to point out i mean like in in judaism they have the sitting sitting shiva yes and uh it just seems that that religion probably sprang originally out of those kinds of rituals but at a time like this it's it's difficult for secularists yeah and um you see that you know leaving an afterlife diminishes the life we have but i i don't want to diminish his life as short as it was i mean

you're not you're not diminishing this life

yes i know that

grieving is you know and it's an important step and it doesn't take anything um you know it's a natural response and it's important to do and you shouldn't feel guilty about it or anything like that um i i know one of the things you said earlier in the call was about like the structures around it and like it sounds like you're lucky to have your wife and your friends and family i guess one thing i might suggest i like i've never been through anything like this but one thing i might suggest is finding other people who have and there will be other atheists out there who have dealt with things like this and sometimes just sharing with them can you know you meet someone else who personally understands this and they have been free you know if they're people who might have been through this 10 years ago and it's good to see them you know you can carry on with your life and you know remember the memory and get all of the the joy and amazingness of your child you know in the memory form and and move on with that and remember all those great things and um you know you can get that sort of structure from talking to other people who have been for it don i don't want to i don't want to make you uncomfortable by asking specifics about how your son died or what what how old he was or anything else because it almost doesn't matter i i cannot fully as someone who doesn't have kids i can't fully grasp all i can do is try my best to imagine what it would be like to lose my niece nephew my brother my my mom in any of those things and it it doesn't it doesn't give me the insight that's needed but you're right that religions provide a sort of framework and structure for this and right right down to the community aspect of you know we'll help you with the funeral and we'll bring food over and have a awake at your place so that you you don't have to do it we we are working to build secular communities that are more robust that will have the capacity to do those sorts of things we're at a slight disadvantage because of the privileged position that religions have had throughout the years but we're doing better in getting closer and i know that none of that matters at all while you're actually grieving and i would just remind you that the fact that you're grieving the loss of your son shows not just that you cared but shows the value of his life to you and your family and the people around you to show that even in the absence of a religious belief you love you value you care and to the point where it's debilitating to lose someone that you love and value and care about calls like this and thank you for being brave enough to drive through tears to make this point religious people need to know this yeah there's a lot of phone calls about oh i can prove god or you need to read the bible again from people who haven't even read it once that type of stuff is potentially important conversations about getting to the truth but these types of calls are the ones that get to the truth about who we are how religions have exploited us how religions provide false comfort in bad times and troubling times and how we as human beings need to build the sort of communities and to build the structures that make sure that someone like you has a good community around them and it sounds like you have a number of wonderful people in your life that have been very helpful i'm within your family so i'm encouraged about that but it's always a good reminder that we can do more

yes i and i do have that and i i'm thankful for it i just i feel like i'm not by anybody in particular but by life i'm being asked to rise to a stature that i can't attain

yeah and it's i have no expertise here i'm going to keep recommending that you reach out to grief beyond belief and uh other organizations because i mean i don't know how long how long ago did this happen is are you still early in the process

six weeks ago

wow i can tell you this i have a really hard time putting myself in this situation i don't think i'd be in any kind of shape to go picking up a phone and call in and talk about this issue after six weeks i don't know for sure but I'm grateful for your your bravery and your passion and being willing to talk about this i can't think of a thing that would honor your son more than maybe waking some people up to the fact that um the godless aren't just satan's monsters trying to destroy god's perfect murk or something silly like that that we are in fact real people with real jobs and real lives and real passions and real people that we care about and when we lose those people we not only don't have the comforting lie to cling to we have each other and that's the best we can hope for like if i lost someone having having you don tell me how you went through something similar and came out the other side okay it's going to be infinitely more useful than some jackass in my family saying god needed another angel or all things happen for a purpose and god's ways are not our ways and he's a big old mystery and why he feels free to will he nearly slaughter people in order to teach somebody else a lesson is beyond me i i hope uh that if anything like this happens to me that that i have half of the strength that you have uh after six weeks i mean i'm incredibly sorry for your loss and we are grateful and honored uh that you called in to mention this

well thank you thanks for taking my call no and thanks for pointing me toward grateful and beyond belief i'll i'll look into that thank you

absolutely don thanks and let us call us back let us know if that was helpful for you if you would recommend other people you know contact grief beyond belief um or the secular therapist project and the lessons that you learn going forward are going to be useful to the broader atheist community because you are far from alone and being the only person you know dealing with this it's going to happen over and over and over again and people like you are going to be the ones that while we don't need a religion we definitely need communities and we need communities full of people who can say hey i've been there and i know it's terrible now but i'm optimistic that things will improve for you and and everybody around us but i don't know thanks don i'm thanks dawn i'd give you the biggest hug in the world if you were standing here with me all right even though we're still in a pandemic um so yeah take care of yourself these days yeah take care of yourself

A reply to my call-in yesterday at The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience 25.29 with Matt Dillahunty and Jmike (@Talk Heathen ) 07/18/2021  1:28:53 Otangelo-(BR)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRprCR59ZB8&t=693s

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#8801

Matt: I'm gonna interject because j mike's completely correct this is not analogous and I can prove that it's analogous with uh two words enigma machine an entirely mechanical process
Reply: Agreed. The process is mechanical, but the Enigma machine requires an enigma-machine MAKER. Enigma-machines have never been observed to assemble randomly, buy unguided, non-intelligent processes, but designed for their specific purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine#Design

Analogous to the Enigma-machine is the Ribosome. 

Syllogisms about the Ribosome
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1661p25-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines#8800

The adapter key machinery to translate genetic Information is irreducibly complex
1. Ribosomes have the purpose to translate genetic information into proteins. According to Craig Venter, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. It is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products…  They are molecular factories with complex machine-like operations. They carefully sense, transfer, and process, continually exchange and integrate information during the various steps of translation, within itself at a molecular scale, and amazingly, even make decisions. Furthermore, they communicate in a coordinated manner, and information is integrated and processed to enable an optimized ribosome activity. Strikingly, many of the ribosome functional properties go far beyond the skills of a simple mechanical machine. They can halt the translation process on the fly, and coordinate extremely complex movements. The whole system incorporates 11 ingenious error check and repair mechanisms, to guarantee faithful and accurate translation, which is life-essential.
2. For the assembly of this protein making factory, consisting of multiple parts, the following is required: genetic information to produce the ribosome assembly proteins, chaperones, all ribosome subunits and assembly cofactors. A full set of tRNA's, a full set of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the signal recognition particle, elongation factors, mRNA, etc. The individual parts must be available,  precisely fit together, and assembly must be coordinated. A ribosome cannot perform its function unless all subparts are fully set up and interlocked.
3. The making of a translation machine makes only sense if there is a source code, and information to be translated. Eugene Koonin: Breaking the evolution of the translation system into incremental steps, each associated with a biologically plausible selective advantage is extremely difficult even within a speculative scheme let alone experimentally. Speaking of ribosomes, they are so well-structured that when broken down into their component parts by chemical catalysts (into long molecular fragments and more than fifty different proteins) they reform into a functioning ribosome as soon as the divisive chemical forces have been removed, independent of any enzymes or assembly machinery – and carry on working.  Design some machinery which behaves like this, and I personally will build a temple to your name! Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. The origin of the ribosome is better explained through a brilliant intelligent and powerful designer, rather than mindless natural processes by chance, or/and evolution since we observe all the time minds capabilities producing machines and factories.

Matt: an entirely mechanical process where the translation does not understand the translator doesn't understand anything
Reply: That is entirely missing the point. Following is the syllogism and entire argument which I was trying to make during the call:

The origin of the genetic code
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages.
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

Matt:  this when you have a chemical process it is following a mechanical process similar to the enigma machine which you enter your information and a mechanical process that does not understand it and the person entering the information does not necessarily have to understand it 
Reply:  The person entering the information does not necessarily have to understand it, in as much the process which delivers the messenger RNA strands into the Ribosome does not necessarily have to understand the message stored in messenger RNA, but a mind is necessary to encode the information in order to get a purposeful, functional outcome.

The origin of Information stored in the genome.
1. Semiotic functional information is not a tangible entity, and as such, it is beyond the reach of, and cannot be created by any undirected physical process.
2. This is not an argument about probability. Conceptual semiotic information is simply beyond the sphere of influence of any undirected physical process. To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry... it is never going to happen!  Physics and chemistry alone do not possess the tools to create a concept. The only cause capable of creating conceptual semiotic information is a conscious intelligent mind.
3. Since life depends on the vast quantity of semiotic information, life is no accident and provides powerful positive evidence that we have been designed. A scientist working at the cutting edge of our understanding of the programming information in biology, he described what he saw as an “alien technology written by an engineer a million times smarter than us”

Matt: and the person decoding does not necessarily understand it the translation machine follows a mechanical process that translates one set of uh instructions into another that can then be decoded by another enigma machine that also does not understand it so
Reply: In order to have faithful translation, both, made by humans, and in biology, error check , proof-reading, and even repair is important, or actually, essential.

Error check and minimization of information transmission and translation systems
a)The genetic code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization. Only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors. That would be expected if the code were the product of intelligent selection. 
b)The assignment during translation of 64 codons ( 1 codon = 3 RNA nucleotides, where each can be one of the four used in life) 4x4x4=64 is assigned to only 20 ( in some cases 22) puts in question, why not attempting to accomodate just 2 codons with 4x4=16 possible positions to 16 amino acids. Or 64 codons to 61 amino acids. This “redundancy” was initially interpreted as an inefficient artifact of natural, sometimes messy trial-and-error processes. Since then, however, we have discovered that the redundancy is actually vital. The apparent overkill minimizes reading and transmitting errors so that the same amino acid is transferred to each generation.
c)The genetic information is transmitted by over 25 extremely complex interconnected and interdependent molecular machines. This communication system encodes, sends, and decodes genetic texts, which requires as well error check and repair mechanisms along the way to maintain low genetic mutation rate, and minimizing replication, transcription, and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, and survive. This system had to be set-up prior to when life began because it depends on it. During replication, nucleotides, which compose DNA, are copied. When E coli makes a copy of its DNA, it makes approximately one mistake for every billion new nucleotides. It can copy about 2000 letters per second, finishing the entire replication process in less than an hour.  Compared to human engineering, this error rate is amazingly low. E coli makes so few errors because DNA is proofread in multiple ways. 
d) Proteins,marvelous pieces of chemical nanoengineering, in order to become functional, must fold from linear, to specific 3-D forms. Properly folded proteins are essential for life because they conduct most of the necessary functions in a cell. If it folds into the wrong shape, a protein is useless. If the first proteins fell into these death valleys, life on Earth would never have appeared. Spontaneous folding is quite rapid (milliseconds to seconds) for many proteins, but many large, critical proteins fail to find by themselves the right shape and, without help, would become only so much molecular waste. So when a protein misfolds, other proteins, named chaperonins, help proteins fold into the right shape. They have been shown to interact with up to 30% of the cell’s proteins, so their importance is real. Now, amazingly, even these very own proteins, named GroEL, which help misfolded proteins to fold properly, can also misfold. And it has been shown that GroES, a co-chaperone assists in folding GroEL. Amazing. Machines, that help other machines to assemble properly, are by themselves subject to errors, and life has inbuilt mechanisms to fix as well these machines that help fixing other machines !! 

Error detection and repair during the biogenesis & maturation of the ribosome, tRNA's, Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and translation: by chance, or design?
1. In cells, in a variety of biochemical processes, when something goes havoc for some reason,  there is readily an armada of different error check and repair mechanisms with their "antenna" out to detect errors, and correct them, preventing lethal consequences.
2. Leaking Cells membranes need to be fixed. During DNA replication, and translation, error check and repair is essential. Cells are endowed with  a wide variety of specialized DNA repair mechanisms to counteract daily attacks: base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, homologous recombination repair, mismatch repair, photoreactivation, nonhomologous end joining, translesion synthesis, and processing by the MRN complex. The Ribosome alone has 13 different error-check and repair mechanisms.  In addition to repairing damage to existing DNA, living organisms have mechanisms to correct errors during reproduction. Bacteria have three types of DNA polymerase, all capable of detecting an incorrect base pairing, backing up one step to excise the incorrect nucleotide, and then progressing forward in a process called proofreading. The proofreading step decreases the error rate in bacteria from approximately one error in 100,000 base pairs to one error in 10,000,000 base pairs.
3. Molecules don't care if they are assembled in a way to bear a specific function. And if they do and the function is damaged and breaks down, those molecules neither "care" that they cease bearing that function.
4. Know how to implement an error check and repair system requires foresight. The very concepts of proofreading and repair implies goal orientation and "know-how" to keep something working and going. Those things can only come from an intelligent agency which implements these systems for specific purposes.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3164-error-detection-and-repair-during-the-biogenesis-maturation-of-the-ribosome-trna-s-aminoacyl-trna-synthetases-and-translation-by-chance-or-design